Is Motion Absolute or Relative in Different Frames of Reference?

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the nature of motion and its relativity in different frames of reference. Participants explore theoretical scenarios involving objects in space, the implications of propulsion systems, and the effects of acceleration on perceived motion. The conversation touches on concepts from classical mechanics and special relativity, including the implications of inertial and non-inertial frames.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Debate/contested
  • Conceptual clarification
  • Mathematical reasoning

Main Points Raised

  • One participant questions whether an object in space, with no other objects to compare to, can be considered to be moving, and where its kinetic energy would go if it is not moving.
  • Another participant argues that an object with a propulsion system has velocity relative to the expelled matter, suggesting that motion can still be defined in such a scenario.
  • There is a repeated inquiry about two objects moving in parallel at the same speed, questioning how their motion can be defined without a reference point.
  • Concerns are raised about the Earth’s motion relative to the Sun, with one participant noting that the symmetry of inertial frames does not apply to rotating frames, which can be detected through acceleration.
  • A participant introduces a scenario involving three objects and a bungee rope, questioning how time dilation would be perceived among them, suggesting that there might be an absolute rest frame at the center of the bungee rope.
  • Another participant responds to the bungee scenario, noting that the two moving individuals are not in inertial frames due to their acceleration, referencing the twin paradox as a related concept.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express differing views on the nature of motion and reference frames, with no consensus reached on whether motion can be absolute or is strictly relative. The discussion remains unresolved with multiple competing perspectives presented.

Contextual Notes

Participants highlight limitations in defining motion without reference points, the effects of acceleration on perceived time, and the implications of non-inertial frames. These factors contribute to the complexity of the discussion without providing definitive answers.

JKaufinger
Messages
12
Reaction score
0
I keep hearing how motion only exists relative to something else. But what if there is some object in space, and it is the only object in the universe. It has some kind of propulsion system, and it activates it, goes to a certain speed, then stops accelerating. Is that object really moving, or since there is nothing to compare it to, then is it technically not moving? If it is not moving, where did its kinetic energy go?

Another situation: What if you had only two objects in the universe. They are moving at the same speed in the exact same direction so are parallel to each other. Are they moving at all either?

And now here raises another point. We all know that the Earth is revolving around the sun, not the other way around. How can we know that as a fact since due to inertial frames, the sun and all the stars may just as well be rotating around the Earth instead?

Thanks.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
If the the object has a rocket engine, then it will have velocity relative to the expellant. In fact any propulsion system known to us involves matter other than the object.

Another situation: What if you had only two objects in the universe. They are moving at the same speed in the exact same direction so are parallel to each other. Are they moving at all either?
There's no way to define either objects velocity except wrt to the other object.

And now here raises another point. We all know that the Earth is revolving around the sun, not the other way around. How can we know that as a fact since due to inertial frames, the sun and all the stars may just as well be rotating around the Earth instead?
rotating frames are not inertial, so the symmetry does not apply. Rotation always produces an acceleration that can be detected in the rotating frame.
 
This is not an answer, but another question regarding frames of ref, so I thought I'd tack it on to the same thread.

If there are three objects in space, myself a friend and a bungee rope between our legs.
We start counting and kick off from each other at say C/3. When he returns to me I may expect his count to be lower than mine as from my frame has has made a round trip at high speed and returned to me, yet, he would expect the same from me?

Both cannot be true, and I expect neither case is true, and that we will return on the same count, and, If there was a third person at the center of the bungee rope who also started counting, that his count would be higher than ours.

If we could telepathically hear each other counting, I would hear the count of my kickoff friend stay the same as mine, even though we are moving apart at 2C/3, and I would hear the count of the central observer speed up, even though we are moving apart at C/3.

This does not seem very relative to me, it imply's that there IS an absolute rest which does matter (the center of the bungee).

Comments please?
 
mickjc75 said:
This is not an answer, but another question regarding frames of ref, so I thought I'd tack it on to the same thread.

If there are three objects in space, myself a friend and a bungee rope between our legs.
We start counting and kick off from each other at say C/3. When he returns to me I may expect his count to be lower than mine as from my frame has has made a round trip at high speed and returned to me, yet, he would expect the same from me?

Both cannot be true, and I expect neither case is true, and that we will return on the same count, and, If there was a third person at the center of the bungee rope who also started counting, that his count would be higher than ours.

If we could telepathically hear each other counting, I would hear the count of my kickoff friend stay the same as mine, even though we are moving apart at 2C/3, and I would hear the count of the central observer speed up, even though we are moving apart at C/3.

This does not seem very relative to me, it imply's that there IS an absolute rest which does matter (the center of the bungee).

Comments please?
It's only in inertial frames that moving clocks always run slow. In the bungee case the two of you don't move inertially (although perhaps the guy at the center does), you accelerate to turn around and begin returning to one another (inertial motion means constant speed and direction). See the twin paradox which is fairly similar to your example.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 87 ·
3
Replies
87
Views
6K
  • · Replies 53 ·
2
Replies
53
Views
2K
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
2K
  • · Replies 26 ·
Replies
26
Views
2K
  • · Replies 57 ·
2
Replies
57
Views
4K
  • · Replies 33 ·
2
Replies
33
Views
3K
  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
3K
  • · Replies 28 ·
Replies
28
Views
3K
  • · Replies 42 ·
2
Replies
42
Views
4K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
1K