Yes, You Can Go Faster Than Speed Of Light

[OceanBreeze]

https://www.physicsforums.com/threads/on-a-spinning-wheel.450236/

 

I have not been talking about spinning at relativistic speeds.

 

All of my comments are about the deformation of a wheel that is rolling versus spinning at normal speeds, such as the speed of a train.

 

Nice attempt at a diversion, though!

[OceanBreeze]

It works in any situations why the effects of gravity are small enough to be ignored which is pretty much everywhere. In the solar system the only measurable difference between GR and Newtonian predictions is a slight difference in the orbit of Mercury.

 

I'm not the one who's contradicting myself you ****ing idiot. If you want to claim that there's a preferred frame then all motion HAS to be relative to that frame. The fact physics is the same in all frames shows that there is no preferred frame.

 

If time dilation weren't reciprocal than frames could not be equivalent and time dilation, length contraction and mass variation would have to depend on direction. Wow!

 

 

Where is the experimental evidence I asked for?

[OceanBreeze]

Diversion Ocean? You sound paranoid, it was a genuine question.

 

Yes, a genuine question totally unrelated to what I was discussing.

 

I call that a diversion.

[OceanBreeze]

Well, it looks like we won't be seeing any evidence for reciprocal time dilation.

 

I have looked into this already and there isn't any, so save yourselves the trouble of searching.

 

Now, if you asked me if I believe in reciprocal velocity time dilation, I would answer yes.

 

But I would like to see some evidence for it before I go around shouting down those who are skeptical.

[Moronium]

If time dilation weren't reciprocal then frames could not be equivalent

 

 

Exactly.  They are not equivalent.  You don't need an empirical experiment to prove that time dilation CANNOT be reciprocal.  It's logically impossible.

 

You never fail to overlook the difference between "what we measure" and "what is."  We will MEASURE the speed of light to be the same in all inertial frames ONLY if we ignore the motion of the frames and rely on measurement with distorted instruments as being "true."

 

Another speciality of yours:  begging the question.  You always purport to "prove" your arguments by assuming they are true.

[OceanBreeze]

Exactly.  They are not equivalent.  You don't need an empirical experiment to prove that time dilation CANNOT be reciprocal.  It's logically impossible.

 

You never fail to overlook the difference between "what we measure" and "what is."  We will MEASURE the speed of light to be the same in all inertial frames ONLY if we ignore the motion of the frames and rely on measurement with distorted instruments as being "true."

 

Another speciality of yours:  begging the question.  You always purport to "prove" your arguments by assuming they are true.

 

 

Well, that is a big problem because it contradicts not only special relativity but Galilean relativity as well.

 

In physics we take it as a fact that there is no experiment you can perform in any inertial reference frame to distinguish it from any other inertial reference frame.

 

If velocity time dilation is not reciprocal, then we can distinguish between two inertial reference frames and physics, as we know it, would be forever changed.

 

That is a possibility, but I doubt it.

 

My opinion is that the experiment to determine velocity time dilation is fundamentally different from other experiments regarding inertial frames because you do need to compare between two frames. If I drop an object in one inertial frame to see how it falls, I can do that experiment entirely in that frame and not need to make a comparison to another.

 

The test for velocity time dilation cannot be done with regard to only one inertial frame. You cannot see your own clock slowing down, as you know.

 

So, the experiment is of a different class than others, and maybe physics would not be fundamentally changed if it turns out to be non-reciprocal, although I believe it is probably reciprocal.

[Moronium]

Well, that is a big problem because it contradicts not only special relativity but Galilean relativity as well.

 

In physics we take it as a fact that there is no experiment you can perform in any inertial reference frame to distinguish it from any other inertial reference frame.

 

If velocity time dilation is not reciprocal, then we can distinguish between two inertial reference frames and physics, as we know it, would be forever changed.

 

I would like to comment on other parts of this post, but I don't know how to do it as a "multiquote," or whatever you call it, so I'll just respond to this much for now.

