Response

I liked to start by stating that I agree with nearly everyone here, especially the ones who agree with me.

Many good arguments have been posted and I feel that none can really be refuted, because this is a discussion of a theoretical idea. The ultimate frame of reference is essentially unattainable, but Eric has put up a strong argument for his center of the expanding universe ultimate frame of reference. Although I still feel it would be useless.

Brad - Clarification

I fear I may have been unclear (or at least misread) in my definition of "ultimate". In the case of frames of reference, I mean that "ultimate" should not be construed to mean "best." I believe it is better expressed as "largest" or, as Eric said, "final."

To Ben Snow: It is a curious example you give, with ants and ever expanding basketballs, but I believe you are overlooking one factor - though the ant cannot perceive it, there is a world beyond the basketball, far greater and complex than it will ever be. Just because we are confined to the surface of the basketball does not preclude the existence of something beyond. In fact, the existence of a basketball implies the existence of something outside itself. The basketball has an "edge," a limit to what it encompases, which is expanding. What is it expanding into? There must be something to contain it, a space beyond space for it to truely have the capacity to grow. In order to be defined as "separate" or "contained," the thing in question must exist inside of something larger.

No room for debate? Who can say that? Who has the authority to declare any topic off the table? To declare that there is no room for debate would be completely unscientific. How could we ever discover new things about our world? What if you told Louise Pasteur that there was no room to debate spontaneous generation, and that microscopic organisms could not exist? Or if you told Nicolas Copernicus that there was no room to debate orbits and the center of the solar system? How about Einstein and his theories of relativity? The moment we loose the ability to debate we loose the ability to know anything; it is only by debate that we can compare ideas to find the truth.

My aim is not to create an argument but to prevent stagnation in our scientific opinions. A healthy clash of opinions is good; if we do not know why we know what we know, then can we really know at all?

II

I believe that no ultimate frame of refrence exsists. Frame of refrence is all relative to where you are. Forinstints in Newtons bucket experiment, someone inside the bucket versus outside of the bucket will experience two very diffrent events with the one sequence of events. To one the water may seem to be in motion, to the other perhaps the bucket, again stating that frame of refrence is all relative to the viewers position.

Eric - Response

In responding to the ideas put forth by my classmates, I do not refute or deem incorrect any concept that has been proposed here. First off, I would like to provide what I believe is a rather complete definition of "ultimate:"

ultimate: furthest or highest in degree or order - wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/webwn

Now I do not think this necessarily the best or only definition of ultimate, but it does seem to be the most pertinent to this discussion. I would like to clearly state that in my opinion, our search for the ultimate frame of reference is not for the "best" one, but the most absolute. I chose the center of our expanding universe as the ultimate frame of reference because I do not know of any frame of reference of a higher order.

Though this frame of reference may not be practically obtainable, it does provide a relatively unbiased frame of reference for all other motion in the universe. As stated by several other individuals such as Brad, there are many more practical frames of reference and every situation warrants a unique viewpoint, but as far as an ultimate frame of reference, I do stand by my claim that there is one, and that it is the center of the universe.

Moving off on a slight tangent and apologizing for being a little repetitive in my last paragraph, I would like to address the concept of all motion being relative, which was discussed by many people between now and my last post. In respect to frames of reference, I propose this idea concerning the speed of light: theoretically, nothing can go faster than the speed of light. A recent discussion regarding the speed of gravity waves ties into this because we don't have any way to detect them. First of all, gravity is exerted by all matter in the universe, so the only way to tell what the speed of gravity is (and if it is faster than the speed of light), mass would have to be accelerated past the speed of light. However, two problems present themselves. Firstly, as far as we know, this cannot be accomplished, so there is no way to perform this experiment, rendering it to be a bit of a dead end. Secondly, if we could move matter faster than the speed of light, how would we be able to tell if it really was? What I mean is, yes, an object may be moving five times the speed of light, but how can we tell that it really is if we can only observe it moving at the speed of light? On top of this, we have no way to detect gravity waves, such as those that would be exerted in this experiment. Therefore, there would appear to be no way to test the speed of gravity with our current level of knowledge.

Branching off of this idea, I want to discuss one more thing. We say that the speed of light is the fastest that anything can travel, but if motion is relative, how can this be the case? If you have two photons of light traveling in opposite directions, would that not make them each moving at twice the speed of light in respect to each other? And if we were to add a third photon traveling in the same direction as one of the others, but the speed of light faster than it, would this photon not be now moving at three times the speed of light relative to the one moving in the other direction? I am aware that experiments have been conducted regarding the relationship between mass and speed, and that as a particle is accelerated near the speed of light, its mass begins to increase, but this still leaves my previous questions unanswered. What if two planets were moving away from each other at 3/4 the speed of light - this would make them appear to be moving 1.5 times the speed of light with respect to each other. And as an extension of this, if all motion of matter in the universe is relative to the center of the universe, how does this tie in to relative motion and the speed of light? I have no definitive answers to these questions, but I think they are interesting prospects to consider while discussing these subjects.

I have found it interesting to read the various viewpoints put forth by everyone else, and I believe that all of them have merit. I think that mankind has barely taken its first steps into the ocean of science, and that there is so much out there that we do not know. Therefore, we can really only speculate on what we have observed thus far. I look forward to seeing what new scientific discoveries are made in the future as where it takes us.

Response- Caiti

I like Eric's suggestion that the ultimate frame of reference is from the center of our expanding universe. I hadn't even thought about that. I suppose Einstein's theories of relativity regarding motion are based on motion in empty space, but if our universe has a center then we are not in empty space, are we? This would suggest that there is absolute motion, at least in our universe, as believed by Newton.

If we measure all motion from the universe's center (which is stationary) using the speed of light(which is the same for all observers) for distance and time, we can determine absolute motion. Afterall, the entire purpose of finding an ulitmate frame of reference is so we can know absolute motion, right?

Of course if we do not wish to know absolute motion, if we instead need to compute motion relative to the Earth, then we can use different frames of reference as tools, as suggested by Caroline. These view points are not ultimate, nor is the calculated motion absolute, but relative frames of reference can be more practical than using the center of the universe, especially for situations on Earth.

So, conclusively, there are two types of motion. Absolute motion (Newton) and relative motion (Einstein). Absolute motion must be determined from the center of the universe because that is the only stationary point in the universe. (I don't think the possibility of something beyond our universe has any importance since space and time only apply specifically to the universe we are in.) The second type of motion, relative motion, can be determined from any non-stationary point of view.

Alexis- response

I disagree with Brad- when people say "ultimate" frame of reference, they don't mean best frame of reference, they mean ultimate. However they are talking about something that cannot be defined, ultimate is like a limit- something that would potentially be the best frame, but also something we cannot know. In science, things are never considered facts (or theories, I can't remember the order of importance) until many scientists have reached the same conclusions, but it is still understood that no matter how many humans agree, there is still the possibility that it could be wrong. This is because we can never test our theories in every possible situation. This is where I agree with Brad- I think (like everyone) that we should use the best frame of reference for our particular problem, and keep the word "ultimate" as a theoretical term only.

Hillary-Response

While I do agree with many points people have brought forward...Especially everyone who pointed out (or referenced toward) choosing the best frame of reference for each individual situation. To Eric and Ben... while I do not dispute your center of the universe, I wonder if it is a practical view point to take. I do, however, respectfully request the denial of Ben's right to negative comments in this activity, especially as they relate to religion. I agree with Brad on the term 'silly' and still maintain this stance in relation to 'irrational.' I may be both, but that isn't a good excuse. Back to physics...

I really appreciated Trevor's point about an ultimate frame of reference needing to be stationary. The center of the universe as discussed by both Eric and Ben would seem to fit the requirement, as the universe is expanding from said point. However, this perceived movement is from our frame of reference. For my last comment today, I really enjoyed Jen's comments on an ultimate frame of reference being all-inclusive of other frames.

I'm sure I contradicted myself, as I agreed with people advocating for both (or several) sides of this debate.