- 13,491
- 16,143
In Newtonian physics, acceleration is frame invariant, so all frames measure the same acceleration ##a##.WeirdUniverse said:However, what could potentially refute the conclusions drawn from my second proof?
The forum discussion centers on the implications of mass and acceleration in the context of the universe, specifically questioning the total mass of the universe. Participants analyze the equation F = ma = (M - m)(-a) and derive that if the mass of the universe (M) equals zero, it contradicts the principle of relativity. The conversation highlights errors in algebraic reasoning and the necessity of considering different reference frames when discussing forces and accelerations. Ultimately, the consensus is that the assumption of equal and opposite accelerations for an object and the universe is fundamentally flawed.
PREREQUISITESPhysicists, students of physics, and anyone interested in the fundamental principles of mass, energy, and the universe's structure will benefit from this discussion.
In Newtonian physics, acceleration is frame invariant, so all frames measure the same acceleration ##a##.WeirdUniverse said:However, what could potentially refute the conclusions drawn from my second proof?
Um, the fact that it's wrong?WeirdUniverse said:what could potentially refute the conclusions drawn from my second proof?
This is not correct. What is correct is that the laws of physics will be the same in all inertial frames. But that does not mean that all physical phenomena will be the same. For example, if you and I are moving relative to each other, we will measure the same light beam to have different energy and frequency--different physical phenomena. But the relationship between the light beam's energy and momentum will be the same for both of us--same laws of physics.WeirdUniverse said:observers moving at constant velocities relative to one another will observe the same physical phenomena
You would know you were moving or not moving relative to something else--such as the light source in my example. "Moving" is relative. You would not know you were moving or not moving in any absolute sense.WeirdUniverse said:If they have different physics phenomena in different inertial frames, doesn't mean that we would know if we are moving or not?
"The universe" is way too vague. The geometry of spacetime and the stress-energy tensor distribution that gives rise to it via the Einstein Field Equation are absolute, yes. But those things have nothing to do with any particular reference frame.WeirdUniverse said:You mean the universe is actually absolute, but it appears relative to us?
Exactly. That is how the principle of relativity works. Different reference frames are related by the Galilean transformation which is simply adding the same velocity to everything.WeirdUniverse said:Yes, it does because both objects were added with the same velocity so the difference in their velocities don't change.
Nor am I. I am talking about an arbitrary force acting between them according to Newton's laws.WeirdUniverse said:But I'm not talking about their collisions,
This is false as I showed above. ##\vec a \ne -\vec A## in general.WeirdUniverse said:If we push a box, either the box gained the acceleration of a or the rest masses gained the acceleration of -a as we have experienced
This is not correct. Energy is frame variant. In every frame, energy is conserved. But different frames will disagree on the total energy.WeirdUniverse said:the total energy must be the same for that two inertial frames