## Inertial Frame of Reference

Wikipedia describes the Inertial Frame of Reference as follows:

In physics, an inertial frame of reference… is a frame of reference that describes time and space homogeneously, isotropically, and in a time-independent manner.

All inertial frames are in a state of constant, rectilinear motion with respect to one another; an accelerometer moving with any of them would detect zero acceleration. Measurements in one inertial frame can be converted to measurements in another by a simple transformation (the Galilean transformation in Newtonian physics and the Lorentz transformation in special relativity). In general relativity, in any region small enough for the curvature of spacetime to be negligible, one can find a set of inertial frames that approximately describe that region.

Underlying this frame of reference is the concept of Inertia.

Inertia is the resistance of any physical object to any change in its state of motion (including a change in direction). In other words, it is the tendency of objects to keep moving in a straight line at constant linear velocity. The principle of inertia is one of the fundamental principles of classical physics that are used to describe the motion of objects and how they are affected by applied forces. Inertia comes from the Latin word, iners, meaning idle, sluggish. Inertia is one of the primary manifestations of mass, which is a quantitative property of physical systems…

In common usage the term “inertia” may refer to an object’s “amount of resistance to change in velocity” (which is quantified by its mass), or sometimes to its momentum, depending on the context. The term “inertia” is more properly understood as shorthand for “the principle of inertia” as described by Newton in his First Law of Motion: that an object not subject to any net external force moves at a constant velocity. Thus, an object will continue moving at its current velocity until some force causes its speed or direction to change.

On the surface of the Earth inertia is often masked by the effects of friction and air resistance, both of which tend to decrease the speed of moving objects (commonly to the point of rest), and gravity. This misled classical theorists such as Aristotle, who believed that objects would move only as long as force was applied to them.

Newton called inertia “innate force of matter,” and “power of resisting.” Einstein’s concept of inertia remained unchanged from Newton’s original meaning. But Einstein redefined gravity in terms of a new concept of “curvature” of space-time, instead of the more traditional system of forces understood by Newton.

.

Inertia plays a key role in the KHTK model of Cosmology, as described below:

4. #### The keys aspects of motion are space, time and inertia.

We seem to see motion occurring in space and time. However, that space and time obtains its characteristics from the ‘disturbance level’ of motion.

5. #### The ‘disturbance levels’ of motion may be defined by plotting their frequency on a logarithmic scale.

The frequency of Disturbance Level 1 (DL1) may be defined arbitrarily as ‘1’. The subsequent Disturbance Levels are then defined by doubling of this frequency (2, 4, 8, 16, 32 and so on). The Disturbance Level ‘n’ shall have a frequency of 2n-1.

The electromagnetic waves may be defined on this Disturbance Scale per their frequency. The radio waves shall appear around DL28 (Disturbance level of 28), the visible light around DL50, and the gamma rays around DL66.

6. #### Each disturbance level shall have its own spacetime and inertial characteristics.

The motions at DL28, DL50 and DL66 shall be different from each other in their fundamental characteristics. Einstein postulated ‘c’ (speed of visible light) as the fundamental characteristic of motion that is universally constant.

However, this model predicts the radio waves to have a speed greater than ‘c’, and the gamma rays to have a speed lower than ‘c’.

7. #### The higher is the disturbance level the greater is the inertia.

Momentum provides an index of inertia.  Inertia expresses itself in terms of discreteness. Photons may not have mass but they have momentum and inertia. At much higher disturbance levels inertia seems to manifest itself as mass.

8. #### The universe is made of multi-layered spacetime and inertial frames of reference.

Let’s suppose the disturbance level of a solid object is around DL100. Its fundamental characteristics of motion shall be very different from that of visible light at DL50. Because these two inertial frames of reference are so different, we cannot reasonably compare the speed of light with the speed of solid matter.

9. #### The inertial frames of reference are a function of disturbance levels as described in this KHTK model.

.

• Chris Thompson  On February 2, 2014 at 9:53 AM

This DL scale is gigantic in scope with each level being an order of magnitude higher than than the previous level. Therefore it is adequate in scope to attempt to describe the universe.

• Chris Thompson  On February 2, 2014 at 9:58 AM

Possibly the periodic table can be incorporated to order the upper end of this scale.

• vinaire  On February 2, 2014 at 12:56 PM

I believe so, but we need to verify this hypothesis first.

• vinaire  On February 2, 2014 at 12:57 PM

Somebody needs to establish the velocity of Radio waves in outer space.

• Chris Thompson  On February 3, 2014 at 1:15 AM

I will get right on that!

• vinaire  On February 3, 2014 at 5:57 AM

LOL!

• vinaire  On February 3, 2014 at 5:58 AM

I am surprised that this has not already been done.

• Chris Thompson  On February 2, 2014 at 10:00 AM

It is exciting to address and to consider a scale of frames of reference.

• vinaire  On February 2, 2014 at 1:00 PM

I am sure there must be others who have thought of this.

• Chris Thompson  On February 3, 2014 at 1:18 AM

My own reality is that everything or something similar to everything has definitely already been thought of, but that does not lessen the excitement of discovery for me.

• vinaire  On February 3, 2014 at 5:59 AM

Yes, the fun is in discovering for oneself. That is the fun of education.

• vinaire  On February 2, 2014 at 10:18 AM

Thank you Chris. This model is just a conjecture at this point. I shall really like to have the facility to compute the speed of radio waves and compare it to the speed of light.

• Chris Thompson  On February 3, 2014 at 1:09 AM

When I can, as a little project, I want to try and fill out the disturbance scale with ordinary things to see where they would fall. I will use maths to create consistency between the points on the scale. And when I can do this efficiently, I want to take up the periodic table of elements and see how the disturbance scale might be applied there as well. Some of the points will lie very close together such as solid matter, as will gasses, but then EMF should take a wider swath. The tricky part until one gets used to reading them are the vast differences in levels because of the orders of magnitude. 10X difference between side by side levels. 100X difference between every other level, and 1000X between every 3rd level! With a hundred disturbance levels to map, the entire universe should easily be covered. That will keep me busy for a while.

• vinaire  On February 3, 2014 at 5:54 AM

That can be done as follows:
(1) Calculate DeBroglie’s wavelength for the object.
(2) Determine the frequency based on the velocity and wavelength of the object.
(3) Take the log of that frequency on base 2.
(4) That will give you the DL value for that object.

• MarkNR  On February 2, 2014 at 2:24 PM

Instruments are now precise enough to measure ‘c’ in a small space, such as a 1 meter container. A vacuum tank of a few meters would be sufficient. Gravity’s effect on time and velocity? Well, conduct one experiment on the vomit comet during free fall and another at rest under gravity (on the ground).

If we have instruments that can measure the difference in the rate at which time passes on the ground, and one foot off the ground, surely we could detect if there is a difference in the speed of radio waves and gamma waves. The factor which cannot be duplicated would be the effect of EM waves passing near multiple large celestial bodies in space.

One thing I learned from this post was that Einstein was novel in his approach of using experimental data and observed phenomenon to base his theories, rather than postulating a theory and searching for phenomenon to verify his ideas. Do not get this confused with a theory predicting new, yet to be observed phenomenon. That comes later.
Mark

• vinaire  On February 2, 2014 at 3:56 PM

Einstein did thought experiments to come up with his theory of relativity. From those thought experiments he predicted bending of light near massive bodies. This bending was not verified until 1920. Until then not many scientist took his theory seriously.

• vinaire  On February 2, 2014 at 5:41 PM

Dark matter appears to be the inertia built up in these disturbance levels. This inertia is somehow a function of the frequencies at these levels.

I get the picture that these frequencies come about because the flow of the primeval field is somehow resisted at its outward boundaries. So the field backs up and that causes the ripples in the field. That resistance is now stored in these ripples.

I am sure this stored energy in the various disturbance levels can be calculated and compared to the mass discrepancy in the observed versus total calculated mass.

• vinaire  On February 3, 2014 at 6:30 AM

The velocity of light appears to be constant on earth because light is on a very different DL level than that of earth.

Most objects on earth are on a very similar DL level, so that the Galilean relativity may be applied to them.

• vinaire  On February 3, 2014 at 6:45 AM

Let’s continue looking at the Emission Theory

https://vinaire.me/2014/01/26/quantum-versus-classical-reality/#comment-16628
https://vinaire.me/2014/01/26/quantum-versus-classical-reality/#comment-16630

In the master frame, light is always reflected with the resultant of the relative velocity of the incident light with respect to the reflecting surface, and the velocity of the reflecting surface relative to the master frame.

