Physics Help Forum The proof that the absolute reference frame does exist.

 Special and General Relativity Special and General Relativity Physics Help Forum

Oct 29th 2016, 09:27 AM   #11

Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: On the dance floor, baby!
Posts: 2,778
 Originally Posted by HaiNguyen The existence of point A, A', B and B' is independent of the view point of observers. Even you are standing on the earth or standing on the mars, you have to admit the truth that at each time point the earth and the mars do exist at somewhere in the universe. And their positions at a time point are unique. So the argument I explain here also don't rely on the view point of any observer. We just focus on the truth that the positions are existent and unique. It leads to another argument that the velocities of the earth and the mars are existent and unique. That's it.
Ah, I think my confusion has cleared up. You are trying to put forward a theory that replaces GR? GR says that we may create a "local" coordinate system in which it appears that other objects are moving under the influence of forces (or moving with constant velocity to it). But the word "local" implies local in time as well. Thus we cannot really consider any coordinate system to be inertial if forces (gravitational or otherwise) are around.

So no absolute coordinate system.

-Dan
__________________
Do not meddle in the affairs of dragons for you are crunchy and taste good with ketchup.

See the forum rules here.

Oct 29th 2016, 09:58 AM   #12
Junior Member

Join Date: Oct 2016
Posts: 19
 Originally Posted by topsquark Ah, I think my confusion has cleared up. You are trying to put forward a theory that replaces GR? GR says that we may create a "local" coordinate system in which it appears that other objects are moving under the influence of forces (or moving with constant velocity to it). But the word "local" implies local in time as well. Thus we cannot really consider any coordinate system to be inertial if forces (gravitational or otherwise) are around. So no absolute coordinate system. -Dan
I don't intend to replace GR with any theory. I believe in the truth I am explaining and I'd like to share it to the world. That's all I'd like to do. I don't care if the truth I am proving conflicting with GR or any other theory. The way you use "GR says" shows that your mind is so much dependent on GR without trusting you intuition. That's your choice.

Oct 29th 2016, 10:09 AM   #13
Physics Team

Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Morristown, NJ USA
Posts: 2,347
 Originally Posted by HaiNguyen We just focus on the truth that the positions are existent and unique. It leads to another argument that the velocities of the earth and the mars are existent and unique. That's it.
This I can agree with. But it flies in the face of your earlier comment:

 Originally Posted by HaiNguyen The existence of these speeds is the proof of the existence of the same absolute reference frame for both the earth and the mars.
Please explain how the existence of two distinct inertial reference frames - one on each planet - proves that they share the same absolute reference frame.

Also, just so we're clear on terminology, please explain what you mean by the phrase "absolute reference frame." I'm beginning to think we may have a different idea about what it means. Thanks.

Last edited by ChipB; Oct 29th 2016 at 10:52 AM.

Oct 29th 2016, 10:24 AM   #14

Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: On the dance floor, baby!
Posts: 2,778
 Originally Posted by HaiNguyen The way you use "GR says" shows that your mind is so much dependent on GR without trusting you intuition. That's your choice.
I'm sorry you feel that way just because I'm quoting a well established, well tested theory. I'm looking at experimental verification, not intuition.

-Dan
__________________
Do not meddle in the affairs of dragons for you are crunchy and taste good with ketchup.

See the forum rules here.

Oct 29th 2016, 10:57 AM   #15
Junior Member

Join Date: Oct 2016
Posts: 19
 Originally Posted by ChipB Please explain how the existence of two distinct inertial reference frames - one on each planet - proves that they share the same absolute reference frame. Also, just so we're clear on terminology, please explain what you mean by the phrase "absolute reference frame." I'm beginning to think we may have a different idea about what it means. Thanks.
Ok, an absolute (inertial) reference frame is a term represents something (in my opinion is like metaphysics notion than visible matter) absolutely stationary (forever) to every object in the universe. Supposing that the earth and the mars are in absolute inertial state. As you mentioned, there are 2 distinct absolute reference frames. Let's call reference frame of the earth and of the mars in that order "FoE" & "FoM". Supposing that in view point of an observer: FoE moving, FoM is stationary. So FoE is no longer deserve it's function as the absolute reference frame for the earth. Because FoM is absolutely stationary to FoE, and FoE is absolutely stationary to the earth. So FoM is absolutely stationary to the earth. Hence, FoM must be the absolute reference frame of the earth instead of FoE. That means FoM is the absolute reference frame to both the earth and the mars. Vice versa, FoE is the absolute reference frame to both the earth and the mars.

So in whichever case, an absolute reference frame for both the earth and the mars does exist. If we repeat this argument to every object in the universe, this will come to the result: the existence of absolute reference frame of all objects in the universe.

