Thread: An absolute frame of reference

1. I have read some posts of 'all motion is relative' and I see that most people think that motion is relative, must be relative.
It is a matter of choice, and I cannot understand why you prefer do describe motion as relative.

It is extremely simple to design an absolute frame of reference. If we consider the earth as the universe they have already done that with the grid of meridians and parallels.

Could you kindly explain what is wrong in considering all bodies wrt to that grid. In this way we can find who/what is moving at what speed /velocity.

Thanks

2.

3. Originally Posted by whizkid
It is extremely simple to design an absolute frame of reference. If we consider the earth as the universe they have already done that with the grid of meridians and parallels.

Could you kindly explain what is wrong in considering all bodies wrt to that grid. In this way we can find who/what is moving at what speed /velocity.

Thanks
What you have described is simply a frame of reference - but there is nothing absolute about it. Objects which are not moving relative to such a frame could not be described as being at absolute rest anymore than those which are at rest relative to some other frame.

4. Originally Posted by JonG
Objects which are not moving relative to such a frame could not be described as being at absolute rest anymore than those which are at rest relative to some other frame.
What other frame? there is no other frame, that is why we can consider it absolute.
All objects that are at a certain latitude,longitude,altitude are at rest. Those that change these parameters are moving and you can determine their 'absolute' velocity.

What is the problem?

5. There's nothing wrong with the idea and it was the prevailing view of physics up to the twentieth century. The problem is that it doesn't match reality. The fixed frame of reference was called the luminiferous aether but nobody could find any evidence for it, starting with the Michelson Morley experiment.
Luminiferous aether - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Michelson

You can hang onto the idea of the fixed reference frame if you want by using Lorentz Relativity which is mathematically equivalent to special relativity, but that's been mostly abandoned for the reasons given here.
Lorentz ether theory - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Today LET is often treated as some sort of "Lorentzian" or "neo-Lorentzian" interpretation of special relativity. The introduction of length contraction and time dilation for all phenomena in a "preferred" frame of reference, which plays the role of Lorentz's immobile aether, leads to the complete Lorentz transformation (see theRobertson–Mansouri–Sexl test theory as an example). Because the same mathematical formalism occurs in both, it is not possible to distinguish between LET and SR by experiment. However, in LET the existence of an undetectable aether is assumed and the validity of the relativity principle seems to be only coincidental, which is one reason why SR is commonly preferred over LET. Another important reason for preferring SR is that the new understanding of space and time was also fundamental for the development of general relativity.

6. Originally Posted by Harold14370
There's nothing wrong with the idea and it was the prevailing view of physics up to the twentieth century. The problem is that it doesn't match reality. The fixed frame of reference was called
Can you explain that, Harold? I can't see what latitude&tc has to do with aether and why it doesn't match reality, i works extremely well with ships an planes.

7. Yes, it works extremely well with ships and planes because v/c is close enough to zero for those cases. When you start to approach the speed of light is when it all breaks down. Just read up on the history of the relativity theory and it will all start to make sense.

8. Originally Posted by whizkid
Originally Posted by JonG
Objects which are not moving relative to such a frame could not be described as being at absolute rest anymore than those which are at rest relative to some other frame.
What other frame? there is no other frame, that is why we can consider it absolute.
All objects that are at a certain latitude,longitude,altitude are at rest. Those that change these parameters are moving and you can determine their 'absolute' velocity.

What is the problem?
What if you want to perform calculations from the point of view of a spacecraft that is traveling towards the moon?Then you need to work with 2 frameworks -the one in the "moving" spacecraft and also the framework "on the ground" (actually there are 3 because the moon's "framework" is different from that of both the spacecraft and the earth since it is moving,differently with respect to both ( and is also in a different location to both)

At high speeds (especially when light or electro magnetic signals are involved ) if you do not allow for these different frameworks your spacecraft will crash on landing I think.

9. Originally Posted by whizkid
What other frame? there is no other frame, that is why we can consider it absolute.
Really?
So if I'm on Mars that's not a different frame?
Earth is still an absolute frame?

All objects that are at a certain latitude,longitude,altitude are at rest.
ONLY as far as Earth is concerned.
Ergo they're not absolute.

What is the problem?
The problem, apparently, is that you don't understand what "absolute" means.

10. Try to read posts with more attention

11. Originally Posted by Harold14370
When you start to approach the speed of light is when it all breaks down. .
Thanks Harold, but that is a rare limit case, I was reacting to the fact that everybody is taking for granted the all motion is relative.

12. Originally Posted by whizkid
Try to read posts with more attention
Yeah, another failure of understanding on your part.
Earth is a local frame, not an absolute one, regardless of whether or not we "regard" it as "absolute".
As I noted your "solution" does NOT work if you're located anywhere other than Earth.

13. Originally Posted by whizkid
I have read some posts of 'all motion is relative' and I see that most people think that motion is relative, must be relative.
It is a matter of choice, and I cannot understand why you prefer do describe motion as relative.

It is extremely simple to design an absolute frame of reference. If we consider the earth as the universe they have already done that with the grid of meridians and parallels.

Could you kindly explain what is wrong in considering all bodies wrt to that grid. In this way we can find who/what is moving at what speed /velocity.

Thanks
You can call any frame "absolute". The problem is that there is no experiment that you can do in order to CONFIRM it is "absolute".
This fact has been already known for over 120 years. You should try studying physics sometimes.

14. Originally Posted by whizkid
All objects that are at a certain latitude,longitude,altitude are at rest. Those that change these parameters are moving and you can determine their 'absolute' velocity.
This is motion with respect to the origin of some coordinate system that you have arbitrarily chosen, such as long/lat on the surface of the earth. However, this is not "absolute", because it does not allow you to conclude anything about the state of motion of the coordinate system itself - for example, the Earth is moving around the sun, so if you are at a certain lat/long on earth, you are at rest relative to the earth's surface, but you are not at rest relative to the sun. The sun then is moving about the centre of the galaxy, and the galaxy is moving within the local cluster, and so on and so on. No state of motion is ever absolute, because no system of coordinates is in any way physically privileged. If you are weightless and enclosed in a black box without windows ( no outside point of reference ), you have no way at all to determine if you are uniformly moving, in free fall towards some massive body, or motionless in empty space. The physics inside your box are the exact same in all three cases, so no experiment you care to perform can give you any information about your state of motion. The only aspect about motion that is absolute is acceleration, because it can be directly measured using an accelerometer - but then you have no way to tell the cause of the accelerometer reading. It could be because your box is accelerating in empty space, or it could be because you are held stationary in a gravitational field - again, the local physics are the exact same.

So either way, "absolute motion" does not exist, in fact the concept is quite meaningless.

15. Originally Posted by whizkid
Originally Posted by JonG
Objects which are not moving relative to such a frame could not be described as being at absolute rest anymore than those which are at rest relative to some other frame.
What other frame? there is no other frame, that is why we can consider it absolute.
All objects that are at a certain latitude,longitude,altitude are at rest. Those that change these parameters are moving and you can determine their 'absolute' velocity.

What is the problem?
It would just be an arbitrary choice as there would be no logical reason to choose it over any other choice of frame. Assigning any frame as the "absolute" frame just for the sake of having an "absolute" frame is pointless. It doesn't give us any new information and doesn't make velocities any easier to to work with. In fact, it just becomes an encumbrance. It is much easier to deal with relative velocities because then you can reduce a problem by using the most convenient reference frame.

For example, if I am driving from one town to another, I'll use the Earth's surface as my reference frame to determine how long it will take me to get there. I'm not going to want to use the Earth's center of gravity, because the Earth rotates with respect to that and then I would have to work out the latitudes of the towns, their respective velocities with respect to the center of the Earth, my velocity with respect to the center, and how our paths intersect to get the same answer.

On the other hand, if I'm firing a ballistic missile or launching a satellite, I want to use the Earth's center of gravity as the reference frame rather than the surface of the Earth because that makes the calculations easier. And if I'm sending out an interplanetary probe, I want to use the Sun as my reference frame as that is what makes working with the orbital mechanics the simplest.

If I want to, I can always convert to other reference frames (I could convert a probe's Sun centered reference to an Earth center one to get the probes velocity with respect to the Earth), but I can do that directly without the need for an "absolute" frame.

The only reason for introducing an absolute frame would be observational evidence of its existence. Which, as already has been pointed out, there is none.

16. Time is relative to motion, as motion is the key factor in the speed and interchangeability of space and motion, relative to time and mechanics.

17. Pure gibberish, please try again (or preferably don't)

18. Originally Posted by xyzt
You should try studying physics sometimes.
Welcome back,xyzt, we all missed you!

19. Originally Posted by whizkid
If we consider the earth as the universe they have already done that with the grid of meridians and parallels.
Many seem to have missed the premise. It was just a theoretical example to show that motion must not be relative. If you could devise a grid for the solar sistem or the galaxy etc. you would reduce more and more the error.
Of course such frame is arbitrary. But when everybody in the Universe accept it and respect it it becomes absolute as it is the only and universal, and does not depend on anything else : ab -solutum.

20. Originally Posted by whizkid
Originally Posted by whizkid
If we consider the earth as the universe they have already done that with the grid of meridians and parallels.
Many seem to have missed the premise. It was just a theoretical example to show that motion must not be relative. If you could devise a grid for the solar sistem or the galaxy etc. you would reduce more and more the error.
Of course such frame is arbitrary. But when everybody in the Universe accept it and respect it it becomes absolute as it is the only and universal, and does not depend on anything else : ab -solutum.
Sure, people can agree on convenient reference frames, but that doesn't mean there is an absolute reference frame in Nature. The mere fact that you are deciding on an arbitrary frame negates the "absolute" part.

