What do you think about this video, guys?

And here I was hoping a real live physicist like yourself would me understand relativity.

Oh god not another high school kid who thinks he can pretend to be a real physicist because he just had his first Science lessons.

As I'm sure you'd just say I'd googled it anyway look for something along the lines of 'proper reference frame' and 'accelerated observer'. Numerically nothing will make much difference, space time doesn't have much curvature. While I appreciate there are some relativity bods around here who will correct me I've always though that part of the reason it's called relativity is because 'everything is relative' to coin a phrase. Therefore when you use an example like the relativistic rocket you need to say what frame will see the results your quoting. If memory serves the original problem is formulated such that in the initial rest frame of the rocket the 4-vector a^u = (0, a^t) and a^ua_u=g². Your equations of motion are then something like dt/dT = v⁰, dx/dT=u¹, du⁰/dT = a⁰ etc. My point is the starting situation is important.

Which is sort of the problem FE theory requires GR to be correct so it can have no aether which means we are accelerating with reference to a preferred frame with some bizarre things going on in it. But as you point out physics is not my forte its a faux as the leather in my sofa.

edit - Sorry I'm stating the obvious but I should probably point out that T is usually tau but I couldn't work out how to do that.

I'm not pretending to be a physicist I just wanted to learn a bit more about the details of the FE theory of the space in which we are accelerating from some people in the know, as it were.

Quote from: bowler on December 08, 2012, 04:10:19 PM

As I'm sure you'd just say I'd googled it anyway look for something along the lines of 'proper reference frame' and 'accelerated observer'. Numerically nothing will make much difference, space time doesn't have much curvature. While I appreciate there are some relativity bods around here who will correct me I've always though that part of the reason it's called relativity is because 'everything is relative' to coin a phrase. Therefore when you use an example like the relativistic rocket you need to say what frame will see the results your quoting. If memory serves the original problem is formulated such that in the initial rest frame of the rocket the 4-vector a^u = (0, a^t) and a^ua_u=g². Your equations of motion are then something like dt/dT = v⁰, dx/dT=u¹, du⁰/dT = a⁰ etc. My point is the starting situation is important.

Which is sort of the problem FE theory requires GR to be correct so it can have no aether which means we are accelerating with reference to a preferred frame with some bizarre things going on in it. But as you point out physics is not my forte its a faux as the leather in my sofa.

edit - Sorry I'm stating the obvious but I should probably point out that T is usually tau but I couldn't work out how to do that.

I'm not pretending to be a physicist I just wanted to learn a bit more about the details of the FE theory of the space in which we are accelerating from some people in the know, as it were.

I was referring to FLak-E_Theor-E. I applaud your openness and willingness to learn more about FE theory. Who knows, maybe one day you'll be able to see the truth.

That was your cue to convince me. As it stands it sounds a little bit like my sunday school confirmation class teacher, didn't work out too well for him either. I'm no expert but I can find my way around a tensor as well as the next guy so educate me.

If I were a real physicist the I would have a soft-spot for tachyons and perhaps the Earth cosmos snow globe thing is in a alcubierre type space inside this greater space. Perhaps there is no relativity outside of our snow globe. I want to believe there's more to the discrepncy between expected and observed rates of photo-pion production from cosmic protons than detector electronics (although that's looking unlikely). But you have to admit conventional physics has some pretty cool looking maths, so I'm going to need a little bit of detail to convince me.