Yes, You Can Go Faster Than Speed Of Light

[Moronium]

I'll tell you what a preferred frame is, because I can, how's that?

 

The term can mean different things is different contexts.  But in the context of theories of relative motion, the "preferred frame" is the one that's not moving.  It has no distortions.  It's time is not dilated.  It's lengths are not contracted, as are those of moving objects.

 

In the most simple terms, a preferred frame is one that's not moving.  Let's take the earth and the sun.  If I say the earth is orbiting the sun, then the sun is the preferred frame, because it's not said to be moving while the earth is. If I say the sun orbits the earth, then, as between the two, the earth is the preferred frame, because then the sun is said to be moving, not the earth.

 

In the most general terms, a frame of reference which is "at rest" with respect to EVERYTHING else in the universe would be THE (one and only) preferred frame. This frame, in Einstein's time, was deemed to be the frame of the aether.  These days, it's the CMB.

 

That different than your understanding (or lack thereof), Dave?

Edited June 30, 2018 by Moronium

[DaveC426913]

I asked you what a preferred frame is.  You can't answer.  In other words, you don't know.  OK, thanks for your "input."

We are not here to teach you the basics. That'll take a book, not a thread.

 

But you keep telling yourself 'others don't know'.

[Moronium]

We are not here to teach you the basics. That'll take a book, not a thread.

 

But you keep telling yourself 'others don't know'.

 

See the post I made before yours.

[Vmedvil2]

But being weightless wouldn't mean you were massless.  If you don't believe it, just wait until you hit that sidewalk.  It aint gunna be nuthin nice.  Since F=MA, and since you're highly accelerated by that time, the force with which you hit the sidewalk will be quite powerful indeed.  Better to be hit by a car going 90 mph, I figure.  Actually much worse.  You would be travelling over 90 mph, but you would not be "hit" by a puny car.  In effect, you would be hit by an object with far greater mass...the earth.

 

 

Oooh, that's gotta hurt, eh?

 

 

That is correct you would start to gain relativistic mass and eventually you would literally have more mass than the Earth if you picked up enough energy, that is the correct way of thinking about this, the Energy of you falling starts to turn into mass as the speed of light approaches this is why you cannot exceed it, you would eventually become so massive that it would take a infinite amount of force to move you faster at the speed of light because you would have so much relativistic mass.

[Vmedvil2]

I'll tell you what a preferred frame is, because I can, how's that?

 

The term can mean different things is different contexts.  But in the context of theories of relative motion, the "preferred frame" is the one that's not moving.  It has no distortions.  It's time is not dilated.  It's lengths are not contracted, as are those of moving objects.

 

In the most simple terms, a preferred frame is one that's not moving.  Let's take the earth and the sun.  If I say the earth is orbiting the sun, then the sun is the preferred frame, because it's not said to be moving while the earth is. If I say the sun orbits the earth, then, as between the two, the earth is the preferred frame, because then the sun is said to be moving, not the earth.

 

In the most general terms, a frame of reference which is "at rest" with respect to EVERYTHING else in the universe would be THE (one and only) preferred frame. This frame, in Einstein's time, was deemed to be the frame of the aether.  These days, it's the CMB.

 

That different than your understanding (or lack thereof), Dave?

 

This is also another correct way of thinking it is all relative to a rest frame, all object's motion or the observer's point of view which is the preferred reference frame. 

[A-wal]

What you're calling "that observer's perspective" is no such thing.  If I'm on a moving train, I'm free (theoretically) to say, and will always say, that, as between myself and the earth's surface, the train I'm on is moving.  THAT is my perspective, not that I'm at rest, while everything attached to the earth's surface moves past me.   But SR, by fiat, prohibits me from taking that perspective, and says I MUST consider myself to be at absolute rest.

 

So it's not my perspective at all, it's SR's perspective which it forcefully imposes on me whether I like it or not, or agree with it or not.

 

You should never say "from that person's perspective."  To be accurate, you should say from "the perspective that SR imposes on that observer...."

 

If SR truly adhered to that catchy notion, then I would be free to consider myself to be moving if I'm on a train. I could say that the earth is "at rest." Why not?  They're "equally valid" and both correct, aren't they?

