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

 Special and General Relativity Special and General Relativity Physics Help Forum

 Nov 1st 2016, 05:42 AM #21 Physics Team     Join Date: Jun 2010 Location: Morristown, NJ USA Posts: 2,310 I thought your spring was an analogy for gravity - if it's not, then what what did you intend by it? Are you trying to say that if you attach a spring between two objects, and one is "absolutely" stationary, the spring will stretch at the other end first? I don't think that's true - unless the spring itself is also "absolutely" stationary.
 Nov 1st 2016, 07:45 AM #22 Junior Member   Join Date: Oct 2016 Posts: 19 The first thing I prove when I mentioned about the car and the rock is the relative motion between 2 objects does exist a unique velocities between them. The spring is just like an indicator for testifying these unique velocities. Then when I prove the existence of unique velocities between 2 objects, I can generalise the principle to every object in the universe such as with the earth and the mars. I come to the conclusion of existence of unique velocities between the earth and the mars in their absolutely inertial state. That's the order of the arguments
 Nov 1st 2016, 08:10 AM #23 Physics Team     Join Date: Jun 2010 Location: Morristown, NJ USA Posts: 2,310 Velocities between any two objects are are not always unique. For example, if two cars pass you as you stand next to a road, and both cars go by at 20 MPH, they both have the same velocity relative to you - their velocities relative to you are not unique.
 Nov 1st 2016, 08:40 AM #24 Junior Member   Join Date: Oct 2016 Posts: 19 I said 'unique', that means only one of the cases does exist when the cars pass each other with speed 70miles/h: case1: car1 - 30miles/h, car2 - 40miles/h case2: car1 - 40miles/h, car2 - 30miles/h case3: car1 - 70miles/h, car2 - 0 case4: car1 - 0, car2 - 70miles/h ... so on By the way, we can pull the cars out of the earth's gravity, push them into outerspace and let them drift in space. In this case, the gravitational forces does not affect the spring's stretching.
Nov 1st 2016, 09:16 AM   #25
Physics Team

Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Morristown, NJ USA
Posts: 2,310
 Originally Posted by HaiNguyen I said 'unique', that means only one of the cases does exist when the cars pass each other with speed 70miles/h: case1: car1 - 30miles/h, car2 - 40miles/h case2: car1 - 40miles/h, car2 - 30miles/h case3: car1 - 70miles/h, car2 - 0 case4: car1 - 0, car2 - 70miles/h ... so on
Just so I'm clear on what you're to say: you are now talking about two cars that pass each other, at a relative speed of 70 MPH. You maintain that there is only one possibility of velocities for each car. I disagree. All of those cases are possible, simultaneously -- it all depends on the relative motion of the observer, or observers (who may not be in either car). An observer in car A sees car 1 = 0 MPH and car 2 = -70 MPH; an observer in car 2 sees car 1 = -70 MPH and car 2 = 0 MPH, an observer on the ground sees car 1 = +40 MPH and car 2 = -30 MPH, and an observer on another planet sees car 1 = 30,000 MPH and car 2 = 30,070 MPH. They're all correct, simultaneously.

 Nov 1st 2016, 09:20 AM #26 Junior Member   Join Date: Oct 2016 Posts: 19 No, because the experiment with the spring can prove only one of them is true.
 Nov 1st 2016, 10:03 AM #27 Physics Team     Join Date: Jun 2010 Location: Morristown, NJ USA Posts: 2,310 As discussed earlier your spring doesn't prove anything. In each case it stretches between the observer and each car (or is it between the two cars?). Nothing is learned from that. You have an opinion that goes against accepted laws of physics, and haven't been able to articulate very well any supporting evidence for that opinion. We will continue to disagree. Last edited by ChipB; Nov 1st 2016 at 11:23 AM.
 Nov 1st 2016, 10:42 AM #28 Junior Member   Join Date: Oct 2016 Posts: 19 I agree with you onething that we will disagree about this problem. So you keep your opinion, I keep mine.
Nov 1st 2016, 11:19 AM   #29

Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: On the dance floor, baby!
Posts: 2,450
 Originally Posted by HaiNguyen I agree with you onething that we will disagree about this problem. So you keep your opinion, I keep mine.
Science is about proof, not opinion. Your spring analogy has some serious flaws that can't be ignored just because you would like it to be so. Please review the (excellent) arguments that ChipB has been writing. He knows what he is talking about.

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

See the forum rules here.

Nov 1st 2016, 05:28 PM   #30
Junior Member

Join Date: Oct 2016
Posts: 19
 Originally Posted by topsquark Science is about proof, not opinion. Your spring analogy has some serious flaws that can't be ignored just because you would like it to be so. Please review the (excellent) arguments that ChipB has been writing. He knows what he is talking about. -Dan
The arguments of ChipB doesn't make any sense to me. I make my point clear. The disagreement is still be there.

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