Yes, You Can Go Faster Than Speed Of Light

[A-wal]

Strawman!

 

SR says that all inertial motion is relative. It does not say that any observer is motionless. It says that any inertial observer can use themselves (and all object at rest with respect to themselves) to draw a coordinate system around and measure motion relative to that coordinate system, this is their 'inertial reference frame'.

 

All inertial objects are at rest in their own frame but that's at rest with respect to a specific coordinate system. As soon as you construct a coordinate system you have objects that are at rest in that coordinate system and objects that are in motion with respect to that specific coordinate system.

 

You're free to use any inertial object's frame of reference to construct a coordinate system around because there is no preferred frame. You're mixing up the contexts of relative inertial motion with motion within a specified coordinate system to claim that inertial motion itself is absolute in each frame which doesn't make sense because every frame is just an arbitrary choice of coordinate system.

 

Do you understand Mr Strawman? I highly doubt it.

[Moronium]

SR says that all inertial motion is relative....there is no preferred frame. 

 

 

SR says that, sho nuff.  The theory which the GPS is based on says otherwise. SR itself ends up saying otherwise, for that matter.  Talk is cheap.

Edited June 30, 2018 by Moronium

[Moronium]

Some guy doing a triple backflip off a 200 cliff is always at rest with respect to himself.  That aint saying much.

[pzkpfw]

Some guy doing a triple backflip off a 200 cliff is always at rest with respect to himself.  That aint saying much.

 

Since he's spinning (the backflip), he will feel acceleration. Acceleration is absolute; he won't feel at rest.

 

Accelerometers on his feet and head will confirm this. 

[Moronium]

Since he's spinning (the backflip), he will feel acceleration. Acceleration is absolute; he won't feel at rest.

 

Accelerometers on his feet and head will confirm this. 

 

 

Yeah, sure.  But I didn't say he wasn't accelerating or that he would 'feel at rest."  I just said he wouldn't be moving with respect to himself, that's all.  Which, as I noted, aint sayin much.

Edited July 1, 2018 by Moronium

[Vmedvil2]

Yeah, sure.  But I didn't say he wasn't accelerating or that he would 'feel at rest."  I just said he wouldn't be moving with respect to himself, that's all.  Which, as I noted, aint sayin much.

 

 

No, he would be moving relative to a non moving rest frame axis he did the back-flip on. There is always a rest frame to take the relative motion from or the observer's point of view like a spinning top the middle of the top is not moving but there is a rotational velocity, ω around the middle of the spinning top which is moving relative to everything else.

 

 

Which still ω > C is impossible.

Edited July 1, 2018 by VictorMedvil

[Moronium]

No, he would be moving relative to a non moving rest frame axis he did the back-flip on. 

 

 

But he's not a non moving rest frame axis.  He's still not moving relative to himself.

[pzkpfw]

But he's not a non moving rest frame axis.  He's still not moving relative to himself.

 

You're missing what's relevant to the main content of this thread (and much of your incredulity about SR).

 

Take A and B, in space somewhere - from the distance between them changing we would see they have relative motion. A can consider themselves as at rest and B moving. B can consider themselves as at rest, and A moving. But there's no absolute truth to that, there's no absolute rest. The important thing is that A and B can both do physics experiments and get the same results. Neither can "prove" they are at rest and the other moving.

 

Now your spinning backflipper; he or she can perform experiments at their feet, head and stomach and get different results.

[Moronium]

Yeah, I get it.  The clock in a satellite orbiting earth slows down from earth's perspective.

 

A clock on earth slows down from the satellite's perspective.

 

Both perspectives are correct.

 

Please tell the GPS engineers about this.  They're under the impression that it's not true. Those fools think only one clock slows down (relative to the other) due to the speed factor, and that both the earth and the satellite not only know it, but they know which clock it is that slows down.  They actually think that the satellite knows that the earth clock is ticking faster, not slower. Put another way, the satellite knows that it is moving relative to the earth, rather than vice versa.

 

This CAN'T be true.  We KNOW that, because SR says so.

Edited July 1, 2018 by Moronium

[Moronium]

This following article also explains why the inertial frame is not an absolute frame. https://www.answers.com/Q/How_is_motion_related_to_a_frame_of_reference

 

 

Let me take a little look-see at that.  OK, it says here:

 

 

What is the scientific definition of frame of reference?

 

It is tha perception of reality, i.e. time, space, movement, etc., compared to another perception. An example is how we see ourselves on the Earth. We can't really see ourselves spinning compared to someone on another planet looking at us, but we are.

 

 

 

So what do we have?  It says the "scientific" definition  of a frame of reference is that it's a "perception."  Just a perception, eh?  Well, that's not saying much.  A delusional maniac has "perceptions."  What the perception of?

 

Of REALITY, that's what!!

 

Well, OK, then, now we're getting somewhere REAL, eh!?

 

Now it says we can't really see ourselves spinning on earth.  I would take that to mean that we don't perceive it.  So then, our perception of "reality" is that we're not spinning.

 

But it seems that "perceptions of reality" can be false, according to this guy?  Why?

 

Because, he says, we ARE spinning.

