Einstein Frames of Reference illusion

Your problem has absolutely nothing to do with Einstein.

Your problem is that you reject Physics. This is not advanced physics you have a problem with. This is Physics that is taught in a standard Physics class in high school without mentioning Einstein.

Galileo wrote in the early 1600's. He fully understood Frames of Reference. He described them in his dialogs about ships. You can read these dialogs. In them there is a character called "Simpleton" who has trouble understanding Frames of Reference while the hero of the story carefully leads the reader through a set of thought experiments.

Isaac Newton often considered the father of modern Physics. Newton's laws of motion don't work unless you understand Frames of Reference. Isaac Newton lived through the early 1700s.

If you don't understand the basics of Galileo and Isaac Newton, then it is worth trying to tackle Einstein (who came 200 years after Newton).

You are trying to disprove college Physics (normally tackled in the second semester of a University course... although it is studied by some advanced high school students).

And yet, you don't understand basic high school physics. It isn't surprising that you have trouble with the material.

This is the simple question that none of you jokers can answer.

Give me an example of something that isn't moving?

Until you can answer that most basic of questions, you really can't go any further.

I don't have a problem. Einstein's version of Physics has the problem.

Galileo and Newton don't have a problem with Physics, only Einstein and his followers have the problem.
Classical Physics understands the use of imaginary frames of reference, and that they can never have any affect on Physical processes. they are only useful for taking measurements and relating the results to other measurements.
But Classical Physics understands that no Physical changes can take place simply because of a change in the relationship between the observer and the object being observed.
Einstein however DOES have a problem, because he thinks that changing viewpoint can cause a real change in the physical makeup of the object being observed.
I fully agree with Galileo and Newton and fully understand Imaginary frames of reference, but Einstein clearly does not.

How can you jump from IMAGINARY to believing that Frames are real?
Einstein's material is simplistic, not difficult to see whats he is claiming, but its also just nonsensical and full of errors of rational thinking.

And it all begins with those imaginary frames. I call them IIFR's, short fro IMAGINARY Inertial Frames of Reference, with emphasis on Imaginary.
You task in replying, is not to suggest that I don't understand high school Physics, but to explain how IMAGINARY can affect REALITY.

Give me an example of something that IS moving!

And, then explain how our lack of being able to decide whats moving or not, can possibly play any part in the mechanics of objects around us.

What has our LACK OF KNOWLEDGE about motion, got to do with Physics? Can our ignorance cause objects to react differently? No of course not, unless you are Einstein that is.

This is nonsense. It is meaningless. For anyone who cares, I have taught physics both in highschool and in college. Classical physics says nothing of the sort.

Now, if you are at all open-minded, I can show you the contradiction in your thinking. Please answer the question.

Give me an example of something that is truly motionless. Once we start talking about what it means to be motionless you are going to run into problems with "classical physics" pretty quickly. Your problems have nothing to do with Einstein.

The Earth



Classical Physics, that is Galileo and Newton, has no problem with this.

Newton's answer was that any motion had to be measured according to a frame of reference. Newton spelled this out mathematically. Galileo said the same thing when he talked about what he called "invariants". Galileo was a little less specific, but his examples with the ship made it pretty clear he understood the concept.

I have been thinking about this as a way to explain the basics of Frames of reference. Let's start with distance.

Let me ask the basic question....

How far away is the prudential tower in Boston?

- My answer would be 8.1 miles.
- My brother lives near Rochester New York. He would answer that the Prudential tower in Boston is 384 miles away.
- Someone who lived in Los Angeles would answer that it is 2680 miles away.

That's three different answers. Who is correct? Why can't anyone measure the real value of how far away the Prudential tower in Boston is?

"Classical physics says nothing of the sort."
Because no classical Physicist would ever imagine that there ever could be any such hypothesis that would suggest that ones point of view had any bearing on Physical processes, that's why it does not mention it specifically, Its a ridiculous statement, not worth responding to.

Your experience and qualifications have nothing to do with the topic.

Your question about the tower in Boston is so far just an exercise in measurements, its not Physics as such. Especially not the study of Newtonian motion of objects.
So are you going some place with this Boston tower? All three answers are correct, because you asked three different questions. And the math works out exactly correct when applied according to rational rules of math. (the relationships between all three observers locations, with respect to the Boston tower.)

but according to your mate Einstein, the Earth (if considered inertial) CAN choose to call itself stationary, or not, because imaginary inertial frames are arbitrarily assigned or disposed of just as easily.

We don't even need to think about inventing one if we choose not to.
You are free to label Obs1 and Obs2 and a 'stationary observer ' as being all in their own little imaginary frames if that spins your wheels, but I'm just as free to decide that everybody, including every physical body in the visible and theoretical universe is all just in one big imaginary frame, and I'm free to place the origin anywhere I wish, wherever it suits my need, such is the Sun, the center of the milky way, or the corner of my lounge room, because its my imaginary frame!
And meanwhile, everything in the Universe will carry on doing what it does, because my imaginary frame or yours wont be able to change anything.
Not Time, not Distance, and not Mass, regardless of who is moving or how fast.

You are not even trying to understand.

I'm being very clear, my statements are not ambiguous, compared to what direction you wish to try to take this conservation.
I don't have any difficultly in understanding the ideas of Classical Physics, and I fully understand every nuance of Einsteins hypothesis, its very simple as a basic concept, not much one can misunderstand at all, why are you making it into something complex?

Don't just make pointless statements about me not 'understanding', just make your point, and explain where I'm miss-representing Einsteins hypothesis, or even Classical Physics.
That would be the scientific approach, not telling me I'm lacking in understanding. You are the experienced Teacher, so teach physics, don't criticize people.

Just so I understand you here... What are you using as a definition for a "frame of reference"? As I understand it, it not imaginary at all.

I'm an engineer, I work with CAD software to design machines.
During the assembly stage of the machine design, every part is assigned a "frame of reference", which allows it to align correctly with every other part.
It's useful to chose a sensible location for the frames origin, and orientation, relative to the neighboring components. The correct choice for origins and orientations will be used for motion analysis and FEA structural analysis so you need to work with some plan.
But aside from establishing the relationships between moving parts, these 'reference frames' are of no value to the machine. Because I invented them and used them to make by job easier, but at no time did they have anything at all to do with affecting how that machine would function.
Its no value to consider a frame for the sliding ash tray in a car, relative to one of the pistons, there IS a calculable relationship, but its totally irrelevant.
The Ash tray has nothing at all to do with the piston.

This is exactly like the fact that a stationary observer has absolutely nothing to do with the Physics of a spaceship that happens to be passing him.
There is no connection, Physics requires a relationship involving a localized connection if one object is to affect another object.
Even the spooky action at a distance of a magnet, requires the presence of a magnet, and the effect is only localized.

So really, I have just explained what an imaginary frame of reference is, what its for, and why it has nothing to do with physical motion.

Now its your turn to show me that your frames are real physical objects, which is what you seem to be saying.
Examples please of your frames affecting objects.

My claim is that 'frame choice' plays no part in the mechanical physics of actual objects. (because they are imaginary)

I don't really get what your saying here. This statement seems to be saying that I can choose any frame of reference and the "mechanical physics" will work the same. This is the whole of Frames of Reference (and the key to understanding Physics). If that is what you are saying, then you have taken the first step to understanding the concept.

You set up the principle.... but then you abandon it.

You have a machine part that works fine attached a building (i.e. in the Earth frame of reference). I take this machine part and change the frame of reference by attaching it to a moving train that is going at 60 miles per hour.

I have now changed the frame of reference. The entire piece you machined is now moving. If I say "part A is attached solidly to part B and doesn't move"... this statement is correct whether the entire piece is attached to a building or to a moving train.


The Mechanical Physics of this part work the same no matter whether you are putting it on the Earth frame of reference or the moving train frame of reference.

Do

I don't know how you define the word "imaginary". This concept has no scientific value.

In order to measure the location of something. You need a "frame of reference". Is location imaginary?

In order to measure the velocity of something. You also need a "frame of reference"? (This makes sense because velocity is simply change in location).

You accept the first fact... you seem to be having trouble with the second.

Well you are taking the very first baby steps in understanding that you have been teaching nonsense all your teaching life.
I set up no principal, and abandoned nothing.
Your problem is still in thinking that by some magical means, "attaching" an imaginary construct has some bearing on reality.
This is delusional thinking, some form of mental illness, surely.
Galileo and Newton were discussing the very simple, but maybe overlooked fact that motion of objects appear to be moving differently when compared to different observational positions.
But nothing they said could be considered magical.
A ball moving at 10 kph on a moving truck with strike a pedestrian with a force of the combined speed of both ball and the truck.
This is not rocket science, and its only use is in the calculation of the effects of the motion of objects, on associated objects.

