The Scientific Frame of Reference


Man looking out on the heavens. Woodcut from Universum by Camille Flammarion, published Paris, 1888. Monochrome version coloured by Hugo Heikenwaelder.

The “observer” of Einstein, whether it is a human or a physical instrument, is limited in its measurement by the velocity of light. Therefore, it cannot measure any velocity greater than the speed of light. The sense of space-time directly or through any instrument is similarly limited by the speed of light.

The Theory of Relativity basically acknowledges the physical perceptions to be limited by the speed of light.

However, mental perceptions are not limited by the speed of light. In order to define mental perception scientifically, let’s do the following thought experiment. Imagine being out there in the interstellar space without relying on physical perceptions. We ignore all light whether emitted from some source, or reflected by an object. This eliminates all external reference points. Now pay attention to your motion.

You could be standing still or you could be moving at the speed of light. But you will find that there is no mental perception of motion as long as it is uniform.  There is mental perception only when there is a change in motion accompanied by inertial resistance.

Mental perception seems to be related to inertial resistance.

Light that brings about physical perception of other objects is made up of changing electrical and magnetic fields. These changes are resisted by permittivity and permeability. This is a form of inertial resistance built into the very nature of light. We may refer to it as the inertia of light that is inherent. It determines the uniform motion of light.

In fact, this form of inertia is present wherever electromagnetic phenomenon is found, and that is pretty much in everything. Atoms and molecules consist of electromagnetic phenomenon and they make up all matter including the human body and brain. Thus inertia is built into the very fabric of the universe. Similar to mental perception, the physical perception also seems to based on inertia.

Physical perception seems to be related to inertia built into the fabric of the universe.

It seems that perception cannot be separated from inertia that is inherent to motion in all physical and mental phenomena. Every aspect of this universe is changing and giving rise to inertial forces at all times. This is a level of perception inherent to the universe.

This idea of perception goes far beyond what we think of as human perception and awareness. This perception is part of what is being observed. There is no separate viewpoint of the observer. The scientific method comes closest to this concept. Observation clarifies itself by looking more closely at inconsistencies.

Science is “observation” clarifying itself by looking at inconsistencies more closely.

The frame of reference of science is, therefore, the whole universe. In this frame of reference the perception is not limited by the speed of light. Science can perceive light creeping from star to star, while also perceiving the rotation of earth. Science can see the whole spectrum of motion in the universe at all times.

The Scientific frame of reference is the universe as a whole.

Once we fully understand this universal frame of reference, no other frame of reference is needed. In this frame of reference inertia determines the perception of motion and all other properties. The “uniform motion” of an object is determined by inherent inertial forces. These forces act to restore the uniform motion  whenever it is deviated from. The uniform motion of an object is not determined by the velocity of an external frame of reference.

The uniform motion of an object is determined by its inherent inertia.

All motion in this universe is continually changing. This makes the universe appear what it is. We may assume that the overall energy and momentum of the universe are conserved. This may mean that the universe, considered as a whole, is changeless. There is nothing beside the universe, so its overall properties are relative to itself only. We may assume the universe to have absolute motion of zero and infinite persistence.

The universe is inherently static and infinitely persistent.

Science may derive its sense of motion and time from the frame of reference of the universe as a whole.


Both comments and trackbacks are currently closed.


  • vinaire  On March 13, 2015 at 6:34 PM

    It seems that inertia of an object is a measure of its “uniform motion” relative to the universe as a whole, where the universe is inherently static and infinitely persistent.

    The uniform motion of an object is either orbital or rotational. The straight line motion is actually orbital motion in the larger picture.

    The uniform motion also includes the persistence of the object relative to the universe.

    The uniform motion of an object can have any velocity depending on Einstein’s inertial frame of reference. Such a velocity is NOT the property of the object. It is rather the property of the inertial frame of reference. The actual property of the object is its uniform motion based on its inertia.

    Restorative inertial forces immediately come into play whenever the uniform motion of the object is disturbed. The uniform motion is restored whenever there is no acceleration.


  • vinaire  On March 13, 2015 at 6:47 PM

    Absolute motion can be assessed only in terms of acceleration and not in terms of velocity. This is because acceleration is relative to object’s inertia and not to the inertial frame of reference.

    Velocity depends entirely on the inertial frame of reference. It is a property of the inertial frame rather than of the object.

    Absolute motion can exist relative to itself only. Therefore, it is the uniform motion of the object when it is not accelerating. This uniform motion is represented by the inertia of the object, independent of the frame of reference.

    The inertia of the object is relative to the universe. The universe as a whole may be assumed to be static with infinite persistence.


  • vinaire  On March 14, 2015 at 9:09 AM

    Some Thoughts on Inertia

    1) Inertia is a condition that preserves itself. It acts only to restore its condition. Infinite inertia is the condition that cannot be changed. Zero inertia is a condition that is always changing.

    2) We assume that the universe as a whole is changeless in terms of its total energy and momentum. We, therefore, start with the postulate that the universe has infinite inertia.