Last edited by HaiNguyen; Oct 29th 2016 at 11:01 AM.

Oct 29th 2016, 11:13 AM   #16
Physics Team

Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Morristown, NJ USA
Posts: 2,347
 Originally Posted by HaiNguyen Ok, an absolute (inertial) reference frame is a term represents something (in my opinion is like metaphysics notion than visible matter) absolutely stationary (forever) to every object in the universe.
OK so far.

 Originally Posted by HaiNguyen Supposing that the earth and the mars are in absolute inertial state. As you mentioned, there are 2 distinct absolute reference frames.
I said there are two distinct inertial frames, not two distinct absolute reference frames. IF an absolute reference frame exists somewhere in the universe, there can be only one. I hope this doesn't confound the rest of your argument.

 Originally Posted by HaiNguyen Supposing that in view point of an observer: FoE moving, FoM is stationary.
This implies the observer is stationary with respect to FoM, and hence moving with respect to FoE.

 Originally Posted by HaiNguyen So FoE is no longer deserve it's function as the absolute reference frame for the earth.
Why? Because it's moving with respect to the observer? This implies that the observer gets to define what is meant by "absolutely stationary."

 Originally Posted by HaiNguyen Because FoM is absolutely stationary to FoE, and FoE is absolutely stationary to the earth.
You lost me. FoM is NOT absolutely stationary with respect to FoE - it's moving with respect to FoE!

The rest of your argument hinges on this concept that FoM is absolutely stationary, to all observers everywhere, simply because one observer is stationary with respect to FoM. I don't agree - if you picked a different observer - perhaps one who is stationary with respect to Venus - you'd have a different absolute reference frame and FoM would not be it. Which takes us back to the fundamental concept as articulated first by Galileo and later by Einstein: there is no single absolute reference frame which can be used to define absolute velocities of alll objects - velocities are ALWAYS relative.

Oct 29th 2016, 10:34 PM   #17
Junior Member

Join Date: Oct 2016
Posts: 19
 Originally Posted by ChipB You lost me. FoM is NOT absolutely stationary with respect to FoE - it's moving with respect to FoE! The rest of your argument hinges on this concept that FoM is absolutely stationary, to all observers everywhere, simply because one observer is stationary with respect to FoM. I don't agree - if you picked a different observer - perhaps one who is stationary with respect to Venus - you'd have a different absolute reference frame and FoM would not be it. Which takes us back to the fundamental concept as articulated first by Galileo and later by Einstein: there is no single absolute reference frame which can be used to define absolute velocities of all objects - velocities are ALWAYS relative.
I'll make it clear this way. First, we'll talk about a spring. Check the attached gif file below. From the video 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. So supposing the earth and the mars are in absolute inertial state. Suppose that the earth and the mars pass each other with the speed 30miles/h. 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 I mentioned 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 i 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 (absolute) reference frame for the moving relation between the earth and the mars. This experiment also can apply to the relativistic moving relation between the earth and the mars in our real universe. This is also the explanation I'd like to present for the second problem I mentioned before.
Attached Thumbnails

Last edited by HaiNguyen; Oct 29th 2016 at 10:45 PM.

 Oct 31st 2016, 08:58 PM #18 Junior Member   Join Date: Oct 2016 Posts: 19 Hi everybody, any question ? Last edited by HaiNguyen; Oct 31st 2016 at 09:06 PM.
 Nov 1st 2016, 04:31 AM #19 Physics Team     Join Date: Jun 2010 Location: Morristown, NJ USA Posts: 2,347 The spring analogy doesn't work for me at all. Since gravitational forces act from and on both objects mutually, your analogy that it propagates from one body to the other is not correct. One body doesn't get acted on by the mutual force of gravity sooner than the other. Using your spring analogy, it would be more accurate to smack both ends of the spring at the same time and watch the compression waves propagate from both ends to the other at the same rate (at the speed of light for gravity waves).
Nov 1st 2016, 04:48 AM   #20
Junior Member

Join Date: Oct 2016
Posts: 19
 Originally Posted by ChipB The spring analogy doesn't work for me at all. Since gravitational forces act from and on both objects mutually, your analogy that it propagates from one body to the other is not correct. One body doesn't get acted on by the mutual force of gravity sooner than the other. Using your spring analogy, it would be more accurate to smack both ends of the spring at the same time and watch the compression waves propagate from both ends to the other at the same rate (at the speed of light for gravity waves).
I think you shouldn't care about the gravitational forces. You can testify the unique velocity between 2 objects in case the objects are the car running 50miles/h and a big rock on the roadside.

 Tags absolute, exist, frame, gravity, newton 3rd law, proof, reference, reference frame