# Absolute Rest Frame

June 12 2017 at 4:28 AM
nakayama

A website says “uniform speed frame” and “accelerated speed frame”. To the two, the absolute rest frame will be premise.

 Respond to this message
nakayama

# Re: Absolute Rest Frame

August 18 2017, 12:15 AM
 Supposition of the Existence of the Rest Frame The reason why the inertial force occurs will be that the frame is moving in an accelerated motion relative to the rest frame. The reason why the inertial force does not occur will be that the frame is at a standstill or is moving in a uniform linear motion relative to the rest frame. And this rest frame shown by dynamics will probably be the same frame shown by light (measurable : see my web-site).
nakayama

# Re: Absolute Rest Frame

August 18 2017, 10:07 PM
 In non-gravitational field, two bodies are moving in inertial motions. Distance of the two will be a function of the time (seen from optional inertial frame). There will be one and only frame in space and the two follow this frame. How about more than two bodies ? The above seems to be true.
nakayama

# Re: Absolute Rest Frame

August 19 2017, 8:56 PM
 Innumerable inertial frames or one and only inertial frame (rest frame) ? Which can be imaginable ? Answer will be clear. P.S. Star light shows existence of one and only rest frame without doubt.
nakayama

# Re: Absolute Rest Frame

August 20 2017, 9:29 PM
 Whether the inertial force occurs or not is depending on the state of body’s motion (stationary : inertial motion or accelerated motion). This will show the existence one and only rest frame. Because all inertial frames (except the absolute rest frame) are only approximate (and fictitious).

# Re: Absolute Rest Frame

August 21 2017, 2:45 AM
 The Absolute Rest Frame is VACUUM: T=0K. =====   The Universe from Nothing: T=0K. (by Israel Socratus) ====... Maybe 99% thinks that everything began from big-bang. A few % have another opinion: Book 'A universe from nothing' by Lavrence M. Kruass. ===. My opinion. Why  everything was started from Nothing ? Because there is fundamental fact in Nature : The critical density in the whole Universe  is so small that it cannot 'close'  the Universe into sphere. And therefore the Universe as whole is flat - infinite flat. But what to do with 'infinity' physicists don't know and they try to escape (throw  out) concept of 'infinity'. ===.. I say that infinite (eternal) nothing has one physical parameter: T=0K  and therefore  nothing is not nothingness. We can use many theories to understand condition of T=0K continuum : 1) Theory of ideal gas  ( temperature is T=0K ) 2) Hawking black hole radiation  ( temperature is T=0K ) 3)  Bose-Einstein condensate  ( temperature is T=0K ) 4) Dark energy  ( nothing is some kind of infinite energy ) 5) Dark matter  ( consist of virtual particles, antiparticles ) 6) SRT   ( explain behavior of quantum particles in nothingness ) 7) QT   ( explain the reason and laws of quantum particles behavior ) These theories are subject for rethinking and ,by the way,    such interpretation   obeys  Occam's  razor. ============... P.S. Scientists say: Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation (CMBR) was proved      that Big Bang  theory is correct.      My opinion. Have you see the waves on the surface of sea ? But deep down of  the sea  , you know, the picture is different. Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation (CMBR ) is only surface of infinite zero vacuum. Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation (CMBR) is a false vacuum. Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation (CMBR ) is result of work (fluctuation) of virtual particles. Deep down of the 'Dirac's sea'  is state of  zero vacuum  T=0K   with potential negative virtual particles: - E=Mc^2. And according to the 'Law of conservation  and transformation  energy/mass' these   virtual negative  particles  can change their potential state into real  active positive  particles with energy E=hf. ( Casimir effect, Lamb shift ) Quantum effects (fluctuations)  are dominate in the Universe. ===================== Best wishes Israel Sadovnik Socratus ============================
nakayama

# Re: Absolute Rest Frame

August 21 2017, 9:40 PM
 There is a picture. Optional two points in an inertial frame will be in the same uniform linear motion (or stationary) relative to the frame (mesh) of the rest frame (to it, the rest frame does not interfere. Momentum does not vary also). All inertial frames seem to be based on the absolute rest frame.
nakayama

