Yes, You Can Go Faster Than Speed Of Light

[Moronium]

I have no idea if this is what he really means, but it certainly put me in mind of it.

 

 

That's the way Einstein understood it, too.  And he was hell-bent on showing it to be accurate when constructing GR.  On a couple of occasions he was sure he had succeeded, only to later discover, after getting criticized by other physicists, such as Sommerfield, that he had been mistaken.  He finally conceded that he had failed.  

 

A couple of other excerpts from the wiki article:

 

There are a number of rival formulations of the principle...Because [Mach's}  principle is so vague, many distinct statements can be (and have been) made that would qualify as a Mach principle, and some of these are false....Mach's principle has not brought physics decisively farther. It must also be said that the origin of inertia is and remains the most obscure subject in the theory of particles and fields.

 

 

So it seems that throwing out the phrase "Mach's principle," although it may give the uninformed the impression that the speaker knows what is he talking about, is not really the least bit helpful or explanatory, eh?

Edited July 1, 2018 by Moronium

[Moronium]

Actually, Mach never had something he deemed to be a principle.  He merely asked how or if we could know that Newton's bucket experiment would come out the same if the walls of the bucket were "several leagues thick."

 

It is also worth noting that Einstein, who at one time had been a devout disciple of Mach's philosophy of positivism, later came to view that philosophy with disdain, and utterly rejected it.  He did rely heavily on it when formulating SR, however.

Edited July 1, 2018 by Moronium

[Vmedvil2]

Only if the universe is rotating as a whole, then the universe will have a preferred frame and would answer vital questions like the handedness of a universe (suggesting a preference of matter over antimatter). This is a [very special case] I have even entertained. 

 

The handedness of the universe is whatever Spin rotation dark energy has Dubbel which is expansion is the handedness or whatever the spin rotation of dark energy's particles are but that is off topic. So, it has a handedness of Dark Energy being the most dominate form of energy.

Edited July 1, 2018 by VictorMedvil

[Super Polymath]

Our neck of the infinite cosmos isn't "matter dominant" per se. Protons just like to be surrounded by electrons as opposed to anti-protons being surrounded by positrons but I get what you mean. The cosmic chunk we inhabit could be a part of a very large red-shift photon that was apart of a very large positron or blue-shift photon or neutrino 13.8 billions years ago, that chunk does in fact only spin in one direction. Our neck of the cosmos is left-handed. It's the rindler effect, the traceable CMBR background is only traceable because of unruh gravity waves.

Edited July 1, 2018 by Super Polymath

[Super Polymath]

If our cosmic region were right-handed it still wouldn't necessarily be anti-hydrogen ruled.

 

If the universe were ambidextrous you'd get what you get in the core of red super-giant stars, antimatter. Macro-black holes can only be born of the fusion of anti-protons.

 

It's like the fate of our "expanding" cosmic region, like any positively charged particle eventually it's charge is going to reverse, when that happens you will have so many galactic collisions that super clusters will become indistinguishable from the primordial clouds of ionized gas & dust that our universe emerged from. That's what an ambidextrous cosmic rotation would look like.

Edited July 2, 2018 by Super Polymath

[Super Polymath]

Our cosmic region might stay like it is for a veritable eternity if it resides within the red-shift photon ether of a vacuum in a higher cosmic tier. If it's in a star of that escalated cosmic tier, it might phase an electron which would be the equivalent of a big crunch as far as our observer is concerned.

Edited July 2, 2018 by Super Polymath

[Vmedvil2]

Our neck of the infinite cosmos isn't "matter dominant" per se. Protons just like to be surrounded by electrons as opposed to anti-protons being surrounded by positrons but I get what you mean. The cosmic chunk we inhabit could be a part of a very large red-shift photon that was apart of a very large positron or blue-shift photon or neutrino 13.8 billions years ago, that chunk does in fact only spin in one direction. Our neck of the cosmos is left-handed. It's the rindler effect, the traceable CMBR background is only traceable because of unruh gravity waves.

 

Our neck of the infinite cosmos isn't "matter dominant" per se. Protons just like to be surrounded by electrons as opposed to anti-protons being surrounded by positrons but I get what you mean. The cosmic chunk we inhabit could be a part of a very large red-shift photon that was apart of a very large positron or blue-shift photon or neutrino 13.8 billions years ago, that chunk does in fact only spin in one direction. Our neck of the cosmos is left-handed. It's the rindler effect, the traceable CMBR background is only traceable because of unruh gravity waves.

 

Our cosmic region might stay like it is for a veritable eternity if it resides within the red-shift photon ether of a vacuum in a higher cosmic tier. If it's in a star of that escalated cosmic tier, it might phase an electron which would be the equivalent of a big crunch as far as our observer is concerned.

 

Yes, polymath if everything in the universe had a oppose charge then it would have the opposite spin as well, which makes you wonder if Dark Energy isn't left handed as you suggest because Normal matter is Right handed and  expansion a property of left handedness that suggests, but would a antimatter universe still expand that makes you wonder or have the opposite effect when dealing with Dark Energy and contract the universe instead in a Antimatter universe, maybe that is why the universe consists only of Normal Matter and not Antimatter because in a Antimatter universe the universe would collapse in on itself because of an opposite effect of Dark Energy which is contraction, Would the Universe even exist in a Antimatter universe or always be a Singularity never to have a Big Bang Event because of lack of expansion stress by Dark Energy.

Edited July 2, 2018 by VictorMedvil

[Moronium]

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.

 

 

 

Einstein struggled for years to "relativize" acceleration.  By his own admission, he failed.  Many have tried since, without success.  No one has been able to create an accepted theory where all motion is successfully treated as being relative. Non-inertial motion is still treated as being absolute, but not by desire or arbitrary "choice."  It is instead the only conceivable rational approach.

 

The right approach has been under their noses, and widely known, the whole time, i.e., rather than straining to make all motion relative, one can simply acknowledge that all motion is absolute.  We have, in practice, always done this anyway.  We have, for extremely good reasons, NEVER tried to deny that the earth orbits the sun, and NOT vice versa.  That is just one example of many (the GPS is another) where we embrace absolute motion.  But doing that implicitly denies the efficacy of special relativity.

 

This is known by theoretical physicists everywhere, but not that many pay serious attention to the implications.  Most just ignore it. It's the same with using the CMB as a "cosmic rest frame" for astronomical purposes, which we have been doing for more than half a century. That is just one more case where a preferred frame theory is adopted by all, but without ever explicitly acknowledging that to do so is to repudiate SR.

Edited July 2, 2018 by Moronium

[Moronium]

Quantum mechanics incorporates the flat spacetime of Newton and Minkowski, not the "curved" spacetime of GR.  This is the primary reason why the two can't be reconciled.  As John Stewart Bell said, many years ago, the easiest way to reconcile these differences would be to simply adopt a preferred frame theory with regard to relative motion.  But few are willing to do it.  Nonetheless, virtually all physicists see the shortcomings of GR and assume that it, not QM, will be the theory that will eventually be replaced. But for now, it is deemed by most to be the best theory of gravity that we have, so......

Edited July 2, 2018 by Moronium

[Moronium]

extracted from internet:

 

How come we can tell what motion we have with respect to the CMB? Doesn't this mean there's an absolute frame of reference?

The theory of special relativity is based on the principle that there are no preferred reference frames. In other words, the whole of Einstein's theory rests on the assumption that physics works the same irrespective of what speed and direction you have. So the fact that there is a frame of reference in which there is no motion through the CMB would appear to violate special relativity!

However, the crucial assumption of Einstein's theory is not that there are no special frames, but that there are no special frames where the laws of physics are different. There clearly is a frame where the CMB is at rest, and so this is, in some sense, the rest frame of the Universe. But for doing any physics experiment, any other frame is as good as this one. So the only difference is that in the CMB rest frame you measure no velocity with respect to the CMB photons, but that does not imply any fundamental difference in the laws of physics.

 

 

I have already addressed this exact same quote, which I brought up myself, in a prior post in this thread.  Scroll up.  Nobody, including Einstein, ever said that the physics would be "different" in a preferred frame, if there was one.  He even admitted that any inertial frame we came across could be a universal rest frame.  He just didn't think we could detect that it was, that's all.

 

That is not the "critical" assumption of SR.  SR flatly prohibits the postulation of a rest frame, that's the "critical" thing.  How many times have you yourself obediently asserted that "THERE IS NO PREFERRED FRAME"

 

With modern science, we have been able to detect the preferred frame, which would have been impossible in Einstein's day.

 

Like some others, this guy is just denying SR, while attempting to deny that he is denying it.

Edited July 2, 2018 by Moronium

[Moronium]

Not everyone tries to deny it.  For about the 5th time I will post a quote from the nobel-prize winning physicist, George Smoot, who, together with a large team of other prominent physicists, spent years researching the CMB:

 

We attribute the dipole anisotropy to the motion of the Earth and Solar System relative to the universal CMB radiation field and thus the distant matter in the Universe. This would seem to violate the postulates of Galilean and Special Relativity but there is a preferred frame in which the expansion of the Universe looks most simple. That frame is the average rest frame of the matter and CMB and from that frame the expansion is essentially isotropic.