    3) This makes the universe STATIC because it cannot be moved. It may then be used as a reference point for all motion in the universe.

    4) This also makes the universe INFINITELY PERSISTENT because its presence cannot be altered. It may then be used as a reference point for all persistence in the universe.

    5) Thus, inertia becomes a measure of changeable-ness. This changeable-ness property belongs to everything in this universe. It may be defined as “ininherent motion and persistence” of things.


  • vinaire  On March 16, 2015 at 7:52 AM

    Inertia is a measure of how changeable something is. It is a measure of changeability, if there is such a word.

    Motion is looked upon as movement in space. We have been measuring movement by an object’s velocity. But in the world of relativity this definition of motion is arbitrary.

    Motion would actually be changeability in space and time. How changeable is the location? How persistent is it?

    So, we can talk about INERTIA in terms of an object’s location and persistence. Motion, in this sense is not understood through velocity, but through its gravity.


  • vinaire  On March 16, 2015 at 9:17 AM

    No inertia of space forms the background of the infinite inertia of the overall universe. The universe consists of all levels of inertia from light to black holes.

    Similarly, no mental inertia of atman (not soul) forms the background of the infinite mental inertia of the overall mind. The mind consists of all levels of mental inertia from fleeting thoughts to fixed cultish beliefs.


    • vinaire  On March 16, 2015 at 9:18 AM

      Truth with no inertia shall form a background of complete coherence, harmony and consistency, against which any inconsistency shall stand out.

      An inconsistency shall have inertia. So if a “truth” has inertia, then it has some inconsistency in it.


    • vinaire  On March 16, 2015 at 9:21 AM

      A frame of reference has inertia. The inconsistency underlying the idea of a “frame of reference” is that a frame of reference is something arbitrary being considered absolute. One is now looking at things taking that frame of reference to be absolute.


  • vinaire  On March 17, 2015 at 5:18 PM

    In my opinion, the Higgs Boson may be related to inertia as follows.

    Whether a particle is moving, or it is at rest, depends on the inertial frame of reference we select. As long as a particle is moving at a uniform velocity, the magnitude of that velocity does not really matter.

    The major factor, in my opinion, is whether a particle is accelerating or not. The rest mass is the mass of particle when it is not accelerating. This provides a proper definition to the word “rest” in rest mass.

    It is my opinion that the rest mass of a particle is better described as a measure of its inherent inertia. A photon has no mass, but it has inherent inertia. The inertia of a photon is a limiting value because a photon simply cannot be accelerated. The idea of c (speed of light) as a limiting value is deceptive. The actual limiting value is the inertia of a photon.

    It is my conjecture that inertia of a particle reduces with acceleration. That inertia cannot be reduced beyond the inertia of a photon. This limits the maximum acceleration that a particle can attain. Therefore, the maximum acceleration of a particle is limited by its rest mass or inherent inertia.

    The Higgs boson seems to describe the inherent inertia of particles.


  • vinaire  On March 17, 2015 at 9:31 PM

    Per Wikipedia :

    “An inertial frame 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… Physical laws take the same form in all inertial frames.”

    From the viewpoint of inertia, all inertial frames are simply the case of no acceleration. It does not matter if the velocity of a particle is c (speed of light) or less, or even more than c, as long as it is not accelerating.

    What is significant is not c (speed of light), but something else. That something else is the inherent inertia of the photon.

    The inertia of a photon is very, very small. In fact, it is so small that there is no resistance when force is applied to it. Therefore, a photon cannot be accelerated.


    • vinaire  On March 17, 2015 at 10:05 PM

      The smallness of the inertia of a photon is the real limit. This limit is erroneously expressed as the speed of light.


  • vinaire  On March 21, 2015 at 4:03 PM

    (From Understanding Physics by Isaac Asimov)

    But the very rapidly moving charged subatomic particles possessing velocities up to 0.99 times that of light increase markedly in mass… The mass of such particles can be obtained by measuring their inertia… Charged particles can be made to curve in a magnetic field. This is an acceleration imposed upon them by the magnetic force, and the radius of curvature is the measure of the inertia of the particle and therefore of its mass.

    From the curvature of the path of a particle moving at low velocity, one can calculate the mass of the particle and then predict what curvature it will undergo when it passes through the same magnetic field at higher velocities, provided its mass remains constant. Actual measurement of the curvatures for particles moving at higher velocities showed that such curvatures were less marked than was expected. Furthermore, the higher the velocity, the more the actual curvature fell short of what was expected. This could be interpreted as an increase in mass with velocity, and when this was done the relationship followed the Lorentz equation exactly.


    There is no ether with infinite inertia. Therefore there cannot be Lorentz-Fitzgerald contraction, and no increase in the mass of the subatomic particle.  Thus, there seems to be an inconsistency.

    Experimentally, the subatomic particle is traveling with lesser curvature at higher accelerations. Thus, it is approaching the behavior of light that travels in straight lines.

    This means that the inertia of a particle reduces as it accelerates, until it is reduced to the inertia of a photon. Then it cannot be accelerated any more.


%d bloggers like this: