[Ken]

Jerry,

Concerning your question about “How can we determine the velocity of an Inertial Frame”,

let us consider the 1905 SRT function called “The Law of Aberration” that predicts the “true declination” (∠φ’) of any star in the inertial frame of local stars as a function of the “observed declination”(∠φ) and orbital velocity (v) of the Earth’s inertial frame. For example:

1905 SRT Law of Aberration: ∠φ’ = Acos[(Cos(φ) – (v/c)) / (1 – (Cos(φ) * (v/c)))] where for a “Wave Normal” observation of a star made by an Observer on Earth is seen to have a declination (∠φ) = 90° wrt the velocity vector (x-axis) and where ∠φ must be smaller than the “true declination” (∠φ’).

In this example, the prediction of the “true declination” (∠φ’) is determined to be reliable within one milliarc second(0.001 arcsec.) for all local stars in the Earth’s orbital plane at the time of year when its observed location (∠φ) is “Wave Normal” (i.e. is perpendicular = 90°) to the Earth’s velocity vector.

I will argue that the validity of this prediction of ∠φ’ based upon a clearly defined relative velocity (v) is not important to an engineer or scientist who is responsible for prediction of the observed or true declination or position of the star. It is only important for that scientist to be able to understand how to support proactive management through the practical use of “best practices” and available predictive models to make reliable predictions. Thus, it is more important to be a Critical Thinker who is able to evaluate evidence of the heuristic significance, reliability, capability and limitations of available predictive models.

[Jerry]

Hi Ken. Please forgive my mathematical ignorance. 🙂 I have to admit that most of what you wrote I didn’t understand. Perhaps I could if I were to learn the definitions to the technical terminology and symbolism, and how they correlate with each other within the scientific and mathematical “framework”.

I had asked a slightly different question that is added in italics, of “How can we determine the velocity of an object within an inertial frame?”

Here’s a similar question, that seems to answer the first, “How to know the position or velocity of a given object without direct reference to another object or frame?”

Aren’t all inertial frames equally valid? If a given object travels at a constant velocity at almost the velocity of light, couldn’t we technically consider it just as “stationary” as all other objects throughout the universe that don’t accelerate?

Thanks for responding, Ken.

Did you agree with much that I had written at the top of this conversation?

[Ken]

Jerry,

You inquired: “How to know the position or velocity of a given object without direct reference to another object or frame?”

My answer is “You unequivocally cannot determine your velocity in outer space if you are not within range of another object (such as a star or another light source) that is in another inertial frame”.

However, I believe it would be more useful for the Relativity group to spend it’s time on critical analysis of existing predictive models that attempt to predict the velocity (v) or declination (∠φ or ∠φ’) of a space ship that probably will be traveling between the stars that include our sun during this third millennium.

[Jerry]

Thanks, Ken.

The first answer you provided for my inquiry, seems to agree with the same view I had previously expressed with what seems my “rhetorical question”. That is, (in statement form), “to know the position or velocity of a given object, requires a direct reference to another object or frame.”

To consider your answer a bit further though, if a spacecraft were in outer space, far away from anything observable, such as planets or stars, to know its position or velocity definitely is impossible to know. At least, it could appear that way, since there isn’t anything else around to compare it to. If the spacecraft isn’t accelerating, it could seem to exist as “stationary”, or it could travel at almost the velocity of light at a <i style=”background-color: transparent; font-family: inherit; font-size: inherit;”>constant velocity. That each scenario is virtually indistinguishable to the other. This, of course, is essentially the truth that Galilean Relativity (and the first postulate of Special Relativity) states.

<font face=”inherit”>I would definitely endorse the view that critical analysis is most valuable and necessary to advance the sciences. Of course, physics is a vast field, with countless interconnected instances of accurate knowledge. However, theoretical physics, over at least the last century, </font><font face=”inherit” style=”background-color: transparent; font-family: inherit; font-size: inherit;”>has often accepted multiple </font>unverifiable<font face=”inherit” style=”background-color: transparent; font-family: inherit; font-size: inherit;”> hypotheses, many of which there isn’t any possible way of which to provide adequate evidence. </font>

<font face=”inherit” style=”background-color: transparent; font-family: inherit; font-size: inherit;”>Of course, mathematics is highly necessary within the field of physics. I personally tend towards the idea that words and concepts have also had the capacity to convey accurate ideas, and to increase our understanding of our world and universe. </font>

<font face=”inherit” style=”background-color: transparent; font-family: inherit; font-size: inherit;”>Just a few thoughts. </font>

[Ken]

Jerry,

I have made some changes to a 1 page discussion concerning the “fixed”, “stationary” or “at rest” inertial frame at the following link:

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1K8WEASyPoP86dQ32_QX32w4TVbJQwBOr/view?usp=sharing

I hope these changes can help to clarify the meaning of these hyphenated words and answer some of your questions 🙂!

