Reference Frames according to Philochrony
- Thread starter Asexperia
- Start date
Sibilia, you are the one that is having difficulty in understanding english, I know that english is not your first language so, that is why I am helping here.
Brucep was telling you in post #23 that your statement, "The laws of Physics are true only under certain conditions or frames of reference" from the OP, was stupid.
I am from the US by the way and my english ain't that good anywho.
Brucep was telling you in post #23 that your statement, "The laws of Physics are true only under certain conditions or frames of reference" from the OP, was stupid.
I am from the US by the way and my english ain't that good anywho.
The problem is that all experimentation shows that the physical laws are the same in every inertial reference frame. So what you are saying is shown to be wrong by observation and experimentation. It would be a pretty strange world if the laws of physics were different for someone in a moving car than for someone on the sidewalk!
Asexperia
Registered Senior Member
That's right, but I mean Ohm's law, for example, applies in electricity and not in the uniform linear motion.
I had also said:
The use I give to the concept of reference frame is different to the traditional use.
But that is trivially obvious! That is like making the statement that an apple is not an orange - it is not neccessary to point that out - you are simply stating the obvious.
There are 2 problems with this.
1. Redefining words does nothing but confuse the issue. If you have a new concept give it a new name and then you can say how this new concept is like or unlike the already defined term 'reference frame'.
2. You have not done a good job describing your concept. I know what a reference frame is but I have no idea what you are trying to describe..
Asexperia
Registered Senior Member
Posted by Origin:
It's the principle of identity.
Well, this is what I'm thinking: the concept of reference frame is used in Mechanics (classical and relative) to determine the position and the value of the magnitudes. The reference frame is limited to the experiment, but formulas or equations are not generally limited by the particular case of the experiment, but already established, we can assign the value we want to the magnitudes. But then we fall into the concept of function. "A function is a variable so related to another that for each value assumed by one there is a value determined for the other". The value of the independent variable(s) in a given moment is the reference, then we talk about reference value instead reference frame. For example, clock time is a reference value to determine the moment of the day in a specific region. The weight and height of a person are the reference values to tell if a person is obese or not.
It's the principle of identity.
Well, this is what I'm thinking: the concept of reference frame is used in Mechanics (classical and relative) to determine the position and the value of the magnitudes. The reference frame is limited to the experiment, but formulas or equations are not generally limited by the particular case of the experiment, but already established, we can assign the value we want to the magnitudes. But then we fall into the concept of function. "A function is a variable so related to another that for each value assumed by one there is a value determined for the other". The value of the independent variable(s) in a given moment is the reference, then we talk about reference value instead reference frame. For example, clock time is a reference value to determine the moment of the day in a specific region. The weight and height of a person are the reference values to tell if a person is obese or not.
Last edited by a moderator:
You really need to understand what a reference frame is. James has a very good explanation in the physics and math sections.
Here is a link to it.
Here is a link from the net.
Here is a link to it.
Here is a link from the net.
Perhaps I misunderstand what you mean here, but due to the time dilation effect of relativity, Ohm's law is effected. Both voltage and current are effected. Both locally and remotely Ohm's law holds, but differ in measurement. Any measurement involving time or space is effected. Current is Coulombs per second. Any measurement that has units involving time, distance, energy, mass etc, are effected by relativity. That is just about everything.
Huh? You mean to tell me that you are saying for a given voltage and resistance I will read a different current depending on my velocity? I hope that I am misunderstanding what you are trying to say...
Well, yes and no. Velocity is a relative measurement. It is a measurement between two reference frames. To say you have a velocity, you have to have some different reference frame in mind to compare it to. In the same way, voltage and current are relative between reference frames and so time dilation and length contraction effect relative measurement. Two equally charged capacitors with a constant current drain circuits attached, will have different charges if one is put on a spaceship and accelerated around and returned and they are compared.
If you only consider your own reference frame there is no relativity and so no effect. But also if you only consider your own reference frame, there is also no velocity. So I say yes and no to your question. It is the same with time dilation and length contraction. I was just pointing out that current and voltage have units of time and distance and so are relative.
On rereading after some coffee, I see what Sibilia was saying and I was misunderstanding. I think I see what Sibilia is saying. And I think I have to agree. For instance, a formula for position in a trajectory (using cartesian aka absolute coords) when differentiated to obtain velocity dx/dt loses its positional information. That is why velocity is relative. If position x is from x=3t+5, where 5 is the positional information, v=3, the 5 is lost. The positional information is lost. You are correct that it is a trivial relationship. But sometimes you need to look at trivial relationships to correctly understand. I think that is what Sibilia is trying to do, at least in this case.
Asexperia
Registered Senior Member
Posted by Origin:
It's no use the coordinate axis or reference frame if we don't relate it to an experiment. The experiment is transported to the reference frame. We are in a vicious circle.
Posted by Cheezle:
For thinking there is nothing trivial, all has importance if you look deeply.
It's no use the coordinate axis or reference frame if we don't relate it to an experiment. The experiment is transported to the reference frame. We are in a vicious circle.
Posted by Cheezle:
For thinking there is nothing trivial, all has importance if you look deeply.
Last edited by a moderator:
I think maybe trivial is the wrong word here. Elementary is probably better. Lots of people that I respect disagree with you so I will have to go back and read your ideas more carefully before I agree with you in a general way. Not that my opinion is that important.
