Recent content by cometraza

Maybe because in that scenario the solar system itself as a whole might have been in a non inertial frame 🤔

Yes its a footnote in chapter 5, page number 156 of his book "Special Relativity". You can check it here : https://archive.org/details/special-relativity

Just a quote on wiki which I found which might be relevant : A. P. French writes, in Special Relativity: "Note, though, that we are appealing to the reality of A's acceleration, and to the observability of the inertial forces associated with it. Would such effects as the twin paradox exist if...

Yes that seems to be more puzzling. Yet one can be measured without reference to another point or object (acceleration - by directly measuring the inertial force) while the others (velocity/distance) require a reference object or point (either within the same reference frame or outside).

Was wondering if acceleration seems to be a more fundamental property/quantity in the universe as compared to velocity or distance because acceleration can be defined in more absolute terms in a frame depending on the forces acting inside that reference frame. Considering a very simple example...

Thanks for the assurance. :rolleyes: I thought someone has an answer which I need to know.

Relativity says that there is no absolute simultaneity. Quantum mechanics with its entanglement seems to imply absolute simultaneity. And in between these two I am the one who gets confused. :smile: :confused: Please Help.

Nice reply. To the point and lucid.

Thanks for clarifying.

It is told that the universe is 13.4 billion years old according to present estimates. But as duration itself is a relative quantity what exactly is meant by this statement? Which frame of reference are we talking about when considering this figure and why?