# Res Ipsa Loquitor-- Disproved:The Impossiblity of absolute motion detection.

Discussion in 'Physics & Math' started by geistkiesel, Oct 23, 2004.

1. ### VernRegistered Senior Member

Messages:
695
I don't think I made any claims in the post

My feeling is that when your objective is to learn physics; it is well to study the standard model as well as all the fringe ideas that lead up to it.

Vern

Last edited: Feb 23, 2005

3. ### wesmorrisNerd Overlord - we(s):1 of NValued Senior Member

Messages:
9,844
It was the proverbial "you".

5. ### 2inquisitiveThe Devil is in the detailsRegistered Senior Member

Messages:
3,181
Yuriy, I am aware that values in physics do not change in inertial frames of reference,
whether that frame is 'at rest' (no such thing, really) or moving at a constant velocity.
The values are relative when two different frames of reference are compared with each
other, such as clocks tick at different rates and the length of a meter can be comparitively different, according to SR. Now a question to you that I have touched
upon before. We know as a fact that cesium clocks beat at a faster rate in high Earth
orbit. Do light clocks do the same? By a light clock, I mean a clock that is regulated
by the time it takes for a beam of light to be emitted from a central location, reflect off a distant surface and its return to the central location recorded. A 'beat' if you will,
similar to a cesium clock. Will the light clock keep time with the cesium clock? If it does
keep syncronous time with the cesium clock, then the value of 'c' changes with frame
of reference. If it does not keep syncronous time, then the observer holding the cesium clock would not record the speed of light as 'c' according to his clock, and the
clock would be in error, not accurately recording time. So, do you believe a cesium
clock and a light clock would be synchronized or not? I do not know, it is just a question.

7. ### YuriyRegistered Senior Member

Messages:
1,080
If they were synchronized once, they will stay synchronized all the time.
BTW: do not do mistake: in my post it is figured "the reference frame of the rest of body".

8. ### geistkieselValued Senior Member

Messages:
2,471
The "writing is the same" means what? The ink was indelible? And what do you mean, "all measurmements made over rested bodies", rested with respect to what?
To clarify: Reference frame (RF) A and RF B move relative to each other. Each has a meter rod measured as identical on a common RF. A and B take a rod go into space for a while and then by chance thaey pass each other in a closing tajectory at relative velocity v = .11c.
The measuring devices on A and B spit out the measurement on pieces of paper. A and B radio the number of their respective measurements to the other. What are the numbers on the pieces of paper:
1. number on paper spit out in A sent to B____________.
2. number on paper spit out in B sent to A ____________.

A small photon emitter (either at rest or moning uniformly) lets out a short pulse of light. The light moves in a straight line. The line defined by the photons is invariant (the line is not subject to any forces perturbing the photons).
Using the line as an invariant reference frame when measuring absolute velocity of objects moving orthogonally to a single point on the line, absolute velocity of all opbjects so measured would be absolute correct?
This last statement of yours has all the markings of a definition. I notice that you offer no measured proof of the statements. Why do you restrict yourself to a nodel that is intrinsically "definitional -physics" onlty?

Geistkiesel

9. ### geistkieselValued Senior Member

Messages:
2,471
Yuriy,

[personal comment deleted]

I addressed the above the post to you describing simple straight forward questions. A sick old man could solve the problem. Two space ships, A and B, moving uniformly wrt each other, passing is a near collision course at a relative velocity of .11c.
The A velocity wrt Ve = 0 (earth RF) was previously, measured at .01c, while B velociy wrt Ve had been measured at .10c. Each has a meter stick on board that had been compared on Ve prior to launch of A and B. The ships pass relative to each other is a near collision course. Each ship measures the length of the opposite ship's meter stick. Each are unaware of the measurement of velocity wrt Ve. The measuring device spits out a piece of paper with the printed measured value. All observers have been asleep from prior to launch to minutes before the ships pass each other. The observers on each ship measure the relative velocity of A wrt B and vice versa as .11c.

What are the numbers printed on the two pieces of paper?

Last edited by a moderator: Feb 23, 2005
10. ### James RJust this guy, you know?Staff Member

Messages:
31,445
5 posts deleted and one edited due to inappropriate personal comments. Please stick to the topic, people.

