3 ms·
We can talk about how a region moves in relation to other regions. I’m still not following your objection based on relativity: We have one frame where I’m on
by zmgsabst 2y ago
We can talk about how a region moves in relation to other regions.
I’m still not following your objection based on relativity:
We have one frame where I’m on Earth; we have another where I’m in a rocket traveling away at a fixed velocity. In one case we see the rocket traveling away; in the other, we see Earth traveling away. But neither one tells us that the spacetime itself is moving — they’re both just local coordinates.
In the case we see the spacetime itself move, eg with a gravitational wave, both the frame from the rocket and the earth agree that the manifold has been changed in a way that left a wake — moving relative to its local, original shape.
As a side note, “inertial reference frames” are a useful fiction: we’re always being accelerated, eg, by the galactic center, fellow galaxies, dark matter filaments, etc. Conclusions based on such a fiction may be practical, but cannot be used to derive conclusions about physical reality — as they don’t exist.
- drdeca 2y ago1) coordinate acceleration from gravity doesn’t make one not in an inertial reference frame? 2) Why would something have to be in an inertial reference frame in order for inertial reference frames to “exist”? Doesn’t make sense to me. In any case, that seems like just an excuse to ignore Lorentz boosts. One should address SR before addressing GR. 3) If spacetime were stuff, then it would be stuff always, not just when there are ripples or whatnot. But, in flat spacetime, you cannot describe it as a stuff in a way that is compatible with Lorentz symmetry, because the velocity of stuff changes under boosts, and so stuff can’t be stationary both when one doesn’t and when one does apply a boost. Therefore, it isn’t stuff.