Should teaching special relativity skip time dilation and length contraction?

[PeterDonis]

Flat Spacetime does not mean "inertial frame of reference",which is the initial frame of Special Relativity.

SR was originally formulated in terms of inertial frames, yes, but as DaleSpam pointed out in post #116, in the modern view SR is defined by flat spacetime, including the use of non-inertial frames in flat spacetime.

 

[valentin mano]

[Moderator's note: edited to fix quote tags.]

Third, why is the lack of tidal forces important in analyzing the twin paradox?

The tidal forces are not important,just the acceleration,that one of the clocks expiriences.It accelerates to near the speed of light,than returns
back to the one,that has not been moved.In SR there are two inertial frames,passing by each other and each frame sees its clock ticking
faster than the other.The same way EPR paradox is not solved in SR.

 

[Chestermiller]

Did you have something to say here, or did you like what Peter said so much that you decided to re-emphasize it?

But seriously, though, Chapter 6 of MTW is entitled Accelerated Observers. The first section in this chapter is entitled "Accelerated Observers can be Analyzed Using Special Relativity"

I think that says it all.

Chet

 

[valentin mano]

Sorry,I thought I was talking to a layman.English is not my native.

 

[PeterDonis]

The same way EPR paradox is not solved in SR.

I don't understand what any of this has to do with the EPR paradox. But this whole subthread is getting way off topic.

 

[PeterDonis]

The subject has been discussed thoroughly. Thread closed.