21. If you make the earth the center of the universe, then you've turned the clock of science back to before Galileo. Do you see the problem there? It works well for motion on earth, but now try to calculate planetary orbits. You will run into the same problem no matter which frame of reference you pick.

22. Originally Posted by whizkid
Originally Posted by xyzt
You should try studying physics sometimes.
Welcome back,xyzt, we all missed you!
Can't say the same thing about you. You are back to posting nonsense.

Many seem to have missed the premise. It was just a theoretical example to show that motion must not be relative.
Many of us did not miss the point, we actually corrected your misconceptions. Contrary to your fringe ideas, motion IS relative. This goes back to the times of Galileo.

23. Originally Posted by whizkid
Originally Posted by whizkid
If we consider the earth as the universe they have already done that with the grid of meridians and parallels.
Many seem to have missed the premise. It was just a theoretical example to show that motion must not be relative. If you could devise a grid for the solar sistem or the galaxy etc. you would reduce more and more the error.
Of course such frame is arbitrary. But when everybody in the Universe accept it and respect it it becomes absolute as it is the only and universal, and does not depend on anything else : ab -solutum.
An arbitrary choice cannot be "absolute". "Absolute" implies a there is a fundamental property that is the reason why it has priority over other choices. You cant just define a standard and claim it is then "absolute". The metre for example is not in any sense an "absolute" measure of length. It is a widely accepted, but nonetheless arbitrarily chosen, unit.

24. Originally Posted by whizkid
But when everybody in the Universe accept it and respect it it
that is a reasonable compromise. Your time will come when all will see you were absolutely right -everywhere in the universe..

25. Originally Posted by Harold14370
If you make the earth the center of the universe,
I did not say that.
I made a theoretical example. If the earth were the universe ( the only existing thing), the grid would be an absolute frame of reference.
@exchemiste, absolute means :
Existing, able to be thought of, or able to be viewed without relation to other things.

such arbitrary, (but absolute) frame makes all motion inasmuch as relative to it, absolute in the sense the you need nothing else and can tell who is at rest and who is moving at what speed. And in reality it works perfectly well with ships and planes, that do not care what is happening on Mars.

Harold, you say it works only when v/c near zero, I question that, it should work at any speed. Show me, please, when it fails.

Now (if the background noise can understand such simple principle,) if you can work out such a grid for wider systems, you solve the problem for wider universes.
If you cannot, that is your fault and your problem. Then you must settle for second best , and consider some motion as relative.

But that does not mean that motion is relative in principle, or even that all motion is relative.
If sometimes you must consider motion as relative that is only a consequence of your shorcomings, it means you have not been able to solve a problem.

26. Originally Posted by whizkid
I did not say that. I made a theoretical example. If the earth were the universe, the only existing thing, the grid would be an absolute frame of reference.
Wrong.
What you said (in the OP) was: If we consider the earth as the universe.
(Which, in case you didn't know, it isn't. Nor is it valid to do so).

Harold, you say it works only when v/c near zero, I question that, it should work at any speed. Show me, please, when it fails.

Now (if the background noise can understand such simple principle,) if you can work out such a grid for wider systems, you solve the problem for wider universes.
Yeah, this is bull.
You claim it's someone else's fault/ problem if extending your invalid hypothetical to encompass the entire real universe doesn't work.
This is like saying you can cure world hunger if we consider my toothbrush to be a tonne of grain, and that, if extending this analogy to encompass all toothbrushes doesn't feed everyone, then it's someone else's fault.

But that does not mean that motion is relative in principle, or even that all motion is relative. It for some cases motion must be considered relative it means you have not been able to organize your things.
Yup.
More bollocks.

27. Originally Posted by whizkid
Originally Posted by Harold14370
If you make the earth the center of the universe,
I did not say that.

28. Originally Posted by whizkid
But that does not mean that motion is relative in principle, or even that all motion is relative.
If sometimes you must consider motion as relative that is only a consequence of your shorcomings, it means you have not been able to solve a problem.
You are wrong on this, so let me try and show you why : consider a large black box, without windows, and without any way at all to observe/measure/detect anything outside the box. The box contains a laboratory with any and all pieces of equipment you can possibly think of ( read : you can construct any experimental setup you like within the confines of the box, only stipulation being that you don't attempt to break through the walls ). You are being put to sleep, and when you wake up after a few hours you find yourself in the sealed interior of the box; you are weightless and don't know what happened since you went to sleep.

Now tell me, without any external point of reference, can you construct a local experiment within the box that tells you whether or not you are in motion ?

29. Originally Posted by whizkid
absolute means :
Existing, able to be thought of, or able to be viewed without relation to other things.

such arbitrary, (but absolute) frame makes all motion inasmuch as relative to it, absolute in the sense the you need nothing else and can tell who is at rest and who is moving at what speed. And in reality it works perfectly well with ships and planes, that do not care what is happening on Mars.
The very definition you gave for "absolute" is contrary to the idea that a arbitrary choice of frame, even if agreed upon can be used to declare absolute motion because this arbitrary frame itself is the "thing" by which the motion is measured. All you would be doing is measuring relative velocity with respect to that arbitrary frame.

"Real" absolute motion does not allow for an arbitrary choice, it would be forced on you by the laws of nature. Everyone would accept it, not through some gentleman's agreement, but because experiment an observation led them to this conclusion independently of each other.

Also, in a previous post you said

If you could devise a grid for the solar sistem or the galaxy etc. you would reduce more and more the error.
There is no more error associated with relative velocity than with absolute velocity. The fact that you seem to feel that there is such a difference seems to indicate that your conception of these terms is not in line with how they are used in physics.

30. Originally Posted by Markus Hanke
Now tell me, without any external point of reference, can you construct a local experiment within the box that tells you whether or not you are in motion ?
This has nothing to do with my example. And let's drop lexical controversy, until Janus tells me what he means by "all motion is relative" and what is the meaning of 'absolute' in physics *

I can easiliychange my definition to " all motion is relative to a conventional frame". If this can be thought of as 'absolute' is irrelevant here.

My example is very clear an is not fictitious, it is in use and it works. If the earth were the whole universe, you can always establish what is at rest and what is moving to where at what speed. If this is not an absolute (conventional) frame of reference in your books, give it the name you like, but do acknowledge that motion is not relative any more.

If we can agree on this basic truth, then we can discuss more general principle. I invite you to show me the shortcomings of this model in current use when the ratio v/c is not negligible., or any other problem.

* @Janus.
Thermodynamic temperature is often also called absolute temperature, for two reasons: one, proposed by Kelvin, that it does not depend on the properties of a particular material; two that it refers to an absolute zero
This is the meaning of absolute in physics. In my example "it does not depend on anything" and the absolute zero is the origin O of the grid (0 lat,0 long,0 alt)

31. Absolute does not equal arbitrary. An absolute frame of referrance would need to be one that had some property of natural universalness. For example the earth is more or less a globe but we do not arbitraraly call some point the north pole. Because there is a real north pole, there is an axis of rotation for the planet and there is a point on the surface where that axis intersects the surface. It is not arbitrary but real. Ther is not however a similar "real" feature of the universe upon which to hang an absolute frame of referrence. There is no real, experimentally verifiable, center to the universe nor is there an observable axis of rotation, nor is there an edge. We an certainly define an arbitrary frame of local referrence but that is what it is, arbitrary and local not absolute.

32. Yes it is true that there is not an absolute reference frame in this space , and relativity works. But after for all for whole space there may be reality and every thing is not relative. Thing are relative to particular reference frame and are real for particular reference frame .Any other thing is relative to second reference frame and real to that reference frame. But may be a common reality that apply as whole may exist that may compare things of different reference frame in reality.

33. Originally Posted by RAJ_K
Yes it is true that there is not an absolute reference frame in this space , and relativity works. But after for all for whole space there may be reality and every thing is not relative. Thing are relative to particular reference frame and are real for particular reference frame .Any other thing is relative to second reference frame and real to that reference frame. But may be a common reality that apply as whole may exist that may compare things of different reference frame in reality.
I'll have Ranch with the above. Anyway, the theory of relativity has nothing to do with the philosophical term of "relativism". You are repeating a confusion that has been around since Einstein produced his theory. No wonder he did not want to call it theory of relativity.....

34. Originally Posted by whizkid
This has nothing to do with my example. And let's drop lexical controversy, until Janus tells me what he means by "all motion is relative" and what is the meaning of 'absolute' in physics *
Au contraire, my example has everything to do with your assertion, and it cuts right to the heart of Janus's comments. In physics, something is "absolute" if it has physical characteristics that distinguishes it from its absence. For example, acceleration is absolute, because you directly measure it with an accelerometer, so an accelerated frame is physically distinguished from one that is not accelerated, via accelerometer readings.

So if you are inside the sealed box, is there anything that distinguishes the box being in uniform motion from the box being at rest ? How can you tell which one is the case ? Is there any experiment you can perform to detect the any distinguishing characteristic at all ? If not, then uniform motion cannot be absolute. If yes, then please state how you tell whether you are moving or not.

