<< Previous Topic | Next Topic >>Return to Forum  
SOCRATUS SADOVNIK

Re: Absolute Rest Frame

August 26 2017, 9:41 PM 

There are innumerable accelerated reference frames.
But the basis of them must be only one absolute rest frame
It seems, to accept this simple idea is not easy.
===========

 
 
nakayama

Re: Absolute Rest Frame

August 28 2017, 12:54 AM 

Space is strict in inertia and is generous in the emission theory (except in the rotation of the light source, and so on). Another face (aspect) of aether ?

 
 
nakayama

Re: Absolute Rest Frame

August 28 2017, 1:03 AM 

To SOCRATUS,
Yes, in dynamics, it is not easy, But, by star light, one and only frame is visible to all of our eyes (it is not visible by earthly light).

 
 
SOCRATUS SADOVNIK

Re: Absolute Rest Frame

August 28 2017, 8:02 AM 

There are innumerable accelerated frames.
As the basis of it, not innumerable inertial frames but one and
only rest frame seems to be easy to accept.

/ nakayama /


There are innumerable accelerated frames. ( GALAXIES, STARS, PLANETS . . . ETC)
As the basis of it, not innumerable inertial frames but one ( AETHER - VACUUM) and
only rest frame ( T=0K ) seems to be easy to accept. ( 2 - DIMENSIONS )

========================================

 
 
SOCRATUS SADOVNIK

Re: Absolute Rest Frame

August 28 2017, 8:16 AM 

To SOCRATUS,
Yes, in dynamics, it is not easy,
But, by star light, one and only frame is visible to all of our eyes (it is not visible by earthly light).

nakayama

Light  with constant speed  c  DOESN'T DEPEND on the emitting body.
The speed of light c is a constant and INDEPENDENT of the relative motion of the source and observer.
Light in vacuum propagates with the speed c REGARDLESS  of the state of motion of the light source.
=============================

 
 
nakayama

Re: Absolute Rest Frame

August 28 2017, 9:41 PM 

A key word of definition of inertial frame seems to be “a uniform linear motion”. But, right key word must be “a uniform linear motion (motion in a uniform vector) relative to the absolute rest frame”. It will be unquestionable qualitatively.

 
 
nakayama

Re: Absolute Rest Frame

August 28 2017, 10:11 PM 

To SOCRATUS,

On your former post, I agree basically (but today‘s physics rejects the rest frame).

On your latter post, your view is different from mine hopelessly. However I am a poor amateur.

 
 
SOCRATUS SADOVNIK

Re: Absolute Rest Frame

August 28 2017, 10:42 PM 

A key word of definition of inertial frame seems to be
“a uniform linear motion”.
But, right key word must be “a uniform linear motion
(motion in a uniform vector)
relative to the absolute rest frame”.
It will be unquestionable qualitatively.
nakayama

Agree
===========

On your former post, I agree basically
(but today‘s physics rejects the rest frame).
On your latter post, your view is different from mine hopelessly.
However I am a poor amateur.
nakayama

Don't worry, i am also a poor amateur
================

 
 
nakayama

Re: Absolute Rest Frame

August 31 2017, 12:44 AM 

Motion relative to what, an uniform linear motion and an accelerated motion are ? Inertial frames are dispersed in space, passing phenomenon and vector is various. The absolute rest frame is omnipresent, homogeneous (flat) and invariable.

 
 
Ufonaut99

Re: Absolute Rest Frame

August 31 2017, 10:21 AM 

Hi Nakayama,

Imagine 1,000,000 observers, each moving away from all the others in uniform linear motion (and so each regards him/her-self as being stationary in their own inertial frame, and each of the others moving away).

So on what basis are you proposing to determine which ONE of those inertial frames is THE special, one-and-only, absolute reference frame ??? After all, every one of those reference frames are "omnipresent, homogeneous (flat) and invariable". wink.gif

 
 
nakayama

Re: Absolute Rest Frame

August 31 2017, 10:25 PM 

Ufonaut99,

Yes, in the dynamics only circumstantial evidences can be obtained. However, rest frame are decisively shown as some phenomena by the starlight, I believe. One of them is aberration (shown qualitatively, quantitatively).

 
 
nakayama

Re: Absolute Rest Frame

August 31 2017, 10:35 PM 

P.S. One and only rest frame can explain everything (including 1,000,000 observers or MMX), I believe.