.

I believe that the master frame here would be the inertial frame from which all Disturbance Levels may be viewed side by side.

In this master frame one would see the 186,000 miles long light wave at DL50 suddenly reduce to millionth of a centimeter at DL100 of the reflecting surface.

These are not actual numbers. There are cited to provide a sense of relative magnitude.

.

• vinaire  On February 3, 2014 at 7:58 AM

Looking from the reference frame of DL100 (reflecting surface), the velocity of reflected light relative to the incident light would be 2c.

Looking from the reference frame of DL50 (visible light), the velocity of light would be a constant c, and the ‘relative velocity’ zero, whether it is incident or reflected, because it is simply relative to itself like the train in an earlier example.

• vinaire  On February 3, 2014 at 7:33 PM

The above example is saying that

velocity of reflected light = velocity of incident light + velocity of the reflecting surface

This reasoning is mixing two different disturbance levels, and it is not correct.

• Chris Thompson  On February 3, 2014 at 10:36 PM

As a person who loves a good metaphor, much of my knowledge is analogous to something else. Physics is helping me understand what it might mean to see things as they are, not just as they seem. Quantum physics is Physics but it is not “like” macro Physics. We must continue to strive to look deeper and see these new discoveries as they are because they are phenomena of their own, unlike things we already know about. I have to be Mindful of the uniqueness of the new particles and not brush them off to the scrap heap of analogy.

• vinaire  On February 3, 2014 at 7:54 PM

Here is an interesting explanation of Aberration light. In 1729, James Bradley provided a classical explanation for it in terms of the finite speed of light relative to the motion of the Earth in its orbit around the Sun,

Aberration is historically significant because of its role in the development of the theories of light, electromagnetism and, ultimately, the theory of Special Relativity.

• vinaire  On February 3, 2014 at 9:01 PM

From Fringe shift

In the 1887 Michelson-Morley experiment, the distance the two beams traveled down the perpendicular arms was expected to be altered by a wind caused by the Earth’s motion through Luminiferous aether. This additional path length was calculated to be .4 wavelengths. This means that as the interferometer’s arms were spun to face into and against the ether wind, the vertical fringe lines should have moved across the viewer .4 fringe widths left and right for a total of .8 fringes from maximum to minimum. Michelson reported that only between one-sixth and one-quarter of the expected reading was found.

.

Michelson-Morley experiment simply found that there was no relative velocity between earth and the medium of light. This simply proves that the medium of light is not material. It does not prove that there is no medium of light.

.

• Chris Thompson  On February 3, 2014 at 11:03 PM

Slippery slope that. We don’t need proof of no medium of light. Rather let’s find it if we think there is one. Then tricky that if the medium is not “material.” Where would we look beginning from there?

• vinaire  On February 4, 2014 at 5:43 AM

There can be no wave without a medium. If light is a wave then it must travel in some medium. It is an inconsistency to think of a wave without a medium.

An understanding of light will provide the understanding of its medium. Do we understand light?

• Chris Thompson  On February 4, 2014 at 11:43 PM

Do we understand it is a wave or do we assume it is a wave?

• vinaire  On February 5, 2014 at 6:45 AM

One needs to examine all the experimental evidence.

• MarkNR  On February 11, 2014 at 5:53 AM

Hello Vin.
It seems that we have a different definition or definitions of a traveling wave.

When a wave travels across a semi 2 dimensional surface, such as water surfaces or metal sheeting, the movement of the surface is primarily perpendicular to the travel of the wave. There is some motion of the medium linear to wave travel which propagates the wave, but that is minor, although most of the energy is transferred linear to the plane. The wave IS the medium as no actual material actually travels with the wave. Waves along a rope are commonly of this type.

When a wave such as sound travels through a 3 dimensional medium, the motion of the medium is linear to the travel of energy in the form of oscillation. Back and forth toward and away from the emission point. There is no travel of the medium except for parasitic loss of energy in the form of a small amount of wind. There is no travel of any objective somethingness. Sound waves through water are of this type of wave.

