What is a reference frame?

Discussion in 'Physics & Math' started by James R, Oct 13, 2004.

  1. Quantum Quack Life's a tease... Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    17,541
    Unfortunately it doesn't answer my question..... which is the degree of non-simultaneousness when the events are not considered simultaneous and how this is calculated.
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. Quantum Quack Life's a tease... Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    17,541
    maybe now that JamesR is back he may offer a POV??
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. Youngler Registered Member

    Messages:
    25

    Reference frames are sometimes the mistake door for math to solve physics problems . For an example , sound speed in an airplane is constant to the plane , so somedody thinks that sound everywhere is constant to the reference frame with the plane , it is wrong obviously . But scientists do such wrongs everyday !

    If we want to present a thing , we may imagine a reference frame with us or the earth or the sun , but it is not just equal entirely to us or the earth or the sun . Firstly , for an example , the earth is great , however it is not infinite other than the reference frame with infinite volume . Reference frames are not a real thing but a mothod of physics . A plane in a reference frame is not just the real thing of the plane in the earth air . There are many relations between the plane and the earth , but Einstein known just the motion of the plane in the reference frame with the earth . Einstein recognized the world as many simple relative motions besides the reference frames . Is the world just as many simple relative motions ? No, it is not and it is the worst that Einstein thought the world just as motions between reference frames .

     
    Last edited: Feb 1, 2005
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. Youngler Registered Member

    Messages:
    25
    How much is the speed of photon in its own reference frame ? Is it zero simply ? Newton answered with 'zero', Einstein said this question without meaning . Photon is a particle , it might be imagined with reference frame too ! If photon can't be imagined with reference frame in actual operation meaning , we think other particles might not be imagined with reference frame in the same right as that of the earth .
     
  8. geistkiesel Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,471
    Yuriy,

    If two photons are emitted simultaneously in opposite directions may we not use the point of emission of the photons as the zero point of a co-ordinate system defined along the line joining the two photons?

    Geistkiesel
     
  9. Yuriy Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,080
    You, the author of the alternative Physics of Everything, do not know answer of such a simple question? I guess, it is your new small joke...
     
  10. geistkiesel Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,471
    I was questioning you and attempting to use your expertise to analyze the stated condition for the purpose of testing the theory that the point of emission of oppositely moving photons is an invariant point in space; that the point is sufficient as an inertial coordinate from whcih one can measure the velocity of objects moving along that line.

    I offer this from the pespective that:

    1. The motion of photons is independent of the motion of the source of the photons.
    2. That any lateral momentum/motion of a source of photons is not translated to the emitted photons for the reason that such added momentum/motion would add a velocity component that would necessarily result in a velocity of the photon greater than the speed of light c.

    Both state above are based on the fundamental postulates of light. Irefer yo to Skyler's finding as a recent example supporting this. I am familiar with your opinions regarding Skyler's papers. I read those papers and came to a different cnclusion of the paper's worth than yourself.

    What do I know about such a simple question? Recently I have been offering the absove for criticism, and discussion. Do you have any scientific comments to make regarding the subject matter of this thread?

    Geistkiesel
     
  11. geistkiesel Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,471
    Youngler,
    I am arguing that the emitted photon is a perfect inertial frame, not for anyattributes of the photon along th ediredction of motion. I am asserting from the postulates of light that the photon, once emitted, moves in an invariant straight line (assuiming no outside forces are nteferring with th emotion). Also, the point od emission is also inpavariant as a point in space.

    It is not the velocity of light c that I use in any way to justify the described coordinate frame, it is the invariance of the motion of the sphoton, the line defined by the photon trajectory that is the perfect inertial frame with absolute velocity equal to zero.

    Geistkiesel
     
  12. Quantum Quack Life's a tease... Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    17,541
    geist,
    I have just had the time to give your absolute velocity issue some thought.

    Tell me if I have got it right.

    If I had a laser that fired in two opposite directions and those beams arrived at a destination whilst maintaining a straight line through the three points this would indicate that the source is at absolute rest.
    And if the arrival at destination is NOT in a straight line through those three points one would conclude velocity is present??

    Those three points being Left, Source and Right.

    I may have got it totally wrong sorry?
     
  13. MacM Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    10,104
    I am convienced at this time your initial suggestion of measuring absolute velocity is valid based on:

    1 - The acceptance that the photon has no mass. It had been one of my arguements in the past in fact that to claim lateral motion induced into the photon's path by motion of its source required the photon indeed to posses mass.

    2 - The, as yet unverified, claim of E. Skyler about his tests since 1999, repeated numerous times which show that the projected light does not in fact have lateral motion induced by motion of its source and having shown the deviation in the projected beam mathematically corresponds to the earth's velocity over 24 hour periods.

    This issue should be of the utmost importance in the physics world but seems to be being ignored because of its consequence if proven valid. That is a shame for physics. We could be moving forward but we are not.
     

Share This Page