[Physicist]

I'm of the school that acceleration is absolute, relative to only one preferred reference frame.

Consider one observer at the center of the Earth and another at the surface, in a sealed box. Is the one on the surface accelerating? According to his measurements--remember, he can't see his surroundings, so he measures his acceleration with a scale--he is (c.f. the equivalence principle). According to the observer at the center of the Earth, he is not.

Why doesn't SRT apply to accelerated frames?

I assume you mean an accelerating frame. Frames by construction don't accelerate; they refer to inertial rest. SR does apply to accelerated frames (i.e., frames at different velocities). But what you want to know is, is there a principle of relativity that relates observers under arbitrary acceleration? Yes, it's called the General Theory of Relativity.

[MonroeDNA]

See my post, #124. Comments?

[Gary Boldwater]

>Consider one observer at the center of the Earth and >another at the surface, in a sealed box. Is the one on the >surface accelerating? According to his measurements-->remember, he can't see his surroundings, so he measures >his acceleration with a scale--he is (c.f. the equivalence >principle). According to the observer at the center of the >Earth, he is not.

So the observer at the center of the earth observes no forces due to the orbital path of the earth around the sun? Then it would follow that the molten core of the earth also experiences no forces due to the orbit around the sun. It would also follow that an observer in space, removed from the earth, orbiting the sun in the same path as the earth has no self contained means to sense his orbit around the sun. Unless, of course, you are claiming that at the earth's center the earth acts a shield to the gravitational forces of the sun or any other acceleration the earth might experience. The only other alternative is that the sun revolves around the earth.

>I assume you mean an accelerating frame. Frames by >construction don't accelerate; they refer to inertial >rest. SR does apply to accelerated frames (i.e., frames at >different velocities). But what you want to know is, is >there a principle of relativity that relates observers >under arbitrary acceleration? Yes, it's called the General >Theory of Relativity.


I have some charge sinusoidally oscillating over a 1 meter length at one million times a second. It's path is at a right angle to my observation line. I, the observer, am located 10,000 meters away(in the far field). Explain, using length contraction and dilating clocks, why I observe propagating radiation from this charge that is in an accelerated frame. Also explain why I observe the same frequency as the oscillating charge (remember the accelerating charge's clock has slowed). Since the charge's clock has slowed so has its energy decreased - is this the energy I observe as radiation? If not, it would then appear that energy is not conserved when reference frames are changed wouldn't it? The only way energy can be conserved is to reference a preferred reference frame, right?

[Gary Boldwater]

Here's an interesting website for Objectivists and those who wonder about the apparent "unintuitiveness" of Special Relativity Theory:

http://home.earthlink.net/~marklin/index.html

Apparently, according to Objectivists (and this has not been refuted or disclaim by ANY Objectivist organization)SRT is incompatible to Objectivism. Or if the current theories of SRT are real then Objectivism is incompatible with reality(?).
I'd love to see any of the "Objectivist scientists" on this forum refute the claims made on the said website by either logical or scientific method.
It would seem that a Ocham's razor would leave only the Objectivist view.
(Note: I personally agree with the Objectivist view but do not agree with the rigid ether)
Have fun, play fair.