**Authors:** Henok Tadesse

The problem of reference frames was a long standing one which existed and was confusing for hundreds of years since the time of Galileo, until the ‘solution‘ provided by Einstein. However, the whole theory of relativity is considered invalid in this paper and my other paper1 in which I have attempted to show that the speed of light is constant only relative to its source and that the whole relativity theory is based on a mistake made by Maxwell in his assumptions about ‘free’ space. Relativity theory gave no explanation as to why planetary orbits are non-circular. Even the explanations given by general relativity on bending of light near the sun and Mercury perihelion advance are based on the estimated mass of the sun , which I have shown in my other paper2 to be overestimated. The problems of non- circular orbits and perihelion advance are fundamental ones connected to the long standing problem of reference frames. Therefore, the problem of reference frames is still an unsolved problem. This paper hopefully provides the ultimate solution. There is an absolute reference point in the universe with respect to which nature defines and determines its simple, elementary and universal laws and phenomena. The laws of physics (Newton’s laws) have been implicitly defined with respect to reference frames that are fixed to and moving with the systems to which they are to be applied. Newton’s laws never correctly (exactly) predicted the phenomena of nature, such as non –circular planetary orbits and Mercury perihelion advance. The fundamental reason is that those elementary Newton’s laws were not defined with respect to the absolute reference point. Nature defines and determines its laws and phenomena with respect to that absolute reference point, where as Newton’s laws are implicitly defined with respect to reference frames fixed to and moving with natural systems to which they are to be applied. Ideally, the problem was that Newton formulated his laws which he never observed (exactly) happen physically. He never observed circular orbits, but he formulated laws implying circular orbits. Ideally, he should have stated the reference frame with respect to which his laws are defined AND observed exactly as formulated. All correct laws of physics should predict natural phenomena correctly if they are to be considered correct. The absolute reference point is what it is (an absolute reference) because it just happens that the laws of physics happen to be simple, elementary, universal and be able to predict natural phenomena correctly only when they are defined with respect to that point. Newton’s laws can predict planetary orbits correctly only if they are redefined with respect to the absolute reference point. The reference frame of the observer has no fundamental role. The problem of orbit prediction should be solved in an absolute reference frame, and the results transformed to the reference frame of the observer. Can we discover the absolute reference point in the universe? Theoretically, yes.

**Comments:** 10 Pages.

**Download:** **PDF**

[v1] 2012-11-17 14:18:22

**Unique-IP document downloads:** 40 times

**Add your own feedback and questions here:**

*You are equally welcome to be positive or negative about any paper but please be polite. If you are being critical you must mention at least one specific error, otherwise your comment will be deleted as unhelpful. *