35. The main problem with using the Earth as a "universal reference point" is Lorentz contraction. In special relativity, two observers in different frames will perceive the distances between objects in all other frames to be contracted, depending on what direction they are traveling.

So if someone in a space ship begins traveling between Earth and Proxima Centauri at a relativistic speed, the moment they reach that speed, they perceive the distance between Earth and Proxima Centauri to shrink (because Earth and Proxima Centauri are in the same frame of reference, or nearly so). We observers on Earth perceive the distance to have remained the same. The only change in our observations on Earth is that now the space ship itself appears shorter than it did before.

Basically, even though we people on Earth agree with the people aboard the space ship about how fast they are going, we disagree about how far they are going and how long it is taking to get there. Those aboard the space ship think they are spending a shorter time reaching Proxima Centauri (because they think it is closer).

Special Relativity always gets thrown all out of whack with problems like this one the moment anybody starts accelerating or decelerating.

36. How do you know where your point of reference is, and which way is up, down, forward or backward? Don't you have to locate it in reference to some physical object or objects?

37. Originally Posted by whizkid
...

* @Janus.
Thermodynamic temperature is often also called absolute temperature, for two reasons: one, proposed by Kelvin, that it does not depend on the properties of a particular material; two that it refers to an absolute zero
This is the meaning of absolute in physics. In my example "it does not depend on anything" and the absolute zero is the origin O of the grid (0 lat,0 long,0 alt)
A person sitting on a chair on Earth holding a cup of coffee at a temperature of absolute zero (Kelvin) might throw it up to be caught by someone zooming past in a rocket, who zooms past Mars and throws it down to someone sitting on a chair there. All three of the people would agree on the temperature of that coffee. That's what makes it absolute.

On the other hand, the person on Earth might declare that Earth-centric coordinates ought to be used for measuring all locations and travel, and claim it's "absolute" - but there's nothing to stop the person on Mars doing the same thing; and which set of lat/long/alt references should the person in the rocket choose? That kind of reference is by convention, so is not absolute.

38. Originally Posted by Markus Hanke
with your assertion, and it cuts right to the heart of Janus's comments. In physics, something is "absolute" if it has physical characteristics that distinguishes it from its absence.
All right Markus, I said let's drop linguistic debates, you do not like 'absolute' let's call it: universal frame of reference. If you are interested we can discuss it in a thread.

(Some member have also a problem in understanding the meaning of "the earth is the whole universe", it means there is no Mars etc..., right)

Now, coming back to our universal frame F:
All motion is relative to F means that the motion of a body is not relative to the motion of any other body in the universe. It means that we know that a train T going from Frankfurt to Bonn the trees along the track are at rest and the train is moving. It means that the train has KE and the trees have not. It means that if a train is going on the next track in the opposite direction is motion is relative to F , just the same as T and we can calculate their relative motion.

That is no astonishing revolution, this is what has been happening for centuries and it works perfectly well.
I asked you to show me why light travelling at C is a problem. The motion of a photon from Frankfurt to Bonn is in no way different from a train or a plane.

39. Originally Posted by whizkid
It means that we know that a train T going from Frankfurt to Bonn the trees along the track are at rest and the train is moving.
Yup, that's because you have an outside frame of reference, being the earth. Relative to the earth, the train is moving, the trees are not. But now take that outside reference away ( as in my closed box scenario ) - can you still tell what is in motion, and what is at rest ?

I asked you to show me why light travelling at C is a problem.
Light travels at c both by definition and - more importantly - as a direct result of the laws of electromagnetism. There is no problem with that.

The motion of a photon from Frankfurt to Bonn is in no way different from a train or a plane.
The crucial difference is that a plane or a train is a valid frame of reference, whereas the photon is not. In other words, you cannot travel together with the photon to Bonn and arrive at the same time.

All right Markus, I said let's drop linguistic debates, you do not like 'absolute' let's call it: universal frame of reference.
It doesn't make any difference what you call it, and the debate is not of a linguistic nature, it is about the laws of physics. No frame of reference is in any way physically privileged over any other frame ( i.e. the laws of physics are the same in any frame ), so motion is always relative.

40. In your example you take the earth as being your frame of referance and assume that it is at rest. The problem with this is that it is just not true. The Earth is not at rest but rotating on its axis, wobbling in its rotation and it is also in an elliptical orbit around the Sun and the whole solar system is orbiting the Galactic center. A frame of referrence based on the Earth is not absolute nor universal, it is instead local and parochial. As Markus has said no frame is priviledged over any other.

41. Originally Posted by Markus Hanke
But now take that outside reference away ( as in my closed box scenario ) -

The crucial difference is that a plane or a train is a valid frame of reference, whereas the photon is not. In other words, you cannot travel together with the photon to Bonn and arrive at the same time.

it is about the laws of physics. No frame of reference is in any way physically privileged over any other frame ( i.e. the laws of physics are the same in any frame ), so motion is always relative.
-Why should we consider a closed box, Markus? what is the use? You are interpreting everything through relativity. Why do we need it here?
-Who wants to travel with a photon to to Bonn,? when the photon gets to Bonn you know it was moving at C and Bonn was not.
-Yes the laws of phisics are the same in every frame, also in this frame, where is the problem?

This frame is not privileged is just useful to make motion not relative, full stop

42. Originally Posted by whizkid
Originally Posted by Markus Hanke
with your assertion, and it cuts right to the heart of Janus's comments. In physics, something is "absolute" if it has physical characteristics that distinguishes it from its absence.
All right Markus, I said let's drop linguistic debates, you do not like 'absolute' let's call it: universal frame of reference. If you are interested we can discuss it in a thread.

(Some member have also a problem in understanding the meaning of "the earth is the whole universe", it means there is no Mars etc..., right)

Now, coming back to our universal frame F:
All motion is relative to F means that the motion of a body is not relative to the motion of any other body in the universe. It means that we know that a train T going from Frankfurt to Bonn the trees along the track are at rest and the train is moving. It means that the train has KE and the trees have not. It means that if a train is going on the next track in the opposite direction is motion is relative to F , just the same as T and we can calculate their relative motion.

That is no astonishing revolution, this is what has been happening for centuries and it works perfectly well.
I asked you to show me why light travelling at C is a problem. The motion of a photon from Frankfurt to Bonn is in no way different from a train or a plane.
Learned people are proving your theories to be a rehash of already debunked theories.Yet, in classical crank manner, you persist? Why?

43. [QUOTE=whizkid;585466]
Originally Posted by Markus Hanke

This frame is not privileged is just useful to make motion not relative, full stop
But what everyone has been trying to tell you and what you just refuse to hear is that neither is such a frame useful nor does it make motion non-relative.

The absoluteness or relativity of motion is based on the very nature of reality in our universe and is completely divorced from any frame of reference we choose to use.

44. Originally Posted by Janus
But what everyone has been trying to tell you and what you just refuse to hear is that

1) neither is such a frame useful
2)nor does it make motion non-relative.
1-Listen! , the system is useful and in use , why deny it? So far you have made plain statements of refusal and haven't given a single concrete example. I am assuming rwlativity is irrelevant here, show me how it is with serious arguments and not close yourself in a box or travel with a photon.

I am not presenting any personal idea, I'm reminding you how it works now on earth, and it works. The only abstraction I made it's to considere the planet as the whole universe.
Most people here think relativity is the Truth and forget that it is just a theory , a conjecture that can be proved false any minute, that made a few numeric prediction that match with reality by an approximation. Many of its propositions are not scientific as they cannot be disproved, like travellin with a photon at near c.
But I am not denying it, the burdern of proof is on you, if you think that this Frame of reference does not work, and needs relativity, you must prove , but with serious scientific arguments that can be verified and disproved.

2) THe same here show how , when and why this system does not the motion non relative

45. Originally Posted by whizkid
Most people here think relativity is the Truth and forget that it is just a theory , a conjecture that can be proved false any minute, that made a few numeric prediction that match with reality by an approximation. Many of its propositions are not scientific as they cannot be disproved, like travellin with a photon at near c.
The full blown relativity denier crackpot comes out. This thread needs to go in the Trash Can.

46. Originally Posted by whizkid
Why should we consider a closed box, Markus? what is the use?
To take away all outside points of reference, and focus on what it is that - according to you - makes motion absolute.

You are interpreting everything through relativity.
Nothing in my scenario with the box has anything to do with relativity. I was asking a very simple question - if you can determine from within the box whether it is motion or not.

-Yes the laws of phisics are the same in every frame
Thank you. This explicitly precludes the possibility of motion being absolute, because that would imply that the laws in a moving frame couldn't be the same as in a rest frame. Remember that a frame is absolute only if it physically privileged in some way.

47. Originally Posted by whizkid
So far you have made plain statements of refusal and haven't given a single concrete example.
How is the box not a concrete example ? And you still have not answered my question whether or not you could tell from within it if it is motion.

I am not presenting any personal idea, I'm reminding you how it works now on earth, and it works.
And while this works just fine with respect to the Earth, we are trying to remind you that the earth is just another arbitrary frame, there is nothing "absolute" about it.

Most people here think relativity is the Truth and forget that it is just a theory
It is a model that has proven very accurate to describe the classical world around us. Physics does not seek the truth, it just makes models; the search for "the truth" is philosophy and/or religion.

a conjecture that can be proved false any minute, that made a few numeric prediction that match with reality by an approximation
All models in physics are approximations, without exception, so I am not sure what your point is. And relativity is not a conjecture by definition, because it can be experimentally tested.