To me, light or any EM wave is of a different type. It could be likened to a machine gun which fires 10 rounds per sec. As they strike an object, it could be said that it is receiving a 10 hz.wave of bullets traveling at 2500 fps. The thing which is being emitted is actually traveling at the speed of the ‘wave’. Each individual layer of the wave is not actually vibrating. The particles care not of a medium except as a hindrance. A transmitter broadcasting a 100 mhz signal would be emitting a burst of photons which would travel about 10 ft at which time another burst of particles would be emitted and so on. The somethingness would be traveling at light speed, regardless of any medium or lack thereof. Like waves of troops attacking an enemy position. The reason EM is thought to be ‘vibrating’ is because when sensed or received, it causes the receiving object to vibrate due to the regularity of impacts. The term ‘wave’ does not fit this scenario and i believe is the wrong word to describe EMR energy.

But light is also a non particle, having no actual position in space. Well, imagine a cardboard box filled with smoke with a 1 in. hole on one side. Tap on the box 5 times per second. You would get a 5 hz frequency of puffs of smoke. IF THE SMOKE HIT A FLAG POLE, EACH PUFF WOULD SIMPLY GO AROUND BOTH SIDES OF THE POLE AND CONTINUE TRAVELING. The smoke itself would be traveling at speed, not directly related to any medium. This would work in a vacuum, a ‘no medium’.

Fault can be found with this analogy, but it is an ANALOGY, serving to incite an idea of the principal involved. I do not believe EMR is actually a wave, but layers of a somethingness, traveling one behind the other at a regular rate. I do not believe EMR is vibrating, but a vibrating particle will emit a layer of photons with each oscillation which then travel at their prescribed speed.

Photons might possibly vibrate with a linear speed of ‘C’ until released, at which moment will travel at the same speed, only in one direction instead of back and forth.

Photons, having no actual position, being ‘non particles’, may have only an apparent vibration with no actual motion. The motion becoming actual when released.

A perfectly viable theory, from my viewpoint.

Mark.
Thoughts?

• vinaire  On February 11, 2014 at 9:23 AM

Mark, I would like to invite you to the secret club of the “Unknowables” but it is up to you if you want to join it or not. Send me a picture of yours anyway, and I shall add it to the section on “About Vinaire” on this blog.

• Chris Thompson  On February 11, 2014 at 11:23 PM

+1

• vinaire  On February 3, 2014 at 9:35 PM

The Michelson-Morley experiment does not prove that there is no medium of light. The medium of light can be spacetime itself, where spacetime is some kind of a non-material field.

• MarkNR  On February 3, 2014 at 9:45 PM

You found it !!!!!!!!!!

• Chris Thompson  On February 4, 2014 at 11:37 PM

LOL Mark, we find tautologies pretty much everyday, but that doesn’t mean we found it! What’s my point? I just wanted you to know I got your joke. Haha

• vinaire  On February 3, 2014 at 9:55 PM

I am sure lot of people have found it for themselves.

• vinaire  On February 3, 2014 at 9:58 PM

But this tells me that the Theory of Relativity can be improved upon.

• Chris Thompson  On February 4, 2014 at 11:41 PM

Yup. Ii think that working on discovering the surface upon which the reactions of existence take place is a good target.

• Chris Thompson  On February 3, 2014 at 11:59 PM

Well they proved there is no medium of light “analogous” to what they planned to find. And so it will go with quanta. If we think there is a medium, then we must get more creatively looking. One thing we seem to know is this luminiferous ether is unlike macro mediums that exhibit friction of higher DLs.

• vinaire  On February 4, 2014 at 5:47 AM

Who proved there is no medium of light and how?

This is like saying somebody proved that there is no space.

• Chris Thompson  On February 4, 2014 at 11:50 PM

**analogous** medium. They’re looking was limited by an assumption. Nothing wrong with that, it is just not the whole enchilada. Now we know one type of medium that luminous ether is not. It’s not the type they were looking for.

• vinaire  On February 5, 2014 at 6:46 AM

In what sense are you using the word “analogous”?

• vinaire  On February 4, 2014 at 7:10 AM

An understading of light’s medium will come from an understanding of the nature of light itself.

• Chris Thompson  On February 4, 2014 at 11:55 PM

Or vice versa

• vinaire  On February 5, 2014 at 6:47 AM

How?

