Yes, You Can Go Faster Than Speed Of Light

[Moronium]

 

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.

 

 

Well, OK, Popeye.  I myself have pointed out that this is one way to attempt to "save the theory."  There's several problems with that, though.

 

1. We're talking about time dilation here, which has long been known (and tested to be) immune from the effects of acceleration.  This was present in Al's 1905 paper and is known as the "clock hypothesis," which some say is on the level of a 3rd postulate.  And time dilation is all we're talking about here.  From empirical tests, we know it is not "reciprocal."

 

2.  The very people who try to say SR doesn't even apply to these circumstances also use them as "confirmation" of SR.  Which is it?  They DO, without debate or question, confirm the preferred frame hypothesis, at any rate. So it has "passed the test," while SR hasn't.

 

3.  It may well be that SR doesn't apply to any circumstances, anywhere, in the universe, for all we know.  See the discussion above where Einstein concluded that we do not have a sufficient basis for claiming that any particular frame is "inertial."  If it applies to nothing, it's pretty irrelevant, as a practical matter, eh?

 

With respect to the last sentence of yours which I just quoted, see point 1.  But, in addition to that, look how preposterous that "explanation" is from any acceptable view of "reality."

 

Even with that proposed explanation, acceleration can be completely eliminated.  Years, centuries, or even millenium would instantly pass on a distant planet (depending on the distance travelled) EVEN if one clock just passed another going in the "return" direction and they synchronized clocks then, according to that "explanation."  It makes no physical sense, it's just a mathematical gimmick.

 

As Wheeler, the textbook authority, said, after giving this explanation (paraphrasing):  "The astronaut then quit his profession and became a comedian."

Edited July 2, 2018 by Moronium

[Moronium]

I do have to concede one point though; no experiment has ever been performed to explicitly test the  reciprocal case. 

 

 

Although I do not completely agree with your conclusion, because I think it has been tested, I'm glad you can at least acknowledge that much.  Most of the "confirmations" of SR merely confirm the high degree of accuracy of the Lorentz transformations.  But, again, those are not the sole province of SR.  On the contrary, they were lifted from the preferred frame theory of Lorentz, who had previously invented them to explain his theory.

 

But people tend to cite these LT confirmations as wholesale confirmations of SR, in toto. Sometimes they may just be confused, since the form of the math is identical in each theory.

 

The difference is that the v (for velocity) is relative in SR, but absolute in LR.  

Edited July 2, 2018 by Moronium

[Moronium]

Let's say some words about it:

 

''Galileo Galilei had already postulated that there is no absolute and well-defined state of rest (no privileged reference frames), a principle now called Galileo's principle of relativity. Einstein extended this principle so that it accounted for the constant speed of light,^[10] a phenomenon that had been recently observed in the Michelson–Morley experiment. He also postulated that it holds for all the laws of physics, including both the laws of mechanics and of electrodynamics.^[11]''

 

As I have pointed out before, Galileo said no such thing as SR tries to claim he did.  His "principle of relativity"  is NOT what your authority claims it is. History has been revised by those who claim otherwise.  He only said that the laws of physics would appear just the same in any inertial frame.  He did not say that, by using methods other than those available to those locked in a windowless room, one could not reasonably conclude which of two objects was moving with respect to the other.

 

Again, this is the same guy who is celebrated for muttering "And yet it (the earth) moves," under his breath, as he exited the inquisition chamber after being forced to renounce copernican theory.  In his view, the earth was, in fact, really moving.  He never claimed, as SR does, that, as between the earth and the sun, you can't determine which one is moving.

 

He did of course imply that there's no practical way of knowing your own absolute speed, which requires a frame known to be "at rest."  But absolute speed is not needed to determine relative motion.  Nor is that what his "principle of relativity" consists of.

Edited July 2, 2018 by Moronium

[Moronium]

1. We're talking about time dilation here, which has long been known (and tested to be) immune from the effects of acceleration.  This was present in Al's 1905 paper and is known as the "clock hypothesis," which some say is on the level of a 3rd postulate.  

 

As some may recall, Einstein talked about a beam of light travelling in an octagonal path, hitting 7 or 8 different mirrors (and thereby changing direction each time) along the way until it returned to it's point of origin.  He then used that example when claiming time would be dilated for the moving object.  He did NOT say that time dilation would only apply if it journey was wholly inertial, or that the degree of dilation would be affected by that.  And this has since been proven in particle accelerator labs.  It is ONLY the instantaneous speed, and NOT any acceleration or lack thereof, which directly causes time dilation

 

To say that the circumstances of the two twins in the twin paradox are not symmetrical is merely to state the obvious.  One is moving, one isn't.  And that's exactly what the end result tells you, i.e., that the travelling twin is he one who ages less because he is the one moving. Of course they're not symmetrical.

 

The problem for SR in all this is that, on the one hand it claims that there in no way to tell which of two objects is moving, but it ends up telling you just that.  Time dilation ONLY occurs in the moving clock.  If you want to find out, empirically, which clock is moving, just look at the net proper time elapsed on each clock, as the Hafefe-Keating experiment did.  The one that records less time will be the one that was moving (faster).

 

Of course the H-K experiment had to discard SR and adopt a preferred frame theory to explain the empirical results, but them's the breaks, eh?  And, again predictably, that did not stop people from nonetheless claiming that H-K "confirmed SR."  It did confirm that moving clocks slow down in accordance with the predictions of the LT, but the LT aint SR.

 

And, for Popeye, it can be noted that in the H-K experiment, each clock did not show less time elapsed than the other.  No real surprise there, since it is logically impossible to begin with, eh?

Edited July 2, 2018 by Moronium

[DaveC426913]

Talking about Galileo or Einstein is a straw man. They're both dead, and the theory of relativity has been through a lot of refinements since Einstein first proposed it.

 

Is this discussion about 21st century relativity theory, or is it a history lesson of a paper now a century out-of-date?

 

That's a rhetorical question. Today's relativity is not about Einstein what might or might not have said in a previous millennium.

Edited July 2, 2018 by DaveC426913

[Farsight]

Talking about Galileo or Einstein is a straw man. They're both dead, and the theory of relativity has been through a lot of refinements since Einstein first proposed it.

It isn't a straw man to refer to Einstein about relativity. It's definitely relevant. You do not dismiss Einstein when you're talking about relativity because you think you know better.

[Farsight]

 He never claimed, as SR does, that, as between the earth and the sun, you can't determine which one is moving.

Einstein never said this either. There are people who say SR says this and that, when it doesn't. They're often the people who dismiss Einstein, and say things like the theory of relativity has been through a lot of refinements since Einstein first proposed it.

[Moronium]

Einstein never said this either. There are people who say SR says this and that, when it doesn't. They're often the people who dismiss Einstein, and say things like the theory of relativity has been through a lot of refinements since Einstein first proposed it.

 

Yes, farsight, I agree.  As I have noted in other threads, after Minkowski came along, it was fashionable for several decades to say that the lorentz contractions were merely illusory, not real.  And, indeed, this is the logical implication of the geometrical minkowskian approach to SR.

 

The problem with that was that, when sufficient technology was developed, it was shown that clock retardation is a real phenomenon, not just an "apparent" one, so that whole line of "theory" had to be abandoned.  Even so, there are still many instructors of SR who will tell their students it's illusory, because that fits in with the minkowski spacetime diagrams they like to use to "explain" everything.

Edited July 2, 2018 by Moronium

[Vmedvil2]

Yes spin arises to provide a centrifugal force which imitates dark energy. Hoyle and Narlikar has shown that a rotary property exponentially decreases as a universe expands linearly. Inflation could be, a very rapid expansion which dropped off as the universe got large enough. I suspect there is a relationship with the universe overcoming the local gravitational attraction of gravity and the accelerated expansion we expect happening today. If the universe is not accelerating, the model still works. 