Many of its propositions are not scientific as they cannot be disproved, like travellin with a photon at near c.
Testing physics near c is trivially easy, it is done every day in particle accelerators around the world. Even your good old CRT television set accelerates electrons to relativistic speeds. All relativistic effects can be disproved and tested.

But I am not denying it, the burdern of proof is on you, if you think that this Frame of reference does not work, and needs relativity, you must prove , but with serious scientific arguments that can be verified and disproved.
Everyone experiences the same laws of physics, which you have already agreed to. In my box example, there is no local experiment you can perform in the box that would show you whether or not you are in motion ( or else your laws of physics would be different from those of someone at rest ) - hence motion is not absolute. This does not require Einsteinian relativity, it has been known since 1632 and is called "Galilean relativity"; it's in fact one of the cornerstones of classical mechanics. Galileo used the example of a ship on a perfectly still sea - you cannot perform any experiment below deck that would tell you whether or not you are moving. I prefer to use a closed box in my own example, but the principle is the same.

What I am trying to say is - if you don't like Einsteinian relativity, then don't use it. Motion being relative has nothing to do with Einstein, it's just basic mechanics.

THe same here show how , when and why this system does not the motion non relative
Because the Earth is just an arbitrarily chosen frame, there is nothing absolute about it. Choose the rest frame of the sun instead, and neither your train nor your trees are at rest any longer. Your choice to consider it with respect to the earth's surface is completely arbitrary.

48. Great Post Markus....*closes book, puffs on pipe and pats the dog*.... :-)

49. To be fair to Whizkid, his original post didn't appear to me to suggest that the earth could be chosen as an absolute frame of reference. He seemed to be suggesting that lines of longitude and latitude could be seen as an analogy to some all embracing frame of reference which extended across the entire universe - perhaps whatever frame of reference a plane of motion of Foucault pendulum would appear to be fixed in.

Quote: "If we consider the earth as the universe..."

I still don't think that such a frame of reference could be described as absolute, but it could be seen as being a bit closer to it than the surface of the earth!

50. Originally Posted by JonG
To be fair to Whizkid, his original post didn't appear to me to suggest that the earth could be chosen as an absolute frame of reference. He seemed to be suggesting that lines of longitude and latitude could be seen as an analogy to some all embracing frame of reference which extended across the entire universe - perhaps whatever frame of reference a plane of motion of Foucault pendulum would appear to be fixed in.
That is how I thought he meant it -but the universe is not static and there are no known boundaries - unless it is possible to extrapolate from the big bang.

Also if everywhere is considered to be the "centre of the universe" that seems to put the kibosh on the idea as the universe seems to have no "shape" that I can discern even if it was static..

51. Originally Posted by Markus Hanke
To take away all outside points of reference, and focus on what it is that - according to you - makes motion absolute.
I was asking a very simple question - if you can determine from within the box whether it is motion or not.
This explicitly precludes the possibility of motion being absolute, because that would imply that the laws in a moving frame couldn't be the same as in a rest frame. Remember that a frame is absolute only if it physically privileged in some way
And while this works just fine with respect to the Earth, we are trying to remind you that the earth is just another arbitrary frame, there is nothing "absolute" about it.
Because the Earth is just an arbitrarily chosen frame, there is nothing absolute about it. Choose the rest frame of the sun instead,.
Hi Markus, you are harping on a broken string. I dropped the word absolute. I suppose I should edit my OP, but I do not know if Harold allows that.
I asked you to start the discussion afresh. Forget about absolute? can you? we can discuss that elsewhere. Can you answer my question before I answer all your questions? can we have a fair discussion? You say relativity is not relevant here, good, can we have a sane classical physics discussion?, right-o!

Now, we assumed that The planet Earth is the whole universe, if it moves in any way it is not relevant here as if affects in no way our frame.
Then we assumed that we adopt a Universally acknowledged Frame of reference F (0, lat,long, alt) which is priviledged because it is the only one.
I am stating that if all motion is related to F, it is not true that all motion is relative
You can decide who is moving where at what speed and who is at rest. Relative motion of two bodies means just comparing two vectors.
Motion being relative has nothing to do with Einstein, it's just basic mechanics.
Now , if you can, disprove that, and prove that all motion is relative or that some motion is relative
How is the box not a concrete example ? And you still have not answered my question whether or not you could tell from within it if it is motion.
I haven't even examined your box problem, but as a matter of principle if I can or can-not establish something outside the scope of the frame, it is not my concern, is it yours? why?.
Nor do I care if you could (but perhaps you cant) prove that should you be able to travel with a photon to Bonn you arrive sooner or later, does that worry you?

52. Originally Posted by whizkid
Then we assumed that we adopt a Universally acknowledged Frame of reference F (0, lat,long, alt) which is priviledged because it is the only one.
Only by declaration, not in fact.

I am stating that if all motion is related to F, it is not true that all motion is relative
Again, this is only by declaration, not a fact.

Motion being relative has nothing to do with Einstein, it's just basic mechanics.
Now , if you can, disprove that, and prove that all motion is relative or that some motion is relative
Oh wait. You want Markus to disprove his own words?

How is the box not a concrete example ? And you still have not answered my question whether or not you could tell from within it if it is motion.
I haven't even examined your box problem, but as a matter of principle if I can or can-not establish something outside the scope of the frame, it is not my concern, is it yours? why?.
Nor do I care if you could (but perhaps you cant) prove that should you be able to travel with a photon to Bonn you arrive sooner or later, does that worry you?
And again, you're ignoring the entire point of the moving box, (forget about photons).

Even considering only the Earth using a fixed coordinate system is going to useless for altitude.
The further away you get from 0 lat, 0 long the less use the altitude reading is going to be.
The only rational way is obtain altitude relative to terrain you're directly over.
(Unless you want to add increasingly-intractable complications).
And, for the same reason, using an Earth-centred (especially one based on an origin of 0 lat/ 0 long) reference is going to be worse for, for example, interplanetary probes.
Earth's rotation (even if you "declare" Earth to be fixed) introduces rapidly-changing distance variations, as do orbits (Earth's and the target planets'), then the target planet's rotation, then you need extremely precise "geo"physical data of the landing area (for altitude variation there)...
Rather than simplifying anything your "system" will only make it vastly more complicated.

53. Originally Posted by whizkid
You can decide who is moving where at what speed and who is at rest. Relative motion of two bodies means just comparing two vectors.
The two sentences express the same thing. It is absolutely correct that you can choose your coordinate system freely without affecting any of the laws of physics - i.e. you can arbitrary decide who is at rest and who is moving relative to that chosen rest frame. That freedom to choose your rest frame is precisely what is meant when we say that all motion is relative - it is relative to the chosen rest frame. All you do then is consider the difference in their motion vectors, the components of which depend on the rest frame chosen.

Then we assumed that we adopt a Universally acknowledged Frame of reference F (0, lat,long, alt) which is priviledged because it is the only one.
It is not the only one at all - long/lat coordinates have become a de facto standard by convention only, not because they are privileged. I could just as well decide to place the poles somewhere along the current equator, and measure positions not with long/lat, but via polar angles; I could even decide to fix that grid with respect to some distant star, so that the Earth's surface rotates under it, and the coordinates of a point on the surface change periodically with a 24 hour rhythm. This would give me a completely different and far more complicated, but just as valid coordinate system. The choice to use long/lat coordinates is arbitrary, there is nothing privileged about them.

Now , if you can, disprove that, and prove that all motion is relative or that some motion is relative
Motion is relative by definition; you dispute that, so the onus to show that the accepted definition is wrong is on you.

I haven't even examined your box problem, but as a matter of principle if I can or can-not establish something outside the scope of the frame, it is not my concern, is it yours? why?.
The question was quite simply whether or not you can tell from within the box if it is moving. You have already agreed that no motion is absolute, which is correct. The answer is that there is no experiment you can perform inside the box that tells you whether or not it is moving, so motion cannot be absolute in any meaningful sense of that word. You have agreed to that, so the question is moot now.

You say relativity is not relevant here, good, can we have a sane classical physics discussion?, right-o!
Since you have agreed that motion is not absolute and hence relative, I don't see what else there would be to discuss.

54. Originally Posted by whizkid
I suppose I should edit my OP, but I do not know if Harold allows that.
The forum software does allow you to edit your posts, but if you did that, it would probably make the thread really hard to follow because the replies wouldn't make a whole lot of sense. So, I'd prefer that you didn't.

55. Originally Posted by whizkid
Frame of reference F (0, lat,long, alt) which is priviledged because it is the only one

Therein lies your ignorance. The fact that you have only one object in your universe DOES NOT mean that there is only one frame of reference. Frames of reference are geometric constructs, while they may be associated with material objects , they DO NOT need to. So, there can be an INFINITY of frames of reference in your single object "universe".
Therefore, contrary to your persistently crank misconceptions posted here, the motion IS relative , the frame attached to the only object in your "universe" (the Earth) is not "preferred" by any stretch of imagination.

I am stating that if all motion is related to F, it is not true that all motion is relative

Incorrect. See above.

