| Topic: |
Science > Philosophy |
| User: |
"socratus" |
| Date: |
04 Apr 2006 09:28:30 AM |
| Object: |
About absolute reference frame...... |
1 Ptolemee considered, that reference frame connected with the Earth
is absolute.
2. Copernicus proved, that reference frame connected with the Sun
is absolute.
3. Then they began to consider, that reference frame connected with far
stars
is absolute.
4. Now it is consider, that reference frame connected with relict
isotropic radiation
T = 2,7K is absolute.
And if has the scientific idea stopped in this point?
What is farther?
.
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: About absolute reference frame...... |
04 Apr 2006 03:14:52 PM |
|
|
Unless you're everything, there is no absolute anything.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Anthony G. Rubino" |
|
| Title: Re: About absolute reference frame...... |
04 Apr 2006 03:40:27 PM |
|
|
Logodox said:
Unless you're everything, there is no
absolute anything.
Without an absolute reference frame, there could be no understanding of
everything, or anything.
Understanding everything, anything, or 'things in themselves' from a
relative perspective does not deny the absolute qualities by which they
can be known by many minds and many relative perspectives.
Tony, philosopher
http://www.geocities.com/trisector/
So many misconceptions, so little time.
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: About absolute reference frame...... |
04 Apr 2006 08:37:39 PM |
|
|
Agreed that without a "pseudo" absolute reference frame and what you
said.
Absolute to me means "actuality" invariant, etc. There are as many
"pseudo" absolutes as there are beings that perceive. There could only
be ONE ABSOLUTE if there was ONE being that could perceive ALL other
beings' relative absolutes. This is not meant a word play, it is meant
as precise usage of the words involved. Check out Parmenides "what is"
"To Think Like God" (superb interpretation of presocratics). Take
literal word "nothing" similarly, you can never conceptualize nothing
as a non-existent because ANY concept will be a "something" never a
"nothing." capiche?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Anthony G. Rubino" |
|
| Title: Re: About absolute reference frame...... |
04 Apr 2006 11:09:47 PM |
|
|
To Logodox;
If your post is in response to mine, we may have a deeper agreement than
indicated in this post.
See my comments on BudhaThus' post in the thread "To Suspend Belief".
Tony, philosopher
http://www.geocities.com/trisector/
So many misconceptions, so little time.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Chris H. Fleming" |
|
| Title: Re: About absolute reference frame...... |
05 Apr 2006 01:52:07 AM |
|
|
socratus wrote:
1 Ptolemee considered, that reference frame connected with the Earth
is absolute.
Because it seems to be from our Earthly vantige point.
2. Copernicus proved, that reference frame connected with the Sun
is absolute.
Because it seems to be once you start looking at the planets.
3. Then they began to consider, that reference frame connected with far
stars
is absolute.
Mach. Because it seems to be once you start looking at all the "fixed"
stars.
4. Now it is consider, that reference frame connected with relict
isotropic radiation
T = 2,7K is absolute.
It's not absolute. You can construct a box that shields out the
radiation, walk in to that box, close the door, and lo and behold the
absolute frame of the CMB has vanished.
And if has the scientific idea stopped in this point?
What is farther?
In the context of Einstien Gravity, there is NO absolute frame. The
fixed stars and isotropic CMB radiation are both seen as the result of
homogeneity.
It's difficult to mesh this with a naive conception of a quantum
space-time lattice, so people try to look for what are called "Lorentz
Symmetry Violations". AFAIK none have been found. Personally I think
it's the wrong approach, but worth trying.
.
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
