The discussion revolves around the concept of the universe's center of mass and whether it can be considered to be at rest. Participants explore ideas related to reference frames, the notion of a universal direction, and the implications of these concepts in the context of physics.
Participants express disagreement on the existence of a universal direction and the concept of absolute frames of reference. The discussion remains unresolved, with multiple competing views presented.
Participants reference the complexities of reference frames and the implications of motion in a universe without absolute rest, highlighting the limitations of their propositions and the speculative nature of some ideas.
Welcome to the PF.channeled intuition said:
At any given time, zero velocity for an object is attained by using its rest frame.channeled intuition said:
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...channeled intuition said:
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).channeled intuition said:
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.channeled intuition said:
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.berkeman said:
