Is acceleration absolute and velocity not?

AI Thread Summary
The discussion centers on the nature of acceleration and velocity, questioning whether acceleration is absolute while velocity is relative. Participants argue that all cinematic quantities, including velocity and acceleration, depend on the reference frame, making them relative rather than absolute. It is noted that while Newtonian physics treats acceleration as absolute, General Relativity posits that all motion is relative, with acceleration observed differently in various frames. The conversation also touches on the implications of relativistic effects and the distinction between inertial and non-inertial frames, emphasizing that acceleration can be measured absolutely under certain conditions. Ultimately, the complexity of defining these quantities in different contexts highlights the ongoing debate in physics regarding their fundamental nature.
  • #51
Once you find some experimental evidence even approximately supporting your claim feel free to come back and discuss. Until then, stop posting your unsupported personal theories. It is against the rules of PF.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #52
DaleSpam said:
Once you find some experimental evidence even approximately supporting your claim feel free to come back and discuss. Until then, stop posting your unsupported personal theories. It is against the rules of PF.

When you find that the rules of science do not sopport your unreasonable claims you seek help in the rules of PF which will not help you too.
What is your reply to my example of the law of entropy and to may statements that direct experiment is not the only method of science?!
 
  • #53
Mueiz said:
When you find that the rules of science do not sopport your unreasonable claims you seek help in the rules of PF
The rules of science do not support your unreasonable claims either.

What you have is a Machian philosophical stance that you desparately wish to believe regardless of any evidence. You look around at the evidence and see that it does not support your preconcieved philosophy, so you invent a radically different behavior at an impossible idealized limit in order to rescue your philosophy and make it unfalsifiable.

Mueiz said:
What is your reply to my example of the law of entropy and to may statements that direct experiment is not the only method of science?!
Your attempt to sidetrack the discussion with thermodynamics is very off-topic and transparent. If you wish to have a discussion about thermodynamics you should start a new thread.
 
  • #54
Mueiz said:
The two cases is the same ... entropy dependence on other properties of the system does not tend to zero when the temperature goes to absolute zero.(I am ready to open new thread in classical thermodynamics to prove this if you do not agree with me )

Meet me in a new thread' "Is the law of entropy radical or smooth ? " and after that let us come back again to the absolute acceleration .
 
  • #55
The acceleration question is not related to thermodynamics and your introduction of the topic is merely a diversion.
 
  • #56
DaleSpam said:
The acceleration question is not related to thermodynamics and your introduction of the topic is merely a diversion.
I used the example of thermodynamics to confirm my statement ''that direct experiments are not the only method in physics '' which i used to defend using pure theoritical method to show that acceleration is relative in the absence of gravitational field'' but you posted your objection that i have to get an experimental prove.
 
  • #57
Experiments are what distinguish science from philosophy or math.
 
  • #58
Well, to be fair, experiments are fairly useless here. GR is tested to 12 decimal places. So we know that assumption of absolute acceleration is at least that good. But if we compare it to Mach's Principle, we need to see a significant enough fraction of the universe accelerate in order to actually see a difference greater than 10^-12. Galaxy collisions are a few orders of magnitude off. We're not going to get an experiment that distinguishes the two.

But GR works, unlike pretty much everything that has been suggested in its place. So for now, as far as physics goes, acceleration is absolute. Everything else is for philosophers and theologists to discuss.
 
  • #59
DaleSpam said:
Experiments are what distinguish science from philosophy or math.

If you said that my opinion was philosophy or math in the beginning of the discussion ,i might would have agreed with you , but instead you used very unkind words against my post
Ok anyhow if philosphy and math are not science this is only a terminological point .but what is clear and important is that pure theoretical thoughts have its great role in science generally .One of hundereds of examples is the (impossible) thought of Einstein of chasing the light wave which led him to SR
 
  • #60
Mueiz said:
what is clear and important is that pure theoretical thoughts have its great role in science generally
Not unless they eventually lead to testable predictions.
 
  • #61
DaleSpam said:
Not unless they eventually lead to testable predictions.

you are a new Francis Bacon :-p
 

Similar threads

Whether a non-inertial frame is absolute
2
Replies
94
Views
6K
B Zero acceleration = zero net force?
Replies
33
Views
2K
B Rotation is absolute, linear motion is relative?
2
Replies
74
Views
4K
B Acceleration of Moving Particles: Explained
Replies
6
Views
1K
I Coriolis effect and the acceleration experienced in a rotating frame
Replies
14
Views
1K
B Understanding Average Velocity in Linear Motion with Constant Acceleration
Replies
1
Views
1K
B Acceleration regards F=ma
Replies
8
Views
838
I Coriolis acceleration of a projectile launched at the equator
Replies
4
Views
2K
Acceleration and Velocity: Understanding the Relationship
Replies
4
Views
10K
I Acceleration in Newton's second law
Replies
5
Views
2K

Hot Threads

Recent Insights

Back
Top