The proof that the absolute reference frame does exist

[hainguyen]

Let’s think about a logical example:

When somebody ask you how many people (whom you know) love you, you will easily be confused. But if you were asked how many of them you love, it will be much easier for you to answer.

This example implies a physical aspect: we can not count how many objects in the universe which exert the gravitational force on the earth but we can aggregate all the gravitational forces which the earth exerts on every object in the universe. Why's that. That’s because the earth is unique. It is like you are unique. Only you can feel your love with some people meanwhile you hardly can know how many of your friends really love you. This is also true in case of the gravity. The gravitational field of the earth make the gravitational forces on every object in the universe. This gravitational field can be called GravityE2U. That’s why we can unify all of the gravitational forces the earth exerts on every object in the universe. Therefore, in theory, we can make something like this:

We will make the new forces. These forces are equal each force of GravityE2U in size and in same direction as each force of GravityE2U. But instead of exerting on every other object, all these new forces exert on the earth only. According to the Newton’s 3rd law: the gravitational forces the earth exerts on the other object is equal and opposite to the forces the other object exerts on the earth. So, that mean the new forces will balance all the gravitational forces which every object in the universe exerts on the earth. And hence, in theory, these new forces can hold the earth in an absolutely inertial state forever (unless the earth collapse with another object such as a planet or a star).

This leads to an argument: an absolutely inertial state not only of the earth but also of every object in the universe really does exist. In the absolute inertial state, the status of earth's motion is unique and invariable. So it can be described as a linear equation. We don't have to concern what this linear equation is, just be sure it's linear. So when the linear equation is unique, it means an absolute reference frame to measure the linear motion of the earth is existent.

Anybody tell me these arguments are true or false ? Thanks for any opinion.

[Klaynos]

False and moved to speculations. Please review the special rules for this area.

[studiot]

 

This leads to an argument: an absolutely inertial state not only of the earth but also of every object in the universe really does exist. In the absolute inertial state, the status of earth's motion is unique and invariable. So it can be described as a linear equation. We don't have to concern what this linear equation is, just be sure it's linear. So when the linear equation is unique, it means an absolute reference frame to measure the linear motion of the earth is existent.

Anybody tell me these arguments are true or false ? Thanks for any opinion.

 

 

The problem with this statement is that you have not shown how it leads to an 'absolutely inertial state' (or even defined such a state)

 

As far as I can see all you have presented (in a rather roundabout way) is the (correct) statement that every body is at rest in its own frame of reference.

 

What is most definitely incorrect is the statement: ' In the absolute inertial state, the status of earth's motion is unique and invariable.'

 

Even the ancient Greeks knew this be untrue (Give me a fulcrum and a lever long enough and I will move the world)

 

Neither is the claim that something invariable is linear.

 

In euclidian geometry the following is invariant and non linear

 

[math]\sqrt {\Delta {x^2} + \Delta {y^2} + \Delta {z^2}} [/math]

and in relativistic spacetime the invariant is

[math]\sqrt {\Delta {x^2} + \Delta {y^2} + \Delta {z^2} + {{\left( {ict} \right)}^2}} [/math]

[Strange]

This example implies a physical aspect: we can not count how many objects in the universe which exert the gravitational force on the earth but we can aggregate all the gravitational forces which the earth exerts on every object in the universe.

 

 

That doesn't make sense.

 

If you don't know how many objects exert a force on the Earth then you don't know how many objects the Earth exerts a a force on. (The two numbers are the same, so if you know one you know the other.)

 

Also, the vast majority of those objects are irrelevant because of distance.

 

 

 

That’s because the earth is unique.

 

Not really. As far as gravity is concerned it is just an object with mass. Nothing unique about it.

 

 

 

Anybody tell me these arguments are true or false ?

 

Obviously false. Your ideas seem to be based on weird and irrelevant analogies rather than physics. Try some maths next time.

[Delta1212]

Relativity is internally consistent, which means it is impossible to disprove using logic. The only possible way to challenge it is with evidence. That is, actual measurements of what things in the real world that do not match up with what relativity says should be the result of your measurement.

 

Unless you went out and physically measured something, or at least did a rigorous analysis of the data provided by someone else's measurements, you definitely haven't figured out a flaw in relativity.

[Bignose]

Relativity is internally consistent, which means it is impossible to disprove using logic. The only possible way to challenge it is with evidence. That is, actual measurements of what things in the real world that do not match up with what relativity says should be the result of your measurement.

 

Unless you went out and physically measured something, or at least did a rigorous analysis of the data provided by someone else's measurements, you definitely haven't figured out a flaw in relativity.