• vinaire  On February 4, 2014 at 7:18 AM

Per Einstein, two events that appear to be simultaneous may not appear as simultaneous at another location because of the finite nature of the speed of light.

This is asserting that our awareness depends on the speed of light. That is quite a limitation being imposed on our awareness by the Theory of Relativity.

• Chris Thompson  On February 5, 2014 at 12:02 AM

Einstein helps us understand Real Time is a complete misnomer. There is no such thing.

• vinaire  On February 4, 2014 at 7:27 AM

I believe that our awareness is not limited by the speed of light, though our visual perception may be. Awareness goes beyond visual, auditory and tactual perceptions.

Awareness depends on the ability to visualize, and that goes beyond visual, auditory and tactual perceptions. Awareness spreads through the resolution of inconsistencies.

• Chris Thompson  On February 5, 2014 at 12:13 AM

I am not following you. Our “awareness” appears dead slow to me. We see, hear, feel like molasses in January. We sense hardly anything and think about hardly anything. We can only ever pretend and write fiction about heros who operate as light speed, never mind being limited by it.

• vinaire  On February 5, 2014 at 6:41 AM

Probably more time studying and understanding the basics of mathematics is needed. 🙂

• vinaire  On February 4, 2014 at 8:06 AM

(1) Tactual perception is powerful but it has a limited reach.
(2) Similarly, the perception of taste has limited reach but it has a much wider range.
(3) The perception of smell depends on the process of diffusion through air; so it has a wider reach.
(4) The perception of sound (hearing) depends on pressure waves through air; so it has a much wider reach as well as range.
(5) The perception of light (vision) depends on the incredible speed of light waves through space; so it has extraordinary range and reach.

However, what is yet to be fully recognized is “the power of visualization” as a perception that goes beyond all physical perceptions. All great theories of science have come from this “perception” of visualization.

The error in the Theory of Relativity has been to equate our awareness with the effects from the finite speed of light. All conundrums presented by the Theory of Relativity come from this assumption about limitation in awareness due to the finite speed of light.

Awareness is not limited by the speed of light just as it is not limited by the speed of sound. Awareness is limitless when it derives from the resolution of inconsistencies.

• Chris Thompson  On February 5, 2014 at 12:14 AM

Not getting it.

• vinaire  On February 5, 2014 at 6:43 AM

Understanding this is key to the understanding of Physics – Metaphysics interface. I can only repeat what I have written here.

• Chris Thompson  On February 5, 2014 at 7:16 AM

Understood. I am not being a curmudgeon. I am reminding to be Mindful of what is a tautology. Simply acknowledge when we are doing that and not kid ourselves when we are.

• vinaire  On February 5, 2014 at 7:36 AM

Optimum reality comes from resolution of actual inconsistencies and not from some vague suspicion of tautologies and some vague idea of mindfulness. One has to reallly spell out the inconsistency and then look at it closely. It takes a lot of work.

The theory of relativity simply brings to light some inconsistencies in the perception of time and space. With that knowledge we can improve our understanding of reality.

• vinaire  On February 4, 2014 at 6:41 PM

The unresolved question is, “What does light travel at 186,300 miles per second relative to?”

.

Light is a disturbance that is spreading in a spacetime field characteristic of DL50 (Disturbance Level 50), just like a disturbance spreads on the surface of a lake with the impact of a stone, Therefore, the correct speed of light shall be measured relative to the spacetime field characteristic of DL50.

We are perceiving the speed of light relative to spacetime field characteristic of DL100 This field represents a solid level, which is 2^50 times more compresed compared to DL50. Equivalent motion would appear 2^50 times slower in DL100 than in DL50 because of this relative compression of spacetime.

Thus, no matter how fast things move in DL100, they would appear to be at a standstill compared to the motion in DL50. Even a fast moving reference frame in DL100 would appear to be standing still in DL50, and it will have no impact on the perceived speed of light.

• Chris Thompson  On February 5, 2014 at 12:42 AM

I really like the disturbance levels. I thought maybe I can write a spreadsheet to use to plug in values and locate any material object on this scale.

• Chris Thompson  On March 4, 2014 at 2:38 PM

It seems that we could apply the disturbance levels socially to demonstrate the differences between our private and public personas. Also between our private and more private personas.

• vinaire  On March 4, 2014 at 2:40 PM

Keep going,