A wrong statement regarding SR.

  • Thread starter Thread starter misogynisticfeminist
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Sr
misogynisticfeminist
Messages
370
Reaction score
0
I've had a friend who said this "However, all objects can be considered immovable relative to the speed c, since the speed remains constant relative to all objects and so it seems like all objects remain stationary comparing with this speed."

There's a nagging feeling at the back of my head that this is wrong, but can anyone tell me why? Or is this statement right?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
This statement is ambiguous. What does it mean for an object to be stationary with respect to a speed ?
 
That is llike sayiing that you have no money because your money is negligible compared to Bill Gates's.
 
The statement also seems to implicitly assume that velocities add algebraically in SR. They don't, one must use the SR velocity-addition formula.
 

Thread 'A sufficient condition for integrability of equation ##\nabla g=0##'

In Philippe G. Ciarlet's book 'An introduction to differential geometry', He gives the integrability conditions of the differential equations like this: $$ \partial_{i} F_{lj}=L^p_{ij} F_{lp},\,\,\,F_{ij}(x_0)=F^0_{ij}. $$ The integrability conditions for the existence of a global solution ##F_{lj}## is: $$ R^i_{jkl}\equiv\partial_k L^i_{jl}-\partial_l L^i_{jk}+L^h_{jl} L^i_{hk}-L^h_{jk} L^i_{hl}=0 $$ Then from the equation: $$\nabla_b e_a= \Gamma^c_{ab} e_c$$ Using cartesian basis ## e_I...
View full post »
Thread 'Dirac's integral for the energy-momentum of the gravitational field'

Thread 'Dirac's integral for the energy-momentum of the gravitational field'

See Dirac's brief treatment of the energy-momentum pseudo-tensor in the attached picture. Dirac is presumably integrating eq. (31.2) over the 4D "hypercylinder" defined by ##T_1 \le x^0 \le T_2## and ##\mathbf{|x|} \le R##, where ##R## is sufficiently large to include all the matter-energy fields in the system. Then \begin{align} 0 &= \int_V \left[ ({t_\mu}^\nu + T_\mu^\nu)\sqrt{-g}\, \right]_{,\nu} d^4 x = \int_{\partial V} ({t_\mu}^\nu + T_\mu^\nu)\sqrt{-g} \, dS_\nu \nonumber\\ &= \left(...
View full post »

Thread 'Describing the Big Bang'

I started reading a National Geographic article related to the Big Bang. It starts these statements: Gazing up at the stars at night, it’s easy to imagine that space goes on forever. But cosmologists know that the universe actually has limits. First, their best models indicate that space and time had a beginning, a subatomic point called a singularity. This point of intense heat and density rapidly ballooned outward. My first reaction was that this is a layman's approximation to...
View full post »

Similar threads

I Non-Inertial Relativistic Dynamics
Replies
18
Views
1K
B Why Shouldn't I Be Skeptical About SR Postulate No.1?
Replies
15
Views
2K
I Hafele-Keating Exp: Balancing SR Effects in Plane Ref Frame
2
Replies
54
Views
3K
I Bell's spaceship paradox unknown? Interpretation?
Replies
20
Views
2K
I Conventionality of the One-Way Speed of Light
Replies
5
Views
343
B A scenario to help understand the twin paradox in SR
Replies
20
Views
3K
I Reference systems and apparent counter-explanations on Twin Paradox
Replies
5
Views
2K
I Question about geometrical engineering (placeholder name)
Replies
32
Views
2K
B Leave the science to Scientists. Just tell me what is SR.
Replies
29
Views
3K
B SR vs GR - Visual Difference between Length Contraction
Replies
11
Views
2K

Hot Threads

Recent Insights

Back
Top