 

1.  You yourself recently (correctly) noted that you can determine your own motion just by looking out a window.  You are not limited to using ONLY evidence that can be gleaned while you're imprisoned in a windowless room.  You can detect (your own) motion by looking for evidence OUTSIDE of that.

 

2.  Nothing about that in any way contradicts galilean relativity. It does contradict SR, of course, because SR wants to maintain that you can never know if you're moving.  Funny that it does this all while telling you what's moving and what aint.  It doesn't adhere to its own assertions.  It "knows" that you are NOT moving and that everything else is moving.

 

3.  Physics would not be "forever" changed.  It would simply revert back to the previously accepted, perfectly rational, and widely confirmed physics that existed before Al came up with his postulate--i.e., a preferred frame theory of relative motion.

Edited July 6, 2018 by Moronium

[Moronium]

3.  Physics would not be "forever" changed.  It would simply revert back to the previously accepted, perfectly rational, and widely confirmed physics that existed before Al came up with his postulate--i.e., a preferred frame theory of relative motion.

 

 

And, as I have posted, John Stewart Bell noted, decades ago, that reverting to a lorentzian view of relativity would virtually resolve the existing conflicts between GR and QM.  He's far from the only one to realize this.  Perhaps it is long past time to "change" our view of relative motion, and, to that extent, "change" our physics.

 

Edit:  I probably overstated Bell's insight.  He was probably speaking on a more limited scale than "resolving the existing conflicts" between GR and QM.  There are many who do think so, though.  Such a view would, they say, would eliminate the need for positing dark matter and dark energy, for example.  These were hypothesized only because GR had broken down without them.

Edited July 6, 2018 by Moronium

[Moronium]

Now, if you asked me if I believe in reciprocal velocity time dilation, I would answer yes.

 

 

 

Popeye, I have asserted, more than once, that reciprocal time dilation is logically impossible, as a matter of objective, not subjective, reality.

 

I have also asked you, more than once, if you agree.

 

You've never directly answered me, but you seem to do so, indirectly at least, with this post.  You wouldn't believe in reciprocal time dilation if you thought it was logically impossible.

 

Do you even know why I say it is logically impossible?

 

A says to B:  Your clock is running slower than mine.

B says to A:  No, your clock is running slower than mine.

 

Is it logically possible for BOTH to be correct, as a matter of objective fact, as opposed to a mere matter of subjective opinion?

Edited July 6, 2018 by Moronium

[A-wal]

Where is the experimental evidence I asked for?

Every experiment that shows time dilation is evidence of reciprocal time dilation because it doesn't depend on the relative direction of motion.

 

Well, it looks like we won't be seeing any evidence for reciprocal time dilation.

 

I have looked into this already and there isn't any, so save yourselves the trouble of searching.

 

Now, if you asked me if I believe in reciprocal velocity time dilation, I would answer yes.

 

But I would like to see some evidence for it before I go around shouting down those who are skeptical.

You won't be getting anything while the football is on. If time dilation weren't reciprocal then it would have to depend on the object's motion relative to a preferred frame. If it depends on the object's motion relative to the preferred frame then it would also depend on direction from within any frame that isn't the preferred frame. How many more times do you two idiots need this to be explained to you before it sinks in?

 

Exactly.  They are not equivalent.  You don't need an empirical experiment to prove that time dilation CANNOT be reciprocal.  It's logically impossible.

 

You never fail to overlook the difference between "what we measure" and "what is."  We will MEASURE the speed of light to be the same in all inertial frames ONLY if we ignore the motion of the frames and rely on measurement with distorted instruments as being "true."

 

Another speciality of yours:  begging the question.  You always purport to "prove" your arguments by assuming they are true.

Why do you keep on insisting that it's logically inconsistent for time dilation to be reciprocal? Are you really this thick? Not only is it perfectly consistent but it's the only explanation for the fact that time dilation doesn't depend on the direction of relative motion.