Just to add on here, OP should thoroughly read this review paper: http://relativity.livingreviews.org/Articles/lrr-2014-4/ 117 pages dedicated to demonstrating just how good the predictions from relativity agree with what is measured.

[hainguyen]

I'll to prove that a unique reference frame does exist for the relation motion between 2 objects in the universe such as the earth ans the mars.

First, let's talk about a spring. Check the video clip below:

From the clip, we can see a law that when we exert a force on an end of a spring, this end will be stretched or contracted earlier than the other end. Supposing that the earth and the mars pass each other with the speed 30miles/s. Then the earth and the mars hook 2 ends of a spring like the image below:

So in case the earth is moving and the mars is stationary, according to the law above, the end of the spring attached to the earth will be stretched earlier than the other end. Vice versa, if the mars is moving and the earth is stationary, the end attached to the mars will be stretched earlier. The observers on the earth and on the mars can make this imaginary experiment and determine the earth or the mars is moving. So it must be existent a unique reference frame for the relative motion between the earth and the mars.

Anyone tell me this argument is true or false ? Thanks for any comment.

[Klaynos]

!

Moderator Note

Only one thread per topic. Threads merged.

[Strange]

Anyone tell me this argument is true or false ? Thanks for any comment.

 

 

False. (Again!)

 

1. There is no spring connecting Earth and Mars. So you have no evidence to support your claim.

 

2. Your animation is showing the effect of an impulse applied to a spring. This will travel through the spring at the speed of sound. This would be the same whether the impulse was provided from Mars or Earth.

 

3. If there were a spring connecting Earth and Mars, then it would be in equilibrium and changes would take place evenly throughout the spring:

Therefore it does not tell you if one end is fixed.

 

I suggest you learn some basic science before repeating this claim.

SaveSave

[studiot]

I have to own up to a bo-bo in my post3, in missing out a delta.

 

 

The correct relativistic formula is

 

[math]\sqrt {\Delta {x^2} + \Delta {y^2} + \Delta {z^2} + {{\left( {ic\Delta t} \right)}^2}} [/math]

I'm surprised no hawkeyes noticed this.

Edited October 31, 2016 by studiot

[JesuisSean]

One way of proving that an absolute reference frame does exist, is the undeniable outcome of the analysis of a specific phenomena, a 4d phenomena.

 

Let's say that we have an "Absolute" 4D environment, and that it is composed of 3 dimensions of space, and 1 other dimension known as time. Call this 4D environment, your "Absolute" frame of reference.

 

Now let's say that all matter existing within the 4D space-time is constantly in motion within this 4D environment, and that the magnitude of this motion is exactly the same magnitude of motion of which light moves as it travels across space. Thus all matter shares a common "Absolute" magnitude of motion, a magnitude of motion that is normally noted as letter "c", aka, the speed of light.

 

Now if you examine the outcome of this absolute "c" motion that is ongoing with the absolute 4D environment, you quickly and independently discover Special Relativity(SR), and you also quickly and independently derive all of the SR equations.

Edited November 2, 2016 by JesuisSean

[Strange]

Let's say that we have an "Absolute" 4D environment, and that it is composed of 3 dimensions of space, and 1 other dimension known as time. Call this 4D environment, your "Absolute" frame of reference. (1) (2)

 

Now let's say that all matter existing within the 4D space-time is constantly in motion within this 4D environment, and that the magnitude of this motion is exactly the same magnitude of motion of which light moves as it travels across space. Thus all matter shares a common "Absolute" magnitude of motion, a magnitude of motion that is normally noted as letter "c", aka, the speed of light. (2) (4)

 

Now if you examine the outcome of this absolute "c" motion that is ongoing with the absolute 4D environment, you quickly and independently discover Special Relativity(SR), and you also quickly and independently derive all of the SR equations. (5)

 

 

1. All frames of reference in relativity are 4D. None of them are absolute. (Note: an absolute frame of reference is one that can be distinguished physically from others. The most sensitive experiments have failed to find any evidence for this. And theory, such as Maxwell's equations, imply that no such thing exists).

 

2. This is an example of "begging the question" - by assuming (with no evidence) an absolute frame of reference you can conclude there is an absolute frame of reference.

 

3. And again: by assuming that everything is moving at c (with no evidence) you conclude that everything is moving at c.

 

4. If something is "in motion" in your 4D environment then you need an extra time dimension to define that. There is no evidence for such a second time dimension. (And good theoretical reasons to think it can't exist.)

 

5. If your model results in the equations of SR then it proves there is no absolute frame. You prove yourself wrong by reductio ad absurdum.

 

 

In short: no.

Edited November 2, 2016 by Strange