Naked Science Forum
Non Life Sciences => Physics, Astronomy & Cosmology => Topic started by: chintan on 30/11/2015 13:13:01

Can we put a needle completely stationary in space? And waht can prove that it is actually an absolute stationary? [B)]

Can we put a needle completely stationary in space? And waht can prove that it is actually an absolute stationary? [B)]
No we can not, gravity will take hold of the needle and the needle will move towards the nearest gravitational body. There is no stationary state in our visual Universe. Everything is always moving.

As far as a bug on the needle is concerned, it is stationary. Even if it is accelerating in a gravitational field, free fall = stationary within the frame of reference of the bug.

On the sub atomic scale, nothing is truly stationary, so there's also that to consider. [;)]

When constant gravity is acting on a well balanced and resting object. Then and only then the object is considered to be stationary [???]

When constant gravity is acting on a well balanced and resting object. Then and only then the object is considered to be stationary [???]
Only stationary relative to the ground stating body in an inertial reference frame. v(A)=X v(B)=0 a{B}=g=9.82m/s=N where v is velocity and ''a'' is acceleration and N is newtons of force , (A) =M_{1} (B)=M_{2}

Anything in any situation can be said to be stationary, relative to anything that is sharing it's spacetime conditions and is stationary relative to it.
There is no absolute stationary reference frame in the Universe. Everything is moving relative to everything else. Even spacetime.

stationary with respect to what??

stationary with respect of what?
U yourself.....

The object is in space and I am earthbound, so it cannot be stationary with respect to me. It has to be stationary in its inertial frame of reference ,

So yeah you can say that nothing remains stationary as said in previous messages [^]

As stated via Special Relativity(SR), there is no way in which you can detect whether or not you are at absolute rest in space, you therefore have no detectable absolute reference, and in turn, it also becomes impossible to measure absolute motion. Thus we are left with relativity instead. Physicist say that it is therefore logical for these absolutes to be ignored, since these absolutes can not be detected. This then gives the false impression that the absolutes do not even exist. In turn, for over 100 years, the simpletons of this world have been told to not be interested in the absolute cause behind SR. This idea is being supported so immensely, that it is often defended via violent opposition.
How on Earth can SR be absolutely understood, if these absolutes are to be excluded. Obviously there is an absolute cause behind SR. SR does not just occur as the result of some kind of magic, meaning there is an absolute foundation of which SR resides within, the foundation which makes SR occur.
With the absolutes revealed, SR becomes so easy to understand that even the simpletons themselves can understand it. All of the bizarre phenomena of SR vanishes in a flash.

Can we put a needle completely stationary in space?
Yes.
And waht can prove that it is actually an absolute stationary? [B)]
Observation. If, with respect to a given frame of reference, you observe it to be at rest then, by definition, its at rest.

is it possible that two strong magnets rotates around a centre and the needle is in the centre , the needle would be at absolute stationary ? if both the centripetal forces and magnetic force on the needle are larger than gravity there.

is it possible that two strong magnets rotates around a centre and the needle is in the centre , the needle would be at absolute stationary ?
Yes.
Note: The correct term is revolves, not rotates.

what is absolute stationary ? is it when an object kinetic energy is zero ? and all energy contained is just mc^2 ? or there is some kinetic energy but relative to a reference frame it is at rest ? I meant in my model the kinetic energy is zero.

what is absolute stationary?
Something is stationary when its not moving.
is it when an object kinetic energy is zero ? and all energy contained is just mc^2 ?
If my m you mean proper mass then yes.
or there is some kinetic energy but relative to a reference frame it is at rest ?
Impossible. The term kinetic energy refers to translational kinetic energy. If the object is not moving then its not possible for it to have any kinetic energy.
I meant in my model the kinetic energy is zero.
What do you mean "my model"? Do you know how the term "model" is really used in physics?

Can we put a needle completely stationary in space?
Yes.
how ? gravity is everywhere in space .

how ? gravity is everywhere in space .
I'll tell you what. I'll answer your question when you answer mine. Agreed?

What do you mean "my model"?
" In science, a model is a representation of an idea, an object or even a process or a system that is used to describe and explain phenomena that cannot be experienced directly" now show me how it can be experienced directly.

Only relative to itself