56. Originally Posted by Markus Hanke
i.e. you can arbitrary decide who is at rest and who is moving relative to that chosen rest frame. That freedom to choose your rest frame is precisely what is meant when we say that all motion is relative - it is relative to the chosen rest frame.
It is not the only one at all
Motion is relative by definition; you dispute that, so the onus to show that the accepted definition is wrong is on you.
Since you have agreed that motion is not absolute and hence relative, I don't see what else there would be to discuss.
Markus, you have always maintained that there is no priviledged frame of reference.
I am saying that taking the grid as the priviledged frame F, no other frame is legitimate. There is no frame of the train, there is no frame of the trees, no frame of a photon. In so doing, I have eliminated billions of individual frames. All motions being relative to F makes any motion non-relative to all other motions, that seems hard to accept. That makes you go round and round.

Absolute does not mean that you can decide something by extra-sensorial perception, blindfolded or in a sealed box:
Absolute is 300°K, 27° C is relative because 0° celsius is 273°K , celsius is relative to kelvin, if you take the frame K as the only frame then temperature becomes absolute.
Absolute is 25, relative is v= 25m/s. If you decide that the unit of time is only the second and define it, than 25m per second becomes v= 25m. If you decide that m is the only unit of space and define it, v = 25

Now , using F for motion, you know exactly what is moving, what is Ke etc. In your system this is not possible if a train is going to Bonn if you consider different frames it has different speeds an different KE. In your system motion is relative in mine it is not. For every object you can determine its velocity and its KE.

You say "motion is relative by definition", by whose definition? I have showed that in your system all motion is relative, after 55 posts you have not been able to show a case where I cannot establish with absolute precision and certainty the motion and the KE of an object.

As to the box , I haven't agreed to anything. I actually can't see what is your purpose, what you want to prove.
If I put you in a sealed room are you able to tell me if the sun is shining or not? would you agree that this is a really stupid question? why should you?
If I put you in a sealed box can you tell if it is moving? are you referring to the earth?

- you want to hint we cannot tell if the earth is moving or what?
If so , if the earth (the whole universe) were spinning or moving there might be experiment that could or could not show that, but that is irrelevant as the whole system is rigid, and the speed of light would not be affected, because the distance between to places stays anyway the same as Michelson proved.

If you are saying that if you are inside a sealed train you might not know when it is moving or not, well that is possible, but that has nothing to do with non-relative motion. If you mean this, it is a silly example: it is like saying that if I put you in a sealed , insulated room and you cannot say if it is cold outside, than abslotute temperature does not exist.
If you want you can explain also why , if you travel with a photon to Bonn and get later is a problem, if you travel on a slow train you get there after a fast train. But you can tell with absolute certainty what was moving at what speed

Of course in my frame like in any other frame, you must be able to observe reality. If I blindfold you, I can't put the blame on the frame of reference.

Now, to wind up this repetitive discussion I ask you for the last time:

If you are allowed to observe and describe reality (not in a blind box) adopting the suggested F, is there a single case where you cannot decide the state and the KE of an object? If you cannot, it means that "motion is relative by definition" is false.
If the antonym of relative is 'absolute' or another word it is not a big problem, we can leave it like that:

- motion is non-relative, if there is a priviledged Frame of reference. If motion is relative in a system that is only because of your shortcomings.

57. Originally Posted by whizkid
Originally Posted by Harold14370
There's nothing wrong with the idea and it was the prevailing view of physics up to the twentieth century. The problem is that it doesn't match reality. The fixed frame of reference was called
Can you explain that, Harold? I can't see what latitude&tc has to do with aether and why it doesn't match reality, i works extremely well with ships an planes.
We rotate on the axis every day and orbit the Sun every year so it is hard to think of a point on the surface of the Earth as an absolute frame.

58. Originally Posted by Robittybob1
Originally Posted by whizkid
Originally Posted by Harold14370
There's nothing wrong with the idea and it was the prevailing view of physics up to the twentieth century. The problem is that it doesn't match reality. The fixed frame of reference was called
Can you explain that, Harold? I can't see what latitude&tc has to do with aether and why it doesn't match reality, i works extremely well with ships an planes.
We rotate on the axis every day and orbit the Sun every year so it is hard to think of a point on the surface of the Earth as an absolute frame.
and the sun orbits the galaxy and the galaxy orbits the.... ....plus we are in a universe where we can't see the edges and have no reference point we can say is the center.
In short we are lost in space.

59. Originally Posted by Robittybob1
Originally Posted by whizkid
Originally Posted by Harold14370
There's nothing wrong with the idea and it was the prevailing view of physics up to the twentieth century. The problem is that it doesn't match reality. The fixed frame of reference was called
Can you explain that, Harold? I can't see what latitude&tc has to do with aether and why it doesn't match reality, i works extremely well with ships an planes.
We rotate on the axis every day and orbit the Sun every year so it is hard to think of a point on the surface of the Earth as an absolute frame.
It's easy, and quite natural. We still say the sun rises and sets. It's not very convenient for doing celestial mechanics, though.

60. Originally Posted by Harold14370
Originally Posted by Robittybob1
Originally Posted by whizkid
Originally Posted by Harold14370
There's nothing wrong with the idea and it was the prevailing view of physics up to the twentieth century. The problem is that it doesn't match reality. The fixed frame of reference was called
Can you explain that, Harold? I can't see what latitude&tc has to do with aether and why it doesn't match reality, i works extremely well with ships an planes.
We rotate on the axis every day and orbit the Sun every year so it is hard to think of a point on the surface of the Earth as an absolute frame.
It's easy, and quite natural. We still say the sun rises and sets. It's not very convenient for doing celestial mechanics, though.
I hit the like button even though I know it doesn't work. It is the thought that counts!

61. Originally Posted by whizkid
Originally Posted by Markus Hanke
i.e. you can arbitrary decide who is at rest and who is moving relative to that chosen rest frame. That freedom to choose your rest frame is precisely what is meant when we say that all motion is relative - it is relative to the chosen rest frame.
It is not the only one at all
Motion is relative by definition; you dispute that, so the onus to show that the accepted definition is wrong is on you.
Since you have agreed that motion is not absolute and hence relative, I don't see what else there would be to discuss.
Markus, you have always maintained that there is no priviledged frame of reference.
I am saying that taking the grid as the priviledged frame F, no other frame is legitimate. There is no frame of the train, there is no frame of the trees, no frame of a photon. In so doing, I have eliminated billions of individual frames.
What you think you did is just your delusion and ignorance speaking. Frames are geometric constructs, you can't "eliminate" them, despite your deep rooted misconceptions. Frames don't "attach" to objects, making your universe one object does not "eliminate" frames.

All motions being relative to F makes any motion non-relative to all other motions, that seems hard to accept.
...because it is pure crank, this is why it is "hard to accept". You need to accept that you are a crank and your ideas are totally crank as well.

Absolute is 25, relative is v= 25m/s. If you decide that the unit of time is only the second and define it, than 25m per second becomes v= 25m. If you decide that m is the only unit of space and define it, v = 25
Speed is frame dependent. Galileo explained that 500 years ago.

Now , using F for motion, you know exactly what is moving, what is Ke etc. In your system this is not possible if a train is going to Bonn if you consider different frames it has different speeds an different KE. In your system motion is relative in mine it is not. For every object you can determine its velocity and its KE.
Speed, Ke, momentum, length, time are all frame dependent. Your crass ignorance is appaling.

As to the box , I haven't agreed to anything.
Of course not, you are a hardened crank, you will never admit you are wrong and you will continue to embarrass yourself posting garbage.

If so , if the earth (the whole universe) were spinning or moving there might be experiment that could or could not show that, but that is irrelevant as the whole system is rigid, and the speed of light would not be affected, because the distance between to places stays anyway the same as Michelson proved.
This is not what MMX was all about.

If you are saying that if you are inside a sealed train you might not know when it is moving or not, well that is possible, but that has nothing to do with non-relative motion. If you mean this, it is a silly example: it is like saying that if I put you in a sealed , insulated room and you cannot say if it is cold outside, than abslotute temperature does not exist.
Welll , for your (non-existent) education: relativity teaches that there is no experiment that conducted inside a sealed lab can determine state of uniform motion of said lab.

If you are allowed to observe and describe reality (not in a blind box) adopting the suggested F, is there a single case where you cannot decide the state and the KE of an object? If you cannot, it means that "motion is relative by definition" is false.
Does it hurt? Being so dense, I mean.

62. Originally Posted by whizkid
Markus, you have always maintained that there is no priviledged frame of reference.
Indeed.

I am saying that taking the grid as the priviledged frame F, no other frame is legitimate.
And what is it that physically distinguishes the rest frame of the Earth's surface from any other frame you care to choose ?

In so doing, I have eliminated billions of individual frames.
What you have done is chosen a particular frame, which is fine. But that doesn't make your chosen frame privileged or absolute in any way.

All motions being relative to F makes any motion non-relative to all other motions
I'm afraid that sentence does not appear to make any sense.

Absolute is 300°K, 27° C is relative because 0° celsius is 273°K , celsius is relative to kelvin, if you take the frame K as the only frame then temperature becomes absolute.
Yes, that's because with temperature there is a fixed reference point, being absolute zero. The same is not true for motion.

For every object you can determine its velocity and its KE.
Of course you can, but they are observer dependent quantities. If you look through a telescope at the ISS, it has velocity and kinetic energy with respect to you and the earth; if you are an astronaut on board the ISS, it has no velocity and kinetic energy with respect to you. These quantities all depend on the observer.