11. ### geistkieselValued Senior Member

Messages:
2,471
Your response here is ambiguous. "If they were synchromized" as used in your statement means that if the clocks kept the same time they will continue to keep the same time. This is like saying "if the light is on ,the light is on." In the chance there was a mis-interpreted exchange somewhere I want to clarify a small matter. 2inqusitive asked specifically,

"So, do you believe a cesium clock and a light clock would be synchronized or not?"
The question is Yuriy: Can you synchronize a light clock with a Cesium clock?

it is not 'will synchronized clocks remain synchronized?'..

Also Yuriy,
What frame specifically did you consider the "rest body"?

Geistkiesel

12. ### 2inquisitiveThe Devil is in the detailsRegistered Senior Member

Messages:
3,181
by Geistkiesel'

it is not 'will synchronized clocks remain synchronized?'..
========================================================

Actually, that WAS my question. Why would anyone question IF you could synchronize
a light clock with a cesium clock? Maybe I wasn't clear, but I was asking if the clocks
would remain synchronized in high Earth orbit. Yuriy stated they would remain synchronized in the frame of reference of an observer in high Earth orbit with them.
Now suppose we have 4 clocks, 2 cesium and 2 light clocks, all synchronized on Earth.
Launch one cesium clock and one light clock into high Earth orbit, on the same satellite. We know as a fact that the cesium clock that remains on the Earth will not
remain synchronized with the orbiting clock. Will the two light clocks, one on Earth and
one in orbit, remain synchronized? I assume they can't, if the light clocks remain synchronized with their cesium partners in the same frame of reference. Now, assume
we can move the satellite containing the synchronized cesium and light clocks through
space at a relativistic velocity. Remember, the light clock is timed by a beam of light
projected to a reflecting surface and back to the center of the clock, where the transit time constitutes one 'beat'. Would the cesium and light clocks still remain
synchronized in the frame of reference of an observer on the satellite, regardless of
the direction the beam on the light clock was transmitted, coinciding with direction of
travel or orthogonal to direction of travel? Would the two clocks on the satellite remain
synchronized with each other when viewed from the frame of reference of an observer
on Earth, standing beside the two Earth clocks? You see, geistkiesel, the behavior of
my light clocks are linked to the behavior of your 'absolute motion detector'.

13. ### geistkieselValued Senior Member

Messages:
2,471
Ah,yess, you did, didn't you. I short changed your question considerably.

I say that the light clocks will remain synchronized as no physical arrangement of reflection can perturb the motion of light. Regardles of relative direction of light and frame the light system can alway be constructed to mainain a constant synchronization even in those extreme cases when the light and frame ae parallel the roundtrip reflected light time for a photon with and against the frame motion can be measured and error corrections to the variant pulse ticks can be maintained. pulses orthogonal will reflect R times the same for any velocity v. Off ange;e directions of photonm and frame can be corrected with simple trig functions.

The Cesium clock though may be different.

Here is a brief Internet description of what is occuring:

Today, cesium clocks measure frequency with an accuracy of from 2 to 3 parts in 10 to the 14th, i.e. 0.00000000000002 Hz; this corresponds to a time measurement accuracy of 2 nanoseconds per day or one second in 1,400,000 years. It is the most accurate realization of a unit that mankind has yet achieved. A cesium clock operates by exposing cesium atoms to microwaves until they vibrate at one of their resonant frequencies and then counting the corresponding cycles as a measure of time. The frequency involved is that of the energy absorbed from the incident photons when they excite the outermost electron in a cesium atom to jump ("transition") from a lower to a higher orbit.
The frequency of the Cesium clock will be predictably perturbed during the accelration into orbits. Now if an electron is accelerated to a high velocity in an EM field then removing the field leaves the electron moving at a uniform velocity. The cesium atoms being in higher energy state though moving uniformly after acceleration can expected to send a dilated tick rate. By correlating acceleration data with absolute velocity the imposed dilation force can be determined and neutralized with regard to the acceeleration imposed dilations and the time pulse coordinated automatically from this data can assure a corrected time and accurate time to be maintained with periodic corrections from a ground frame monitoring station.

Thanx for the catch on the misinterpretation of post material.