[Ken]

Jerry,

I agree: “physics is a vast field, with countless interconnected instances of accurate knowledge. However, theoretical physics, over at least the last century, <font face=””inherit”” transparent;=”” font-family:=”” inherit;=”” font-size:=”” inherit;”=”” style=”background-color: transparent; font-size: inherit;”>has often accepted multiple </font>unverifiable<font face=””inherit”” transparent;=”” font-family:=”” inherit;=”” font-size:=”” inherit;”=”” style=”background-color: transparent; font-size: inherit;”> hypotheses, many of which there isn’t any possible way of which to provide adequate evidence”.</font>

<font face=””inherit”” transparent;=”” font-family:=”” inherit;=”” font-size:=”” inherit;”=”” style=”background-color: transparent; font-size: inherit;”>However, I believe we should concentrate on solving one issue in one theory such as “1905 SRT” at a time. For example, how can you determine the velocity (v’) of your space craft if you are on a voyage from our home solar system to another local solar system? My answer is you can use a “best practice” SR model that predicts stellar aberration and / or frequency shifts of starlight from a star in that other solar system. In this context, you will measure your velocity (v’) as change in distance (dl’) divided by change in time (dt) = dl’ / dt’ and an observer that is “stationary” in the inertial frame of the local stars will measure your velocity as dl / dt. In special relativity, your velocity v’ = dl’ / dt’ is defined as dl / dt. In other words, velocity cannot be defined without reference to another inertial frame that measures your velocity as the same as you measure it. Thus, asking the question “what is your velocity” without reference to another reference frame is nonsense because you cannot define velocity in this scenario. Also in this scenario, you cannot just assume that you are not moving and are “stationary in your universe” just because you cannot detect EMF signals (e.g. light or radio signals) from your universe. This assumption in 1905 SRT “IS WRONG” and has led to the “TWIN PARADOX”. Another version of reciprocity is needed that does not assume that your space ship is stationary (v = dl/dt = 0 km/sec) and the local stars are moving at velocity (v’ = dl’/dt’ = c/2 km’/sec’). This other version by definition must measure your velocity as (v’ = dl’ / dt’ = c/2 km’/sec’) = (v = dl / dt = c/2 km/sec) as measured by an observer that is “stationary” in the inertial frame of your local stars.</font>

<font face=””inherit”” transparent;=”” font-family:=”” inherit;=”” font-size:=”” inherit;”=”” style=”background-color: transparent; font-size: inherit;”>
</font>

<font face=””inherit”” transparent;=”” font-family:=”” inherit;=”” font-size:=”” inherit;”=”” style=”background-color: transparent; font-size: inherit;”>P.S. I would not take this same position concerning the definition velocity in other fields of physics such as quantum mechanics. </font>

[Jerry]

Hi Ken.

Much of what you’ve said, when it hasn’t been what seems quite complex math, is what one of my main points was, that you mentioned above there, “asking the question “what is your velocity” without reference to another
reference frame is nonsense because you cannot define velocity in this
scenario. Also in this scenario, you cannot just assume that you are
not moving and are “stationary in your universe” just because you cannot
detect EMF signals (e.g. light or radio signals) from your universe“.

I have a question for you that I’m surprisingly unclear about. Is Special Relativity a theory you accept as accurate at any level?

[Deleted User]

Hi Jerry,

There is no way to know the real velocity of an object, as per the established scientific consensus to the date. Only the relative velocities are to be considered.

I think, we need to understand that we already tried to detect a preferred frame of reference (Ether) considering it as an absolute frame and to relate the motions of all other objects to that frame. But unfortunately we have been failed to detect it through the so called M&M experiment.

As a believer, my point is that if we cannot see or detect something expected, doesn’t mean that it is not out there. So we should not neglect an absolute frame if we cannot detect it but unfortunately we have no choice rather than living in the fantasy world of paradoxical relativity by deforming Space and Time in-order to keep the speed of light constant.

BR,

Amin

[John-Erik]

Amin and Jerry

The debate regarding reference frame, or no frame, has been active for many years. When 2 alternatives are defined the discussion is stalled and no more alternatives are regarded. This is stupid binary thinking, and all the other alternatives are forgotten.

One of the alternatives is a reference with a state of motion that is different in every point in space. This means that the reference velocity is a velocity FIELD – not a FRAME with constant velocity.

A model for ether and gravity was presented by Fatio to Newton but was abolished in error due to no aberration in physics, since ether particles were assumed to COLLIDE with matter. However, ether particles are ABSORBED by matter, and gravity is therefore EMERGING inside matter due to the ether. This explains why there is no aberration in gravity. So, Fatio’s model can be united with Newton’s model, and this explanation to gravity demonstrates that gravity is caused by a radial ether wind. Support for this idea is found in the illusions of BIG BANG and of PIONEER ANOMALY, and both of these phenomena are caused by radial ETHER motions – not by motions of MATTER.