 

When I say 'what is measured' it's the objective truth. If we were to take into account the distortions on measurements created by relative motion then we'd have to account for Doppler shift. The reciprocal time dilation is what you're left with AFTER taking into account measurement distortions!

 

The observations of physics being the same in all inertial frames of reference and the fact that time dilation, length contraction and mass variation don't depend on direction of relative motion are what prove my arguments to be true Mr Strawman.

 

Popeye, I have asserted, more than once, that reciprocal time dilation is logically impossible, as a matter of objective, not subjective, reality.

 

I have also asked you, more than once, if you agree.

 

You've never directly answered me, but you seem to do so, indirectly at least, with this post.  You wouldn't believe in reciprocal time dilation if you thought it was logically impossible.

 

Do you even know why I say it is logically impossible?

 

A says to B:  Your clock is running slower than mine.

B says to A:  No, your clock is running slower than mine.

 

Is it logically possible for BOTH to be correct, as a matter of objective fact, as opposed to a mere matter of subjective opinion?

Because you can't understanding the subject matter, which is totally fine but don't pretend your ignorance is actually a higher level of understanding. It's delusional, desperate, pathetic and infuriating. You should be in awe, not threatened by something you don't understand, like most people are with QM.

Edited July 6, 2018 by A-wal

[Moronium]

The difference in the elapsed time is caused by the fact that all objects move through spacetime at the speed of light 

 

 

That so?  And here I thought you had said that NO object can travel at the speed of light, eh?

 

Go figure.

 

P.S.  It simply makes no physical sense at all to say that we are moving "through time" at the speed of light.  Time is not the kind of thing that you can physically travel through, or "take a path" through.  Minkowski diagrams are strictly geometrical/mathematical concepts.  They aren't literally true.

Edited July 6, 2018 by Moronium

[Moronium]

Why do you keep on insisting that it's logically inconsistent for time dilation to be reciprocal? Are you really this thick? Not only is it perfectly consistent but it's the only explanation for the fact that time dilation doesn't depend on the direction of relative motion.

 

When I say 'what is measured' it's the objective truth. 

 

Still begging the question, eh?  No surprise there, Mr. Fundie.

Edited July 6, 2018 by Moronium

[OceanBreeze]

Every experiment that shows time dilation is evidence of reciprocal time dilation because it doesn't depend on the relative direction of motion.

 

You won't be getting anything while the football is on. If time dilation weren't reciprocal then it would have to depend on the object's motion relative to a preferred frame. If it depends on the object's motion relative to the preferred frame then it would also depend on direction from within any frame that isn't the preferred frame. How many more times do you two idiots need this to be explained to you before it sinks in?

 

 

 

 

Right. Well, here is another idiot for you:

 

Implications of an Absolute Simultaneity

Theory for Cosmology and Universe Acceleration

 

Edward T. Kipreos*

University of Georgia, Athens, GA 30602, United States of America

 

Introduction

The Absolute Lorentz Transformation (ALT) is an alternate Lorentz transformation that has similar kinematics to special relativity (SR), but is distinct in describing absolute simultaneity and invoking a preferred reference frame (PRF) relative to which time dilation and length contraction occur in a directional manner [1–3]. The key insights in this study are the following. ALT is compatible with current experimental data if it is embedded in the theoretical framework that PRFs are locally associated with centers of gravitational mass. Experimental strategies that focus on light speed anisotropies and time dilation in relation to local centers of gravitational mass can distinguish between the ALT framework and SR.

 

 

 

I don’t know if he is right or wrong, and I deal with scientists on board ship often enough not to be impressed by everyone who holds a PhD. I also hold advanced degrees in my field of marine engineering, although not a doctorate degree.  My only point is, for someone like you, Awal, who has no relevant education, training or experience, to refer to someone like Kipreos or Moronium or myself as idiots, simply because we question reciprocal time dilation, only demonstrates your own juvenility and ignorance. Science is all about questioning and not accepting anything as dogma, as long as the questions are done in an intelligent manner. I find Moronium's questions to be far more intelligently asked than the answers, complete with insults, that you provide. 

