Timeline for A Hidden Principle in Relativity
Current License: CC BY-SA 4.0
5 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jul 11, 2020 at 14:14 | comment | added | Stéphane Rollandin | My point is that "explosion" has no frame-independent physical description. | |
| Jul 11, 2020 at 14:11 | comment | added | BioPhysicist | The OP isn't asking about subjective semantics of whether or not someone would call something an explosion or not. | |
| Jul 11, 2020 at 14:09 | comment | added | Stéphane Rollandin | These absolutes are not described absolutely: the images or name we give them are meta descriptions. For example, the notion of "explosion" that the OP uses in its question, is problematic only if we confuse observer-dependent physical description and meta descrption. I see an explosion and I say "ok, all observers must see an explosion" - but some observers may see something that I would not call an explosion myself. I would need to check, using physics, that indeed my explosion should look like that to them. So is "explosion" a valid absolute term? The answer is pretty much arbitrary IMO. | |
| Jul 11, 2020 at 13:52 | comment | added | BioPhysicist | Just because it is called relativity doesn't mean everything is relative though, and I think that's what the OP is asking about. How do we know what is "relative" and what is not. There are certain absolutes existing, which the OP uses in their examples. | |
| Jul 11, 2020 at 13:31 | history | answered | Stéphane Rollandin | CC BY-SA 4.0 |