II

I believe that no ultimate frame of refrence exsists. Frame of refrence is all relative to where you are. Forinstints in Newtons bucket experiment, someone inside the bucket versus outside of the bucket will experience two very diffrent events with the one sequence of events. To one the water may seem to be in motion, to the other perhaps the bucket, again stating that frame of refrence is all relative to the viewers position.

Eric - Response

In responding to the ideas put forth by my classmates, I do not refute or deem incorrect any concept that has been proposed here. First off, I would like to provide what I believe is a rather complete definition of "ultimate:"

ultimate: furthest or highest in degree or order - wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/webwn

Now I do not think this necessarily the best or only definition of ultimate, but it does seem to be the most pertinent to this discussion. I would like to clearly state that in my opinion, our search for the ultimate frame of reference is not for the "best" one, but the most absolute. I chose the center of our expanding universe as the ultimate frame of reference because I do not know of any frame of reference of a higher order.

Though this frame of reference may not be practically obtainable, it does provide a relatively unbiased frame of reference for all other motion in the universe. As stated by several other individuals such as Brad, there are many more practical frames of reference and every situation warrants a unique viewpoint, but as far as an ultimate frame of reference, I do stand by my claim that there is one, and that it is the center of the universe.

Moving off on a slight tangent and apologizing for being a little repetitive in my last paragraph, I would like to address the concept of all motion being relative, which was discussed by many people between now and my last post. In respect to frames of reference, I propose this idea concerning the speed of light: theoretically, nothing can go faster than the speed of light. A recent discussion regarding the speed of gravity waves ties into this because we don't have any way to detect them. First of all, gravity is exerted by all matter in the universe, so the only way to tell what the speed of gravity is (and if it is faster than the speed of light), mass would have to be accelerated past the speed of light. However, two problems present themselves. Firstly, as far as we know, this cannot be accomplished, so there is no way to perform this experiment, rendering it to be a bit of a dead end. Secondly, if we could move matter faster than the speed of light, how would we be able to tell if it really was? What I mean is, yes, an object may be moving five times the speed of light, but how can we tell that it really is if we can only observe it moving at the speed of light? On top of this, we have no way to detect gravity waves, such as those that would be exerted in this experiment. Therefore, there would appear to be no way to test the speed of gravity with our current level of knowledge.

Branching off of this idea, I want to discuss one more thing. We say that the speed of light is the fastest that anything can travel, but if motion is relative, how can this be the case? If you have two photons of light traveling in opposite directions, would that not make them each moving at twice the speed of light in respect to each other? And if we were to add a third photon traveling in the same direction as one of the others, but the speed of light faster than it, would this photon not be now moving at three times the speed of light relative to the one moving in the other direction? I am aware that experiments have been conducted regarding the relationship between mass and speed, and that as a particle is accelerated near the speed of light, its mass begins to increase, but this still leaves my previous questions unanswered. What if two planets were moving away from each other at 3/4 the speed of light - this would make them appear to be moving 1.5 times the speed of light with respect to each other. And as an extension of this, if all motion of matter in the universe is relative to the center of the universe, how does this tie in to relative motion and the speed of light? I have no definitive answers to these questions, but I think they are interesting prospects to consider while discussing these subjects.

I have found it interesting to read the various viewpoints put forth by everyone else, and I believe that all of them have merit. I think that mankind has barely taken its first steps into the ocean of science, and that there is so much out there that we do not know. Therefore, we can really only speculate on what we have observed thus far. I look forward to seeing what new scientific discoveries are made in the future as where it takes us.

Response- Caiti

I like Eric's suggestion that the ultimate frame of reference is from the center of our expanding universe. I hadn't even thought about that. I suppose Einstein's theories of relativity regarding motion are based on motion in empty space, but if our universe has a center then we are not in empty space, are we? This would suggest that there is absolute motion, at least in our universe, as believed by Newton.

If we measure all motion from the universe's center (which is stationary) using the speed of light(which is the same for all observers) for distance and time, we can determine absolute motion. Afterall, the entire purpose of finding an ulitmate frame of reference is so we can know absolute motion, right?

