Absolute rest - What does it mean?

I know that "physics wise you can't do such an acceleration", that's the whole point about it being theoretical. What I meant by "and faster than any body being capable of being relative to it" has an easy analogy for it.

Imagine you ride a bicycle past someone who is riding a merry-go-round. at one instance of time you can both be moving in the same direction at similar speeds, relative to one another, however because they are on a merry-go-round their direction changes and suddenly they are no longer relative to you.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

You mean relatively stationary.

Errr... pardon?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

all this is doing is adding new concepts to a thread that more or less has been resolved.

Absolute rest is an obsolete term used by pre-Einsteinian theoretics to explore the notion of what we now consider to be an absolute rest reference frame which would be considered as absolute zero in some vague way otherwise referred to as a volume of mysterious substance commonly referred to in an oblique fashion as an aether.

A common universal mysterious substance that provided constancy and a medium for universal constants. [ aka Proof of God in disguise as an aether due to the religious devotion of certain famous scientists at the time]

It is here by debunked as an obsolete and absolutely useless term...may the term absolute rest ...rest in peace....absolutely.....

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

seriously the term is so full of conflicting meaning that it should never be used in any worth while discussion IMO

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

philosophically speaking,....the term "infinitely finite" could be described when attempting to draw the perfect circle. We have a finite area or volume in the case of spheres that is infinitely resolvable due to the infinite nature of pi reductionism - aka infinitesimals.....therefore the universe could be considered as closed system from the outside but well and truly open from the inside...hmmmm...Alphanumeric's not going to like that one....hmmmmmm...sorry Alpha...

 

What may be relevant to this thread is the 3rd law of thermodynamics which states according to ..you guessed it ...wiki,

So whats the story with absolute zero being achievable?

 

of course

because the object ( atoms and in quantum ) still vibrates

yes it would

and to your second comment

with no potential to move in a particular inertial frame or to move INTO another

actually it does because this inertial frame has NO energy of any form

hence it is distinguished

 

a 100 burning lights of absolute rest

I mark a spot on the planet surface and carefully note the time the spot was defined as a point of absolute rest and chisel the date and time into a 1000 metric ton of granite. Of course as soon as the time and date is noted the point on the stone has moved, but it is a trivial matter to determine where exactly in space the point was when the time was recorded. Accuracy of measurement and calculation would be the main, if only, technological parameter requiring constant mlonitoring and management.

You have a 1000 cps strob strapped to your for'ead and as all schoolboys know the so called speed of light is independent of the speed of the source of the light ray or light pulse. Every second 1000 points of absolute rest are manufactured by the strob - it is your mission, should you choose to accept the duty to maintain records consistent with an accurately defined set of points generated by the strob.

You are in space and similar to extended pitot tubes (used to measure airspeed) usually een on helicopters you have installed a 1000cps strob, hence, if the strob extends 100 meters in front of the space ship, a constant source of 1000 points of absolute rest are generated every second for whatever use you may need of such points re navigation etc, or maybe you do it just to gall James R and his coterie of non-absolute-rest-motionists, the names of which shall be not be uttered in order to protect the innocent.:shrug:

 

And while you're doing that I pick a spot somewhere else and define THAT as the actual point...

 

Well at least you apologised for your incoherent baseless nonsense.

 

well coming from someone who blindly believes in a travelling photon one would expect nothing less, of course it is incoherent and baseless nonsense to you! duh!

 

IMO Geist has a point [ ha excuse the pun ] but unfortunately Geist I think you have missed that that point is part of a continuum of change or movement and all you are doing is picking a point in a time line and claiming it as stationary [ which would be true in abstraction] However in reality that point is part of a continuum in the time line and not at all static or subject to stasis.
It actually is a good way of seeing how SRT can generate an invariance of light though, I must admit, as every time a photon is supposedly released it is always at a single point of time in an ongoing continuum of time.

Thus the photon is always released from a zero duration moment/position of absolute rest regardless of the velocity of source therefore always invariant. [ and always in the present moment - HSP]
Which unfortunately for Alphanumeric who wont understand a single thing I just wrote, is further reason why the photon doesn't travel from A to B as at t=0 distance must also be zero no matter where you pick your point on a time line. Distance only exists because the continuum of change expands the spacial dimensions when time duration is > zero.
Therefore it can be concluded that the universe only exists as three dimensional because it is continually changing or moving [ has time to exist]. Once change or movement stops the dimensions collapse to zero and the universe no longer is existent. aka at Absolute rest.
"if the present moment has no future then that present moment does not exist"

 

The fact you continue to be unwilling to discuss evidence doesn't mean it doesn't exist. And I don't accept it 'blindly', unlike yourself I actually read books and study science, I don't just skim a Wikipedia page and then pretend I'm the best thing since sliced bread.

