We have been following Barry Setterfield's research on the speed of light since
Poster with most posts but no title. Sat Jan 27, 7: If you are in sealed container in free fall, the only difference between an inertial frame of reference is a higher order read, typically small tendency for objects in the ensemble to Physics debate towards each other.
This is, in some sense, the curvature of gravitation. Sure, but that depends on the gravity varying over the volume of the box by a detectable amount.
Ie, the direction gravity is pulling an object in free fall towards the earth varies between one side of the box to the other. Make the earth far enough away and massive enough, and the direction gravity is pulling gets more and more parallel, and the gradient in gravitational attraction magnitude shrinks from the far to the near side.
Of course, as you make the source larger, the gravitational force at the event horizon goes down Which makes the experiment hard to do and report back from. That generates a possibly interesting curve -- how closely can an accelerating reference frame at a certain rate in a room of a given size approximate flat space internally before it must be within the event horizon of a black hole?
On a related note, have you ever mixed a container of orange juice or similar by shaking in a rotational manner?
It mixes even if the liquid has consistent density and no air bubbles. Is this reference frame independent? To first order, linear acceleration, jerk, and so on do not mix a homogeneous fluid. The idea behind Mach's principle is that even this portion of a reference frame should be dependent on some aspect of the reference frame created by the stars, which leads to the concept of frame dragging.
The differences apparently exist, but I think with low certainty that they are not trivial to detect. Then again, maybe with the entire universe rotating, frame dragging would be a much stronger effect The question is also interesting in electrodynamics, if a charged particle is accelerating it tends to emit photons.
Subject to a certain amount to quantum mechanics and relativity incompatibility, I think it is likely that "accelerating" means accelerating relative to those particles which will receive the photons.
However, there be great dragons here involving retarded potentials and similar scary stuff. Because well, how does the electron know it is being accelerated so that it can throw off a photon, without a zero point to acceleration.Will physicists ever arrive at a theory of everything that can unite the annual Isaac Asimov Memorial Debate.
The quest for a theory of everything arises modern way of physics, which has. A recharged debate over the speed of the expansion of the universe could lead to new physics. By Joshua Sokol Mar.
8, , AM. It was the early s, and the Carnegie Observatories in. Physics is number one my best things to learn. But, there's something that you may fed up when you learn them. I recently had a debate with my parents.
They said that the earth was flat, I said that it wasn't and it's what it is in modern everyday science. May 24, · Re: Theoretical Physics Debate Post by The Geoff» Fri May 18, am UTC The Ptolemaic v Copernican debate is pretty well resolved by now, but as a historical debate it's very interesting, pretty easy to understand the arguments, and demonstrates the use of observation and Occam's Razor very nicely.
Physics (from Ancient Greek: φυσική (ἐπιστήμη), translit. physikḗ (epistḗmē), lit. 'knowledge of nature', from φύσις phýsis "nature") is the natural science that studies matter and its motion and behavior through space and time and that studies the related entities of energy and force.
Physics is one of the most fundamental scientific disciplines, and its main goal is.