Talk:Frame of reference

message: I had a question as to whether there is a grand frame of reference or not. Because right now I'm sitting in a chair, on the earth, going around the sun, while at the same time, the solar system is revolving around the Milky Way. What's beyond that? Is there no frame of reference beyond the galaxy? I would think not because all of the galaxies are moving away from each other.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.73.54.139 (talk) 18:45, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: While the car example is a good and understandable one, calling S and S' inertial frames of reference might be a little confusing, because both accelerate by 3 cm/s2 towards the centre of the Earth (and also slightly towards the Sun, etc). Would it be reasonable to work into the example how it's only approximately an inertial frame, but how it's a sufficiently good approximation for the problem, or would this needlessly complicate the example? 85.226.206.82 (talk) 17:59, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Section "Examples of inertial frames of reference"

message: For the "observational frame of reference" concept, a frame of reference can be defined as a collection of three non-collinear points whose distance from one another remains constant. Can this be mentioned somewhere? 66.231.148.248 (talk) 11:29, 23 February 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: With a good source, I guess it could be mentioned. - DVdm (talk) 11:45, 23 February 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Observational frame of reference 

message: The article begins in medias res discussing frame of reference in physics. This context is thus taken as granted. However, the concept is more general in its scope and nature. One could say that the idea of frame of reference belongs to semantics.--Juha Kämäräinen (talk) 05:50, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: This phrase has more than one meaning. It can also refer to linguistic frames of reference. Jarble (talk) 16:31, 27 March 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Context taken as granted? 

message: Under the concept of observer, comments say observer is nonlocal. This is meaningless to determine the location of observer in special relativity but under the title reference frame the location of observer is allowed.  Reza.karimirad (talk) 07:08, 10 October 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  The concept of observer in wikipedia 

message: What is calorimetry  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 154.231.188.59 (talk) 18:53, 5 July 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Physics 

message: Wide overlap, specially with regard to "observational frame of reference". fgnievinski (talk) 03:36, 2 November 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Weak oppose, as the two articles can stand alone if clearly linked. Observer (special relativity) does have overlap with Frame of reference, but the personification of an observer in that frame of reference has an important contribution within the public understanding of science and the historical development of the field that perhaps warrants separate coverage. The Usage in other scientific disciplines section also sits better on the current page, and would probably be lost with a merge (on the grounds that it is less important for a discussion on frames of reference. Klbrain (talk) 09:33, 21 May 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Closing, given the uncontested objection and no support. Klbrain (talk) 15:21, 8 August 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposed merge of [[Observer (special relativity)]] into [[Frame of reference]] 

message: too hard to understand as a newbie science learner maybe a better approach is an order. 41.121.85.204 (talk) 10:46, 22 December 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  simpler definition?