As to the box , I haven't agreed to anything. I actually can't see what is your purpose, what you want to prove.
The purpose was to show that it is impossible to tell from within the box whether or not it is moving, and hence that motion is not absolute, but relative to some outside point of reference.

If I put you in a sealed box can you tell if it is moving?
No you can't, that's the point.

- you want to hint we cannot tell if the earth is moving or what?
Of course not. The Earth is moving relative to all other celestial objects.

If you cannot, it means that "motion is relative by definition" is false.
No, it means the exact opposite - because you need an external point of reference to tell whether you are moving or not, motion is necessarily relative. Without that external point of reference, motion is not a meaningful concept, and in fact undefined.

motion is non-relative, if there is a priviledged Frame of reference.
See above. There are no privileged frames, and hence all motion is relative.

63. Thanks Marcus. That sounds very correct.

64. Yes thanks Markus. Always interesting.

65. Originally Posted by Markus Hanke
Of course not. The Earth is moving relative to all other celestial objects.
Markus, if you want to carry on a theoretical discussion you should be fair and respect the premises. You (and the background noise) are carrying on considering the actual conception of the universe. In this way it is impossible to follow one rationale, and it is chaos.

In my example the earth is the whole universe, this limitation lets us discuss the basics of the problem. If we ever get to a conclusion ,we pass on to the solar system or other. Let's see if it works here, first. If you are able to keep this premise in mind and not violate it, we can have a useful discussion. If you are not prepared to proceed by steps, we stop.
...............

Once more: the earth is the universe, there is nothing ouside it, we adopt Harold's fixed frame universally. There is no other individual frame. What happens?

An object is moving when it is changing its position on the map, else is at rest. We can establish what is moving and what is not, we can determin the kE of every object.
Isn't this system better , more rational and ordered than your relative/relativity/relativistic universe?

Light is invariant, everybody sees it travel at c, because, even if the earth is moving in any direction, the speed of light is not influenced by the motion of its emitter and receiver.
----------------
Now tell me if we need relativity in this universe, when and why. If you like, say why travelling with a photon to Bonn worries you.
----------------------------------

As to your box, I reapeat this is sort of a joke, not relevant here.
But if you are in a sealed box/wagon and have a few simple instruments ( n accelerometer, a precise clock etc) you can calculate the speed of the box from the duration and intensity of the acceleration.
But if you can or cannot decide it, that does not affect if the motion is absolute, can you understand that? If you have a huge pendulum you can detect the spinning of the earth, if you have not you can't. So what does that mean anything?. Do your abilities influence the ways of Nature?

Motion is motion, like beauty is beauty and everything, you can make it relative /variable/subjective or non-relative/objective/absolute if you establish absolute/fixed/universal/ objective criteria.

66. In my example the earth is the whole universe, this limitation lets us discuss the basics of the problem
But that's not reality, or how it works. You want to simplify your thinking until you can understand it, but it doesn't get that simple.

But if you are in a sealed box/wagon and have a few simple instruments ( n accelerometer, a precise clock etc) you can calculate the speed of the box from the duration and intensity of the acceleration.
And here you show that you don't know what an inertial framework is. There is no acceleration, just uniform motion.

You should really go back to high school.

Motion is motion, like beauty is beauty and everything, you can make it relative /variable/subjective or non-relative/objective/absolute if you establish absolute/fixed/universal/ objective criteria.
Showing once more that you don't know the meanings of the words you're using.

67. The guy is just one more ignorant troll.
Standard procedure: dismisses anything at all that would show where and how he's wrong. Belittles the ones he accidentally did notice but can't refute and invents his own definitions.

I've already pointed out how his "fixed coordinate system" is effectively useless in ordinary life.

68. Originally Posted by whizkid
Now tell me if we need relativity in this universe, when and why.
We "need" relativity in this universe simply because empirically all observers experience the same laws of physics. Relativity is the set of relationships between observers that ensures this invariance of the physical laws, regardless of the states of relative motion and position with respect to sources of gravity. You have correctly pointed out that the speed of light is the same for everyone - have you never wondered why that is ? It's because Maxwell's laws are Lorentz invariant, i.e. their form does not change even if you go from a rest frame into a relatively moving frame. Without relativity, velocities would just add linearly, and Maxwell's laws would hence be violated simply by setting yourself into relative motion; thankfully this is not the case, since relativity ensures that measurements in these two frames of reference have a very specific relationship to one another that leaves all laws of physics unchanged.

Motion is motion, like beauty is beauty and everything, you can make it relative /variable/subjective or non-relative/objective/absolute if you establish absolute/fixed/universal/ objective criteria.
In other words - motion depends on your chosen reference frame. That is what we have been trying to tell you all along.

69. Originally Posted by whizkid
Now tell me if we need relativity in this universe, when and why.
One of the important reasons is that in physics we wish to distinguish that which is 'invariant' and that which is 'not' and this allows us to isolate those fundamental variables that are common to all reference frames. If an effect such as a force is frame dependent and can 'disappear' when viewed from the perspective of another frame of reference then it is safe to conclude that the 'illusion' can be attributed to the choice of frame as opposed to be an inherent property of the system that is being observed.

The choice of an arbitrary reference frame does not offer anything else aside from a coordinate system in which to measure things. It may be useful to a navigator but it is not particularly useful as a foundation for scientific enquiry. The use of an arbitrary reference frame tells us nothing about the actual mechanics that is going on. The choice of reference frames adopted by relativity is used to determine the intrinsic nature of things as opposed to mere aberrations and hence distill those important 'invariant' variables that are applicable to all observers. With this distillation process we can then examine these invariants in ever increasing wider domains to see if this invariance holds in all conditions.

Relativity is useful to science whereas the choice of an arbitrary coordinate system is simply handy for navigating our earthly domain.

70. thanks for that nice explanation.Unfortunately the question seems to have been purely rhetorical ......

71. Well spoken, Implicate Order

72. Perhaps t's time to move this to pseudoscience, or the trash.

73. Originally Posted by whizkid
But if you are in a sealed box/wagon and have a few simple instruments ( n accelerometer, a precise clock etc) you can calculate the speed of the box from the duration and intensity of the acceleration.
Err, you can't:

You can calculate , you can NEVER find .

74. Originally Posted by AlexG
Perhaps t's time to move this to pseudoscience, or the trash.
Long overdue.

75. I'll add my 2 cents

It's a bit speculative, but there is a reference frame that seam a bit more special then all the others.
The reference frame of the universe. In that reference frame, the average speed of the universe is 0.
In that reference frame, the background radio wave radiation seam homogenous in all directions. In other reference frames the background radio wave radiation seam bluer in one direction and redder in the opposite direction.

If an absolute reference exist. This one is a good candidate.
Then we reach problems with philosophical interpretation.
If a difference is measured, it could also be interpreted as a particular distribution of mass/energy.

76. Originally Posted by Quantum immortal
The reference frame of the universe. In that reference frame, the average speed of the universe is 0. If an absolute reference exist. This one is a good candidate.
Unfortunately while this may be the case, the best we are ever going to get in matching empirical observation with our theoretical models is from a perspective taken from inside this universe. We might be able to piece the different perspectives together using mathematics to suggest that the only one true invariant to this universe lies in the universe itself but to ensure that we don't get ourselves in Godelian self-referential knots, an observer always needs to exclude himself from the system of assessment and thereby relinquish the ability of a gods eye view to match the theory against empirical observations. This therefore means that there will always be a bit of room for philosophy. They are persistent beggars I will give them that. :-)

77. Originally Posted by Quantum immortal
I
If an absolute reference exist. This one is a good candidate.
That is where I was driving at. The earth, the solar system, the whole universe.
But it is easier to start with a system we know and we can manage, i.e. the earth.
But it seems the prejudices prevail and we cannot have a fair , serious unbiassed discussion

78. Originally Posted by Quantum immortal
In that reference frame, the background radio wave radiation seam homogenous in all directions.
You are probably referring to the CMBR. The problem with this is that the CMBR is just photons, and photons are not a valid frame of reference at all; also, the choice of where to put the point of origin of this coordinate system is once again completely arbitrary.

79. Originally Posted by Markus Hanke
We "need" relativity in this universe simply because empirically all observers experience the same laws of physics.
That is a vague statement. Even without it they do or they might. If you can, you ought to say where and when F fails to do that.
One caveat Markus: if you want to carry on a fair discussion, you must be unbiassed.
You are prejudiced and talk as if in this F you have demonstrated the validity and necessity of relativity.
That is what this discussion is all about:
You haven't even tried, yet ,to prove step by step that relativity is indespensable, where and how.Take, at last, a concrete example and show something I can discuss.
Relativity is the set of relationships between observers that ensures this invariance of the physical laws, regardless of the states of relative motion and position with respect to sources of gravity.
I know that claim , where does it come in here? You haven't shown that. Do you think it is enough to state it?
You have correctly pointed out that the speed of light is the same for everyone - have you never wondered why that is ? It's because Maxwell's laws are Lorentz invariant,
No, I claimed it is because the distance doesn't change for anyybody, and because the speed of light is not influenced by the speed of the emitter or the receiver. It depends only by the properties (the elasticity) of the medium, just like any other wave in the universe. Disprove that!
Without relativity, velocities would just add linearly, and Maxwell's laws would hence be violated simply by setting yourself into relative motion
Prove that with a concrete example!
In other words - motion depends on your chosen reference frame. That is what we have been trying to tell you all along.
Motion is relative, (not dependent) to F, so what? what is your problem?

