Yes, You Can Go Faster Than Speed Of Light

[OceanBreeze]

Hey Awal, I found something that is about the right level for you.

 

See if you can fill in the blanks

 

[exchemist]

You demonstrate, once again, that you are one of those people who thinks you know something about this subject, when in fact you do not.

 

What is true: If you take one situation of uniform translational motion, let’s say it is a train moving smoothly at a constant velocity on the tracks, you can examine that same situation from different inertial frames of reference, and no frame is any “better” or more valid than any other.

 

What is not true: You cannot say that two entirely different situations are one and the same thing! A train that is moving smoothly at a constant velocity on the tracks is one situation. Moving the tracks under the train at a constant velocity is a different situation entirely. Saying they are one and the same is insane.

 

A good example of this is running on a treadmill. If you just jump up and down vertically on the running belt surface, according to the frame of reference of the belt, you are moving at the velocity of the belt! If you cannot see how this differs from actually running on a stationary surface, you are already insane.

 

I am guessing you cannot even comprehend what I am talking about because you think you know something when in fact you know very little.  I suspect you have no understanding at all of how a wheel rolls on the ground without slipping. If you are interested in learning, (which you obviously are not), you can go here and study the subject before you next decide to opine on the subject.

 

 

In the situation where the train is moving on the tracks, with the wheels rolling without slipping, there is no relative horizontal motion at all at the point of contact between the wheel and the tracks (no slipping). The rolling wheel lays down a contact patch on the track and then, by deforming, the wheel rolls over that contact patch and repeats this process over and over. The wheel deforms as it rolls, even the most rigid steel wheels on a train must do this in order to roll without slipping.

 

If you change the situation to moving the tracks under the train, the most likely outcome is the tracks drag the train backwards with the wheels slipping and spinning, not rolling as in the first situation.

 

Bottom line is: Do not conflate looking at one situation from two different reference frames, with looking at two entirely different situations!

It seems to me that the difference between the two scenarios becomes apparent only when you consider how you create them, which involves acceleration, either of the train or of the tracks. 

[A-wal]

So, you really don't know the difference between looking at the same situation, from two different frames of reference . . .and looking at two completely different situations. I call that DUMB.

I know that when objects are in inertial motion relative to each other it's the same situation from two different reference frames, not two different possible situations. The only inertial motion is relative motion, it's the most basic component of all of relativity and you can't even grasp that but you've got the ****ing nerve to question my level of understanding? Wow, what a pathetic moron.

 

Hey Awal, I found something that is about the right level for you.

 

See if you can fill in the blanks

 

Coming from you that's hilarious! :)

Edited July 6, 2018 by A-wal

[A-wal]

I'll make this as clear and simple as I can for Moronic Strawman and Oceanic Sewage. Starting in the same frame, two observers accelerate the same amount in opposite directions and then stop accelerating so Object A and Object B are in motion relative to each other and Object B's clock is running slow in Object A's frame and Object A's clock is running slow in Object B's frame.

They only disagree about the rate that the other clock is moving while they're in relative motion with each other. Once they back in the same frame they must of course agree on the amount of time that has passed on both clocks. The fact that the don't agree while they're in relative motion does NOT imply that one has a more valid frame than the other.

If Object A then accelerates into Object B's frame Object A will see Object B's clock speeding up and when they're in the same frame more time will have passed for Object B than for Object A but if Object B were to accelerate into Object A's frame then Object B will see Object A's clock speeding up and when they're in the same frame more time will have passed for Object A than for Object B.

That doesn't mean that acceleration is responsible for the difference in the elapsed times on their clocks once their back in the same frame again. If they repeat the same thing again with the same accelerations but wait twice as long before one of them accelerates into the frame of the other then the difference in elapsed time will be double what is was the first time.

The difference in the elapsed time is caused by the fact that all objects move through spacetime at the speed of light and one of the objects followed a less straight path through spacetime than the other from the perspective of the frame they end up in. If they wait twice as long the acceleration is the same but the deviation from a straight path is doubled and so is the deviation in their elapsed time.

If they were a magical preferred frame then all time dilation, length contraction and mass increases at different relative velocities would depend on the motion of objects relative to the master frame. Not only is this ridiculous and implausible, it's already disproved by experiments because the observed time dilations and mass increases agree with there being no preferred frame.

The only way observations could agree with a preferred frame is if the experiments just happened to be performed at dead rest relative to that frame despite the relative motions of the Earth and the galaxy. If we weren't at rest with respect to the preferred frame then not only would results not match predictions, results would be reversed if objects were accelerated in the opposite direction.

In the preferred frame model mass increase in particle accelerators must be due to an increase in velocity relative to the preferred frame so acceleration in the opposite direction would be a decrease in velocity relative to the preferred frame and their mass would decrease, also time dilation would become time contraction and length contraction would become length dilation. Obviously this doesn't happen.

