Monday, March 9, 2009

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.

1 comment:

  1. I really like eric's idea of relative motion and frame of refrence. His theory and insight in thinking back to the big bang theory was impressive and i agreee. If scientists ever do find the place in space where the big bang originated then, to me, it makes sense to call that the ultimate frame of refrence.
    With that same idea in mind it is also possible to believe that the center of the earth is the ultimate frame of reference. Due to gravity and the force that it has on objects, it can pull things with a constant force that doesn't change.
    However there is no positive response and no one can be sure. Even if there is an ultimate frame of reference we can still (and we do) use relative frames of reference to measure certain movement in different contexts. It is important to see things from different points of view and to understand different relative motions.

    ReplyDelete

Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.