 

A full classical equation of motion, will satisfy all the pseudoforces of nature however, so the Euler force and the Coriolis force (I have shown this in previous work). It's also evident that a rotary property to the universe makes the universe itself part of the full Poincare group of space symmetries, so there is no objection to this physical nature in respect to physics: In fact, it should be expected. 

 

However I reject the idea dark energy are particles, or anything related to as such. It's not a real force and so is not mediated by particles, no more gravity is mediated by a graviton.

 

This is actually an unexpected good question. In fact, physics says it should be completely identical. There may be some indications though, not all antimatter particles share pure CPT symmetry, such as the Kaon particle. Needless to say, it only takes a small deviation for the rules of physics in a universe to change and for life to not exist. These are known as the fine tuning parameters. If there is a CPT imbalance, this alone should explain why a universe favored some matter over antimatter, or may explain why the lifetime of certain families of antiparticles may be outlived by matter. Who knows, but unexpected good question. 

 

But big problems with this. If a universe did spin, it is a centrifugal force we owe to dark energy, not a particle of ''dark energy.'' In fact, this isn't even the current thinking, modelling it as a particle, we tend to attribute it to a vacuum energy of sorts. The CC just arises as a integration constant in Einstein's equations. The true analogy of ''normal matter'' as you put it, is antimatter, which has nothing to do with dark energy.

 

 

Well, remember I model Gravity as a particle called a Graviton using partially string theory equations which predict this, so if gravity does actually consist of particles so does Dark Energy a type of Anti-Graviton would be the particle of Dark Energy due to the opposite effect on the universe as Gravitons would contract things, the Anti-graviton or Dark Energy particle would Expand things such as the universe, which could be at some point a function of their spin in this train of thought but this would put the Anti-Graviton/Dark Energy into a tachyonic state always moving faster than the visible universe can see them but being equally distributed across the universe in a type of Wave Function like an electron is across the atomic orbital. This could show the weakness of gravity's reason due to the strength of gravity is being sucked away by Dark Energy's expansion being much more Dark Energy being in the universe taking this energy into other universe branes, but as I model Gravity with a Graviton, I model Dark Energy as a wave-particle too, if photons consist of particles being Electromagnetism's carrier, so must gravity's carrier or Boson too, thus so must Dark Energy, all with spins of some value even if that value is zero.

 

This applying to the Moronium Paradox as the edge of the universe of CMB being the preferred frame of reference being always at rest being the edge of the light cone in SR, the Null Cone of the universe or that of something moving at the speed of light and Dark Energy along with Energy moving relative to its point of view.

Edited July 2, 2018 by VictorMedvil

[DaveC426913]

It isn't a straw man to refer to Einstein about relativity. It's definitely relevant. You do not dismiss Einstein when you're talking about relativity because you think you know better.

If someone such as Moronium asserts something Einstein thought or said about relativity, that is not the same thing as it being a part of modern relativity theory.

 

So, ask yourself what you want to discuss: what Einstein said? Or 21st century relativity theory?

 

cuz Moronium is appealing to the former, and dragging y'all into a side-discussion.

[DaveC426913]

... people who dismiss Einstein, and say things like the theory of relativity has been through a lot of refinements since Einstein first proposed it.

This is weird. I'm not sure which is weirder:

 

- that you seem to think Einstein's 1905 paper is still what modern 21st century relativity theory is, or

- that you think that pointing out such a fact is apparently "dismissing" Einstein.

 

That's weird.

 

Einstein, like any scientist, would be apoplectic upon hearing that some guy thought one scientist had the final word on a subject - that they had turned his good science into dogma. Don't be that guy.

Edited July 2, 2018 by DaveC426913

[Moronium]

I think it might be worth considering the "laws of physics work the same" concept a little further.  To begin with, it's not immediately clear what that's even supposed to mean.

 

Let's take an example of an object in an accelerating frame of reference.  The fundamental laws of physics still hold there.  There's nothing invalid about them.  But you must make adjustments for so-called "fictitious" inertial forces such as a centrifugal force.  These only arise because of the acceleration, but, again, Newton's 3 laws still work, and are still valid. The answers you arrive at when calculating forces, etc., are not "invalid," and they still presume that Newton's fundamental laws hold good in all frames.