I see you dropped your box example, are you convinced it is irrelevant? was it a joke?

P.S. some ignorants write that I have fringe or crank ideas. They can't read properly: I have not put forward any theory. I am discussing a well-known system that is in use even in this site, when it adopts and apply UTC.
I have nothing against relativity. You think it is the TRUTH, I do not mind!. It is just a theory, largely made up of conjectures which are not scientific as they cannot be disproved. It is useful to make some numerical corrections, in limited circumstances, fair enough, it is useful in correcting some figures sometimes, good for you!
But it is up to you to show that F needs relativity and fails without it.
You keep repeting your mantras, your apodictical dogmas but are not able to show where relativity is necessary here. At least you haven't been so far.

80. Originally Posted by Markus Hanke
Originally Posted by Quantum immortal
In that reference frame, the background radio wave radiation seam homogenous in all directions.
You are probably referring to the CMBR. The problem with this is that the CMBR is just photons, and photons are not a valid frame of reference at all; also, the choice of where to put the point of origin of this coordinate system is once again completely arbitrary.
Yea i meant the CMBR

If you see one of these photons, its nothing special.
If you see the whole cloud of these photons however. It does have a suspicious reference frame.
I don't see what’s invalid about it.

We can assume that the universe has no centre.

81. Originally Posted by whizkid

P.S. some ignorants write that I have fringe or crank ideas.
You ARE a crank.

They can't read properly: I have not put forward any theory.
This is a lie. Or you don't understand what you are doing. take your pick.

I am discussing a well-known system that is in use even in this site, when it adopts and apply UTC.

No, you are not. UTC has nothing to do with the crankerry you are pushing.

I have nothing against relativity. You think it is the TRUTH, I do not mind!. It is just a theory, largely made up of conjectures which are not scientific as they cannot be disproved.

It is useful to make some numerical corrections, in limited circumstances, fair enough, it is useful in correcting some figures sometimes, good for you!
But it is up to you to show that F needs relativity and fails without it.
You keep repeting your mantras, your apodictical dogmas but are not able to show where relativity is necessary here. At least you haven't been so far.

...and the crank comes out full blown....

82. Originally Posted by Quantum immortal
Originally Posted by Markus Hanke
Originally Posted by Quantum immortal
In that reference frame, the background radio wave radiation seam homogenous in all directions.
You are probably referring to the CMBR. The problem with this is that the CMBR is just photons, and photons are not a valid frame of reference at all; also, the choice of where to put the point of origin of this coordinate system is once again completely arbitrary.
Yea i meant the CMBR
.
CMBR (Cosmic Microwave Background RADIATION) is NOT a frame, it is a ...radiation.
The correct nomenclature is "the frame in which CMBR is isotropic". This frame is not special, it is just a frame like any other frame.

83. Originally Posted by whizkid
That is a vague statement.
I disagree. In fact it is the exact opposite - it's as concrete as it gets. It means that the outcome of local experiments is the same no matter where they are performed, and at what state of relative motion. Put a computer/TV screen/elementary particle onboard a relatively moving satellite, and it will behave the exact same way as it does somewhere at relative rest - at any obtainable speed. How much more concrete does it get ?

Take, at last, a concrete example and show something I can discuss.
To start with, I can give you 24 concrete examples, out of many many more in the scientific literature : Modern Tests of Relativity
Each one of these explicitly depends on the laws of relativity in some way, and all of them obey the same laws.

You haven't even tried, yet ,to prove step by step that relativity is indespensable, where and how.
In each one of the above 24 links, and in many, many more. If you want an everyday example, the cathode ray tubes in old-style TV sets and computer screens critically depend on relativistic effects being accounted for, or else they would not work the way they do. Another trivial example is gold - pure gold would actually be silver in colour if it wasn't for the presence of relativistic effects. Any of the many particle accelerators around the world demonstrate relativistic effects. The amount of examples is vast indeed, as a simple Google search will reveal to you.

In any case, this thread was not really about relativity, it was about your claim in the OP that it is extremely easy to design an absolute frame of reference. That claim has been sufficiently addressed, I think, and you don't need relativity to show it wrong.

Prove that with a concrete example!
Cathode ray tubes. For a typical anode voltage of 35kV, the vertical velocity of the electrons is about 3% lower due to relativistic effects than would be the case as obtained from purely Newtonian mechanics. Hence, to obtain a proper image on the screen, the deflection voltage has to be adjusted accordingly, as a direct result of relativity. The mathematical relations that are being used to account for these effects are those of hyperbolic geometry, i.e. Lorentz transforms, more specifically the relation between rest mass and kinetic energy.

It depends only by the properties (the elasticity) of the medium, just like any other wave in the universe. Disprove that!
The speed of light depends on the permittivity and permeability of the vacuum; in quantum field theory, the vacuum ground state is also Lorentz invariant, which is why all inertially moving observers see the same vacuum. If you alter the geometry of the vacuum ( e.g. through the presence of sources of energy-momentum, or simply acceleration ), the signal run time between two distant events will change - this is called the Shapiro delay. Likewise, the vacuum ground state in the presence of acceleration will become a thermal bath, and effect called Unruh radiation.

Motion is relative,
Thank you.

I see you dropped your box example, are you convinced it is irrelevant? was it a joke?
The example has shown that motion is not absolute, as intended.

But it is up to you to show that F needs relativity and fails without it.
See the CRT example above. If you don't adjust the anode voltages appropriately, you will not get a synchronised image, hence even something as simple as a CRT television needs the theory of relativity to be engineered; without using relativity, the screen will not function as predicted by Newtonian mechanics. Personally, I like the example of the gold best - ignore relativity, and it would look silver in colour

I should also be noted that most of quantum mechanics, and all of the Standard Model of particle physics ( i.e. quantum field theory ) depends on relativity as well.

It is just a theory, largely made up of conjectures which are not scientific as they cannot be disproved.
Can you give a concrete example of a which postulates of relativity are not falsifiable, in your opinion ?

84. Originally Posted by Markus Hanke

Cathode ray tubes. For a typical anode voltage of 35kV, the vertical velocity of the electrons is about 3% lower due to relativistic effects than would be the case as obtained from purely Newtonian mechanics. Hence, to obtain a proper image on the screen, the deflection voltage has to be adjusted accordingly, as a direct result of relativity. The mathematical relations that are being used to account for these effects are those of hyperbolic geometry, i.e. Lorentz transforms.
Hi Markus,

85. But it is up to you to show that F needs relativity and fails without it.
Actually no, it isn't. Relativity has a century's worth of experimental evidence behind it, so it is already well established, and it is being utilised in many areas of science and technology on a daily basis; even trivial things like CRT, the GPS in your car, and gold rely on relativity. The onus is on yourself to learn about why that is the case, it is not up to us to convince you; the standard against which models in physics are tested is the 5-step scientific method, which relativity continues to pass remarkably well. It is the scientific method that shows that the laws of nature need relativity and that they fail without it, not us.

I think I speak for everyone here when I say that we are happy to assist people who have genuine questions about relativity; however, when you come in here with preconceived notions and make statements such as

It is just a theory, largely made up of conjectures which are not scientific as they cannot be disproved.
then you will quickly find that doors close for you, and that people will consider you a crank. For example, I generally would consider myself to be a rather patient person, and I often engage with posters whom others consider crackpots in the hopes of helping them to understand their errors; nonetheless, when I see statements such as the above, the impression I immediately get is that you are someone who has no interest at all in science, and who is here only to defend an already pre-conceived notion based on a personal opinion. Or do you really believe that a mere conjecture which is not falsifiable or testable has made it into the mainstream sciences, based on mindless repetition of "dogma" ? If that is what you really, genuinely believe, then please state so, because it means I would just be wasting my time responding to you. I am happy to help those who are open to learn, but I need to know that my efforts do not fall on deaf ears.

You think it is the TRUTH
Don't search the truth, just drop your opinions. All physics does is make models of the world, and these models are either in accord with experiment and observation, or they are not; nature itself is the final and only arbitrator. Whether or not a model of the world is "the truth", physics cannot answer - that is what philosophy and religion are for.

86. Originally Posted by xyzt
I just had a look for you - Google "relativistic effects in cathode ray tubes", that will give you several links to the maths. The very first link already does the job well. Remember that the electrons, by the time when they hit the screen, travel at slight over 30% of the speed of light, so relativistic effects definitely become important here

87. Originally Posted by xyzt
Originally Posted by Quantum immortal
Originally Posted by Markus Hanke
Originally Posted by Quantum immortal
In that reference frame, the background radio wave radiation seam homogenous in all directions.
You are probably referring to the CMBR. The problem with this is that the CMBR is just photons, and photons are not a valid frame of reference at all; also, the choice of where to put the point of origin of this coordinate system is once again completely arbitrary.
Yea i meant the CMBR
.
CMBR (Cosmic Microwave Background RADIATION) is NOT a frame, it is a ...radiation.
The correct nomenclature is "the frame in which CMBR is isotropic". This frame is not special, it is just a frame like any other frame.
I was referring to my earlier mistake in the way i named the CMBR.
We both talk about the same thing.

In theory yes, its not special. This is why i said it was speculative.

I said, that it could be that that frame been special.
It's the reference frame of the Universe.
The universe is not just anybody, it's a VIP :P
It's the most special reference frame we can think about.
Why the Universe has that reference frame and not an other?
It's a suspicious reference frame.