Of course if we do not wish to know absolute motion, if we instead need to compute motion relative to the Earth, then we can use different frames of reference as tools, as suggested by Caroline. These view points are not ultimate, nor is the calculated motion absolute, but relative frames of reference can be more practical than using the center of the universe, especially for situations on Earth.

So, conclusively, there are two types of motion. Absolute motion (Newton) and relative motion (Einstein). Absolute motion must be determined from the center of the universe because that is the only stationary point in the universe. (I don't think the possibility of something beyond our universe has any importance since space and time only apply specifically to the universe we are in.) The second type of motion, relative motion, can be determined from any non-stationary point of view.

Alexis- response

I disagree with Brad- when people say "ultimate" frame of reference, they don't mean best frame of reference, they mean ultimate. However they are talking about something that cannot be defined, ultimate is like a limit- something that would potentially be the best frame, but also something we cannot know. In science, things are never considered facts (or theories, I can't remember the order of importance) until many scientists have reached the same conclusions, but it is still understood that no matter how many humans agree, there is still the possibility that it could be wrong. This is because we can never test our theories in every possible situation. This is where I agree with Brad- I think (like everyone) that we should use the best frame of reference for our particular problem, and keep the word "ultimate" as a theoretical term only.

Hillary-Response

While I do agree with many points people have brought forward...Especially everyone who pointed out (or referenced toward) choosing the best frame of reference for each individual situation. To Eric and Ben... while I do not dispute your center of the universe, I wonder if it is a practical view point to take. I do, however, respectfully request the denial of Ben's right to negative comments in this activity, especially as they relate to religion. I agree with Brad on the term 'silly' and still maintain this stance in relation to 'irrational.' I may be both, but that isn't a good excuse. Back to physics...

I really appreciated Trevor's point about an ultimate frame of reference needing to be stationary. The center of the universe as discussed by both Eric and Ben would seem to fit the requirement, as the universe is expanding from said point. However, this perceived movement is from our frame of reference. For my last comment today, I really enjoyed Jen's comments on an ultimate frame of reference being all-inclusive of other frames.

I'm sure I contradicted myself, as I agreed with people advocating for both (or several) sides of this debate.

Response-Kenny

After reading through some of the responses i think i agree with much of the class. There is no way to get all of the information needed to observe an event from one perspective. I agree with Dylan now after reading that you can't see everything from a single stationary point. I also like how Caroline said that it is only a tool that we use to evaluate what we perceive. We will just have to rely on using multiple frames of reference to get a full understanding.

There is an ultimate frame of reference. Ultimate does not refer to "best," it means "final" or "greatest." The conclusion Eric and I arrived at is not only a correct answer, it is the only correct answer, with no room for debate, theological or scientific. Space and time was created in the big bang, the universe is constantly expanding, by extrapolating backwards, we can fix its germination to a fixed point. This is the ultimate frame of reference for Life, the Universe, and Everything. The universe is. It isn't like some great empty void lies out beyond it, there is no space, there is no time outside our universe. If you imagine an ant traveling along the surface of a constantly expanding basketball, even if the ant could beat the rate of expansion and reach the "end" of the ball, he would simply arrive back at his starting location. There is one single point against which all motion and position can be measured. No other frame of reference can claim this. To my knowledge and from my studies of monotheistic religions, there is no ultimate frame of reference. God is defined as omniscient and or omnipresent and omnipotent, and therefore because He (or She) would perceive objects from all frame of references, it has neither the ultimate, nor even a single frame of reference. Buddhism holds as a tenant that all life is an illusion, hypothetically, therefore if you want to make the logical silliness that there exists something entirely beyond the realm of observation, it could be an ultimate frame. But, because it is out of the realm of observation, it by definition cannot be a frame of reference. Lastly, Brad, the definition of "silly" from the most recent Random House dictionary is, "irrational." Because my argument was founded on logic and reason, all viewpoints varying from it not utilizing superior logic, and the people I was referencing most certainly were not, are definitively silly. But, I would like to use a synonym because it appears more relevant in this case: Ignoramus.