 

NO!!  ABSOLUTELY NOT!  You can NEVER deem yourself to be moving unless you're accelerating.  You are always in the one and only preferred frame.  Everything is the universe that is moving with respect to you is moving.  YOU are at absolute rest.  You are the ether.

 

Well, I guess that does make me feel kinda *special,* after all, so I have to disagree when you say "there's nothing special about any of them."  MY frame is special, dammit!

As I've told you many times, this is a complete strawman! It's not at what SR describes. No observer is forced to see themselves as at absolute rest, there's no such thing as absolute rest because there's no such thing as absolute motion. All inertial motion is relative, this is a fundamental misunderstanding of the most basic aspect of relativity.

 

If you're on a moving train then there's relative motion between you and the Earth's surface, just as there is in the frame of reference of the Earth's surface or any other reference frame. There's no distinction between the train moving and the Earth's surface moving, they're in motion relative to each other.

 

You've been going round in circles for weeks, you might just have to accept that you're simply incapable of understanding SR.

[OceanBreeze]

Maybe I "better," but I don't.

 

I don’t believe that either. Doppler redshift and gravitational (cosmological) redshift are two entirely different phenomena and one has nothing to do with the other.

 

In Doppler effect, the wavelength of light (or sound) becomes longer as the emitter moves rapidly away from the receiver because the distance is increasing and the wavelength becomes stretched. Doppler effect has nothing to do with gravity.

 

In cosmological redshift the wavelength is stretched due to the expanding of space itself, so the wavelength expands (stretches) along with the space it is travelling through.

 

see this link

Edited June 30, 2018 by OceanBreeze

[Moronium]

. No observer is forced to see themselves as at absolute rest

 

You've been going round in circles for weeks, you might just have to accept that you're simply incapable of understanding SR.

 

 

All you've done here, A-Wal, is to prove how fundamentally mistaken you are about SR.  School yourself.  Get learned, boy.

 

 

In SR, once two observers, who are in different frames of reference, actually agree on which one of them is moving relative to the other, SR itself completely disintegrates, as a theory.  The theory requires  that the two observers must ALWAYS make mutually exclusive claims about which one is moving in order for the math to work out.

 

You end up with this logical impossibility:

 

A and B are in relative motion, and they both agree on that, but..

 

1. A claims that he is motionless, and hence that B's clock slows down;

 

2.  B claims that he is motionless, and hence that A's clock slows down;

 

OK, there's nothing inherently contradictory about that at all, but now you have

 

3. SR says both are correct.

 

According to SR each clock runs slower than the other--an obvious logical impossibility.

Edited June 30, 2018 by Moronium

[Moronium]

You can dictate metaphysical ontology (called a "postulate" in this context) and then work out an elaborate, internally consistent, mathematical scheme to "prove" it, until the cows come home.  And when you're arguing about how many angels can dance on the head of a pin, and such, you can also talk about all the wonderous implications of your speculations.

 

But you CAN'T make a practically functioning system out of it if it's implications contradict empirical fact.

 

The GPS cannot possibly operate on the premise that each clock is slower than the other, that there of dozens of frames of reference which are all somehow "preferred," that simultaneity is relative, etc.

 

The GPS must, and does, adopt a theoretical foundation where both motion and simultaneity are deemed to be absolute, not relative.  Put another way, it rejects SR and it's premises.

Edited June 30, 2018 by Moronium

[Moronium]

This is also another correct way of thinking it is all relative to a rest frame, all object's motion or the observer's point of view which is the preferred reference frame. 

 

Yes.  That's essentially what I'm saying, too.  If you calculate the time, motion, etc. of ALL other objects according to the standards of a single frame (rather than varying the standard according to an infinite number of frames), then you are employing a prefered frame theory, which is antithetical to SR.

 

SR claims there is "no preferred  frame," yet it always employs one.  The preferred frame in SR is always the one YOU are in.  The problem that develops is that there turn out to be an infinite number of preferred frames that way.  If everything is right, then nothing is right.  You can't draw any meaningful conclusions from such premises.

