Proposed experiment for detection of absolute motion

2010 ◽  
Vol 23 (3) ◽  
pp. 442-450 ◽  
Author(s):  
G. S. Sandhu
Keyword(s):  
Absolute Motion

PLUME-SPOTTING: DERIVING THE ABSOLUTE MOTION OF HOTSPOTS AND PLATES

2017 ◽  
Author(s):  
Paul Wessel ◽  
◽  
Guillaume Bodinier ◽  
Clinton P. Conrad
Keyword(s):  
Absolute Motion ◽  
The Absolute

scholarly journals A Plea for Absolute Motion

Nature ◽  
1906 ◽  
Vol 73 (1899) ◽  
pp. 484-485
Author(s):  
NORMAN R. CAMPBELL
Keyword(s):  
Absolute Motion

Prototype of interferometric absolute motion sensor

2015 ◽  
Vol 224 ◽  
pp. 72-77 ◽  
Author(s):  
C. Collette ◽  
F. Nassif ◽  
J. Amar ◽  
C. Depouhon ◽  
S.-P. Gorza
Keyword(s):  
Motion Sensor ◽  
Absolute Motion

Kant’s Foundations for Newtonian Science

2017 ◽  
Author(s):  
Sheldon R. Smith
Keyword(s):  
Immanuel Kant ◽  
Laws Of Nature ◽  
Physical World ◽  
Absolute Space ◽  
Absolute Motion ◽  
Nature Of Matter

Throughout his career, Immanuel Kant was engaged rather closely with Newtonian science. Although Kant adopts many Newtonian principles, most obviously the Newtonian gravitational law, he is also critical of Newton for, among other things, not having provided “metaphysical foundations” for science. Kant’s own attempt to provide such foundations leads him to have a somewhat different picture of the physical world from Newton. This article describes why Kant thought that metaphysical foundations were required and some of the ways this requirement leads Kant toward non-Newtonian views. In particular, it compares and contrasts their views on the nature of matter, force, the laws of nature, and absolute space and absolute motion.

scholarly journals Newton’s Scholium on Time, Space, Place and Motion

2019 ◽  
Author(s):  
Robert Rynasiewicz
Keyword(s):  
Relative Motion ◽  
Absolute Space ◽  
Absolute Time ◽  
True Motion ◽  
Absolute Motion ◽  
Time Space ◽  
The Absolute ◽  
Absolute Quantity ◽  
Rotating Bucket

In the Scholium to the Definitions at the beginning of the Principia, Newton distinguishes absolute time, space, place, and motion from their relative counterparts. He argues that they are indeed ontologically distinct, in that the absolute quantity cannot be reduced to some particular category of the relative, as Descartes had attempted by defining absolute motion to be relative motion with respect to immediately ambient bodies. Newton’s rotating bucket experiment, rather than attempting to show that absolute motion exists, is one of five arguments from the properties, causes, and effects of motion. These arguments attempt to show that no such program can succeed, and thus that true motion can be adequately analyzed only by invoking immovable places, that is, the parts of absolute space.

scholarly journals Absolute motion parallax and the specific distance tendency

1973 ◽  
Vol 13 (2) ◽  
pp. 284-292 ◽  
Author(s):  
Walter C. Gogel ◽  
Jerome D. Tietz
Keyword(s):  
Motion Parallax ◽  
Absolute Motion ◽  
Specific Distance

Absolute motion of an individual plate estimated from its ridge and trench boundaries

Nature ◽  
1978 ◽  
Vol 274 (5673) ◽  
pp. 752-755 ◽  
Author(s):  
Richard G. Gordon ◽  
Allan Cox ◽  
Clayton E. Harter
Keyword(s):  
Absolute Motion

Lorentz Invariance as a Dynamic Symmetry

1987 ◽  
Vol 42 (12) ◽  
pp. 1428-1442 ◽  
Author(s):  
F. Winterberg
Keyword(s):  
Special Relativity ◽  
Background Radiation ◽  
Clock Synchronization ◽  
Lorentz Invariance ◽  
Superconducting Gravimeter ◽  
Time Dilation ◽  
Dynamic Symmetry ◽  
Lorentz Contraction ◽  
Absolute Motion ◽  
Dynamic Interpretation

If all the forces of nature can be reduced to those which follow from a linear combination of a scalar and vector potential, as in electrodynamics, Lorentz invariance can be derived as a dynamic symmetry. All that has to be done is to assume that there is an all pervading substratum or ether, transmitting those forces through space, and that all physical bodies actually observed are held together by those forces. Under this assumption bodies in absolute motion through the substratum suffer a true contraction equal to the Lorentz contraction, and as a result of this contraction clocks in absolute motion go slower by the same amount. The velocity of light appears then to be equal in all inertial reference systems, if Einstein’s clock synchronization convention by reflected light signals is used and which presupposes this result. The Lorentz contraction and time dilation measured on an object at rest relative to an observer who gained a velocity by an accelerated motion is there explained as an illusion caused by a true Lorentz contraction and time dilation of the observer.Both the special relativistic kinematic interpretation and this alternative dynamic interpretation give identical results only in the adiabatic limit where the accelerations are small, because if the Lorentz contraction is a real physical effect, it must take a finite time. However, to break the peculiar interaction symmetry with the ether, and which in the dynamic interpretation is the cause for the Lorentz invariance, the accelerated motions must involve rotation. Only then can non-adiabatic relativity-violating effects be observed and which would establish a preferred reference system at rest with the ether. Under most circumstances relativity-violating effects resulting from such a dynamic interpretation of special relativity would be very small and difficult to observe, a likely reason why they have evaded their detection in the past. For the rotating earth a residual sideral tide has been observed with a superconducting gravimeter, and which could be explained by an “ether wind” of about 300 km /sec at rest with the cosmic microwave background radiation. However, because of the observational uncertainties in measuring the terrestrial tides no definite conclusion can be drawn. A number of new experiments are therefore needed to decide the question regarding a possible weak violation of special relativity.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document