We can't really measure much special about it.
But in practice, it is special. In practice most reference frames aren't very far from it.
I don't know what is our speed relative to it, but it's definitely not a fraction of light speed.
Most stuff in the universe, are moving rather slowly in relation to that reference frame.

(i take the expansion of the universe in to account of course)

88. Originally Posted by Markus Hanke
Originally Posted by xyzt
I just had a look for you - Google "relativistic effects in cathode ray tubes", that will give you several links to the maths. The very first link already does the job well. Remember that the electrons, by the time when they hit the screen, travel at slight over 30% of the speed of light, so relativistic effects definitely become important here
This one:
Appendix 5.1: Improving the CRT Deflection Field - Extra ...

?

I think it is pretty badly written but I get the idea. Thank you.

89. Originally Posted by Markus Hanke
To start with, I can give you 24 concrete examples, out of many many more in the scientific literature : Modern Tests of Relativity. Each one of these explicitly depends on the laws of relativity in some way, and all of them obey the same laws.
I thank you for your patience with a crank. I knew it would end up like this. When you have no arguments you just say : go and study relativity, there are 24... thousand proofs, it is the Truth, if you dont blindly accept it you are a crackpot.

I did not bring in relativity here.
I proposed to adopt a fixed frame of reference, and asked you to show its weak points, to show where it fails. You are not able to apply your dogmas to a concrete, well-defined situation. If you think relativity is necessary you should specify where, when and why, not direct me 24 proofs that relativity works.
You haven't found a single problem. Just a sealed box in which I showed you can calculate velocity, and a hint to someone travelling to Bonn with a photon.
That is all you produced. Thanks again.

90. Originally Posted by whizkid
Originally Posted by Markus Hanke
To start with, I can give you 24 concrete examples, out of many many more in the scientific literature : Modern Tests of Relativity. Each one of these explicitly depends on the laws of relativity in some way, and all of them obey the same laws.
I thank you for your patience with a crank. I knew it would end up like this. When you have no arguments you just say : go and study relativity, there are 24... thousand proofs, it is the Truth, if you dont blindly accept it you are a crackpot.

I did not bring in relativity here.
I proposed to adopt a fixed frame of reference, and asked you to show its weak points, to show where it fails. You are not able to apply your dogmas to a concrete, well-defined situation.
You haven't found a single problem. Just a sealed box in which I showed you can calculate velocity, and a hint to someone travelling to Bonn with a photon.
That is all you produced. Thanks again.
Obviously you have not been paying attention.

91. Originally Posted by whizkid
Originally Posted by Markus Hanke
To start with, I can give you 24 concrete examples, out of many many more in the scientific literature : Modern Tests of Relativity. Each one of these explicitly depends on the laws of relativity in some way, and all of them obey the same laws.
I thank you for your patience with a crank. I knew it would end up like this. When you have no arguments you just say : go and study relativity, there are 24... thousand proofs, it is the Truth, if you dont blindly accept it you are a crackpot.

I did not bring in relativity here.
I proposed to adopt a fixed frame of reference, and asked you to show its weak points, to show where it fails. You are not able to apply your dogmas to a concrete, well-defined situation. If you think relativity is necessary you should specify where, when and why, not direct me 24 proofs that relativity works.
You haven't found a single problem. Just a sealed box in which I showed you can calculate velocity, and a hint to someone travelling to Bonn with a photon.
That is all you produced. Thanks again.
But a "fixed frame of reference" is ipso facto a direct contradiction of "relativity", you nitwit!

92. Originally Posted by whizkid
Just a sealed box in which I showed you can calculate velocity,
No, you can't. I pointed out why. This (and many other things) is what make you a crank.

93. Originally Posted by whizkid
Originally Posted by Markus Hanke
To start with, I can give you 24 concrete examples, out of many many more in the scientific literature : Modern Tests of Relativity. Each one of these explicitly depends on the laws of relativity in some way, and all of them obey the same laws.
I thank you for your patience with a crank. I knew it would end up like this. When you have no arguments you just say : go and study relativity, there are 24... thousand proofs, it is the Truth, if you dont blindly accept it you are a crackpot.

I did not bring in relativity here.
I proposed to adopt a fixed frame of reference, and asked you to show its weak points, to show where it fails. You are not able to apply your dogmas to a concrete, well-defined situation. If you think relativity is necessary you should specify where, when and why, not direct me 24 proofs that relativity works.
You haven't found a single problem. Just a sealed box in which I showed you can calculate velocity, and a hint to someone travelling to Bonn with a photon.
That is all you produced. Thanks again.

my 2 cents anyway...

Having an absolute frame of reference doesn't violate any observation.
Mathematically, adding an absolute reference frame, leaves the theory practically unchanged.
It's basically some renaming.
But this is just superfluous. There is no reason why to pick one reference frame in particular.

I personally entertain the possibility, that the reference frame of the universe is actually absolute.
But this is similar in speculation with the multiverse hypothesis, that i also consider seriously.

Try to be nice to each other people

94. Originally Posted by Quantum immortal
....

Try to be nice to each other people
We do, but it doesn't work!

95. I wonder if energy (mc^2 in a vacuum) could be considered as an absolute?
It would seem then if there were something truly massless, that energy would equal zero.

Absolute zero could maybe be called an absolute reference.

Thoughts may not have mass so could be reference points. Of course, if a thought has movement
may it create a virtual mass?

96. Originally Posted by Mayflow
I wonder if energy (mc^2 in a vacuum) could be considered as an absolute?
Now why would you add this nonsense to the nonsense that we already dealt with?

97. Sorry, I will leave the topic now.

98. Originally Posted by Quantum immortal
Having an absolute frame of reference doesn't violate any observation.
Of course not...

• The existence of absolute space contradicts the internal logic of classical mechanics since, according to Galilean principle of relativity, none of the inertial frames can be singled out.
• Absolute space does not explain inertial forces since they are related to acceleration with respect to any one of the inertial frames.
• Absolute space acts on physical objects by inducing their resistance to acceleration but it cannot be acted upon.

— Milutin Blagojević: Gravitation and Gauge Symmetries Wiki.

I personally entertain the possibility, that the reference frame of the universe is actually absolute.
Even if it is "absolute" it's useless as a reference.

Originally Posted by Mayflow
I wonder if energy (mc^2 in a vacuum) could be considered as an absolute?
It would seem then if there were something truly massless, that energy would equal zero.
How is that useful or pertinent?

Absolute zero could maybe be called an absolute reference.
It IS. For temperature. I.e. nothing to do with the OP.

Thoughts may not have mass so could be reference points. Of course, if a thought has movement
may it create a virtual mass?
W. T. F?

99. Originally Posted by Dywyddyr
Originally Posted by Quantum immortal
Having an absolute frame of reference doesn't violate any observation.
Of course not...

• The existence of absolute space contradicts the internal logic of classical mechanics since, according to Galilean principle of relativity, none of the inertial frames can be singled out.
• Absolute space does not explain inertial forces since they are related to acceleration with respect to any one of the inertial frames.
• Absolute space acts on physical objects by inducing their resistance to acceleration but it cannot be acted upon.

— Milutin Blagojević: Gravitation and Gauge Symmetries Wiki.
Are you trolling again?
Anyway....

If you assume that the reference frame of the universe is the "real" reference frame. The "real" observation.
And all other reference frames are just apparent. With an apparent time and apparent lengths....
You are just reusing the same math. You basically just reinterpret the observations, you don't contradict any past experiment.

In practice, there isn't a compelling reason to do that.
That the reference frame of the Universe is slightly more special then all others.
Is a bit too weak of a reason to redefine things like that.

100. Originally Posted by Quantum immortal
Are you trolling again?
Again?
Nope, I'm showing you that you were wrong in your assertion.

If you assume that the reference frame of the universe is the "real" reference frame.
Any "reference frame of the universe" is entirely meaningless.
It's like saying use the corner of this box as a reference for the contents. By the way we don't where that corner is.
We're inside the universe.
We can't observe the whole and therefore can't use it in any way.

And all other reference frames are just apparent. With an apparent time and apparent lengths....
You are just reusing the same math. You basically just reinterpret the observations, you don't contradict any past experiment.
Please, give me ONE example of how we use the "reference frame of the universe".
The only way we can obtain a reference frame is by ascribing one particular object or location to use as 0, 0, 0.
Can you explain how we could use "the universe" as 0, 0, 0?

That the reference frame of the Universe is slightly more special then all others.
Because it's unusable?

So far you haven't given any explanation AT ALL of how we use this "reference frame", simply hand-waved and made claims.

101. Originally Posted by Quantum immortal

Having an absolute frame of reference doesn't violate any observation.
Mathematically, adding an absolute reference frame, leaves the theory practically unchanged.
It's basically some renaming.
But this is just superfluous. There is no reason why to pick one reference frame in particular.
All correct. I already explained this before in this thread , if you bothered reading. The problem is, there is no way of detecting such a frame. You can label any frame as absolute or preferential , there is no way of finding it. And this makes the whole exercise useless.

Page 1 of 2 12 Last
 Bookmarks
Bookmarks
 Posting Permissions
 You may not post new threads You may not post replies You may not post attachments You may not edit your posts   BB code is On Smilies are On [IMG] code is On [VIDEO] code is On HTML code is Off Trackbacks are Off Pingbacks are Off Refbacks are On Terms of Use Agreement