# Re: Absolute Rest Frame

August 22 2017, 9:14 PM
 Suppose innumerable inertial frames. But why these cannot be rotated ? On the absolute rest frame, answer is acceptable. Because, it is real existence. Suppose plural bodies are moving in the same uniform linear motion. That’s all. Naming inertial frame does not change real state of affairs.
Anonymous

# Re: Absolute Rest Frame

August 22 2017, 11:13 PM
 >>>Suppose innumerable inertial frames. But why these cannot be rotated? an object moving at a constant speed in a straight line - parallel to you - must rotate with 180 degrees relative to you
Anonymous

# Re: Absolute Rest Frame

August 22 2017, 11:20 PM
 it rotates -----> this way ------>>>
nakayama

# Re: Absolute Rest Frame

August 23 2017, 12:30 AM
 It seems to me to be nonsense.
Anonymous

# Re: Absolute Rest Frame

August 23 2017, 12:32 PM
 >>>>It seems to me to be nonsense. thales' theorem ------->>>https://www.cut-the-knot.org/Curriculum/Geometry/GeoGebra/ThalesTheorem.shtml
Amigo

# Re: Absolute Rest Frame

August 23 2017, 1:03 PM
 >>>thales' theorem ------->>>https://www.cut-the-knot.org/Curriculum/Geometry/GeoGebra/ThalesTheorem.shtml Nakayama doesn't mean -----> Thales' theorem seems to him to be nonsense. He means only =====> [an object moving at a constant speed in a straight line - parallel to you - must rotate with 180 degrees relative to you] =====>>> seems to him to be nonsense.
Anonymous

# Re: Absolute Rest Frame

August 23 2017, 6:16 PM
 >>>>Nakayama doesn't mean -----> Thales' theorem seems to him to be nonsense. He means only =====> [an object moving at a constant speed in a straight line - parallel to you - must rotate with 180 degrees relative to you] =====>>> seems to him to be nonsense. but -[an object moving at a constant speed in a straight line - parallel to you - must rotate with 180 degrees relative to you] - is ------>>> one of the corollaries of thales' theorem. & this how to make it ------> make sense to u ------> suppose -----> the object is moving along line x. & u r standing still at line y ------>>> so - when the object is approaching - from a long distance ----> the red line between u & the position of the object makes ------> an angle ≈ 0. & when the moving object is side by side with u ----> the red line between u & the position of the object makes ------> an angle = 90. & when the object is receding faraway from u -----> the red line between u & the position of the object makes ------> an angle ≈ 180 ----->>> i.e. the moving object - from start to finish - rotates from 0 degrees to 180 degrees relative to u.
nakayama

# Re: Absolute Rest Frame

August 23 2017, 9:20 PM
 A problem Anonymouse posted seems to be irrelevant to the rest frame. And this will not be main problem of relativity. Why you post here ? So, I don't write my view on this problem.
Anonymous

# Re: Absolute Rest Frame

August 23 2017, 9:44 PM
 >>>> Why you post here ? So, I don't write my view on this problem. i posted - here - because u wrote ------> [Suppose innumerable inertial frames. But why these cannot be rotated?]

# Re: Absolute Rest Frame

August 23 2017, 11:19 PM
 Does the Universe have a rest referent frame?         What is a rest referent  frame? Look at night sky. In which  referent frame the massess of all galaxies located? In which reference frame all dark massess and dark energy located? They all exist in the Infinite Absolute Rest Frame is VACUUM: T=0K. ================.
nakayama

# Re: Absolute Rest Frame

August 24 2017, 12:06 AM
 To SOCRATUS SADOVNIK, What I wrote here is trials of consideration of the rest frame from viewpoint of dynamics. According to the star light, the observer's motion relative to the aether will be measurable (in plural ways). These are shown in my web-site.
nakayama

# Re: Absolute Rest Frame

August 25 2017, 11:47 PM
 Consideration on the rest frame from the dynamics are tried. But definite view seems not to be found. On the other hand, the starlight will be certain clue. The aether frame (it will probably be the rest frame) is real and the observer’s motion relative to the immovable aether frame can be measured up to the meter level. Quantitative and quantitative measurement of aether will be possible.
nakayama

# Re: Absolute Rest Frame

August 26 2017, 9:27 PM
 There are innumerable accelerated frames. As the basis of it, not innumerable inertial frames but one and only rest frame seems to be easy to accept.

 < Previous Page 1 2 3 Next > Respond to this message