 

With such premises you can, however, entertain yourself almost indefinitely by playing around with the mathematical formulas your premises generate, such as the "velocity addition forumula," ya know?

Edited June 30, 2018 by Moronium

[A-wal]

All you've done here, A-Wal, is to prove how fundamentally mistaken you are about SR.  School yourself.  Get learned, boy.

Right.

 

In SR, once two observers, who are in different frames of reference, actually agree on which one of them is moving relative to the other, SR itself completely disintegrates, as a theory.  The theory requires  that the two observers must ALWAYS make mutually exclusive claims about which one is moving in order for the math to work out.

 

You end up with this logical impossibility:

 

A and B are in relative motion, and they both agree on that, but..

 

1. A claims that he is motionless, and hence that B's clock slows down;

 

2.  B claims that he is motionless, and hence that A's clock slows down;

 

OK, there's nothing inherently contradictory about that at all, but now you have

 

3. SR says both are correct.

 

According to SR each clock runs slower than the other--an obvious logical impossibility.

Strawman. Neither of them are motionless. They're in motion relative to each other. Both agree on this and agree on the velocity of that relative motion.

 

Yes, A's clock runs slow from B's perspective and B's clock runs slow from A's perspective. They're in different frames of reference so this in no way contradictory.

 

You can dictate metaphysical ontology (called a "postulate" in this context) and then work out an elaborate, internally consistent, mathematical scheme to "prove" it, until the cows come home.  And when you're arguing about how many angels can dance on the head of a pin, and such, you can also talk about all the wonderous implications of your speculations.

 

But you CAN'T make a practically functioning system out of it if it's implications contradict empirical fact.

 

The GPS cannot possibly operate on the premise that each clock is slower than the other, that there of dozens of frames of reference which are all somehow "preferred," that simultaneity is relative, etc.

 

The GPS must, and does, adopt a theoretical foundation where both motion and simultaneity are deemed to be absolute, not relative.  Put another way, it rejects SR and it's premises.

Strawman. SR in no way contradicts empirical fact, it's formulation was a result of the empirical evidence showing that the relative motion of the emitter has no effect on the relative motion of light.

 

It was confirmed with the magnitude of mass increase in particle accelerators and with the GPS system as well as various other tests, tests that would never have a positive result if motion was relative to a preferred frame.

 

The GPS in no way employs a fictional preferred frame, it would work in the same way regardless of the Earth's motion relative to any arbitrary frame of reference you want to use.

 

 

This has gone on for far too long. I'm not usually for banning people for thinking for themselves rather than working backwards from the premise that if it's been accepted by mainstream science then it must be true but this is getting ridiculous!

Edited June 30, 2018 by A-wal

[Moronium]

 Neither of them are motionless. They're in motion relative to each other. Both agree on this and agree on the velocity of that relative motion.

 

Yes, A's clock runs slow from B's perspective and B's clock runs slow from A's perspective. They're in different frames of reference so this in no way contradictory.

 

 

 

1.  Of course neither is motionless.  I never said they were.  I just said that, nonetheless, SR REQUIRES them to claim that they are.  That you are unaware of this just shows how little understanding of the theory that you have.

 

2.  No, that alone is NOT inherently contradictory. I agree, as I already explicitly said in the very post you are quoting.  It would help if you could read.  What IS contradictory is the SR claim that "both are correct."

 

And YOU want to keeping hollering "Strawman!"?  Get a mirror, if you want to see that.

 

As for the rest of your post, I've already addressed all that in great detail in other threads.  I won't try to repeat it all here.

Edited June 30, 2018 by Moronium

[A-wal]

1.  Of course neither is motionless.  I never said they were.  I just said that, nonetheless, SR REQUIRES them to claim that they are.  That you are unaware of this just shows how little understanding of the theory that you have.

Strawman. SR does not require them to claim that they're motionless. SR expressly prohibits either of them being motionless, they are in motion relative to each other. This is the most fundamental aspect of all relativity and you can't even grasp it.

 

2.  No, that alone is NOT inherently contradictory. I agree, as I already explicitly said in the very post you are quoting.  It would help if you could read.  What IS contradictory is the SR claim that "both are correct."

