Talk:Absolute rotation

Rotation of rotation.

Absolute rotation implies that there is a velocity of rotation which does not change. Rotation does exist but it is not the static state. In other words rotation cannot be stopped. On its own rotation means spinning of a point of space which is Nothingness. But the point of space is not Nothingness of rotation. Rotation always exists and it acts on itself thus creating space. The rotating point of Nothingness of space is free to rotate with any velocity ‘c’ in (0<c<oo). In our material space time maximum velocity symbolized by ‘c’ is 300000 km/sec and it applies to the smallest part of time which is the atom of magnitude 1/c. Variation ‘n’ in the ‘c’ velocity of rotation is limited within (0<n<c). Universal transformation (function), being linear, accelerates all velocities of rotation in the same way and it is manifested as linearly flowing time which is measured by the observer’s unit 'now', see present. The rotation, acting on itself, causes, among other effects, red shift in photons incorrectly interpreted as Metric expansion of space. Rotation is inseparable from space and time because it is change and change is time. KK

Take your meds.

(178.43.149.177 (talk) 12:11, 15 January 2013 (UTC))

need a section on frame-dragging

There should be a section on frame-dragging -- but i don't think i'm knowledgeable enough to do it well. "alyosha" (talk) 20:52, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

Absolute rotation vs. inertial frame

Isn't choosing a non-rotating reference frame just the same as the choice of an inertial frame up to arbitrary constant velocity? That is to say, an equivalence set on reference frames where the only difference is the choice of coordinates to give an arbitrary origin position and orientation. This still doesn't quite eliminate mysterious Mach-style arguments, but at least unifies the two concepts. Is there any literature about this, or is this just WP:OR on my part? -- The Anome (talk) 11:05, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

Update: well, at least it's not completely idiosyncratic: see page 180 of ISBN 9780812695076, and sections 1.6 and 2.1 of http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/spacetime-iframes/ But, thinking about it, it might also be simply a tautology.-- The Anome (talk) 11:17, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Absolute rotation. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090810003302/http://rack1.ul.cs.cmu.edu/is/newton/ to http://rack1.ul.cs.cmu.edu/is/newton/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:54, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

Ambiguous phrase

"There appears to be absolute rotation relative to [distant] stars"? Which is it, is it absolute or is it relative to distant stars? 186.137.156.144 (talk) 13:26, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

Not actually absolute

This wiki article is currently misleading, since it seems to imply that there is an absolute non-rotating reference frame in the universe.

The incorrect reasoning, which has been used by GR deniers, goes like: if you take two points in the universe, and determine a non-rotating, non-accelerating reference frame, then these "obviously" will not rotate relative to one another.

This would be true in free space, but spacetime can be more fluid than free space. Near black holes the frame-dragging effect is substantial, and will cause inertial frames to be dragged along with the rotation of the central mass, resulting in them rotating relative to an inertial frame in free space.

So even though observers in both frames would measure they're not rotating, they would still measure that they're rotating relative to one another.

A second effect is the metric expansion of spacetime. Currently we don't understand what causes this exactly (dark energy), but it can still be modeled by GR. As far as we know, this expansion is very uniform everywhere, but if it were not completely uniform, the uneven expansion would cause a rotation of spacetime on the larger scale that wouldn't be felt on the local scale. Thus again, two observers could measure non-rotation on the local scale, while still rotating relative to one another. Leon 80.201.156.240 (talk) 09:10, 4 December 2020 (UTC)