Attaining zero velocity

  • I
  • Thread starter channeled intuition
  • Start date
  • #1
channeled intuition

Main Question or Discussion Point

Proposition: at any given time, zero velocity for an object is attained by unknown acceleration in a universal unknown direction. Gravitational effects on that trajectory must be canceled out. As a generalist, my physics are basic at best, but where is the error in this idea?
 

Answers and Replies

  • #2
berkeman
Mentor
57,478
7,492
Proposition: at any given time, zero velocity for an object is attained by unknown acceleration in a universal unknown direction. Gravitational effects on that trajectory must be canceled out. As a generalist, my physics are basic at best, but where is the error in this idea?
Welcome to the PF.

What's a "universal unknown direction"? And what's a universal direction...?
 
  • #3
29,563
5,887
at any given time, zero velocity for an object is attained by unknown acceleration in a universal unknown direction
At any given time, zero velocity for an object is attained by using its rest frame.
 
  • #4
channeled intuition
universal direction=a direction pointing to the same location for every object in the universe.
 
  • #5
berkeman
Mentor
57,478
7,492
universal direction=a direction pointing to the same location for every object in the universe.
No such thing. There are lots of threads here on the PF about reference frames (there are no absolute frames of reference). I'll see if we have a FAQ that covers this for you...
 
  • #6
berkeman
Mentor
57,478
7,492
  • #7
channeled intuition
8921.jpg
50,388 / 2,450
Staff: Mentor No such thing. There are lots of threads here on the PF about reference frames (there are no absolute frames of reference).
New

so every telescope, in a conjectured universe telescopes on every galaxy, couldn't all point to the same quasar?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #8
russ_watters
Mentor
19,662
5,936
so every telescope, in a conjectured universe telescopes on every galaxy, couldn't all point to the same quasar?
Sure, but they wouldn't be pointing in the same direction nor would there be anything "universal" about that. I'm not really sure what you are trying to say with your "proposition". It doesn't make a lot of sense but implies something known to be false (the existence of a universal rest frame).
 
  • #9
29,563
5,887
so every telescope, in a conjectured universe telescopes on every galaxy, couldn't all point to the same quasar?
Suppose two distant telescopes are pointed at the same quasar. If you take a gyroscope, align it's axis with the quasar at one telescope, and transport the gyroscope to the other telescope, then you will find that it does not align with the quasar.

Furthermore, there is no detectable anisotropy in the laws of physics.
 
Last edited:
  • #10
kuruman
Science Advisor
Homework Helper
Insights Author
Gold Member
9,037
2,423
Here is a Google search of the PF website about absolute frames of reference. Happy reading!
The last time I discussed absolute frames of reference was many years ago with a couple of fellow physics graduate students. We came up with the brilliant idea that the center of mass of the Universe must be at absolute rest. Proof: If it moved, where would it go? Needless to say we were under the influence. :smile:
 
  • Like
Likes berkeman

Related Threads on Attaining zero velocity

Replies
17
Views
8K
Replies
35
Views
6K
  • Last Post
Replies
3
Views
19K
  • Last Post
Replies
18
Views
20K
  • Last Post
Replies
2
Views
3K
Replies
3
Views
760
Replies
5
Views
7K
Replies
3
Views
1K
Replies
2
Views
2K
Top