When you are in a rocket in space and you turn on the thrust, are you increasing velocity or decreasing velocity?
The paper could be made into a fairly decent chapter in freshman physics, just by scrapping the petty cynicism and the orphaned conclusion (there was none). What is the difference between "frame dependent momentum" and relativistic mass?
You obviously mean "relative to its last position". Without this essential fact (or some other unstated fact), the question is ambiguous.
That's why we always begin with an inertial reference frame. Then you know both the magnitude and direction of everything that happens next, as measured relative to the origin of the frame.
Only if you get lucky. The absolute frame does not lie, and if you are in contradiction with the absolute frame then you are wrong!
Hi all. Thanks for the again, interesting debate. Apologies for the sloppy spelling in the title. Should be 'Relativistic'. I wonder if I can fix it ?
Can person be within an inertial reference frame? If the answer to that is yes is that person able to move about? (Like walk from one end of the ship to the other). Is the person able to perform physics experiments to prove all laws of physic are the same in all frames?
You started off in great shape and then.... The point is, acceleration is relative to the object whose velocity is changing, not an external frame of reference. True at any constant velocity an observer with no external reference cannot say they are moving, what ever their constant velocity. However, give them an accelerometer and whether they increase their velocity or decrease their velocity the accelerometer will measure it as an acceleration, as you said as a rate of change, in their velocity. Deceleration must be defined based on some external frame of reference. It is a convenience of language, that describes an acceleration that can be associated with a reduction in an objects velocity relative to an external reference, as different from an increase in relative velocity.
So you did not understand it.., O.K.! Edit: To add, After these last couple of posts I took a closer look at the first few pages of the earlier link I gave, the paper does stray some from the original I had so I looked a little further and found another link to the earlier paper, The Concept of Mass, Lev Okun. This link loads slow but it may be a better semi-lay oriented discussion of the issues involved. Keep in mind that what mass is, is still to some extent debatable and cannot be fully explained. However, it is not the "substance" of Newton's dreams and it is invariant. Mass is mass is mass! It does not change just because an object is moving.., though it is my personal inclination to think of it as an emergent characteristic rather than a fundamental substance... But that goes way far deeper into the discussion than is currently of value here.
There is no chance involved, if that's what you mean. An inertial reference frame is a vantage point. That makes it deterministic. (Having a vantage point doesn't involve a coin toss.) The word you are looking for is "illusion", not "lie". I haven't yet figured out what word you mean when you say "absolute". You are using it to mean "inertial reference frame", which is relative. But "absolute" universally means "universal", which means "applicable to all". There is no single point in the universe "applicable to all".
A better way to say that is that it's impossible to exist outside of an inertial reference frame. Further there are countless reference frames inside each other. Sitting on the ship makes all observations made by the navigator equally applicable to you. Walking around makes her observations relative to the ship, and you would have to add your own velocity vector relative to the ship to stay in agreement with the navigator. Given infinite time and resources, yes. What sort of things would want to prove?
If you're using radar, then you get your acceleration relative to some other reference frame, depending on where you point it. If you're using an inertial navigation system, it measures relative to the place you were when you zeroed it, plus some compass heading, such as true north. You seem to be referring to your own inertial reference frame when you say "absolute" so I suspect this is nothing more than a question of semantics.
Every single point in space is an absolute point. Listen to what I'm telling you. Space is infinite volume. That volume is comprised of an infinite amount of points. Those points can't move because they are not objects, they are immobile points in an infinite sea of immobile points. Objects are made of matter, and they have the capability to either reside at the location of one of those points, or they can travel away from that point. If they travel away from that point that is an absolute distance that they are traveling in the absolute frame of infinite immobile points. All objects travel relative to the absolute frame at the same time. Any two objects also have a relative velocity (closing speed) to each other, which is nothing more than measuring the absolute distance between those two objects in the absolute frame at points in absolute time. Absolute time is a synchronized clock at every infinite point in space. If they were stop watches, when you start one stopwatch at one point you have the option of all of those other stopwatches starting simultaneously, or you can start any of the other stop watches at a different point in time, to measure a different race.
So what. You can never now your absolute velocity. You cannot know how you are moving to what you are calling an 'absolute point'. You have put forth the idea that you can know an absolute point in space because you say 'a light sphere expands from an absolute point in space irrespective of the inertial frame', but that belief is demonstrably false.
If a light is emitted from an immobile point at t=0, and light always travels at the same speed in a vacuum, and the meter is defined as the length of the path that light travels in 1/299792458 of a second, then light is defining distance in the absolute frame compared to the immobile point that it was emitted from. I don't care what you say, because by definition I am 100% correct, and you are not.
Origin, you make statements about what science is or knows or can be demonstrated but rarely accompany your posts with any science. For the benefit of us less educated and informed viewers, post a link to the science that shows Motor Daddy's belief to be demonstrably false, just so we are all on the same page. That way, Motor Daddy can address the specifics of the link and we can evaluate the differences.
Really? Well according to you if you are in the center of a box 2 light seconds long on each side and you were to turn on the light in the center of the box then you would know your absolute velocity and direction because the light sphere would hit the ‘back’ wall before it hit the ‘front’ wall. Besides this not being true it violates your own definitions. MD states by definition a meter is the distance light travels in 1/299,792,458 second and all clocks tick at the same rate irrespective of the inertial frame. You verify your box dimension at absolute rest by turning on the light and the sphere hits the all the walls in 1 second – so you are at rest and the box is 2 light seconds long on each side If your box is then moving at an absolute velocity of ½ c or 149,896,229 m/s then the light sphere will hit the front wall in .5 seconds and it will hit the back wall in 1.5 seconds, so now you know your absolute velocity. But that also means that the your position has somehow changed in the box or the box dimensions have changed. By definition a meter is the distance light travels in 1/299,792,458 second. So in the direction of travel the length of the box from the center to the front wall is 299,792,458 X 1.5 = 449,688,687 meters. The length of the box from the center to the back wall is 299,792,458 X .5 = 149,896,229 meters. So what happened?