Edited July 6, 2018 by A-wal

[Moronium]

In the preferred frame model mass increase in particle accelerators must be due to an increase in velocity relative to the preferred frame so acceleration in the opposite direction would be a decrease in velocity relative to the preferred frame and their mass would decrease, also time dilation would become time contraction and length contraction would become length dilation. Obviously this doesn't happen.

 

A lot of what you said in this post is accurate but some of it is just plain old dogmatic assertion based on the type of bigotry that is based on nothing more than the zealotry that fervent fundamentalism always generates.

 

But, in the process you're forgetting the supreme importance which you attach to frames of reference.  You want to pretend that measurement made in, and from the perspective of, the earth's frame of reference would have to match the measurements one would come up if made in the preferred frame.

 

When we accelerate something in our frame of reference to, say, .99c, it takes the same amount of energy to get that object accelerated with respect to us, no matter which direction we're sending it in.  We're not doing our experiments in the preferred frame.  By your reasoning, two people playing "catch" with a ball on an airplane would have to exert different forces to throw the ball back and forth.  And here I thought you were familiar with Galileo.

Edited July 6, 2018 by Moronium

[Moronium]

Yes the observers do indeed come back, compare clocks and do agree on whose time was dilated. I mean, if we were not able to distinguish this fact, then there would be no relativity as we understand it.

 

On the contrary, it is because you can distinguish this fact that you know SR is insufficient to explain it.  The fact that you can make the distinction shows that motion is absolute, not relative.  The clock which is moving will be the one which slows down.  In short, you CAN determine, experimentally, which one was moving.

Edited July 6, 2018 by Moronium

[Moronium]

They only disagree about the rate that the other clock is moving while they're in relative motion with each other. Once they back in the same frame they must of course agree on the amount of time that has passed on both clocks. The fact that the don't agree while they're in relative motion does NOT imply that one has a more valid frame than the other.

 

You last sentence is true.  But, of course, what they "agree on" is irrelevant to begin with.  The behavior of objects "out there" is not dependent upon "agreement."

 

On the other hand, they "agree" on which clock was slower because they're looking at both clocks, not because of the "thoughts" SR compels them to think.  It is THIS agreement (not what they "thought" while in inertial motion) that matters.  And that agreement is what tells you which frame, between the two, is the preferred frame.

[Moronium]

We already know special relativity is insufficient, that's because it is a special theory not a general one. Yes, you can experimentally determine, on the fact that you compare what was otherwise synchronised clocks. 

 

 

As much as Einstein strived for it to be, GR is NOT a theory of relative motion.  It is a theory of gravity. SR is the theory of motion, not GR.

 

But, since you are now asserting that SR is insufficient, why do you also consistently assert that it's indubitable?

 

A preferred frame theory IS "a general one."  It applies to all motion in the exact same way, without limiting itself to inertial motion for special treatment.

Edited July 6, 2018 by Moronium

[A-wal]

When we accelerate something in our frame of reference to, say, .99c, it takes the same amount of energy to get that object accelerated with respect to us, no matter which direction we're sending it in.  We're not doing our experiments in the preferred frame.  By your reasoning, two people playing "catch" with a ball on an airplane would have to exert different forces to throw the ball back and forth.  And here I thought you were familiar with Galileo.

No you don't get to have it both ways. If there's a preferred frame then if an object accelerates in one direction they will be speeding up relative to the preferred frame and they will be time dilated, length contracted and their mass will increase but if they accelerate in the opposite direction then they will be slowing down relative to the preferred frame and will be time contracted, length dilated and their mass will decrease. This is not what happens.

 

On the contrary, it is because you can distinguish this fact that you know SR is insufficient to explain it.  The fact that you can make the distinction shows that motion is absolute, not relative.  The clock which is moving will be the one which slows down.  In short, you CAN determine, experimentally, which one was moving.

You can't make the distinction. If you could then clocks would speed up when planes or particles in accelerators went in the opposite direction.

 

We already know special relativity is insufficient, that's because it is a special theory not a general one. Yes, you can experimentally determine, on the fact that you compare what was otherwise synchronised clocks. 

SR is perfectly sufficient in situations where gravitational influences are negligible.

 

You last sentence is true.  But, of course, what they "agree on" is irrelevant to begin with.  The behavior of objects "out there" is not dependent upon "agreement."

 

On the other hand, they "agree" on which clock was slower because they're looking at both clocks, not because of the "thoughts" SR compels them to think.  It is THIS agreement (not what they "thought" while in inertial motion) that matters.  And that agreement is what tells you which frame, between the two, is the preferred frame.

Nothing but meaningless strawman bullshit, just like all your other posts. They do NOT agree on which clock is slower while they're in motion relative to each other. They do agree when they're back in the same frame but the clock that's behind depends on which object accelerated (although acceleration isn't the direct cause), that wouldn't be the case with a preferred frame.

 

As much as Einstein strived for it to be, GR is NOT a theory of relative motion.  It is a theory of gravity. SR is the theory of motion, not GR.

Correct, sort of. GR is a theory of motion but it's not specifically about inertial frames.

 

A preferred frame theory IS "a general one."  It applies to all motion in the exact same way, without limiting itself to inertial motion for special treatment.

