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.

Response-Kenny

After reading through some of the responses i think i agree with much of the class. There is no way to get all of the information needed to observe an event from one perspective. I agree with Dylan now after reading that you can't see everything from a single stationary point. I also like how Caroline said that it is only a tool that we use to evaluate what we perceive. We will just have to rely on using multiple frames of reference to get a full understanding.

There is an ultimate frame of reference. Ultimate does not refer to "best," it means "final" or "greatest." The conclusion Eric and I arrived at is not only a correct answer, it is the only correct answer, with no room for debate, theological or scientific. Space and time was created in the big bang, the universe is constantly expanding, by extrapolating backwards, we can fix its germination to a fixed point. This is the ultimate frame of reference for Life, the Universe, and Everything. The universe is. It isn't like some great empty void lies out beyond it, there is no space, there is no time outside our universe. If you imagine an ant traveling along the surface of a constantly expanding basketball, even if the ant could beat the rate of expansion and reach the "end" of the ball, he would simply arrive back at his starting location. There is one single point against which all motion and position can be measured. No other frame of reference can claim this. To my knowledge and from my studies of monotheistic religions, there is no ultimate frame of reference. God is defined as omniscient and or omnipresent and omnipotent, and therefore because He (or She) would perceive objects from all frame of references, it has neither the ultimate, nor even a single frame of reference. Buddhism holds as a tenant that all life is an illusion, hypothetically, therefore if you want to make the logical silliness that there exists something entirely beyond the realm of observation, it could be an ultimate frame. But, because it is out of the realm of observation, it by definition cannot be a frame of reference. Lastly, Brad, the definition of "silly" from the most recent Random House dictionary is, "irrational." Because my argument was founded on logic and reason, all viewpoints varying from it not utilizing superior logic, and the people I was referencing most certainly were not, are definitively silly. But, I would like to use a synonym because it appears more relevant in this case: Ignoramus.

Q.E.D.