 
 
nakayama

Re: Absolute Rest Frame

August 31 2017, 11:00 PM 

P.S. 1,000,000 inertial frames seem to show the rest frame also. The rest frame cannot be denied, I think.

 
 
SOCRATUS SADOVNIK

Re: Absolute Rest Frame

September 1 2017, 6:38 AM 

  Hi   Nakayama,
=====================

1,000,000 inertial frames ( galaxies . . . etc ) are approximately inertial.
They all exist in a absolute rest frame; vacuum T=0K. (my opinion)

But Steven Weinberg. /The Nobel Prize in Physics 1979 / denies this.
Book:
‘Dreams of a final theory’ by Steven Weinberg. Page 138.
‘ It is true . . . there is such a thing as absolute zero; we cannot
reach temperatures below absolute zero not because we are not
sufficiently clever but because temperatures below absolute zero
simple have no meaning.’

Even i am ( or, maybe, you are ) correct, i ( we) have no chance change his mind.

=========================

 
 
nakayama

Re: Absolute Rest Frame

September 2 2017, 12:56 AM 

Is an inertial frame dependent on many other inertial frames ? But, interdependence seems not to stand up. Supposition of the rest frame will be more natural than interdependence.

 
 
nakayama

Re: Absolute Rest Frame

September 2 2017, 1:44 AM 

To SOCRATUS,

Rest frame in dynamics and aether will be the same thing. And it seems to be stationary to celestial sphere. But the universe is said to be expanding. So, I can’t refer to it. It’s my view.

 
 
Ufonaut99

Re: Absolute Rest Frame

September 2 2017, 6:52 AM 

Nakayama: rest frame are decisively shown as some phenomena by the starlight, I believe. One of them is aberration (shown qualitatively, quantitatively).
...
Rest frame in dynamics and aether will be the same thing.

OK, so you reckon the rest frame and the "aether frame" are the same thing, and supported by stellar aberration. That was the dream in 1800, but things have moved on a bit since then wink.gif

The trouble is that actual observations of stellar aberration lead to problems with aether hypothesis, spawning various epicycles.
For example, to resolve some of these problems, Fresnel in 1818 proposed the Partial Aether Drag Hypothesis, that the Earth drags the aether along with it - in other words, aether MOVES !

So, the question for you is : Do you accept the idea of aether dragging ?

a) If you do, then you accept that aether is not always stationary with the "omnipresent, homogeneous (flat) and invariable" universal rest frame (which also means that starlight cannot decisively show the existence of such a rest frame)

b) If you do not, then you must come up with an alternative explanation for the observations that Fresnel was responding to.

So which do you choose - (a) or (b) ? Happy Roll

 
 
SOCRATUS SADOVNIK

Re: Absolute Rest Frame

September 2 2017, 9:41 AM 

inertia
===========
my god, how easy we speak ''inertia''
it is possible to think, we know that ''inertia'' means
but . . .
there isn't ''free lunch'' for inertial movement
for every movement you need energy
to move your car you need energy and
you will pay money for this wish

''inertia'' without ''energy'' is half-truth
half-truth is a ''Trojan horse''
it is bad thing to believe in its glory.
===============

 

 
 
nakayama

Rest Frame as Aether

September 3 2017, 10:23 PM 

Ather is said to be forsaken because of MM experiment. But all of MM experiment (done in air) is nonsense. See following quotations.
In a book Special Relativity by French, A.P. 1968, there is a word "extinction". And it's written as follows (original text ; quoted from "Google book" ; in 5-2). "Thus, for example, with visible light, a thickness of about 10-5cm of glass or 0.1mm of air at atmospheric pressure is almost enough to erase any possible memory, as it were, of the motion of the original source" (10-5cm is 0.0001mm). In a book Theory of Relativity by Pauli, W 1958, it's written as follows (quoted from English version ; in 1-6). "Rather should one say that for an observer moving with medium, light is propagated as usual with velocity c/n in all directions".

Apart from the above, existence of aether is undoubted. In aberration and so on.

 
 
nakayama

Re: Absolute Rest Frame

September 3 2017, 11:56 PM 

To Ufonaut99,

My view is that light is always dragged by air, glass, aether (by its frame) and so on. Not partly but perfectly. Pauli, French wrote so. Aberration shows so. To me, Fresnel’s idea is worthless at all.

 
 
 
  Respond to this message   
  << Previous Topic | Next Topic >>Return to Forum  
 Copyright © 1999-2017 Network54. All rights reserved.   Terms of Use   Privacy Statement