Q.E.D.

As almost everyone here have said, I believe that there is no ultimate frame of reference. I agree with what Dylan said that there is an ultimate frame of reference in all situations, but it's not always the same. Or as Christine said: "The best frame of reference is the one that works best for that event."

Response-Caroline

My first post demonstrated my opinion on frames of reference. I agree with Dylan's opinion on the center of the universe being the ultimate reference point. It could be the ultimate reference point, but what if something else, something larger is out there? In my opinion, reference is a point that can be viewed from any direction, by any person. I like what Brad had to say about reference being a viewpoint to help with scientific work and discovery. Reference is relative to each individual situation. It helps to provide the easiest way of looking at a problem or situation and finding a solution to solve the issue. Therefore, there is no ultimate reference point, it is a tool that to help humans find the quickest and most logical solution.

Response - Brad

I am sure I can speak for all of us when I say we do not believe the earth to be the "ultimate" frame of reference. As Maya masterfully demonstrated, this cannot be the case. However, I do believe there is a bit of confusion over just what an "ultimate" frame of reference would be.

In my personal opinion, "ultimate" in this context is much more akin to "largest" than "best," simply because of what a frame of reference is. A frame of reference, as we have determined, is like a viewport, adding perspective to our scientific work. As there are a huge range of problems and experiments that science can solve, each requires a specialized frame of reference to be it most accurate. This means that there is no "best" frame of reference for all problems; the best frame of reference is the one that offers the best view of the solution. This does not preclude, though, the notion of the "largest" frame of reference. In that sense, we have little to no idea of just what that frame looks like, as we are ourselves always inside it. For this reason the subject of the "ultimate" frame of reference is completely open to ideas scientific and religious - we simply don't know (for a fact) and may never know.

Mr. Freundlich asked that our comments on the work of others remain positive, so I offer some contructive criticism to Mr. Benjamin Snow. Be careful not to call people "silly" and denounce their ideas just because they don't agree with yours. Naturaly, we all have our own opinion and may come off as "silly" to those who disagree. Let us not be so overzealous in defense of science that we lose sight of its purpose - to find the truth and order of the universe. The truth can only be found when people are free to choose for themselves what they believe.

Response

    I do not agree with the idea that the earth is the ultimate frame of reference. It is convenient, but it is relative--thus occasionally inaccurate. This means it cannot be absolute, if it is not always correct. For example, if Eric is standing in the physics classroom, and is not moving from the earth's "ultimate" frame of reference, this velocity of zero is true for all perspectives identical to the earth's (such as all standing earth-bound humans). However, he must have some velocity other than zero because he is on earth, which is moving through space. His velocity then is equal to that of the earth's from this perspective. Although it is a small speed relative to those things moving on earth, it is still revolving around the sun. This inequality means that the earth's perspective cannot be absolute. 

    What if we say the perspective from an object unmoving in the area between our planets is absolute. Something sitting in our galaxy--could space's frame of reference be absolute? Not if there are other galaxies. Like a proof, the term absoluteness implies all aspects are included. 

Dylan

I do not believe there is an ultimate frame of reference. All frames of reference are equally valid, but there will always be a simplest frame of reference for any physics problem. Eric mentioned an ultimate frame of reference based on the center of the expanding universe. this would be a (theoretically) completely stationary point. This does not make it the ultimate frame of reference, Why would this centered, stationary frame of reference be anymore valid in an experiment taking place on earth than any other much simpler frame of reference?

I do not believe that there is an obtainable ultimate frame of reference. If one could have a perfectly stationary view that would be very close, but how to tell if it is actually stationary is the issue. This also aplies to hypothetical views from outside the universe.

However, if there is no other matter in the hypothetical universe in which this bucket exists to reference the movement of the bucket against, how can it be observed? Just a thought. Anyways, I think that the water would move to the outsides of the bucket whether there was anything else to reference the movement against or not.