2-in-q,
If the GPS satellites are time dilated in orbit and share a common orbit radius, for instance, why not just let the clocks drift with the constant error addition and have the time corrections imposed by the slave software when performing position or other correct time critical parameters?

Even if at various orbit radii, once in orbit the error rate should be constant. for a constant orbit radius. If so then all error differences in satellite-satellite communications can be time signature corrected before leaving the satellite, and all signals emited from each satellite can be stamped with the corrected or real (dilated ) time.

Geistkiesel

14. ### 2inquisitiveThe Devil is in the detailsRegistered Senior Member

Messages:
3,181
by geistkiesel:

"I say that the light clocks will remain synchronized as no physical arrangement of reflection can perturb the motion of light. Regardles of relative direction of light and frame the light system can alway be constructed to mainain a constant synchronization even in those extreme cases when the light and frame ae parallel the roundtrip reflected light time for a photon with and against the frame motion can be measured and error corrections to the variant pulse ticks can be maintained. pulses orthogonal will reflect R times the same for any velocity v. Off ange;e directions of photonm and frame can be corrected with simple trig functions."
===============================================================

Ah yes, but this is what I am getting at. By what process would the light clock remain
synchronized with the cesium clock? I mean the details. For example, when the beam emitted by the light clock is orthogonal to the direction of travel, what path does the
beam take? Does it retain the forward motion of the relativistically moving satellite,
thus taking a longer path and an increased travel time slowing the light clock so that
it keeps synchronized time with the cesium clock? I that case your absolute motion detector would not work. My question is not if one can ADJUST the light clock to keep
synchronized time with the cesium clock while both are in motion, but if they will REMAIN synchronized. If the beam did not retain the forward motion of the satellite,
was independent of the emitter, then the beam would return to varing points on the
collector that timed the elapse time, but the elapse time would not change with velocity of the satellite and the light clock would not keep synchronized time with the
cesium clock, it would remain synchronized with the ground clocks on the surface of
the Earth. Its beat would not change since the emitted beam traveled the same distance as always, only the collection point changed. Now, let the beam of the light
clock be emitted in the direction of travel of the satellite. How is it possible to record
a 'slower' beat, a different travel time, for the emitted beam in this circumstance?
The beam may reach the reflector more quickly as the reflector is 'moving' toward
the source of the beam, and the return path should be shorter also, resulting in a
light clock with a 'faster' beat, not slower. I cannot figure out how to get a moving
light clock to beat slower than a similar clock on the surface of the Earth with which
it was once synchronized, thus my question. For me, the devil is in the details, and
not just in unsupported statements or theory. I am not stating the light clock WOULD
NOT run slower while in motion, I am just interested in someone explaining to me how
it happens, the details, as I cannot come up with the answer on my own.

by geistkiesel:

"Even if at various orbit radii, once in orbit the error rate should be constant. for a constant orbit radius. If so then all error differences in satellite-satellite communications can be time signature corrected before leaving the satellite, and all signals emited from each satellite can be stamped with the corrected or real (dilated ) time."
==============================================================

You state the error rate should be constant. But constant in regard to what? Seems
you are assuming an absolute velocity for the satellites, and not relative velocity
between themselves. The absolute velocity is what is used for a basis for the beginning calculations in an inertial frame, the ECI frame, but the satellites have to be
time synchronized with each other. The satellite in an equitorial orbit does not see the
relative velocities of the satellites in different orbital planes as being the same. To correct for this variation, the control station and the monitoring stations have to keep
synchronized with the satellite constallation as a whole. You do realize that when a
satellite's clocks get out of tolerence, it is necessary to move one of the spares to
fill the orbit of the malfuctioning satellite. Its clocks then have to be calibrated with
regard to its new orbital plane. The satellites are NOT in an inertial frame of reference
either, the ECI frame is only a basis to work from. They are actually in a non-inertial
frame of reference wrt Earth's surface, all information transmitted from satellite to ground reciever is done
within the ECEF frame of reference, a non-inertial frame.

Messages:
10,104
16. ### 2inquisitiveThe Devil is in the detailsRegistered Senior Member

Messages:
3,181
Yes, MacM, that is a reference to the ECEF frame. And yes, WGS84 is the mathematical representation of the Earth's surface. It is a non-inertial frame of reference, a rotating frame. Do you have a point to make?

