Timeline for Is relativistic velocity "implicit" a slower velocity?
Current License: CC BY-SA 4.0
8 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Oct 21, 2022 at 12:27 | answer | added | Professor Sushing | timeline score: 0 | |
| Oct 21, 2022 at 0:51 | history | edited | SuperCiocia | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
appended answer 607337 as supplemental
|
| Oct 20, 2022 at 17:52 | history | edited | John Rennie | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
Move update given as an answer into the question
|
| Jan 13, 2021 at 10:35 | comment | added | JohanL | Okay read me answer which is just a reformulation. | |
| Jan 13, 2021 at 3:19 | comment | added | PM 2Ring | I agree with Eletie: forget about event horizons & other GR things until you're totally clear on how this stuff works in plain SR. As I explain here velocity is reflexive, so if you observe my velocity to be ${\bf v}$, I observe your velocity to be ${\bf -v}$. You may find The Relativistic Rocket helpful. | |
| Jan 13, 2021 at 1:26 | comment | added | Eletie | I'm a little confused as what the question is? But you should remove the references to black holes if you're wishing to only talk about special relativity. Similarly, it may be more straight forward to leave out 'acceleration' if the question is just about relative velocities, unless I've misunderstood. | |
| Jan 13, 2021 at 1:24 | comment | added | Cryo | velocity is velocity (three-velocity) - the only one you, in the lab-frame, can observe, and defined relative to you. Acceleration is more subtle. Constant acceleration for you in the lab-frame, or constant acceleration in the instantaneous rest-frame of the accelerated object? First one is impractical (need ever-growing force to maintain acceleration), second one will lead to Hyperbolic motion | |
| Jan 13, 2021 at 0:06 | history | asked | JohanL | CC BY-SA 4.0 |