I agree with the opinion that there is no ultimate frame of reference. It is logical to think that there is no way to view an event in one way, and yet see all that is going on. It could be possible to take the stance that the universe, holding all matter, is the ultimate frame of reference. The universe is all inclusive and contains all possible perspectives. I wonder if this could be the ultimate frame of reference and we don't have the capability or knowledge right now to interpret it. Will we ever be able to interpret it? I really liked the idea Mach put forward with the rock experiment. If one were to do this in a universe with no matter other than that of the rocks and string, would it spin? Mach said it would not and would be meaningless because it isn't moving relative to anything. It is impossible to view all the forces affecting a single event unless we can see it relative to other matter. Unless we can figure out how to comprehend the entire universe, and i don't think we can, there is no way we can find an ultimate frame of reference.
*For Mr. F This is my first post and i talked to you about why it is late.

Christine

I believe that there is no ultimate frame of reference. All motion is relative to the objects surrounding the event. The differing perspectives are all correct in certain aspects, but the action will be viewed quite differently. When the bucket is viewed from earth the water is in motion when the bucket spins the opposite direction. The best frame of reference is the one that works best for that event.

Newton’s Bucket demonstrates relative motion the sense that there are a number of different frames of reference possible to measure the spin of the bucket and water in relation to. Whether the water moves in relation to objects around it, the earth, celestial bodies, or the entirety of the universe, one can judge whether or not it is rotating.

I personally can’t help but be torn on the debate of an ultimate frame of reference. I believe that yes motion is measurable with relative perspectives. The relative frame of reference is determined by the purpose and intention of the given motion. Contrary I can see the logic behind an ultimate frame of reference. I agree with Eric that with our current scientific knowledge of the universe there is sufficient evidence that it has an origin and began at a certain point in which gave us the reference of time. I think that the universe, that includes all of the mass available to us, can be considered as the “ultimate” frame of reference. In a sense every possible frame of reference lies within this “ultimate” frame, it is all-inclusive. Against the argument that the universe itself could be rotating in relation to something greater I believe that the only thing we can be “absolute” about is what we know is true and proven. Another, larger, frame of reference may be discovered someday in which this all-inclusive frame of reference can be reevaluated. But until then we should let these theories alter what we know.

Benjamin Snow

An interesting thought experiment. Where you to suspend the rocks connected by a rope in an empty universe as stipulated, the rope would eventually snap, (if not from decay, as it is a zero-air environment, but the inner cell walls of the plant matter composing the rope could conceivably contain anaerobic extremophiles who could eventually decompose and hence destroy the rope, snapping it. Alternatively, the rope could be untwined or destroyed by a random quantum event, or slight friction in the connection to the rock) we could measure whether the system was rotating by observing if the rocks appear to move away from each other. An non-rotating system would have all object retain their apparent positions regardless of the rope's connection, whereas by the law of inertia, if they were rotating, I am under the impression the rocks would drift apart. Unless the conditions of Newton's experiment involve a constant force to accelerate the rocks rotationally, in which case we could measure the force via the force it exerts on whatever it is exerting it (via Newton's third).
But, and more importantly, assuming you are unable to game the system and determine experimentally if the system is rotating. . . actually, with the whole bucket thing, because of the adhesive and cohesive properties of water, wouldn't you be able to measure the rotation because even if the water didn't form a conical shape, the act of the friction rotating it would disturb the meniscus and surface tension, even if ever-so-slightly. . . but anyways, gaming aside. Ultimate frames of reference. Yeah. I would estimate that over 3 billion people on this planet would argue there is an ultimate frame of reference, that of their god(s), and hence because both history and ideas are subjective (if an individual and I both possess the same flaw in our perception of reality, we would never be able to tell), they could will the bucket taut. Or will it not taut. Vote anyone? Excluding the majority of this planet who choose to be silly, however, because space and time are equivalent and under the current model both were created in a single event (aka el bango grande), which at one point must have originated from a single point, which is observable based on the minute residual drift away from it, this is the ultimate frame of reference. Even in an empty universe, there is a universe, and an event must have created it. We can measure time, and thus space, in the molecular RNA spin of the rope cord, and in the decay of it, and space by the minute particles ejected from said rope. Therefore we can measure the center of the universe, and hence the ultimate frame of reference, at least for this reference. Beyond our own universe, or the hypothetical universe of this thought experiment, we can never observe or hence apply logic. I leave questions to an even more ultimate frame of reference to the aforementioned over 3 billion silly people.