17. ### MacMRegistered Senior Member

Messages:
10,104
I was merely looking up information of the various frames descriptions for others to understand the differances and consequences. I was not commenting on the above posts.

In looking for a good description of ECI I ran across this and found it very interesting reading. It is a re-examination of the M&M experiment based on current technology and understanding and data from GPS.

http://qem.ee.nthu.edu.tw/f1b.pdf

18. ### geistkieselValued Senior Member

Messages:
2,471
2nq, I realize all yu say. My question, badly formed, had to do with the individal satellites moving at constant speed within one particular orbit.

A representative system of Gps orbits.

My question : If the speed of each satellite in each orbit is constant wrt a point on each orbit separately, then the error in tick rate of each satellite wold be known and that error added to the outpute rate of he clock would generate a synchronized tick rate with any ground stationm. The time of flight tick rate error in the tansmission of signals between ground station and satellite is added for each transmission.

It seems to me that up to to here in the discussion the ground station and satellites can easily synchronize their clocks "permanently" subject to induced errors from other sources.

In the same format of satellite to satellite transmissions, synchronization can be maintained in the same manner. Establishing the distance between each satellite at the instant collected data is transmitted will operate to maintain the synchrnization of time as if all satelites were in the same room on the planet surface.

Thus the usable information (data) would be delivered to the using party with the resolutions of accuracy included.

I am only asking if a constant velocity can be assumed for each satellite in each orbit wrt a point on the orbit once linear orbit speed is determined?
And would a calculated universal tick rate for the ground/satellite system remain constant?

Geistkiesel

19. ### 2inquisitiveThe Devil is in the detailsRegistered Senior Member

Messages:
3,181
I think I understand what you are asking, and yes, you are more or less stating the
ECI frame of reference, where all satellites in the constellation are moving at a constant velocity wrt the center of the Earth. I don't want to try to sound like I am
too knowledgable about the GPS system, because it IS complicated. But the ECI frame
is the one used in which the satellites are initially synchronized in time wrt the center of the Earth, the working basis. They are not, however, synchronized in time with a
location on the SURFACE of the Earth in the ECI frame. For that, the ECEF frame comes next, a frame in which the surface also moves (rotates). A total of three frames
of reference are used, including the International Celestial Reference Frame (ICRF),
another non-rotating frame within which both the satellite constellation and the Earth's
surface moves. The ICRF frame replaced the older frame based on the Vernal Equinox.

20. ### geistkieselValued Senior Member

Messages:
2,471
MacM,
Regarding an earler discussion re Skyler measurements and E. Texas observatory there are practical alternative locations for obtaining platform velocity spread of 10 orders of magnitude (and greater) at the N/S pole .

The S pole has civilized facilities. The only barrier I see is administrative, i.e. invitation from S. Pole Administration and funding - talk about the proverbial piece of slam dunk cake. Any ideas of an initial avenue of discreet enquiries?
Matching Skyier velocities with some relevanmce to "ozone hole depletion" for instance would help tremendously (?).

Geistkiesel

21. ### geistkieselValued Senior Member

Messages:
2,471

(Q), You have been reading my mail, but this point, the essence of the absolute velocity measurement system has a peculiarity that I haven’t been able to describe, maybe because it is so incredibly simple.

To describe this I will violate SRT and use an inertial system with reference frame A and B moving wrt each other. A moving frame and B the embankment is our combines system. Now on the moving frame a short duration photon pulse is emitted. Now certainly wrt B the physical source, the device, is moving. What is not moving is that point in space, so easily seen in the frame embankment system where the photon was emitted. The frame and source leave the vicinity of the ties now purely abstract point, yet invariant in position as there is nothing to move the position. If there was nuclear explosion immediately after the photons were emitted the point would still be invariant as the blast can’t nudge an abstraction. Even the point where the device was located wrt the source point is fixed in space as are all other point along the line of the photon trajectory.

I am not claiming the example give an easy chore to locate the points, but the invariance of the points are free from theoretical displacement and/or physical displacement.