 

So is it "the same" or is it "different" laws that apply in an accelerating frame?  My answer is that it's the same.  It's just more complicated to apply them because of the adjustments you have to make when applying them in the accelerating frame.

 

By GR's standards we, on earth, are always accelerating toward the center of the earth.  But newtonian mechanics still work just fine for us, nonetheless, so that kinda raises other questions, which I won't try to go into, now.  But, it gets back to my second sentence of this post, to wit:  "it's not immediately clear what that's even supposed to mean."

Edited July 2, 2018 by Moronium

[Moronium]

General relativity translates the same law concerning the laws of the universe through general covariance. 

 

Well, it's not the CMB particles themselves that are the rest frame.  It just frame that is at rest with respect to the CMB, where the dipole deal is isotropic not anisotropic, as I understand it.

 

Is there a frame where"electromagnetism, gravity, Lorentz contractions, time dilation," DON'T all work the same the way  by the same physics?  Why would any of that change just because your frame is deemed to be "preferred?"

Edited July 2, 2018 by Moronium

[Moronium]

There is no frame I am aware of. Attempts to measure Lorentz violating theories have turned up nil results. 

 

OK, so the frame of the CMB wouldn't violate it either, then, I would assume.  No frame of reference would (as far as we know), right?  The hypothetical "aether" frame, if it existed and could be found, wouldn't violate lorentz invariance either. The laws of physics wouldn't suddenly be suspended there, right?

Edited July 3, 2018 by Moronium

[Vmedvil2]

OK, so the frame of the CMB wouldn't violate it either, then, I would assume.  No frame of reference would (as far as we know), right?  The hypothetical "aether" frame, if it existed and could be found, wouldn't violate lorentz invariance either. The laws of physics wouldn't suddenly be suspended there, right?

 

I would tend to say the Aether frame is actually the CMB's frame because it is more or less the wall of the universe even in a void you could measure yourself against it, that has no other frames besides rest. It is always a defined frame thus it is always a good one measure yourself against and even could if you wanted be your "Preferred frame" as all universes that had a Big Bang would have one which all ones like ours did.

 

 

Edited July 3, 2018 by VictorMedvil

[Moronium]

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.

 

By incorporating the lorentz transformations, SR, like LR, is merely saying that each inertial observer will MEASURE the speed of light to be c, IF, and only if, he uses the clocks and rods available to him WITHOUT any adjustments for his own motion.  To claim that his measurements are "correct," in the overall scheme of things, he must deny or ignore his own motion (if any).  If he ever concedes that he is moving, he will be obligated to adjust his measurements accordingly, if he wants to make them "correct."

 

If A and B are moving relative to each other, at least one of them MUST be moving.  But in SR, both are required to deny their own motion.  You can do that all day long if you like (which you might like, if you simply like solving mathematical puzzles).  But what you can't logically do is say that, as a matter of physical reality (as opposed to mere subjective "perception") BOTH are correct in their respective measurements.  At least one of them is making measurements with clocks and rods that have been distorted by virtue of his own motion.

Edited July 3, 2018 by Moronium

[Vmedvil2]

You could mistake the CMB as some kind of aether. It's very unlikely, its simply the left over of a radiation phase. However General Relativity has a need for an aether because the medium becomes dynamic. 

 

It makes you wonder if like CMB, Dark Energy isn't the left over relic of some Dark Energy phase. If photons travel at the speed of light which is the CMB then what is Dark Energy Particles that are beyond the speed of light due to the fact that they existed before the photon stage of the universe, that is if you take Dark Energy as a particle. Is Dark Energy some tachyonic particle left from stages before photons exists and electromagnetism decoupled from the other forces?, makes you wonder if they aren't the photons of another era of the universe before the speed of light was unbreakable.

Edited July 3, 2018 by VictorMedvil