-Ben Snow

ADAM

I would like to believe that an ultimate frame of reference exists, and that it is obtainable. However supportive this reference point would be, i do not recommend that we strive to attain it at this time. Instead, we should choose our references carefully, and specifically, to put us in a preeminent position in order to acquire and comprehend our intricate physical erudition.

Caroline

I personally don't think there is an ultimate frame of reference. There are so many possibilities of looking at the experiment in different frames of reference. A bacteria floating in the water could consider that the bucket was moving, while the person doing the experiment would claim that once the bucket stops spinning, it is the water that is in motion. I think that relative motion is apparent in all frames of reference. Whatever frame of reference that is chosen will determine what object's motion is relative to the other.

Newton’s Bucket demonstrates that there is no way of ultimately measuring how an object is moving and at what speed and direction. If one looks at the way the object is moving from different perspectives then it appears to be different. Also when there are frames of reference it makes it even more difficult to tell the direction or speed of the object. One can’t be sure that one object is moving over another when it is just the two of them in a space. And if there is nothing else in space but one object there is no way of telling if it is moving or staying still, because there is nothing to base its movement (or lack of) on. Therefore, there can’t be an ultimate frame of reference, because everything depends on everything else to decipher if it is moving or not. Some people say that the universe is the ultimate frame of reference but, that could be moving too, so there is no way to tell. In my point of view, people can measure speed, direction, acceleration, velocity, etc. with equations but they are only correct if the frame of reference is stated, because without that no one can tell if the answer is based of a moving or still object, or even close or far object. Even if the frame of reference is the universe, there is no way of telling that it is correct, because the earth is rotating, the answer found be close but not exact, but then again nothing is exact so its all good!

Brad

Perspective is such an interesting thing, as one cannot define or use it objectively. Everything we do is affected by our perspective, how we view things in our world. In physics, its your frame of reference; in philosophy, it is called one's worldview. Everyone has one, whether they know it or not. It's just a matter of how.

For example, let's say that there are two people observing a airplane. One is watching from his front porch, contemplating the slow movement of the jet. The other is in a hot air balloon, watching the jet scream by for a landing at an airport. Both see the same jet, and both say it is moving. Both are stationary, and both comment on the speed. The one that is furthest away, however, does not see the plane as a fast moving object. If he didn't know better, he'd tell you that all airplanes are slow gliders. The other, though, is in the thick of things and sees a completely different sight. That plane is moving past him rapidly, at speeds unheard of for a hot air balloon. Even though they both are observing the same phenomenon at the same time with the same light, because of their predetermined positions they come to different conclusions. This is their frame of reference, their worldview.

This idea, that one’s starting convictions effect their observations, is not new. Sir Isaac Newton, asked about his accomplishments, once said “If I have seen further it is only by standing on the shoulders of Giants.” It is because of the things he already knew from others that Newton was able to make his laws. The danger, as always, is if you are wrong.

In science, we like to ignore worldview, as it implies an interpretation of data based on unscientific means. Uncomfortable and unwanted, seeing something through the framework of  a worldview implies that a conclusion is biased, which is terribly unscientific.  There is, however, one slight problem with this approach - everyone is biased. By ignoring one's bias, we are allowing biases to go unnoticed and unchallenged. This also is terribly unscientific, as data from different sources must be reconciled if any definitive solution is to be reached.

So, what to do then? In order to communicate effectively, we must define some standard between us, linking all out worldviews into one. Yet there is no way to achieve such a standard short of something outside our universe, maybe even transcendent of time and space. The only thing I can think of that would fit such criterion would be God. Such a notion, however, is heavily resisted in the modern scientific arena, and it is nigh impossible to even comprehend just what God’s perspective would be in scientific matters. In the end, all we can do is agree that we don’t see things the same and find ways to work around our own viewpoints. The final triangulation of ideas will help us understand more about ourselves, as well as about the world at large.