To get a little closer to the nitty gritty, the shortest trajectory between San Francisco and LA is not the earth curved line joining Highway 1 and Highway 101. The shortest distance is a straight-line tunnel. Of course this presents a massive engineering and construction effort to prove, but if you have any persuasive force with the Gov, Arnie, maybe he would construct such a tunnel for the fuel savings as well as for the scientific benefit?

This thread claims absolute motion can be determined, trivially so says I. Here is a simple method:

Two mirror/clock devices are located at extreme ends of a moving RF when two photons, el and ar, are emitted from the physical midpoint, M of the mirror clock system L and R. When a photon strikes a clock the time of arrival is stamped on a piece of paper. Now we are not going to measure the SOL here, nor are we going to compare rest frame clocks times and moving clocks. The timing mechanism is purely determined and confined in the moving frame. There are no organic measuring entities on the moving frame.

Now the L mirror and clock is approaching the photon moving left and the left moving photon will arrive at L: before ar arrives at R. This is actually enough, as L will have an earlier time stamped on its piece of paper than R. When el arrives at L ar is still 2vt from R as R has been moving away from r. The ML and MR distance is ct + VT as determined 1st by L. the frame moves a distance VT when el is moving ct.

Now ar has to cross 2vt in a time t’; to reach R during which time the frame moves vt'. Doing the algebra mentally t' = t(2v)/(c- v). Now it turns out that t' is the difference in time for a around trip travel for both photons wrt the system (experiment) at rest. After el (left photon) traveled another ct after being reflected, it has arrived at the point where the photons were emitted, not the physical midpoint, but the abstract point wrt the embankment. Just to make it abundantly clear, at his time the "physical midpoint where the emitting device is located is a distance 2vt from the left photon. The el photon must now cross 2vt to arrive back to the physical midpoint. This photon will arrive at in t' = t(2v)/c - v), where t is the time set by the left side photon. During this second ct distance the left photon traveled the right photon has also traveled an equal distance. Though reflected at a different time has reflected back toward the source in the direction of the frame motion. When the left photon is reflected and moved 2vt + ct’ this the same distance ar must have traveled in order to reach R.

When the left photon has moved its second ct distance it is a distance 2vt from M that is moving away from el. r on the other hand is 2vt + 2vt' from the ar photon, which places M only vt' closer to el and as the photons continue to move toward M each photon will have traveled the same distance when reaching M simultaneously.

Now run the experiment by cheating. Keeping the velocity the same as the present experiment carefully placed clock/mirrors on the embankment located exactly where the clock at M on the moving frame detected the arrival of both photons exactly where the L and R devices detected the photons on he the moving frame wrt Ve = 0, the embankment.

Now we said we wouldn't measure the SOL here but knowing the velocity of he RF Vb and the time differences and using the expression for
t' = t(2v)/(c -v)

And inverting the expression, c - v = 2tv/t' and c = 2tv/t' +v.

All the parameters on the right are measured values, where the form of the expressions for t, t' and v are derived from a straightforward use of classical physics.

If t' = 0 there is no RF motion. If t' > 0 the frame is moving.

Now before anyone jump in with some esoteric attempt to interject what the point of view of the observers n the respective frames are seeing, they are all seeing the same thing, exactly. How is this so? The information available for each observer to observe is not available to each observer until the light photons arrive back at M. Even though the embankment observer has his clever devices in place he cannot receive the information faster than the observer at M on the moving frame. Even with observers at both device locations the observer can only signal with an arm wave that cannot reach the chief observer on the embankment faster than the SOL can deliver the light.

Both observers will detect the fact that each clock/mirror measured arrival of the photons sequentially. Each observer will conclude that the frame is moving.

But wait there is still some hungry SRTist that will claim the moving observer can consider herself at rest though then she must deal with the arrival time of the photons simultaneously at M. She might conclude that the sources are not equidistant from M, which she knows differently as she synchronized the clocks on the embankment herself when Vb = Ve = 0. The photons can only be emitted simultaneously as she can verify from the clock at M and her personal observation. Simultaneously emitted photons arrive at M simultaneously, the time of flight of both photons is identical, and they must have been separated equidistant from M on the moving frame.

