spare me your excuses to avoid the reality...
"But you still don't understand why light remains c regardless of velocity of a frame... and so are unable to also comprehend why the same values for our laws of physics remain the same regardless of velocity. That is *CONSTANT* velocity. Not increasing velocity..... say like being moved with the accelerating expansion of the universe....."
SR - light is constant in all frames regardless of velocity....
SR - the laws of physics are the same in all inertial frames.....
I have no why *you* think the speed of light is constant. But the reason it is constant is that the universe is locally Lorentzian and Lorentz Transformations preserve proper times and thereby the speed of light.
Because you don't understand, doesn't mean everyone else is as confused....
Acceleration in Special Relativity
"It's a common misconception that special relativity cannot handle accelerating objects or accelerating reference frames. Sometimes it's claimed that general relativity is required for these situations, the reason being given that special relativity only applies to inertial frames. This is not true. Special relativity treats accelerating frames differently from inertial frames, but can still deal with accelerating frames. And accelerating objects can be dealt with without even calling upon accelerating frames.
This idea that special relativity cannot handle acceleration or accelerated frames often comes up in the context of the
twin paradox, when people claim that it can only be resolved in general relativity because of the acceleration present.
Their claim is wrong."
Yes, SR can handle accelerating frames, but it isn't natural in SR and it is *certainly* not appropriate to just use SR if you are talking about cosmology and the expansion rates of the universe.
Do you want to work through an example? Do you know the difference between velocity and rapidity? And how to handle acceleration in SR? If you don't know what proper time is, I can assure you that you don't.
No, their rulers are not the same length, their clock ticks are not the same duration. They are not measuring the same distance for light that you are in one light year.
Yes. When they measure the speed of light, their measurement of both the distance and the time it takes for the motion of light is different than the values in other coordinate systems.
Their electron mass is different than yours.
An electron in their frame of reference will have the same rest mass as one in any other frame. The response to a force (the relativistic mass) will be different because of differences in the proper time.
You haven't yet let yourself see why they obtain the same value with longer ticks of time and longer rulers. You were close, but then fell back down into the box.....
There is no absolute length. It isn't that the rulers are different absolute lengths. It is that rulers at rest in each frame are measured to be different lengths in other frames. And yes, each inertial frame will measure different values for how far light has traveled and how long it took to do so.
Your claims are merit-less. GR is not required for an accelerating frame of reference. You fail to understand SR....
But it is far more natural to use GR for accelerating frames and it is required if you are doing cosmology.
We were never discussing GR...... You just never understood SR to begin with.....
That's how they got to their velocity, they underwent acceleration. I know you prefer to leave the most important part of the equation out.....
The acceleration they underwent before the scenario started is irrelevant for the measurements they make during the scenario. What *is* relevant is the speeds they go with respect to each other.
Yes, it is what we are discussing. The fact that all accelerating frames experience time dilation and that the time dilation continues once acceleration is stopped and continues at the same slower rate reached when acceleration stops. Time dilation does not say WHY they slow. You have yet to show you understand the cause of it....
All frames moving with respect to another frame will show time dilation, whether they are accelerating or not.
You can compute the amount of time dilation, even on a path that involves acceleration, by looking at the Minkowski distance along the path. That is the proper time along the path and is the amount of aging someone who follows that spacetime path will experience.
Nothing, you just tried to make a big deal out of absolutely nothing, because you had nothing.....
I don't think you are, your answers are becoming shorter and weaker with no explanatory power as the pseudoscience runs its course.....
It is becoming more and more clear you aren't willing to learn the real science, even at a basic level.
No they are not. If I launch a rocket from earth, clocks on earth DO NOT SLOW because the ship underwent acceleration. it doesn't matter what the person on the ship thinks. HE IS FLAT OUT WRONG.....
Imagine to paths between two points on a plane. One is a straight line and the other is not. They begin and end at the same place. Which will have the longer length?
Preserve proper time when converting from another frame into your frame. But you require no LT's to measure the speed of c. Neithwer do they.... LT's are only required because their clocks are not the same as yours. Their rulers are not the same as yours. The distance they measure for light is not the same as yours. the value for the mass of an electron is not the same as yours.
COMPREHEND: if the values were the same as yours, no LT's would be required.......
Now, you comprehend: the LTs work both ways.
Double-talk to avoid reality that their clocks have slowed, their rulers have increased, their value for every single physical constant is different than yours, because the devices they use to measure them are not the same as yours. COMPREHEND: its why you must transform one value into your value.... they are not the same.....
And they can equally well use LTs to convert *their* values into *yours*. But the LTs show that neither distances nor times are simple proportions. There is a mixture between the two.
As stated, the pseudoscience has run it's course. You are now down to claiming error without being able to show it. last ditch effort of those who have lost and understand it....
See above. You are becoming as tiresome as SZ with claims without factual substance to back them up....
OK, do you disagree with the relativistic formula for 'adding' velocities?
1. If A measures B as moving at speed v and B measures C as moving at speed w in the same direction, then A measures C as moving at a speed of (v+w)/(1+vw) where both v and w are described as fractions of the speed of light.
Do you disagree with the Lorentz Transformation formulas?
2. If A measures a distance x and a time t between two events and if B is moving at a speed of v with respect to A, then *for those same two events*, B will measure a distance of x'=gamma*(x-vt) and a time interval of t'=gamma*(t-vx) where gamma=1/sqrt(1-v^2).
Both of these follow from the axioms of SR and were derived by Einstein in his first paper on the subject. Everything I have been doing follows from those.
If you want to include acceleration, the acceleration is a=dv/d(tau) where tau is the proper time along the path.