Asexperia
Registered Senior Member
I don't wait someone agrees or not with me, I just expose my view of things. Everyone's opinion is important so that respects others.
Asexperia
Registered Senior Member
REFERENCE POINTS (EDITED)
(From message #19)
A reference point is the specific place or situation used to orient us in space or in time. Different to the reference points of the space, in time, reference points are constant flowing, changing.
Space (Reference frames or the position of the observer):
- Cardinal Points
- Geographical coordinates
- The corner between two streets
- A house or a building
- A house wall or object in it
- Others
Time (Reference values or the passed interval):
- Movements of the Earth
- Clocks and calendars
- Cycle of life, cycle of pregnancy, a movie, a song, etc..
- Others
Why reference values in time?
Thinking is the act of intelligence which is the ability to handle abstract symbols. We can think of time and intuit it (It exists) but neither represent it nor imagine it. Using a measure of time (value), e.g. 30 sec, we think and intuit that interval.
(From message #19)
A reference point is the specific place or situation used to orient us in space or in time. Different to the reference points of the space, in time, reference points are constant flowing, changing.
Space (Reference frames or the position of the observer):
- Cardinal Points
- Geographical coordinates
- The corner between two streets
- A house or a building
- A house wall or object in it
- Others
Time (Reference values or the passed interval):
- Movements of the Earth
- Clocks and calendars
- Cycle of life, cycle of pregnancy, a movie, a song, etc..
- Others
Why reference values in time?
Thinking is the act of intelligence which is the ability to handle abstract symbols. We can think of time and intuit it (It exists) but neither represent it nor imagine it. Using a measure of time (value), e.g. 30 sec, we think and intuit that interval.
Last edited by a moderator:
The answer is no. There is no maybe, it is simply no. If I have a battery that puts out 100V and a circuit that has a 10 ohm resistence the current will be 10 amsps. If I get in a space ship that is goiing 0.9c my little curcuit will still read 10 amps.
Viewing from different inertial reference frames makes no difference ohm's law still holds. Let's assume that in the earlier case the batter can put out that constant amperage for 10 seconds. So for the person in the ship the local time till show that the current flowed at 10 amps for 10 second. How long will the current have flowed as measured by a person in a frame stationary relative to the ship? The answer is 22.9 seconds. I know that because I know that the laws of physics are the same for all inertial frames, so it is a simple calculation.
Sibilia does not believe that the laws of physics are the same for all inertial frames. Sibilia is wrong. Sibilia is under the mistaken belief that this is a matter or 'opinion'. The answer to a math question is not a matter of 'opinion'
Asexperia
Registered Senior Member
CLASSES OF REFERENCE POINTS
The reference points are divided into reference frames (space) and reference values (time). Reference frames are subdivided into inertial (if the observer is at rest or moves with constant velocity) and non-inertial (if the observer moves with variable speed or acceleration).
Reference values can be:
- Standard: those we see commonly in clocks.
- Relative: those obtained at high speeds including c.
- Regressive: travels to the past.
- Progressive: travels to the future.
Although I believe that time travels aren't feasible, I've included them because some think so.
Origin says:
Don't misunderstand me.
The reference points are divided into reference frames (space) and reference values (time). Reference frames are subdivided into inertial (if the observer is at rest or moves with constant velocity) and non-inertial (if the observer moves with variable speed or acceleration).
Reference values can be:
- Standard: those we see commonly in clocks.
- Relative: those obtained at high speeds including c.
- Regressive: travels to the past.
- Progressive: travels to the future.
Although I believe that time travels aren't feasible, I've included them because some think so.
Origin says:
Don't misunderstand me.
Last edited by a moderator:
I thought that is what I said. Sorry if I explained it poorly.
My understanding is that velocity is relative. To say you are going 0.9c requires a second reference frame to use as a reference. There is no absolute reference frame. So I think you are just using inexact language and that led to a misunderstanding. As I tried to say, velocity = distance/time, and distance = always position_1 - position_2. So even if an absolute frame is used (Cartesian coords) all reference to the origin is gone once you calculate distance. It is the whole point of relativity. Velocity is a purely relative concept. It requires comparison between 2 reference frames. You can't compare with light (such as saying v=0.9c) because light velocity is invariant and it has no reference frame to compare too. 0.9c means with respect to some other inertial reference frame. Velocity is always zero if you don't compare your reference frame to another, and only compare to your own reference frame. distance = position_1 - position_1 = 0 and so velocity = 0/time. But hey, maybe I got it all wrong. I would be happy to be straightened out if I am.
Yes, I know that the laws of physics are same for all inertial. reference frames. It can't work any other way. No matter what experiment you do in your own reference frame, the measurements all work out.
I assumed that Sibilia was making some subtle point about physical domain and range of formulas. I thought Sibilia was saying that Ohm's law was somehow exempt from relativity, which it is not, simply because Volts and Amps have units of distance and time (which I thought Sibilia did not understand). Maybe I misunderstood. Gonna have to lay off the Dayquil.
Asexperia
Registered Senior Member
Edited by Sibilia:
That's right, but I mean Ohm's law (I = V/R), for example, applies in electricity and not in the uniform linear motion (S = D/T). Although we can calculate the speed of the current with S = D/T, but not its magnitude. It's simple, but important.
That's right, but I mean Ohm's law (I = V/R), for example, applies in electricity and not in the uniform linear motion (S = D/T). Although we can calculate the speed of the current with S = D/T, but not its magnitude. It's simple, but important.