Now, and this a very interesting attribute of the experiment. The distances between ML and MR are identical wrt the distances on the various locations of the static clock/mirrors. There were no comparisons of meter sticks. The embankment has a measuring device to determine ML; and MR distances, they used the embankment.
No frame contraction nor time dilation ergo the frames were not merely "equivalent for any theoretical considerations, the spatial differences wee identical as if the distances nor times was in a state of measured variance wrt each other: Unimpeachably the systems are identical to each other in all; respects.

The photons arrive at L, R and N at the same instant of time that the photons arrived at the inserted devices on the embankment.
The moving RF can detect the arrival of the photon as some SRT demanded interval, but darn it the photons have moved through the same distances on the moving frame and the embankment. After the frame slows down it is backed up and the distances can be seen to be exactly the same and therefore the clocks will have been tickling rate on the embankment and moving frames. Likewise the marks scratched in the RF from the styluses are there to observe. The frame clocks each moved through the same distances in the same time.

Now, are there still any surviving dinosaur SRTists desiring of pulling formulae, sprinkled with gamma pepper from the wall and disprove all of this with some generated number? Who will assert the mastery of theoretical mathematics over the unambiguous analysis that any freshman physics major is taught to ignore? Who favors historical rote, claims of thousands of confirming experiments, and the creative genius of A. Einstein? Who will accept the results of experiment as where the resolution of the measuring equipment is 2, 3, 4 and more times in excess of the accuracy required? The experimental results of the eclipse experiments doctored up by members of the scientific team including the chief scientist-managing director offer what to the experimental results? Proof that scientists are just human and we ought not be so critical, they did the best they could, which was engage in a conspiracy to commit scientific fraud, which is continuously being repeated by the misanthropic and obsessed current generation. Eddington, for one, ultimately received the Nobel Prize for some other aspect of physics, but he was the criminal in the eclipse gang, the gang leader. Who will be the first to construct an analytic model using physical assumptions that are impossible to achieve in reality, such as accelerating train stations.

There is one poor wretch who has stated on many occasions that he understands the rational analysis, but he never the less refuses to make the mental adjustment and determine for himself what is a state of scientific insanity. He waits the peer review of from the labs and offices of the obsessed 'peers" versed in SRT. He uses the lies of historical claims of experimental verification to wit the MM experiments, muon decay, eclipse, GPS, all of which have been shown to himself as very definitely not confirmation of SRT, they disprove SRT.

OK I have vented now all you serious minded defenders of the obsessed get out your references of sarcastic analytic methods, insults, demands of personal expertise and all the trappings that must tie them up in their dreams at night. Hey, if SRT wasn't a viable theory why does the physics department at US Berkeley overwhelmingly "support" SRT? Even though "support" being a political dynamic proves only the lack of sophistication and personal maturity in claiming thjemselves as educated, responsible and well meaning adults. Most of them really believe that crap.

I am sorry world, I leave no room for a gentle, peaceful and dignified acceptance of the truth. There is too much at stake personally, "what do they offer as explanations to their children and families?" I am opting for the efficient end of SRT- all affected SRTists should simply fall on their swords and impale themselves, Hey, just do the honorable thing. They ought not fret over professional considerations, which will prove to be of minimal concern. Just today I saw a sign when munching on my "Big Mac", that said, "MacDonald's is hiring”, and they train you too!

Geistkiesel.

(

22. ### geistkieselValued Senior Member

Messages:
2,471
I follow you as far as I can tell. I thini I have been say ing that if satellites in orbit A all have a predcitable error rate then this rate can be hardcoded such that the error due to velocity or acceleration considerations goes away. Do each of the satellites assume a posture of correcting satellites on other orbit alitutdes? If the error for A is e(A) , for B e(B) and etc,. then all satellites will be communicating with the same absolute time albeit synchronized and all corrected times. I am not trying to over simplify a very complex problem but aren't the satellites as a necessary part of their funtion supposed to send time data, their position etc when cross cmmunicating with the graound or other satellites? If spo then simply inserting softawre corrections for predicited error dependiong on the orbiting conditions it would seem that the referbnce frame center of earth fram,e would not be a frquently visited message center. If a satellite is deemrind to need repair that cannot be achjied with sofwart updates alone then they bite the bullet and swap out the defective units.

