Who is in Motion: Two People, Constant Rate

  • Thread starter Thread starter grounded
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Motion
grounded
Messages
85
Reaction score
1
Imagine space contains nothing but two people, and the distance between them is reducing at some constant rate.

Do we have the ability to tell which person is in motion towards the other, or if they are both in motion at half speed?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
The question is meaningless in relativity, all motion is defined relative to your choice of inertial reference frame, and the laws of physics work the same way in all inertial frames so there's no physical basis for preferring any of them.
 
grounded said:
Do we have the ability to tell which person is in motion towards the other, or if they are both in motion at half speed?
To add to the previous response: We therefore say things like "the observers are moving relative to each other at such-and-such speed" or that "they are in relative motion".
 
This is like asking-> james looks bigger paul. paul looks smaller than james.
But in reality is it that James is bigger than paul or paul is smaller than james?
 
thecritic said:
This is like asking-> james looks bigger paul. paul looks smaller than james.
But in reality is it that James is bigger than paul or paul is smaller than james?
It's not really like that, since James bigger than Paul and Paul smaller than James are equivalent, whereas relativity says that James can have a greater velocity than Paul in one frame, but Paul can have a greater velocity than James in another frame.
 
JesseM, no Analogy can be equivalent in all respect to the main system.
I was just analoging motion. I was just trying to show -- who was in real motion was as irrelevant as who was actually smaller or bigger.
My analogy doesn't (and i didn't claim it does) take velocities into account.
 
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...
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(...
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...
Back
Top