Line

I think there is no "ultimate" frame of reference. It all depends on the problem and and the situation. In most situations we will use the earth as the frame of reference, but it might not always be the ultimate way to look at it.
All motions are relative to something and in this case the spinning can be looked at from the bucket's or the earth's frame of reference.

Hillary

Relative motion-It is something we observe every day but never really think about. When you were younger -- before you had your own car and had to ride the bus to school -- did you ever look out the window and 'watch the trees go by?' It seemed natural from your frame of reference to think of the trees, the houses, the ground as 'going by.' When you think about it, you know that they are stationary, and it is in fact you in motion (although you remain relatively stationary to the bus).

Newton's Bucket is a simple way to force our minds to really contemplate what motion means with a more complicated example. From our view point, the bucket is spinning, then the water and the bucket, then only the water. But what about the water's point of view? The bucket's point of view? How would traveling up a 'beanstalk' into geostationary orbit change your point of view? Or driving by in a car? As Newton's bucket experiment failed to observe the water and bucket from an accelerated frame of reference outside of the bucket.

As for an ultimate frame of reference… For people who believe in an omnipotent God, the answer is simple and absolute. If this is accepted as truth, there is still a problem. What is God's frame of reference? How does he view our motion? This is impossible to answer from our Earthly point of view. So I propose to look for a frame not contingent on religion or ethereal planes.

Since the universe, as far as scientists can tell, is currently undergoing some sort of expansion, it could be that the ultimate frame of reference would need to be outside our universe, if there is such a thing. The ultimate frame of reference would need to be such that everything can be considered in relation to itself, and possibly account for any forces due to other dimensions not experienced by human senses. There is still the problem, however, of a human being able to understand how this frame of reference would view any event that we observe.

Therefore, I believe it would be simpler and accurate, for most events, to assume that all motion is relative and choose the best frame of reference for each individual event. At least until such a time that an ultimate frame of reference is identified, and it is discovered how to observe events from this frame of reference -- a task, that for all options previously identified seems quite difficult (at least for me).

Eric

Without scrupulous examination of all of the effects being imposed on the water and the bucket by the environment, I put forth these views based on my own hypothetical analyses in the context of the reading.

As far as relative motion is concerned, the concave deformation of the water in the bucket must indeed be due to its movement in relation to the surrounding environment. We may consider that the water is being shaped by centrifugal forces, but what exactly is imposing these forces on the water in the bucket in the first place? One possibility to consider might be the motion of the water and the bucket in relation to their previously relative states of rest. This, however, leaves several particular details unaccounted for. One example would be the fact that water can re-obtain a relative state of rest after being relocated or put into a different state of motion that before. This observation favors the idea that this is not a valid argument, and therefore I would assert a differing theory.

If the motion and shape of the water is being changed as the state of motion of the bucket is altered, then once the bucket has reached a new, continuous state of motion, the water should then adapt and return to a renewed state of relative rest. However, this is not the case. One of the most significant influencing forces on this occurrence is the gravity of the Earth: without this, the water would not act as it does. Therefore, the state of motion of the Earth is likely the cause of this effect, and in an extended sense, so is the motion of the rest of the universe. Yet, in our immediate frame of reference, the most substantial influencing factor is the gravity exerted on the bucket and the water by the Earth, so we will stick with this idea for the time being.

Now, the matter of absolute space and the ultimate frame of reference bring up new ideas to consider. First off, I do believe there is an ultimate frame of reference. Although this theory has not been 100% solidified, the Big Bang Theory is currently widely accepted as the progenitor that brought our universe into existence (religion aside). So, as the Big Bang suggests, all matter in the universe exploded into existence from an infinitely small and infinitely massive point in all directions. Some scientists have even calculated the rough location of this originating point in space. However, this cannot be concretely proven because we can neither travel to this point, nor can we actually observe all matter in the universe (because much light from distant celestial bodies dissipates before it can reach our planet). Nonetheless, patterns have been discovered that the universe is indeed expanding from what would seem to be a central point. It is this point that I believe is the ultimate frame of reference. Although for all practical purposes this is not very convenient, it does provide a "ground zero" for the Big Bang, and in effect, also for all motion in the universe. This leads me to my next point: don't, smoke, crack. . . and also the idea of absolute space as a representation of a universal coordinate system.