I am going tpo readm you posts again just to assure myself that I understand. BTW MacN's GPS experiment link was refreshing to me.
Geistkiesel

23. ### geistkieselValued Senior Member

Messages:
2,471
Anywhere you want to point to , I mean "any point" is an absolute point in space that the entire universe can be measured wrt.

What attracted me to your post was the deliberate manner in which you referred to and employed the use of “. . .accepted theory . . . “ as if this were offered as manifestation of physical law.

To use a simple physical model try this. A short duration photon burst from a moving emitter is observed to move in a straight-line photon at constant velocity until acted upon by an external force. The emitted photon's motion is independent of the motion of the source of the photon that is now heading to some dismal empty void between a great wall of a super cluster of galaxies and we promptly forget about the source. The photon trajectory drawing a straight-line, both physically and mathematically is perfect zero velocity frame of reference., that is merely extending the scope, or the range of application at the speed of light.

Let us return to the point at which the photon was emitted. Wrt to what was the point referenced? The point of the emitted photon now another forgotten abstraction has not moved, drifted, imploded or anything. A point is a point, only. Now there may be some technological problems with maintaining a handle on the point d emission of the photon, but the fact that that point may be lost to us human users of reference frames, n but the fact of its existence for all times in the future is a physical law as basic as any law you will ever study. Abstract points are impervious to the action of any conceivable for as an abstraction is the concept of the point, which is a human mental function that recognizes the ' point' conceptually.

Take the earth, for instance. The trajectory of a vehicle traveling to LA from San Francisco along Highway 1 and joining Highway 101 is curved. is a curved line following the contour of he earth. Therefore one might conjecture that going to LA from San Francisco requires a curved trajectory wrt the cm of he earth. Not necessarily so as one could dig a tunnel and create a straight-line trajectory connecting LA and San Francisco. Technical difficulty or complexity is not equivalent to physical law which is expressed as general proposition with universal applicability within the limits established by the law under consideration. Without making claims regarding the properties of "accepted theory" of the universe that doesn't move, including space itself that some accept as a physical reality, any attempt to define punt of series of point and thus define a physical entity as an inertial; frame is doomed to fail, there is no such thing as a physical entity without motion., and by that I mean motion than is not turning, theoretically speaking that is. Even an isolated electron caught in the same void between the great walls of a super cluster assembly is subject to the forces of gravity, how slight they may be.. This is what some definitions of "gravity" have claimed.

But the point, as an abstraction is measurable invariant, though ones ,measuring equipment would necessarily require a state of the highest "state of he art" in measuring sophistication but the location of the point could be maintained just incase anyone would like to go see where it is located.
James R defined reference frame in a thread that can be reached. I don't usually go to James R for answer to deep philosophical; questions regarding the sense and philosophy of SRT matters as James R is a confessed SRTist, but I suspect that he is beginning to get a glimmer of the crucial flaws in the theory. Anyway, James R defined he inertial frame as a mathematical abstraction that does not require the use of hardware, The inertia frame is a mathematical concept useful in solving problems of SRT when application is justified. So, absolue rest should not be difficult to define, the problem is however tfinding a physical obsject that enjoyred the attribue of “at rest absolutely” is a physical impossibility from the appoint of view of SRT, ergo relativity theorists don’t bother searching for such points and consequently the no absolute rest frame is accepted as universally true, by default. By default I mean no SRTist, having never looked for one accepts the default axiomatic truth of the impossibility of the zero velocity rest point in space.
]But all one has to do is catch a mental glimpse of a perfectly moving photon, or simply the point of origin of the photon, or any point in space not attached to the corruption of perfection, that is “material object:;.
You should really make some attempt to break out the mold that arbitrarily gloms on to a statement of physical reality just because one’s graduate advisor has made a name for herself in the literature.
Science and the study of physical law is never learned successfully by the memorization of rules and axioms such as those that have been wrapped up in the esoteric silliness of SR theory promoted as gospel garbed in the glamour of the mathematical gowns of low cut glistening sequined gamma terms…ah, to be fated to the restrictions of functional formulae without any possibility of knowing what in the hell is going on, - . . don’t ask, don’t look and you wont even consider telling, much less be able to , to tell, that is . . . . , but to be sure one can always trust in the prison wardens, in whatever suits they are garbed. . ..

Geistkiesel.