 

 

http://aether.lbl.gov/www/projects/u2/

 

Under SR's mandates, you could never assert that the earth is "really" moving, but that's what's being said here.  He is effectively admitting that the earth is not motionless, according to its own frame of reference.  As previously noted, SR strictly prohibits such a perspective.  It HAS to.  The whole theory depends on that prohibition.

 

Predictably, even Smoot tries to downplay this rejection of SR.  He claims (correctly) that Einstein never said there was no preferred frame, but only that we couldn't detect it. So he insinuates that it's not really at odds with SR.  But it is (and he knows it).

Edited July 2, 2018 by Moronium

[Moronium]

Under SR's mandates, you could never assert that the earth is "really" moving, but that's what's being said here.  He is effectively admitting that the earth is not motionless, according to its own frame of reference.  As previously noted, SR strictly prohibits such a perspective.  It HAS to.  The whole theory depends on that prohibition.

 

Do the math for yourself.  Assume that a guy on a moving train (or spaceship) acknowledges his own motion, and admits that the train is in motion, not the railroad tracks it's resting on.

 

Now what?  Well, he will then say:  "Since I'm the one moving, I know it is my watch that has slowed down, not the watch of that guy standing by the tracks.  So, when calculating the speed of objects moving with respect to me (including the speed of light in my frame) I'm going to have to make some adjustments to what I measure it to be, if I use my own watch to measure it."

 

See how long the "constancy of the speed of light in every inertial frame" hypothesis lasts in that scenario.  Spoiler alert:  It aint long.

Edited July 2, 2018 by Moronium

[Moronium]

In the end, SR itself has to reject its own premises. That's what it does when it "resolves" the twin paradox.  Even though the space traveller is forced, by SR, to assume he is motionless, and therefore to conclude that it is the earth twin's watch, not his, which has slowed down, SR ends up conceding that the calculations made by the space twin are wrong, and that those made by the earth twin are correct.  It REALLY IS the space twin who ages less, not the earth twin. Why?  Because, as between the two, it is the space twin who is really moving.

 

This implicit rejection of it's own premises was present in the theory of SR from the get-go.  It was Einstein himself, in his 1905 paper, who first made note of the "clock" (later "twin") paradox.

Edited July 2, 2018 by Moronium

[Super Polymath]

Moron you're hilarious.

 

Smfh

[OceanBreeze]

In the end, SR itself has to reject its own premises. That's what it does when it "resolves" the twin paradox.  Even though the space traveller is forced, by SR, to assume he is motionless, and therefore to conclude that it is the earth twin's watch, not his, which has slowed down, SR ends up conceding that the calculations made by the space twin are wrong, and that those made by the earth twin are correct.  It REALLY IS the space twin who ages less, not the earth twin. Why?  Because, as between the two, it is the space twin who is really moving.

 

This implicit rejection of it's own premises was present in the theory of SR from the get-go.  It was Einstein himself, in his 1905 paper, who first made note of the "clock" (later "twin") paradox.

 

 

I know this has been said before, but I will vainly repeat it anyway:

 

Special Relativity says the laws of physics are the same without regard to which of the coordinate systems are moving uniformly (without acceleration) relative to each other, they are referenced to.

 

This means if clock A moving relative to clock B, in uniform motion, undergoes time dilation with respect to clock B, then clock B undergoes time dilation with respect to clock A. Simply put, time dilation is reciprocal under special relativity.

 

The two cases you mentioned, the twin paradox and the GPS system are not instances of uniform motion as both of them involve acceleration. The twin travelling away from Earth and then returning undergoes acceleration at least two times; when he leaves and when he turns around to come back. That is the explanation given for the asymmetrical time dilation.

 

In the GPS system, the satellites are not travelling in a straight line but are in circular orbits around the Earth. Moving in a circle means they are in a constant state of acceleration with respect to the Earth-centered reference. This results in asymmetrical time dilation of the satellite clocks, under both SR and GR.

 

Therefore, neither of these cases can be used as an argument for a violation of reciprocal time dilation.

 

I do have to concede one point though; no experiment has ever been performed to explicitly test the  reciprocal case. For example, in a particle accelerator a clock cannot be attached to the high speed particle to verify that the lab's clock runs slow relative to the high speed particle as predicted by SR, we can only see that particle's clock runs slow compared with the lab's clock.

 

 

[OceanBreeze]

Moron you're hilarious.

 

Smfh

 

I don't agree. I think he raises some interesting questions that require some thought to answer, rather than just dogmatically proclaiming that he is wrong.

[Super Polymath]

I don't agree. I think he raises some interesting questions that require some thought to answer, rather than just dogmatically proclaiming that he is wrong.

Just like any other average person, you're entitled to your own opinion.

 

I just think he's hoping to get lucky with his endless conjectures come across as above average like I did.

Edited July 2, 2018 by Super Polymath