Absolute space. . . this phrase was first coined by Newton, and I believe that, although it may not be the driving force behind the behavior of all motion in the universe, it does provide an interesting idea of what I like to think of as a "universal coordinate system." The rotation of the two rocks in space (as described in Newton's thought experiment) was said to not have the ability to be measured with respect to anything that could explain it. However, if the origin of the Big Bang is taken as an ultimate frame of reference, then a coordinate system could be setup in 3-dimensional space throughout the universe measuring everything with respect to this single location. Similar to the Cartesian coordinate system we have set-up here on Earth to determine the positions of objects in relation to our planet, this coordinate system would be able to measure positions and motion of everything in the universe in relation to an ultimate frame of reference, making it theoretically applicable to everything in existence.

Although much of this is speculation and has little practical merit, it does provide an interesting perspective on how one could go about, essentially, "measuring the universe." With these ideas developed further and proper calculations made regarding their legitimacy, I believe it could be determined whether or not this system has any possible real-world applications.

I believe that all motion is relative and that the frame of reference changes depending on whose perspective one chooses to use. In the reading, "Newton's Bucket" the Scientists monitoring the motion of water spinning within a bucket, disagreed on the existence of relative motion or whether there is absolute space. I agree with aspects of Einstein's theory of relativity but I understand that depending on location the perspective can be very different. For instance, the perspective of someone on earth, affected by gravity is very different than someone on the moon following the same objects.

I believe it does demmonstrate relative motion because all motion is relative to something. I think in this particular experiment motion is most relative to the earth. It is acting upon cintrificul forces and also being acted upon by inertia. I don't think there is an ultimate frame of reference because it can be looked at from varios perspectives such as the earth's frame of reference or the bucket's.

How-To

If anyone is wondering how to post their answer, just click on "New Post" in the top right-hand corner of your screen, next to the email address.        :)

Maya . . .

In response to the second and third questions:

     All motion is relative, partly because we know of no ultimate frame of reference--most are theoretical. For instance, if God exists, then his point of view is ultimate. Some believe, however, that he is not bounded by time, which makes it complicated--thus too hypothetical for convenience. For science and most of its measurements, all motion should be considered relative. Additionally, how can there be an absolute space-time when we don't know of one that exists? A person can say the same about God--it's all a matter of personal opinion, not (necessarily, according to your belief) proven fact. Anyway, if we know of no absolute space-time--or cannot possibly reach it or experience it--should we still ponder its hypothetical properties?

Alexis

I agree with Caiti. I don't think there is an "ultimate" frame of reference. I think different points of view are necessary in different situations. For the most part, I think the Earth is the best frame of reference for most of the measurements we make here on this planet. Newton's Bucket shows this, because after you stop spinning (and even when the bucket itself is spinning) we say it's spinning in comparison to Earth, not the bucket. In the moment both bucket and water are spinning, it doesn't seem like the water is moving relative to the bucket.

Caiti

The question of Newton's bucket experiment, is from which frame of reference does the water in the bucket spin? Newton believed the water spinned in relation to what he called, "absolute space." Leibniz thought the water spun only in realtion to the objects around it. Berkeley said it spins in relation to the fixed stars. Mach wrote that the water's rotation was relative to the mass of the earth and to other celestial bodies. Finally, Einstein agreed with Mach and called the theory that motion is relative to all matter in the universe "general relativity." I agree with Einstein's theory of relativity and hold the view that there is no ultimate frame of reference.

Newton's Bucket and Frames of Reference

How does Newton's Bucket demonstrate relative motion and ultimate frames of reference? Is there an ultimate frame of reference or is all motion relative? What is your point of view on this important topic? Please respond to these questions and to each other's responses.