A measures B's clock as slow and B measures A's clock as slow. Neither one can claim that their perspective is more valid than the other. Both of their clocks would be slow in a third frame, and that frame would be every bit as valid.

 

And YOU want to keeping hollering "Strawman!"?  Get a mirror, if you want to see that.

LOL! :)

 

As for the rest of your post, I've already addressed all that in great detail in other threads.  I won't try to repeat it all here.

And it was explained to you that what you expressed were nothing but strawmen.

Edited June 30, 2018 by A-wal

[Moronium]

 SR does not require them to claim that they're motionless. SR expressly prohibits either of them being motionless, they are in motion relative to each other. This is the most fundamental aspect of all relativity and you can't even grasp it.

 

And it was explained to you that what you expressed were nothing but strawmen.

 

Your claim about what SR requires is flatly wrong.  Study the theory sometime.  You contradict yourself  with virtually every post you make.  You yourself have repeatedly declared that, from the perspective of a given observer, he sees himself as motionless.  See, for example, your post 153, where you say:

 

 

But from that observer's perspective any other objects in motion will be the ones that are time dilated and length contracted, all by the exact amount that makes the speed of light the same in each one's particular reference frame.

 

 

You don't appear to even understand what you say yourself, let alone what others say.  "Any" here means any, every, and all objects, throughout the whole universe, that are moving with respect to him.  He alone is motionless (except for other objects which may happen to share his frame--they too will be motionless, if they exist).

 

As always, you never "explain" a damn thing.  You just make repeated unsupported assertions, unaccompanied by fact, evidence, reason, or authoritative basis.  That doesn't explain anything, sorry.   On the contrary it just exposes your inability to actually "explain" anything.

Edited June 30, 2018 by Moronium

[A-wal]

Your claim about what SR requires is flatly wrong.  Study the theory sometime.  You contradict yourself  with virtually every post you make.  You yourself have repeatedly declared that, from the perspective of a given observer, he sees himself as motionless.  See, for example, your post 153, where you say:

These two statements...

SR does not require them to claim that they're motionless. SR expressly prohibits either of them being motionless, they are in motion relative to each other. This is the most fundamental aspect of all relativity and you can't even grasp it.

But from that observer's perspective any other objects in motion will be the ones that are time dilated and length contracted, all by the exact amount that makes the speed of light the same in each one's particular reference frame.

... are not contradictory.

 

You don't appear to even understand what you say yourself, let alone what others say.  "Any" here means any, every, and all objects moving with respect to him.  He alone is motionless.

No he isn't motionless, you're the only one claiming that, SR strictly prohibits it. That's why it's a strawman.

 

As always, you never "explain" a damn thing.  You just make repeated unsupported assertions, unaccompanied by fact, evidence, reason, or authoritative basis.  That doesn't explain anything, sorry.   On the contrary it just exposes your inability to actually "explain" anything.

I've explained to you over and over again not only how it works in SR but also why observations show that it has to work that way in reality, unless we just so happen to be at absolute rest relative to the magical preferred frame despite our motion relative to the rest of the galaxies and other galaxies which obviously isn't plausible.

 

It's hardly my fault that you're not capable of understanding those explanations. You're continued self-delusion that the mismatched between what the model describes and what you're capable of understanding is the fault of the model was funny at first but it soon got tiresome. Now it's flat out pathetic.

[Moronium]

Later, A-wal. This is going nowhere.  Go repeat your mistaken claims to someone else.  They may think you know what you're talking about, who knows?

Edited June 30, 2018 by Moronium

[Moronium]

In a sense, SR does say that everything is moving.  A guy in frame A will say that everything in the universe is moving with respect to him.  Move over to frame B, and that guy would say the same, and that would include the guy in frame A, so now everyone is moving.

 

But, then again, everything in the universe is also simultaneously at rest, implying that nothing EVER moves.  In SR, every observer in every conceivable frame will say he is at  rest and completely motionless.

 

All said and done, SR says just about everything that can be said about motion, and, however contradictory, SR will also say it's all "true."

Edited June 30, 2018 by Moronium