I've already proven to you that you can describe non-zero distances at single points in time. I don't deny a photon won't travel any distance over that moment, but nonetheless non-zero distances are still perfectly well defined. I've shown you how to compute distances using a metric, you didn't understand it which you, unfortunately, view as synonymous with "It's wrong".

 

and so are flying pigs called photons clearly defined yet not a single one has been seen in transit.....so much for your definitions yes?
so define away but what that has to do with reality is any ones guess....
btw my post was more for Geist's benefit as he has been haunted by this bloody issue of absolute rest for nearly 4 years trying to explain his "point". I recall many diagrams attempting to demonstrate this issue and it is only now I think I understand what he is trying to get across. Hopefully he shall confirm whether I am even close or not...

well as I just said to Geist defining if t=0 then d=0 is pretty easy to do also...so what?
But I can guarrantee my math is by far easier to do than yours....look I'll do it again for you


if duration t=0 then d=0....it is that simple

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

You keep repeating this mantra yet I can turn on a low intensity source of photons in the dark and produce a pattern of individual marks on a screen. How is this possible if photons are flying pigs that don't move? I also point out that we've never "seen" an electron or any other particle in the sense that someone in a white coat with a magnifying glass says "look! an electron!" Photons are proven to exist with the properties laid out by QED and to deny that is akin to denying the the sun is actually a little bit on the hot side.

 

oh there is no doubt that you have a source and you have a screen displaying specks of light...no doubt about it...but it is what happens between the source and the screen that I am talking about.
Which is why the question has been reduced to "flying" pig called photon.
You've got heaps of evidence to show source and effects but none to show that it transits across space from A to B.
And not knowing how a photon makes it from A to B without traveling doesn't make the question any weaker, if anything it makes it stronger.

 

Alphnumeric,

and when is your traveling photon NOT in that moment pray tell?

 

Anyways the debate about the traveling oops! flying pig called photon needs to go down into pseudo science in the relevant thread [ I can feel Ben starting to chomp at the bit ]
http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=91797


Geist has posited a state of absolute rest for the source point of a photon which affords it invariance regardless of the sources velocity or vector....which I find quite facinating when thinking about this subject of absolute rest.
I wonder what JamesR, Pete or others may say about it....

 

Take my experiment with a source and a screen and carry it out. Then move the screen closer to the source. Then repeat until you are satisfied that there are particles that have some trajectory. You could also do the expt with more than one screen. I don't see how you can deny the existence of a travelling photon, and just how do you see an electron?

 

needs to go down to the appropriate thread Prometheus I can't answer it here...this thread is an "approved" absolute rest question thread. The issue about the travelling photon is not approved for this board.

 

You say that as if the only way to get evidence for the photon is through a single effect. That's not true and you know it. You simply want to continue spreading the lies you've been saying in Pseudo into this forum.

You seem to think distances can only be defined by the length a physical object can traverse in a quantity of time. That's not true. The distance from London to New York is not dependent upon how long I take to measure it. The distance a jet will have travelled from London to New York will dependent on a length of time, since the distance it travels is its velocity times its speed. But the distance from its starting place to its ending place is not time dependent.

If I wanted to work out the distance between the two cities I'd use spherical coordinates and work out \(\int_{C} ds\) where C is the geodesic between the two cities and ds is a line element on the Earth's surface. Assuming (for the sake of discussion) they are at equal latitudes then you find that the length is \(D = r \phi \cos \alpha \) where r is the radius of the Earth, \(\phi\) is the change in longititude and \(\alpha\) is their latitude (equator is 0). Where's the time dependent component in that?

Ah yes, the crank method of "Mainstream science is too complicated for me therefore it is wrong. My explaination will only need high school level maths at most as that's the best I can do".

It's funny that despite the internet being awash with cranks who proclaim basic arithmetic is all you need to describe the universe not one of them has actually got anywhere. Strange, isn't it?