Attention Paid To Accelerating Reference Frames Overthrows SR

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the implications of accelerating reference frames on the validity of Special Relativity (SR), particularly focusing on the synchronization of clocks in different frames of reference. Participants explore the consequences of acceleration on time dilation and the relationship between two clocks, one in an inertial frame and the other in a non-inertial frame.

Discussion Character

  • Debate/contested
  • Technical explanation
  • Conceptual clarification

Main Points Raised

  • One participant argues that when one clock accelerates, it will tick slower than a clock at rest, leading to a conclusion that the two clocks will never synchronize again after a certain point.
  • Another participant questions the validity of the claim that "SR is overthrown," suggesting that SR has limitations and does not account for gravity or acceleration, thus making the argument less meaningful.
  • A different participant points out that the discussion has been previously addressed in another thread, questioning the need for repetition.
  • One participant asserts that the time dilation formula can still be applied correctly, even in accelerating frames, but ultimately concludes that it leads to contradictions, suggesting that the formula itself is incorrect.
  • Another participant emphasizes that the gravitational effects can be neglected if the clocks are sufficiently far apart, allowing for a clearer analysis of the situation without external influences.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express disagreement on the interpretation of SR and its applicability. Some argue that the time dilation formula leads to contradictions, while others maintain that SR has specific limitations but is not entirely overthrown. The discussion remains unresolved with multiple competing views on the implications of accelerating reference frames.

Contextual Notes

Participants note that the discussion hinges on the assumptions made about the nature of acceleration and the applicability of SR, as well as the conditions under which the time dilation formula is considered valid. There are unresolved questions regarding the implications of these assumptions on the overall argument.

  • #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

  • · Replies 33 ·
2
Replies
33
Views
2K
  • · Replies 67 ·
3
Replies
67
Views
5K
  • · Replies 23 ·
Replies
23
Views
1K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 12 ·
Replies
12
Views
2K
  • · Replies 14 ·
Replies
14
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
1K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
1K
  • · Replies 115 ·
4
Replies
115
Views
9K
  • · Replies 25 ·
Replies
25
Views
3K