Attention Paid To Accelerating Reference Frames Overthrows SR

AI Thread Summary
The discussion centers on the implications of accelerating reference frames on the synchronization of clocks, challenging the validity of Special Relativity (SR). It posits that when one clock accelerates while the other remains inertial, the time dilation formula indicates that the accelerating clock ticks slower, leading to a divergence in their readings. The argument suggests that once the accelerating clock returns to an inertial frame, it will never synchronize again with the stationary clock, creating a contradiction in SR's predictions. Critics argue that the time dilation formula remains valid and that SR accounts for acceleration, emphasizing that the assumptions made in the argument overlook key principles of relativity. Ultimately, the debate highlights the complexities of applying SR to scenarios involving acceleration and the need for careful consideration of reference frames.
  • #151
Hurkyl said:
This definition requires one of the objects in question to have a rest frame. Since photons don't have rest frames, this definition does not work.

Well then Hurkyl, that's really what it all boils down to huh?

A photon placed at the origin of a frame is at rest in a frame. It's in a rest frame, regardless of whether or not that frame is inertial. I mean we can view life from a photon's point of view.

It all boils down to this:

Is a photon which isn't being subjected to a force in an inertial reference frame?

The answer of course is yes.

Kind regards,

StarThrower
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #152
A photon placed at the origin of a frame is at rest in a frame.

Too bad that the time axis of such a coordinate chart is a null vector, and thus can't be considered a frame.


Is a photon which isn't being subjected to a force in an inertial reference frame?

The answer of course is yes.

Why of course?
 
  • #153
And no I'm not getting sloppy.

Earlier on, you insisted on long, detailed proofs, even of elementary facts (though, admittedly, you were making tons of implicit assumptions).

Now, your assertions are backed up with phrases like "of course it's yes".

That's what I call getting sloppy. You were only interested in proving the things with which you know I'll agree; once we get to points of debate, you have lost all interest in proof.
 
  • #154
Well, what a nice thread. Scrolling back a little, I found this gem:
StarThrower said:
I did not "assume" the speed of light depends upon inertial frame, in fact, I assumed the exact opposite (that it doesn't), and subsequently arrived at a contradiction.
Translation: I assume SR to be wrong, therefore SR is wrong.

Hmm...speaking of contradictions.
Tom said:
If you consider an inertial reference frame to be one that can always be brought to rest by a change of coordinates, then I have news for you: A photon cannot be placed at the origin of such a frame.
We've discussed this one too.

Essentially guys, StarThrower bases his beliefs here on several basic assumptions that are contrary to accepted physics. I honestly don't know how to fix that: like he said, "you can lead a horse to water..."
 

Similar threads

I Inertial reference frame and Bondi k-calculus
Replies
7
Views
1K
I Is time dilation a real effect?
2
Replies
54
Views
3K
I Comparing Tick rates of clocks across Frames
Replies
23
Views
1K
A Solving "const. K" in Gourgoulhon's SR in General Frames
Replies
4
Views
2K
B Relative rate of clock ticks on the radius of a rotating disc
Replies
46
Views
4K
I A question about Relativity of Time using Time dilation experiment
Replies
12
Views
2K
I Questions about a thought experiment involving time dilation
Replies
2
Views
1K
I Twin paradox, virtual clock on ship with Earth time, discontinuity
3
Replies
115
Views
8K
I What causes an accelerated clock to record less events
Replies
8
Views
1K
I Comparing Clock Rates in Accelerated vs Constant Velocity Frames
Replies
14
Views
2K

Hot Threads

Recent Insights

Back
Top