Quote:
Originally Posted by sjastro
Actually I'm not implying that at all.
A frame of reference is intimately tied to the measurement or observation being made. Implying that it can be applied to the Universe is suggesting the existence of an absolute frame of reference.
This is not SR or GR.
By the nature of your post you seem to support the existence of an absolute frames of reference.
Am I right in this assumption?
Regards
Steven
|
I'm assuming by "an absolute frame of reference" you're talking about a global frame of reference ...the one Einstein used to establish SR and then abolished stating that there is not background frame of reference at all.
If that's what you mean, then no, that's not what I'm saying at all.
I'm talking about applying what you observe in any one particular reference frame and then assuming it goes for any other reference frames. You cannot assume that. You would need to test that assumption in all other frames before you could call it a global feature of the universe. You can never say that the propagation of a metric in flat space would be the same as it would be within a Black Hole [say]...nor do we know that the character of light would be preserved either. Likewise, we cannot make the same assumption when close to a massive gravitational body or region of space that the metric is as we know it to be.
Example: Unaccountable structures in the rings of Saturn cannot be attributed to what we currently know about classical mechanics, SR & GR; why is that?...so we cannot assume that we know elsewhere either.
And no, I don't support the existence of an "absolute frames of reference". That's the whole point I've been trying to make all along. As well as an extension to that I've just talked about.