I forgot to mention:
if the elevator (rocket) accelerates under the influence of an gravitational field (at the turnaround) then what would we have ????
an inertial frame that accelerates ??
even from the point of view of special relativity, this has to be a IRF since the laws of stay...
what I mean is that if you for example take the equivalence principle, take an elevator witch you can think of as the rocket of the traveling twin.
if the elevator is accelerating with uniform acceleration it acts just like if it were in free fall.
so even in an accelerated RF (elevator) one...
also an accelerometer doesn't measure acceleration in free fall only when you stand on the earths suface does it do so, you can see that from the link to Wikipedia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Accelerometer
you would have to calibrate the accelerometers differently in order for both of them to be zero if they accelerate differently, because if you assume that your accelerating RF is actually stationary then you calibrate your accelerometer to read zero in your reference frame, don't you?
and there...
as I mentioned the new coordinate system would be just shifted compared to the old one, your fictious force ##mA^j## would only be present from the old coordinate systems point of view.
but if you fix your new reference frame is accelerating compared to the old one then from the new RF point of...
To sum up a little bit,
A reference frame is inertial if there are no fiction forces present like coriolis and centrifugal forces, witch are associated with rotating reference frames. Then we also have fiction forces due to linearly accelerating reference frames.
but how does one make sure...
if the external force is uniform like for example far away from an electric charge where the lines of force are almost parallel and same in magnitude.
in this case the accelerometer and the object would be accelerated the same and you would conclude that the other object is accelerating.
also...
witch one would be turning around? if anyone of them would be acted upon by an external force witch one would be accelerating in this case? you can always say that the other one is accelerating.
if you have only 2 point particles an nothing else, how do you determent witch one is accelerating?
so what is your opinion, what would be the IRF ( I stands for inertial) in this case??
the thing is that you can use all 3 of those diagrams interchangeably on both the earth twin and the traveling twin.
1. inertial frame is fixed at the earth twin and it is determined what time he calculates has passed .
in this case the traveling twins time goes slower as he goes away from...
as far as I can tell there is no explanation of the twin paradox just a similar statement in his paper, a statement without deeper inside in why this has to be or a consideration of what would happened if we assume the earth is moving and the rocket twin is still. as I said just a statement...
All right so how did Einstein understand the twin paradox, did he consider the acceleration of the traveling twin witch goes out of the scope of special relativity or did he argue that the traveling twin uses 2 inertial frames of reference?
hi,
Einstein did not even consider the twin paradox as problematic at all, he argued that it is a simple consequence of his special relativity?
obviously he never gave a explanation of why the two twins don't age the same he instead left it to others to do so.
was Einstein just having a hunch...
guys i think you miss something here.
Maxwells equations are supposed to output the speed of light just from the assumption that his equations hold, Maxwell did get the speed of light from his equations and then connected this to the speed of light and not the other way around.
the first...
lets say you have a point charge in empty vacuum and nothing else.
this charge will have associated with it a electric field witch is present in all of space.
an magnetic field will not be present if that particle is not moving.
1. first question, moving with respect to what? and that's a...
yes but that's strange isn't it.
basically what the displacement current says is that a rate of change of a electric field produces a magnetic field.
the same goes for Faradays law, a change in magnetic field makes an electric field.
the thing to see here is that the consequences of...
ok thanks for the answer.
but isnt it strange that as you assume wavelike solutions for his equations that you get the speed of propagation for the wave as the speed of light?
hy,
there is nothing in Maxwells equations that would limit the speed of light.
the only way one can get light speed, is to assume that em waves solve Maxwells equations and then one gets c as the square root of something out from Maxwells equations.
the same goes for gravity waves, only...