It was very, very bad for science when Newton disregarded the hypothesis from Fatio.

From _____________________________ John-Erik

[Jerry]

Hi John-Erik. Thanks for your thoughts. You’ve mentioned “abberration with gravity” and the “pioneer anamoly” quite a few times. I did research those a bit, though it’s been a while and I can’t recall exactly all of what I read, so I’ll have to at least scan through that a bit, so I could better respond to what you’ve written.

You wrote, “The debate regarding reference frame, or no frame, has been active for many years.”

That seems quite positive to me! Isn’t questioning a crucial component of science? 🙂 Of course,

countless debates haven’t yet arrived at answers that everyone accepts.

You wrote, “When 2 alternatives are defined the discussion is stalled and no more alternatives are regarded. This is stupid binary thinking, and all the other alternatives are forgotten.”

There have been countless debates where there were only two possible answers. It shouldn’t seem stupid to think that way. What were the 2 alternatives though? The aether or relative frames?

You also wrote, “One of the alternatives is a reference with a state of motion that is different in every point in space. This means that the reference velocity is a velocity FIELD – not a FRAME with constant velocity.”

How does this provide the “final” answer this question or debate? If the theory of “reference with a state of motion that is different in every point in space” is valid, it doesn’t seem to completely invalidate “relative frames”. What you’ve suggested seems to only account for additional effects. Wouldn’t a given object within a frame of reference continue to define itself as having motion only relative to other objects (or frames)? What is your view of “inertial frames”? Would you say it’s a valid concept?

[John-Erik]

Correction

…aberration in physics… should be …aberration in gravity…

[John-Erik]

Jerry

Debating is positive, but many decades without more than 2 alternatives is stupid.

If the reference is a velocity field, it cannot at the same time be a frame.

Yes, there is an additional effect. So, we must add something, and that means we must add an ether.

I have nothing against inertial frames, but they cannot explain gravity.

From _____________________________________ John_Erik

[Jerry]

Hi John-Erik. Thanks for your response. (Your statements in italics)

Debating is positive, but many decades without more than 2 alternatives is stupid.

It seems unclear to me, which two alternatives? And would you consider one of them correct? or that one of them is at least more accurate than the other?

If the reference is a velocity field, it cannot at the same time be a frame.

That’s actually something I forgot to ask earlier. What is the different of a “frame” and a “field”? Why couldn’t a field exist within a frame?

Yes, there is an additional effect. So, we must add something, and that means we must add an ether.

How does the ether settle the debate though? If it does exist, why wouldn’t it exist within empty space, which is where what seems a completely “unlimited supply” of frames could reside? That is, wherever you choose to identify or “choose” a frame for a given purpose, they’re quite possibly infinitely available.

How exactly to define the ether? Did you know that there several types or definitions of the “ether”? For instance, the concept you’ve mentioned of “falling ether” doesn’t seem as popular as other versions of the ether. Also, length contraction isn’t accepted by all etherists. Does the ether exist everywhere? Again, why couldn’t fields exist within frames? How would you personally define a “frame”?

I have nothing against inertial frames, but they cannot explain gravity.

Does that “you have nothing against inertial frames“, mean that you accept the concept of frames as valid? The idea of “inertial frames” doesn’t try to explain gravity, or accelerations. The definition of “inertial frames” includes the idea that a truly inertail frame doesn’t accelerate. Gravity doesn’t seem to coincide with inertial frames either, even though the earth is often considered “inertial” or a “lab frame”. Of course, the frame of “earth” is in constant motion, with it’s spin and orbit around the sun.

[John-Erik]

Jerry

Alternatives are, as you know, reference frame or no reference frame.

It is stupid not to regard more options.

A field is defined based on a frame.

If space contains an ether space is not empty.

Ether is needed to explain light and gravity.

The best idea regarding ether was given 300 years ago by Fatio. and abolished by Newton.

Fatio’s idea has been disregarded due to not predicting aberration in gravity. This was DEVASTATING to physics, since no aberration is explained by the fact that ether particles are ABSORBED by matter, and they are NOT COLLIDING with matter. Fatio is united with Newton and predicts a radial ether wind, and thereby explains gravity.

From ___________________ John-Erik

[Jerry]

Hi John-Erik.

Alternatives are, as you know, reference frame or no reference frame.

I actually haven’t heard of “no reference frame” offically spelled out that way. It just seemed sort of implicitly denied. What would that even consist of? I can’t picture the absence of a reference frame, even if the universe somehow didn’t exist.

It is stupid not to regard more options.

