Relative acceleration between intertial reference frames?

AI Thread Summary
Special relativity applies to two inertial reference frames that maintain constant velocities relative to a third frame, meaning they do not experience acceleration. When two spaceships travel toward each other on parallel trajectories, their relative velocity changes as they approach, but this does not imply that they are not inertial frames. The concept of an inertial reference frame relies on the absence of detectable acceleration via local accelerometers. Thus, if both frames remain inertial, special relativity holds true regardless of their changing relative positions. The discussion emphasizes that relative acceleration does not occur between two inertial frames defined by constant velocities.
Uhtred
Messages
4
Reaction score
0
Does special relativity hold between two inertial reference frames that are undergoing relative acceleration?

For example, consider two spaceships traveling toward each other on parallel (but not collinear) trajectories. They would pass each other at some non-zero distance, and thus their relative velocity would be constantly changing.

The concept of "inertial reference frame" is all about being unable to detect accelerations via a local accelerometer, correct? And if so, then special relativity would hold between the two inertial reference frames I described above.

-------
Sorry for posting in the wrong forum. This should probably have gone under relativity, but I suppose most of this question still applies to classical physics...
 
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
Uhtred said:
Does special relativity hold between two inertial reference frames that are undergoing relative acceleration?
Say you have two inertial frames A and B. This means that relative to a third inertial frame C, their velocities are constant, namely ##V_{AC}=const.## and ##V_{AC}=const.## Relativistic addition of velocities says that the velocity of B relative to A is $$V_{AB} =\frac{V_{AC}-V_{BC}}{1-\frac{V_{AC}V_{BC}}{c^2}}.$$The right hand side is constant, so the relative velocity ##V_{AB}## is also constant. What makes you think there is relative acceleration?
 
The rope is tied into the person (the load of 200 pounds) and the rope goes up from the person to a fixed pulley and back down to his hands. He hauls the rope to suspend himself in the air. What is the mechanical advantage of the system? The person will indeed only have to lift half of his body weight (roughly 100 pounds) because he now lessened the load by that same amount. This APPEARS to be a 2:1 because he can hold himself with half the force, but my question is: is that mechanical...
Some physics textbook writer told me that Newton's first law applies only on bodies that feel no interactions at all. He said that if a body is on rest or moves in constant velocity, there is no external force acting on it. But I have heard another form of the law that says the net force acting on a body must be zero. This means there is interactions involved after all. So which one is correct?
Thread 'Beam on an inclined plane'
Hello! I have a question regarding a beam on an inclined plane. I was considering a beam resting on two supports attached to an inclined plane. I was almost sure that the lower support must be more loaded. My imagination about this problem is shown in the picture below. Here is how I wrote the condition of equilibrium forces: $$ \begin{cases} F_{g\parallel}=F_{t1}+F_{t2}, \\ F_{g\perp}=F_{r1}+F_{r2} \end{cases}. $$ On the other hand...
Back
Top