 

So I guess he's saying that, as defined scientifically, a frame of reference (which, again, is a perception of reality) can be wrong, eh?  So you're not perceiving reality after all, you're  just experiencing, subjectively, a false perception of reality. I mean if you want to listen to this guy, anyway.

 

This guy has a perception of reality that's actually true though, so maybe we should listen to him.  He has a true perception because he somehow knows that we ARE spinning.  I guess he's operating from something that isn't a "frame of reference."  

 

Either that, or else he has somehow gained access to a better frame of reference, one that doesn't convey false perceptions--a preferred frame of reference, you might say.

Edited July 1, 2018 by Moronium

[Moronium]

I'm a fundie. I KNOW there is a god.  No matter how convincing any argument you make against this truth may appear to be, I will KNOW it is wrong.

 

How will I know?

 

Because I know there is a God, that's how.

 

Like I said, I'm a fundie.

 

Kinda like SR believers, ya know?

Edited July 1, 2018 by Moronium

[Moronium]

Yes he seems to be talking about Mach's principle: Which is so far consistent with relativity. It's about who is in the rotating reference frame. 

 

"Mach's principle?"  What's that exactly?  According to one count it's been described in the literature 21 different ways, many of them conflicting.

 

"Matter there influences inertia here?"  Is that what you're calling "Mach's principle?"

Edited July 1, 2018 by Moronium

[Super Polymath]

Moronium is a big distraction. Lethal to procrastinators. He'll argue forever!!!

[Vmedvil2]

I'm a fundie. I KNOW there is a god.  No matter how convincing any argument you make against this truth may appear to be, I will KNOW it is wrong.

 

How will I know?

 

Because I know there is a God, that's how.

 

Like I said, I'm a fundie.

 

Kinda like SR believers, ya know?

 

I think Relativity is correct because it works 99.99% of the time, the only reason you don't like it is because you don't understand it. Basically, simply you take the object relative to a rest frame just accept a proven and tried method and stop fighting it with nonsensical arguments and learn it, because it does work, SR that is.

Edited July 1, 2018 by VictorMedvil

[Moronium]

 

I think Relativity is correct because it works 99.99% of the time, the only reason you don't like it is because you don't understand it. Basically, simply you take the object relative to a rest frame just accept a proven and tried method and stop fighting it with nonsensical arguments and learn it, because it does work, SR that is.

 

 

 

Vic, are you somehow under the mistaken impression that only SR can explain relative motion?

 

Speaking of "rest frames," the whole theory of SR is heavily dependent on the notion of an "inertial frame" (which is the only type of frame to which it purportedly applies).  Yet Einstein himself pointed out the difficulties (one might say impossibility, from a certain viewpoint) of ever determining what an "inertial frame" even is:

 

There is a fundamental issue in relativity theory. If all motion is relative, how can we measure the inertia of a body? We must measure the inertia with respect to something else....Einstein was convinced that a valid theory of gravity would necessarily have to include the relativity of inertia.

 

 

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mach%27s_principle

 

...Einstein [perceived] a defect in both Newton's physics and in special relativity. In both, you will recall, it is just a brute fact that certain motions are distinguished as inertial. This, in Einstein's view, was worrisome. It was no better than the original idea that there is an ether state of absolute rest. There seemed to Einstein no good reason for why one state should be the absolute rest state rather than another. Correspondingly, Einstein saw no good reason for why some motions should be singled out as inertial and others as accelerating.

 

 

https://www.pitt.edu/~jdnorton/teaching/HPS_0410/chapters/general_relativity_pathway/index.html#L4669

 

There are any number of experimentally confirmed theories of relative motion, such as the preferred frame theory employed by the GPS, which posit no particular distinction between inertial and accelerating frames. Even SR treats the motion of accelerating frames as being absolute.  These theories simply treat ALL motion as absolute, not relative.  If SR cannot even tell you what an inertial frame is to begin with, then it's useless.

Edited July 1, 2018 by Moronium

[Moronium]

Basically, simply you take the object relative to a rest frame just accept a proven and tried method and stop fighting it with nonsensical arguments and learn it, because it does work, SR that is.

 

 

Spoken like a true fundie, Vic.

[Moronium]

The basic notion here is the distinction of the inertial reference frame and those in the rotating reference frames is determined by the large scale structure and distribution of gravity. 

 

Well, actually that sounds quite similar to Newton's bucket experiment, which many take to be sufficient to demonstrate  the validity of the concept of absolute space.

 

I've been looking at the same wiki page you are on this topic.  What they call the "antecdote" that you just quoted is preceded by this statement:  The idea is that the existence of absolute rotation (the distinction of local inertial frames vs. rotating reference frames) is determined by the large-scale distribution of matter, as exemplified by this anecdote:..."

 

So now we have some absolute motion after all, eh?  So, going back to the guy you originally cited, he says:  "We can't really see ourselves spinning compared to someone on another planet looking at us, but we are."  So I guess he's saying that this guy on "another planet" has a "true" frame of reference, while we don't, eh?  He will see us spinning, while we won't.  Again, a preferred frame, ya might say.

Edited July 1, 2018 by Moronium