I definitely agree, whenever possible. For instance, there only seem two possibilities of the existence of God. He is either there, or isn’t.

A field is defined based on a frame.

I probably wouldn’t say “based on a frame“. More of that “fields exist within frames”.

If space contains an ether space is not empty.

If it did, I would agree. And even if the ether doesn’t exist, many physicist tend to agree that empty space doesn’t exist. That there is at least various particles and waves that “take up” all of space. Also, please forgive my statement that “the ether exists in empty space”. That was a sort of off-handed statement. What I meant was that if the ether exists, it occupies empty space.

[John-Erik]

Jerry

Absorption of ether particles means also that gravity is EMERGING inside matter.

[John-Erik]

Jerry

no reference frame Sorry. I should have said no reference frame in relation to light.

[Jerry]

That’s cool. 🙂

What is your view of “the constancy of the velocity of light”? That however fast a light source, object, or observer travels, that light is allegedly “clocked” at the exact same (186,282 miles per second)?

Also, would you say for sure that the velocity itself actually *is* 186,282 miles per second?

[John-Erik]

Yes, l light speed is constant, but that is not the important question. Instead: constant in relation to what? It is not constant in relation to observer, as Einstein said. Light speed is c in relation to the ether.

Yes, light speed actually is 3×10^8 m/sec, but this is a wave behaviour, not moving particles. No particles in light. Planck’s constant is an electron property, since we use electrons to detect invisible light.

[Jerry]

Yes, l light speed is constant, but that is not the important question. Instead: constant in relation to what? It is not constant in relation to observer, as Einstein said. Light speed is c in relation to the ether.

Isn’t “if the velocity of light is constant” also an important question though? Of course, that wasn’t exactly what we were talking about. 🙂

The way Einstein seemed to express the idea, was that c is constant in relation to whichever frame of reference the object, light source, or observer finds itself. That wherever found, somehow, light is always “clocked” at 186,282 m/s. I asked if you thought possible that c isn’t actually 186,282 m/s, only since I have my own doubts that it’s the truth.

Yes, light speed actually is 3×10^8 m/sec, but this is a wave behaviour, not moving particles. No particles in light. Planck’s constant is an electron property, since we use electrons to detect invisible light.

I also disagree with the concept of photons. I’m skeptical that light is a wave, as well though.

[Jerry]

Hi John-Erik.

This here isn’t exactly the same topic(s) we’ve discussed thus far, though it’s found within the same “ball park”. Have you possibly heard what Rupert Sheldrake said about “constants” on his “banned” TED Talk? Specifically when he mentioned a visit he had to the patent office where he found several old physics textbooks? He found discrepancies of the value of c, that covered almost two decades. It’s quite interesting. You could “fast forward” to around 9:45 if you want. Here’s a link. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JKHUaNAxsTg

[Jerry]

Oops! Didn’t know that image would turn out so gigantic! 🙂

[John-Erik]

Jerry

You are sceptical to light waves. In my opinion we have good evidence for light waves. However, that means that there must be a substance doing the waving, and that is called ether. Therefore, it is unhappy that Einstein, as a young patent clerk, and misunderstood MMX abolished the ether. Einstein as an experienced physics professor failed for many decades to correct his own error. DEVASTATING.

Newton disregarded Fatio’s hypothesis that explained gravity as a radial ether wind, and this model can explain the illusions of BIG BANG and PIONEER anomaly as ether motions and illusions. DEVASTATING.

With best regards from ________________________ John-Erik

[John-Erik]

Jerry

What is wrong with light waves?

John-Erik

[Jerry]

I’m having second thoughts. lol

Well, one of the main disagreements is with Thomas Young’s “discovery” of the interference pattern with the very first double-slit experiment. It was actually done with sunlight. I have sort of a different theory as to why a series of lines of light could show up across the “screen” though.

[John-Erik]

Jerry

The double slit test is logically explained by the wave model. If you state that you do not accept you should point out a logical error. Just saying no is not science.

[John-Erik]

Jerry

There are no real lines of light. The ray is a mathematical tool representing the reality of a wave front that is transverse to the line. The ray direction is different from the beam direction. The difference is ether wind falling inside the wave fronts.

Best regards

[Jerry]

Thank you, John-Erik.

When I wrote the “lines of light” earlier, what I meant was specifically the series of quite a few of them, which most seem to produce a variety of intensity, which is the interference pattern. However, whenever there is the (alleged) wave function collapse (caused by the presence of a “which way” detector, or even human observation), it is said that the image on the screen turns into “two thick lines”, that the wave feature isn’t present anymore. There doesn’t seem any acceptable or established answer available yet to account for this strange anomaly.

When the wave function collapses, it is said to revert to the image that is “built” by particles, instead of waves. What is your view of this effect, if you have doubts regarding the existence of light particles?