And it's also entirely inconsistent with not only common sense but also direct observations because time dilation, length contraction and mass variation doesn't depend on direction.

Edited July 6, 2018 by A-wal

[OceanBreeze]

The simple undeniable fact is, there is NO experimental evidence in support of reciprocal time dilation.

 

All experimental evidence for time dilation, whether velocity induced or gravity induced, indicates that time dilation is asymmetrical, regardless of what the theory is, that is what the evidence shows.

[OceanBreeze]

It seems to me that the difference between the two scenarios becomes apparent only when you consider how you create them, which involves acceleration, either of the train or of the tracks. 

 

Why do you think that?

 

Do you think there is no difference in physics between a spinning wheel and a rolling wheel?

[A-wal]

The simple undeniable fact is, there is NO experimental evidence in support of reciprocal time dilation.

 

All experimental evidence for time dilation, whether velocity induced or gravity induced, indicates that time dilation is asymmetrical, regardless of what the theory is, that is what the evidence shows.

Oh so clocks that slow down if they move in one direction do speed up if they move in the opposite direction and mass that increases if an object moves in one direction does decrease if the object moves in the other direction? I had no idea. Quick, update wiki. :)

 

I take back what I said earlier. I think going back to being just a wiki parrot would actually be a lot more beneficial in your case than trying to understand anything.

[Moronium]

No you don't get to have it both ways. If there's a preferred frame then if an object accelerates in one direction they will be speeding up relative to the preferred frame and they will be time dilated, length contracted and their mass will increase but if they accelerate in the opposite direction then they will be slowing down relative to the preferred frame and will be time contracted, length dilated and their mass will decrease. This is not what happens.

 

You can't make the distinction. If you could then clocks would speed up when planes or particles in accelerators went in the opposite direction.

 

As usual, you can't see your own contradictions.  You keep saying "relative to the preferred frame," but then you want to take results which are "relative to" a different frame.

 

Suppose we calculated the amount speed, amount of force required to overcome the resistance of mass, etc. FROM THE EARTH when we're looking at two people playing catch on an airplane travelling 500 mph relative to us.  Our calculations (measurements) would NOT match those made on the plane.

 

In effect you are trying to say would have to match.  They don't, and won't.

[OceanBreeze]

Rolling is to move forward while turning on an axis. A wheel does this by deforming. Think of how a tank advances by laying down some tread on the ground, then moving over it, picking up and laying down tread as it goes. A wheel that is rolling does exactly the same thing with the contact patch.

 

Spinning only involves rotation. If a wheel is being spun by a belt, for example, the wheel will not deform in fact it is the belt that will deform in order to "grab" a small arc on the wheel to spin it. Point contact cannot spin the wheel.

 

The two situations are mechanically and physically different.

 

As long as something is mounted on wheels it is incorrect to claim that relative motion is the same in the different situations.

Edited July 6, 2018 by OceanBreeze

[OceanBreeze]

Oh so clocks that slow down if they move in one direction do speed up if they move in the opposite direction and mass that increases if an object moves in one direction does decrease if the object moves in the other direction? I had no idea. Quick, update wiki. :)

 

I take back what I said earlier. I think going back to being just a wiki parrot would actually be a lot more beneficial in your case than trying to understand anything.

 

 

You might try learning how to read. No one, especially myself, is claiming that clocks slow in one direction and speed up in another direction. In fact, the only thing I am claiming is that there is NO experimental evidence to support RECIPROCAL time dilation.

 

If you think there is, all you need to do is direct me to that evidence.

[Moronium]

You might try learning how to read. No one, especially myself, is claiming that clocks slow in one direction and speed up in another direction. In fact, the only thing I am claiming is that there is NO experimental evidence to support RECIPROCAL time dilation.

 

 

The guy who is constantly screaming "STRAWMAN!" is the master of the strawman fallacy, eh?

[A-wal]

Well of course, acceleration is acceptable in special relativity, we are only taking about situations where you might be distant enough from some body in space. 

It works in any situations where 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.

 

As usual, you can't see your own contradictions.  You keep saying "relative to the preferred frame," but then you want to take results which are "relative to" a different frame.

 

Suppose we calculated the amount speed, amount of force required to overcome the resistance of mass, etc. FROM THE EARTH when we're looking at two people playing catch on an airplane travelling 500 mph relative to us.  Our calculations (measurements) would NOT match those made on the plane.

 

In effect you are trying to say would have to match.  They don't, and won't.

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 that physics is the same in all frames shows that there is no preferred frame.

 

You might try learning how to read. No one, especially myself, is claiming that clocks slow in one direction and speed up in another direction. In fact, the only thing I am claiming is that there is NO experimental evidence to support RECIPROCAL time dilation.

 

If you think there is, all you need to do is direct me to that evidence.

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

 

The guy who is constantly screaming "STRAWMAN!" is the master of the strawman fallacy, eh?

Are you two supposed to be the comic relief? Because it's not ****ing working!

Edited July 6, 2018 by A-wal