Re: About absolute reference frame......

Koobee Wublee wrote:
> "Tom Roberts" <tjroberts@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
> news:5RHYf.66729$dW3.62874@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>>In modern physics, all of our fundamental theories obey the Principle of
>>Relativity, which says that the local laws of physics do not depend on
>>which locally-inertial frame one references them to.
>
> What fundamental theories are you referring to?

The fundamental theories of modern physics: GR and the standard model of
particle physics.


> Principle of
> Relativity is based on a few equations of Lorentz Transform.

You got that backwards.


> This is a
> principle by votes among all the judges similar to a beauty pagent.

Not at all.


> This being a principle is awfully subjective.

Somewhat. Due to English language nuances, not anything related to physics.


>>That means there is
>>no "absolute frame" in modern physics, for suitable meanings of
>>"absolute". I put it in quotes, because these phrases have such nebulous
>>and variable meanings that one must be careful in interpreting them.
>
> Even in Galilean Tranfrom, if there is an absolute frame of reference,
> there is no special laws applied that other frames don't get. In
> Newtonian physics, this is very much to be the case too. So, I am
> still very confused on the significance you place over this absolute
> frame of reference and pooh-pooh it.

"absolute" in the sense that a frame is unique, has no interest. Any
frame has that property.

"absolute" in the sense that the laws of physics are different in one
frame than in any other is not part of modern physics. The ancient
aether theories had it, but they have all been refuted experimentally.
Your example here does not go deep enough.


> By the way, please prove Newton's law of gravity would fail in your
> concept of absolute reference.

I have no "concept of absolute reference". <shrug>


>>In particular, the CMBR dipole=0 frame is "absolute" in the sense that
>>at the location of earth it is a specific locally-inertial frame. But it
>>is not "absolute" in the sense that the laws of physics are any
>>different in it than in other locally-inertial frames (this was the
>>meaning of "absolute" in ~century old aether theories, among others; all
>>have been soundly refuted by experiments). That frame is no more
>>"absolute" than is the locally-inertial frame in which the sun is at
>>rest. Or my little finger.
>
> The laws of physics should apply to every frame of reference. This
> point is as fundamental as all the principles you have presented.

Yes. That is the PoR. As I said.


> the argument is whether the dipole of
> CMBR does indicate the existence of the Aether. At a first glance,
> there is no connection.

Yes. Even after many glances no connection appears. Some people around
here _dream_ of a connection....


Tom Roberts tjroberts@xxxxxxxxxx
.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Lorentz transformations - a derivation
    ... > Which is, basically, bringing a lot of physics into the definition - the ... > At least the PoR + a reasonable guess at our laws of physics specifies it. ... >> undulated in, and an inertial frame was stationary in, then a frame ...
    (sci.physics)
  • Re: Lorentz transformations - a derivation
    ... > Which is, basically, bringing a lot of physics into the definition - the ... > At least the PoR + a reasonable guess at our laws of physics specifies it. ... >> undulated in, and an inertial frame was stationary in, then a frame ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: Can current theory explain the twin paradox?
    ... >> physics pertaining to electrodynamics) does not change by changing the ... >> uniform motion of the reference frame. ... > B. The laws of physics do not depend on which inertial frame ... > coordinates in inertial frames to the following groups: ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: Effectuationism and Value
    ... >> So how a principle strikes you is important rather than its experimental ... Then you should have made your context explicit by saying the invariance of ... > The Principle of Relativity says that the laws of physics are the ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: The princile of the relativity.
    ... .THE METAMORPHOSES OF THE PRINCIPLE OF THE RELATIVITY. ... All the laws of the mechanics are ... The only issue is the definition of an inertial frame. ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)