Einstein however twisted this simple understanding of very basic Physics, by adding actual magic, mysticism and an almost religious faith aspect when he claimed that by virtue of only relative motion, Time, spacial distance and Mass must be actually altered, but only according to special individuals, not for all. This is not Physics, its the talk of an irrational mind.

The sentence you wrote that was important is the recolonization that "The Mechanical Physics of this part work the same no matter whether you are putting it on the Earth frame of reference or the moving train frame of reference.". Therefore, you surely must recognize that it's dimensions, Mass and Time can never alter, irrespective of which 'frame' you care to invent.
Its you who is setting up a principal, and then soon you will want to abandon it in order to embrace your magical, mystical religious faith.

Because of Galileo's and Newtons simple laws of Physics, (and any rational persons Physics), Time, Mass and Lengths can never alter one scrap just because some deluded person decides to observe the action from some alternative location.

So please don't put the frame of reference on a moving train, or another planet, or on a merry-go round, because my machine might stop functioning, due to its mass and size changing, and the machines delicate timing will surely get messed up, and all by MAGIC!
No my friend, in fact you CANT put the frame of reference ANYWHERE, because its does not exist! It's imaginary, and plays NO PART in the actual physical processes.

My machine will work exactly the same, irrespective of where you are, what speed or direction you are moving in, and what tricks of perspective are affecting your clear view of the machines operation. What you subjectively BELIEVE you are witnessing, has NO bearing on my machine in any way, shape or form.
Its only in your head!
This is not the study of Physics, its the study of the state of your mental processes.

Imaginary is the what Einstein's conclusions are.
If I can say that the FoR (Frame of Reference) is at the bottom left corner of my railway carriage, or in the center of mass of the carriage, or 6 feet from the floor and one third of the distance along the carriage length, then this rationally can mean only ONE THING. That For's are IMAGINARY constructs.

If 'imaginary' has no scientific value, then toss out ALL of Einsteins papers right now, and we can end this discussion, as ALL of his work was done with the aid of "thought experiments".

Frames of reference are ONLY useful when trying to measure distances, calculate speeds, trajectories and the like.

And we invent FoR's out of thin air, arranged in any suitable manner that seems useful to the task at hand.

When you drive to the shop, do you first place your FoR on the dashboard, and phone the shop keeper, requesting that he places his FoR on his front door step, so that you can make the journey?

No, because FoR's are imaginary, and for the most part , we never need them.

Its not me with the trouble here. You are going to have more trouble than even your fertile mind can imagine, when trying to explain how 'imaginary' can become 'reality', without Magic being involved somewhere.

I'm not a physicist, but I raised one. I dabble in it and claim no expertise.

But, a Frame of Reference (FoR is good) is merely an observer. It isn't imaginary at all. It is a very real and specific thing.

Without an observer, there is no FoR. I think the Doppler Effect is a great example of how FoR work.

Good job you are not a Physicist.
A FoR is not an observer. An observer is just a metaphor to make explanations such as those Einstein used, when differentiating between different moving bodies. (the Stationary Frame observer, the moving observer, Obs1.... Obs2.)
In fact there are no observers in Einsteins thought experiments.
We, the reader, along with Einstein, are god like observers, with a grand overview of the entire scenario.
We have granted the pretend man on the Station with the same privileged as we have, that of the "stationary Observer", and the pretend guy on the train becomes the moving observer. The whole 'experiment' is pretend.
We don't need an actual PERSON, a real Obsever to be present either on the station or on the train. With any imaginary THOUGHT experiment, we are able to understand what the station and the train based perspective would look like, from any angle, because we can think.

A F0R can not ever be an observer, otherwise Special Relativity would not work, those claims about the clocks on GPS satellites would not run faster because there are no 'observers' on the satellites. (and you are not observing the satellite either)
So, best ask your son the Physicist, what a FoR really is.

With or without someone as a witness, Doppler still functions perfectly well.
What you are suggesting again, typical of Einstein believers, is mysticism, magic.
You are saying that if a tree falls and no one is there to see it, it does not make any noise. Mysticism, nonsense.