Is Acceleration Relative??? Dialect is WRONG!!!

Recently youtube channel called Dialect published video about the problems of special relativity. The main problem according to creator is the definition of absolute acceleration in current physics. In this video I will talk about this issue and argue it is not the case and we can indeed define absolute acceleration without any circular conflict like referencing it back as relative to the inertial frame.
Big thanks to
www.freepik.com
www.vecteezy.com
for vector graphics
www.mixkit.co
for audio effects
in particular
www.freepik.com/free-vector/monitor_3425257.htm#query=television&position=2&from_view=search&track=sph --- Image by rawpixel on Freepik
www.freepik.com/free-photo/weathered-boards-sunset_972985.htm#query=table&position=7&from_view=search&track=sph --- Image by tirachard on freepik
www.freepik.com/free-vector/metal-spring-realistic-icons-set-with-different-color-isolated-vector-illustration_26764344.htm#query=mechanical%20string&position=35&from_view=search&track=ais --- Image by macrovector on Freepik
www.freepik.com/free-vector/metal-buttons-rivets-isolated_10601190.htm#query=metal%20circle&position=0&from_view=search&track=ais Image by macrovector on Freepik
www.vecteezy.com/free-vector/steel-ball -- Steel Ball Vectors by Vecteezy
www.vecteezy.com/free-photos --- Free Stock photos by Vecteezy
www.freepik.com/free-vector/blank-brown-paper-design_15228111.htm#query=paper&position=40&from_view=search&track=sph -- Image by rawpixel.com on Freepik
www.freepik.com/free-vector/hand-drawn-apple-fruit-illustration_2582458.htm#query=apple&position=0&from_view=search&track=sph Image by rawpixel.com on Freepik apple
www.freepik.com/free-photo/red-black-brush-stroke-banner-background-perfect-canva_19564593.htm#query=vs&position=0&from_view=search&track=sph Image by BiZkettE1 on Freepik thumbnail
www.freepik.com/free-vector/architecture-tools-design_4813906.htm#query=ruler&position=2&from_view=search&track=sph -- Image by studiogstock on Freepik
www.freepik.com Designed by pikisuperstar Freepik - person
www.vecteezy.com/free-vector/spaceship Spaceship Vectors by Vecteezy

[@dialectphilosophy]

Hey there! Someone pointed us to this video recently and we really enjoyed it! First off, we think it’s very important to have and maintain open dialogues about topics like these and think it’s great that you have brought forth concerns and criticisms.

[@marsglorious]

This guy was lucky to have a critic as kind and illuminating as you.

[@bazzaar1869]

The number of times otherwise inteligent people forget the simple expedient of changing the orient tation of a measurement device to check for an unexpected offset. Dialect looks kind of silly ploughing on after this clanger.

[@redred4851]

Dialect’s videos are some of the best. Explaining very well what other channels got wrong. I’m still surprised how Dialect misses this one, when the channel explains more difficult issues. A lot of people noticed immediately it was wrong.

[@Liatlordofthedungeon]

Again perfect video. You are both litle bit wrong, but Dialect is more wrong. That is physics, going from the less and less wrong ideas towards the ideal model.

[@AlexanderShamov]

Why not simply use the twin paradox for the definition of inertial motion? (Timelike) geodesics are local maximizers of proper time, problem solved.

[@DANGJOS]

You forgot tidal effects in the gravity example. Gravity is never perfectly uniform.

[@christophergame7977]

Make an accelerometer from a crystal. Zero it by slowly rotating it.

[@luffy_uch1ha975]

dialect got dissed

[@ElanMorin]

you're obviously right. that other "channel" just uses a bot narrator ffs 😂 they prolly get their physics from ChatGPT. I stay away from bot vids. keep up the good personwork.

[@dullyvampir83]

Isn't this basically newtons third law that for a proper acceleration you need to see an opposite force, otherwise you are observing it from a non intertial frame?

[@jessstuart7495]

Dealing with accelerating (non-inertial) reference frames was the primary motivation for Einstein's General Theory of Relativity (1915).

[@maximusideal1525]

I love your concise and precise summary of Dialect's points.

[@christianlibertarian5488]

I have watched that exact Dialeckt video. It definitely seemed off on the acceleration issue, but I couldn't figure out why. Thanks for clearing it up for me.

[@AnyVideo999]

I think Ive finally been able to clarify this discrepancy.

[@barakenat]

Perfect video! Dialect almost confused me but then I realized exactly what you explain. I wouldn't need 4 springs. Just rotate the string and see if its length is changing. In the twin paradox, even if the outgoing twin was moving in constant acceleration and at zero time turns back in constant deacceleration, a string in his direction of motion would at that single point change its length while on the earth that same string will stay the same length all the time.

[@RangQuid]

I think the conservation of linear momentum is not enough to define an inertia frame, you also need the conservation of angular momentum. Because a ball rotates on a fixed axis has zero momentum but a non-zero angular momentum. But this definition intrinsically assumes that spacetime itself is uniform and isotropic.

[@APaleDot]

Excellent explanation. As someone trying to learn about relativity, this dialogue is really patching up some weak spots in my understanding!

[@filker0]

I made a similar argument in the comment section of the Dialect video in question, and got a similar answer. My observation is that even if you can't calibrate the accelerometer in an accelerating frame of reference (which I don't believe is correct), the fact that you are accelerating will be obvious

[@asyncasync]

Gravitational pull is almost uniform, but you still have gravitational tidal forces that can tell you the direction.