Which objects reference my ViewController strongly?

Relativistic frames of reference

• I have a question about a thought experiment. Suppose I have an inertial frame of reference, labelled A. I'll consider this my "stationary" perspective. Passing by A is frame of reference called B, where B is travelling at c. Any observations made from A will see objects in B flattened. My understanding is that an entire universe could be in B. Observations from A would see B containing enourmous area, but with no thickness. My question then relates to another frame of reference which I'll call B'. This frame of reference is also travelling at c, and in the same direction as B. However, B' is some distance behind B. Both B and B' can be seen from A, and they both appear flattened. However, they both contain an entire universe, and should be incapable of seeing each other. Flipping the perspective around... imagine that WE are in B. Then there is some frame of reference called A which is travelling at c, and that frame of reference sees us as a flat universe. That same frame of reference can also see another flat universe, called B', travelling along behind us, but completely inaccessible to us. In fact, when viewing the current universe from a passing frame of reference at velocity c, there would be an infinite number of flat universes, all parallel to this one. It can be seen here that the frame A does not need any occupants for this to hold. It simply provides the perspective for identifying B and B', and any other frames parallel to them. Is this conjecture sound? Where can I go to see a discussion on this please?

• Answer:

  quoll-ga Regarding "Are there areas on the net where this sort of thing is discussed?" These should be useful: To discuss: http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics.research?lnk=li These are expert debates, so I suggest you do not use fuzzy concept like 'parrallel universe' out of context of the Everett Interpretation of QM, without defining it first. To learn more: http://relativity.livingreviews.org/ Regarding: "Is there a flaw in The conjecture is that relativity can be used to show an infinite number of parallel universes, with the separation between the universes being a dimension other than space" Yes. 1) Separation in Relativity is not 'in space' or 'time' but is measured by Minkowski Metrics: http://mathworld.wolfram.com/MinkowskiMetric.html http://www.theory.caltech.edu/people/patricia/grela.html 2) It is necessary to differentiated between 'B looks like a pancake' (to A but not to B) and 'is a pancake' . The 'is' is reserved for invariant concepts (such as Minkowski distance, see 1) In summary: There are events E1 E2.. which are 'out of the light cone' of other events F1, F2, and so not acessible to them. Reference to Light Coness: " That is to say, "all observers will universally agree on the Light Cones at each event..". http://www.phy.syr.edu/courses/modules/LIGHTCONE/minkowski.html So, there are parts of our universe which we 'cannot see' or communicate with. These are not called 'parallel or separate universes' in GTR. One can speculate on topology of this universe, (seen as a curved surface in n-dimensional space, connected or not) http://www.answers.com/topic/connected-space and such speculation becomes interesting when connected to or related to some experimental data. The possibility of 'complex topology' of universe http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Topology_of_the_universe is already present in GTR and Riemann Space http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Differential_topology http://mathworld.wolfram.com/RiemannSpace.html Hedgie