Science > Physics > Why we cannot have SR without GR, unless we get rid of acceleration.
| Topic: |
Science > Physics |
| User: |
"" |
| Date: |
22 Apr 2006 05:48:40 PM |
| Object: |
Why we cannot have SR without GR, unless we get rid of acceleration. |
QFT won't work outside of curved space. Now it may be true that we will
need discontinuities in GR for it to work, we cannot give up curved
space completely.
http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/SR/rigid_disk.html
Now, I dare you to disprove this. John Baez is certainly NOT a crank.
There is nothing essentially invalid about accelerating rotating
frames.
There is also nothing incompatible between Gravity and Thermodynamics.
However, people's minds make them incompatible because they are unable
to use their imaginations. Or more importantly, use the imagination and
skill in physics to come up with a theory compatible with our
experiences.
BTW, the reason I say Gravity and Thermodyamics is because I can show
you what ideas had to be recociled.
http://www.theory.caltech.edu/people/jhs/strings/string11.html
There's Gravity, Reference frame invariance, Electromagnetism, and
Thermodynamics to be considered. No theory has all four of these
things.
If we want a TOE, we must open our minds.
(...Starblade Riven Darksquall...)
.
|
|
| User: "Edward Green" |
|
| Title: Re: Why we cannot have SR without GR, unless we get rid of acceleration. |
28 Apr 2006 03:05:27 PM |
|
|
wrote:
QFT won't work outside of curved space. Now it may be true that we will
need discontinuities in GR for it to work, we cannot give up curved
space completely.
http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/SR/rigid_disk.html
Now, I dare you to disprove this. John Baez is certainly NOT a crank.
No, but you are acting like one.
You repeatedly point to Baez's page for proof by authority, without any
inclination to discuss the problem.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Paul Cardinale" |
|
| Title: Re: Why we cannot have SR without GR, unless we get rid of acceleration. |
22 Apr 2006 10:37:39 PM |
|
|
Title is crap. SR works fine with acceleration.
[rest snipped]
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Why we cannot have SR without GR, unless we get rid of acceleration. |
23 Apr 2006 02:13:42 AM |
|
|
Paul Cardinale wrote:
Title is crap. SR works fine with acceleration.
[rest snipped]
SR is a special non-acceleratory case of GR. BY DEFINITON.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Eric Gisse" |
|
| Title: Re: Why we cannot have SR without GR, unless we get rid of acceleration. |
23 Apr 2006 02:52:38 AM |
|
|
wrote:
Paul Cardinale wrote:
Title is crap. SR works fine with acceleration.
[rest snipped]
SR is a special non-acceleratory case of GR. BY DEFINITON.
Which definition would that be?
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Paul Cardinale" |
|
| Title: Re: Why we cannot have SR without GR, unless we get rid of acceleration. |
23 Apr 2006 10:30:12 AM |
|
|
wrote:
Paul Cardinale wrote:
Title is crap. SR works fine with acceleration.
[rest snipped]
SR is a special non-acceleratory case of GR. BY DEFINITON.
Wrong (try looking up definitions instead of making them up). SR
excludes gravitation, not acceleration.
If SR couldn't handle acceleration, then the equivalence principle
couldn't lead anywhere and GR wouldn't exist.
Paul Cardinale
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Why we cannot have SR without GR, unless we get rid of acceleration. |
23 Apr 2006 03:17:09 PM |
|
|
Paul Cardinale wrote:
Starbles@Earthlink.net wrote:
Paul Cardinale wrote:
Title is crap. SR works fine with acceleration.
[rest snipped]
SR is a special non-acceleratory case of GR. BY DEFINITON.
Wrong (try looking up definitions instead of making them up). SR
excludes gravitation, not acceleration.
If SR couldn't handle acceleration, then the equivalence principle
couldn't lead anywhere and GR wouldn't exist.
Paul Cardinale
Only SPECIFIC cases of acceleration are handled. Try the "Rigid"
Rotating Disk. Not all accelerations are handled.
(...Starblade Riven Darksquall...)
.
|
|
|
| User: "Igor" |
|
| Title: Re: Why we cannot have SR without GR, unless we get rid of acceleration. |
23 Apr 2006 03:44:13 PM |
|
|
wrote:
Paul Cardinale wrote:
wrote:
Paul Cardinale wrote:
Title is crap. SR works fine with acceleration.
[rest snipped]
SR is a special non-acceleratory case of GR. BY DEFINITON.
Wrong (try looking up definitions instead of making them up). SR
excludes gravitation, not acceleration.
If SR couldn't handle acceleration, then the equivalence principle
couldn't lead anywhere and GR wouldn't exist.
Paul Cardinale
Only SPECIFIC cases of acceleration are handled. Try the "Rigid"
Rotating Disk. Not all accelerations are handled.
(...Starblade Riven Darksquall...)
Look up the Lorentz tranformation for an acceleration.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Eric Gisse" |
|
| Title: Re: Why we cannot have SR without GR, unless we get rid of acceleration. |
23 Apr 2006 04:45:58 PM |
|
|
wrote:
Paul Cardinale wrote:
wrote:
Paul Cardinale wrote:
Title is crap. SR works fine with acceleration.
[rest snipped]
SR is a special non-acceleratory case of GR. BY DEFINITON.
Wrong (try looking up definitions instead of making them up). SR
excludes gravitation, not acceleration.
If SR couldn't handle acceleration, then the equivalence principle
couldn't lead anywhere and GR wouldn't exist.
Paul Cardinale
Only SPECIFIC cases of acceleration are handled. Try the "Rigid"
Rotating Disk. Not all accelerations are handled.
Which is wildly different from "SR is a special non-acceleratory case
of GR. BY DEFINITON."
(...Starblade Riven Darksquall...)
.
|
|
|
| User: "Edward Green" |
|
| Title: Re: Why we cannot have SR without GR, unless we get rid of acceleration. |
28 Apr 2006 03:00:55 PM |
|
|
Eric Gisse wrote:
Starbles@Earthlink.net wrote:
Only SPECIFIC cases of acceleration are handled. Try the "Rigid"
Rotating Disk. Not all accelerations are handled.
Which is wildly different from "SR is a special non-acceleratory case
of GR. BY DEFINITON."
Which, while weaker, is still wrong.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Edward Green" |
|
| Title: Re: Why we cannot have SR without GR, unless we get rid of acceleration. |
28 Apr 2006 03:01:30 PM |
|
|
Eric Gisse wrote:
Starbles@Earthlink.net wrote:
Only SPECIFIC cases of acceleration are handled. Try the "Rigid"
Rotating Disk. Not all accelerations are handled.
Which is wildly different from "SR is a special non-acceleratory case
of GR. BY DEFINITON."
Which, while weaker, is still wrong.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Why we cannot have SR without GR, unless we get rid of acceleration. |
23 Apr 2006 03:16:55 PM |
|
|
Paul Cardinale wrote:
Starbles@Earthlink.net wrote:
Paul Cardinale wrote:
Title is crap. SR works fine with acceleration.
[rest snipped]
SR is a special non-acceleratory case of GR. BY DEFINITON.
Wrong (try looking up definitions instead of making them up). SR
excludes gravitation, not acceleration.
If SR couldn't handle acceleration, then the equivalence principle
couldn't lead anywhere and GR wouldn't exist.
Paul Cardinale
Only SPECIFIC cases of acceleration are handled. Try the "Rigid"
rotating disk. Not all acceelerations are handled.
(...Starblade Riven Darksquall...)
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
