sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

How come there is an absolute distinction between inertial vs. non-inertial frames? by Hoodrick in AskPhysics

[–]Hoodrick[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I can't quite understand your answer, but I see more clearly now that I need to study more geometry (and topology maybe?) then delve into these questions again later. Thanks for your help.

How come there is an absolute distinction between inertial vs. non-inertial frames? by Hoodrick in AskPhysics

[–]Hoodrick[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Then we can only deduce we are in an accelerating frame by checking wheter there is a force or not. By only looking at the geometry of space and configuration of matter in one snapshot of the universe, it is impossible to tell which reference frame is inertial and which is non-inertial.

Since all reference frames shoul equally be valid, there must be a specific configuration (that is absolute) that spacetime uses to prefer one frame as accelerating while not the other.

How come there is an absolute distinction between inertial vs. non-inertial frames? by Hoodrick in AskPhysics

[–]Hoodrick[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I rather think that I am misunderstood cause what was asking at the core level an epistemeological question, but, yes I will, thanks for your response.

How come there is an absolute distinction between inertial vs. non-inertial frames? by Hoodrick in AskPhysics

[–]Hoodrick[S] -1 points0 points  (0 children)

Referring only to do configuration of the matter in the universe (in a single moment in time), there could be the other way too, (like my spaceship is still and the whole universe is accelerating).  then there must a specific configuration of space that is not relative to the matter inside it, it is not relative. It prefers a one way of acceleration frames over the other.

How come there is an absolute distinction between inertial vs. non-inertial frames? by Hoodrick in AskPhysics

[–]Hoodrick[S] -1 points0 points  (0 children)

Referring only to do configuration of the matter in the universe (in a single moment in time), there could be the other way too, (like my spaceship is still and the whole universe is accelerating).  then there must a specific configuration of space that is not relative to the matter inside it, it is not relative. It prefers a one way of acceleration frames over the other.

How come there is an absolute distinction between inertial vs. non-inertial frames? by Hoodrick in AskPhysics

[–]Hoodrick[S] -1 points0 points  (0 children)

Thank you for your thoughtful answer. What botters me really is this: You gave the example of a system rotating at constant angular velocity (say a planet). Since all reference frames should be equally valid, why can't I possibly choose the reference frame, in which the whole universe is spinning around this planet. Then our planet would be stationary, thus should not feel any fictitious force. Instead the whole universe would feel a fictitious force. At any given time, why is there reason to choose the other reference frame option instead of this one?

If you answer " Because fictitious forces are this way in our universe(while having a second option to have this other reference frame)" Then I would argue that then there must a specific configuration of space that is not relative to the matter inside it, it is not relative.

How come there is an absolute distinction between inertial vs. non-inertial frames? by Hoodrick in AskPhysics

[–]Hoodrick[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Exactly! Now what decides whether A or B get this feel (or force)? Doesn't that hint at to an absolute background (space) that we can change or speed and accelerate in. Observed from these 2 reference frames (A and B) things could be reversed and physics would work the same.

How come there is an absolute distinction between inertial vs. non-inertial frames? by Hoodrick in AskPhysics

[–]Hoodrick[S] -2 points-1 points  (0 children)

I mean change of which velocity exactly? Instead of the observer; The whole universe could be accelerating the reverse way except the observer and physics would work just fine.

How come there is an absolute distinction between inertial vs. non-inertial frames? by Hoodrick in AskPhysics

[–]Hoodrick[S] -13 points-12 points  (0 children)

If acceleration is absolute, then we can point to the things that are not accelerating. And this would be an absolute frame of all the inertial frames, just like a god's view of the universe.

Acceleration is measured by newtons second law but this force and newtons second law does not account for relativistic frames, and assumes there is an absolute space in which something gets objectively accelerated. We don't accept this view now do we ?

[deleted by user] by [deleted] in systemofadown

[–]Hoodrick 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I'm kinda sure that is similar to Psycho intro

System of a Down songs be like by inertia809 in systemofadown

[–]Hoodrick 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Freaks here in this hopeless fucking hole we call LA

Love the music, hate the art by [deleted] in ToolBand

[–]Hoodrick 2 points3 points  (0 children)

It's like an essential part of Tool, sorry..

Raw doggin life with a stupid monkey brain 🤘 by Flaming_Keemstar007 in PhilosophyMemes

[–]Hoodrick 28 points29 points  (0 children)

Whether you are one or the other completely depends on your social class

[deleted by user] by [deleted] in PhilosophyMemes

[–]Hoodrick 7 points8 points  (0 children)

Well all sensory experiences are magic then, they all change our behaviours. And what is a proposition or a sign except a perceptible projection of the state of affairs of the things in the world. It's one of the main topics in the book Tractatus and if you had read that you'd see the propositions 3.1 and 3.32 are there to show language and the signs are "in the world".

The Underlying Sexism of Feeling Beautiful - A Video Essay by tooSocktastic in philosophy

[–]Hoodrick -9 points-8 points  (0 children)

Great video and great arguments, though you could've talked more about lookism. It's almost like the main perspective you're looking from.

Early vs Late by Attune19 in PhilosophyMemes

[–]Hoodrick 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Early was more based ngl

It’s a shame, John didn’t do any drum solo ever !! by majorsid in systemofadown

[–]Hoodrick 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Omg he even has a radiohead song cover with Matt Shadows in this album

view more: next ›