I do not agree with Moronium's conclusions, but his questions are at least interesting and thought provoking. You could learn something by trying to provide interesting and thoughtful answers instead of your derisive knee jerk responses.

Edited July 6, 2018 by OceanBreeze

[OceanBreeze]

Popeye, I have asserted, more than once, that reciprocal time dilation is logically impossible, as a matter of objective, not subjective, reality.

 

I have also asked you, more than once, if you agree.

 

You've never directly answered me, but you seem to do so, indirectly at least, with this post.  You wouldn't believe in reciprocal time dilation if you thought it was logically impossible.

 

Do you even know why I say it is logically impossible?

 

A says to B:  Your clock is running slower than mine.

B says to A:  No, your clock is running slower than mine.

 

Is it logically possible for BOTH to be correct, as a matter of objective fact, as opposed to a mere matter of subjective opinion?

 

 

I do not see why it is logically impossible for both to not be correct.

 

One example often given is two objects at a distance. From each object's viewpoint, the other looks  smaller at a distance than up close, and they are both correct. I know this is way over-simplified and not the same thing as time dilation, but it still serves as an analogy of how both viewpoints can be correct in a reciprocal way.

[Moronium]

I do not see why it is logically impossible for both to not be correct.

 

One example often given is two objects at a distance. From each object's viewpoint, the other looks  smaller at a distance than up close, and they are both correct. I know this is way over-simplified and not the same thing as time dilation, but it still serves as an analogy of how both viewpoints can be correct in a reciprocal way.

 

Well, that is strictly subjective.  I'm talking about objectively possible, not subjectively.  In your example, no matter how far apart those two go, they're both the exact same height and weight as they always were.  Neither of them has changed objectively.  If two guys going in opposite directions walk down the sidewalk pass each other, then keep looking back at each other, they will appear smaller and smaller to each other until each disappears from the other's sight.  But that doesn't mean they have both ceased to exist. The perception is merely subjective.

 

I have no doubt that different people can "see" clocks differently from different perspectives.  But I'm not talking about what people see or think.  I'm talking about the clocks themselves.

Edited July 6, 2018 by Moronium

[Moronium]

Implications of an Absolute Simultaneity

Theory for Cosmology and Universe Acceleration

 

Edward T. Kipreos*

University of Georgia, Athens, GA 30602, United States of America

 

Introduction

The Absolute Lorentz Transformation (ALT) is an alternate Lorentz transformation that has similar kinematics to special relativity (SR), but is distinct in describing absolute simultaneity and invoking a preferred reference frame (PRF) relative to which time dilation and length contraction occur in a directional manner [1–3]. The key insights in this study are the following. ALT is compatible with current experimental data if it is embedded in the theoretical framework that PRFs are locally associated with centers of gravitational mass. Experimental strategies that focus on light speed anisotropies and time dilation in relation to local centers of gravitational mass can distinguish between the ALT framework and SR.

 

 

That is a very good paper, and I think the author does a good job of explaining the differences between SR and a preferred frame theory.

 

He is, of course, far from the first to hold such a view.  This view goes back to Einstein's time, and Einstein himself freely admitted that it was perfectly compatible with experiment and reason.  Many prominent physicists have made the same observations as he makes in this paper, since then, too.

Edited July 6, 2018 by Moronium

[Moronium]

Like the author in this paper, I claim that it has been shown, by empirical testing, that time dilation is not reciprocal.  Here's a couple of excerpts from his paper on the subject:

 

In the Hafele & Keating experiment, the time dilation was absolute and directional, as the flying and ground-based clocks showed different elapsed times when brought together for side-by-side comparisons...

 

The communication between GPS satellites and ground-based clocks continuously reveals the absolute and directional nature of the time dilation.

 

Again, it would be logically impossible for the actual readings on the different clocks to each show less elapsed time than the other.  That's what I meant when I said I was talking about the clocks themselves, rather than some thought or speculation about them, or some mere perception of them from a distance.

Edited July 6, 2018 by Moronium