Yes, You Can Go Faster Than Speed Of Light

[Moronium]

From my perspective perhaps the biggest advantage (although there are many) that a PFT has over SR is that a PFT simply deals with matter in motion objectively.  It doesn't concern itself in the least with what any observer supposedly sees or thinks.  That's irrelevant.

 

SR relies heavily on subjective perceptions and the idiosyncratic assumptions of subjective observers.  That's not physics, it's psychology.  Worse yet, SR then sets up a dictatorial regime which mandates what every subject must "see" and think, no matter how much it may conflict with the evidence.  Thought control at its worst.  Every observer MUST believe that he is at absolute rest, and that therefore HIS time is unaffected.  The paradoxes quickly arise in a scheme like that. There is no fact or "truth," just millions of differing subjective impressions, all of  which are said to be "true."

Edited July 6, 2018 by Moronium

[Shustaire]

Has no one ever thought to connect the definition of inertia and connect the dots to why a frame is referrd to as an inertial frame ?

 

Why not look at the very definition of inertia.

 

Inertia is the resistance of any physical object to any change in its state of motion. This includes changes to the object's speed, direction, or state of rest. Inertia is also defined as the tendency of objects to keep moving in a straight line at a constant velocity.

 

If you accelerate you are no longer in constant motion you change inertia, when you accelerate you undergo a rapidity.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rapidity

 

see quote. "Proper acceleration (the acceleration 'felt' by the object being accelerated) is the rate of change of rapidity with respect to proper time "

 

Yes I will most definitely parrot other references though I can easily do the math myself, its far better to quote sources than many of the answers I have seen in this lengthy thread that is full of incorrect answers and replies.

 

However in essence when you accelerate your reference inertial frame also changes.

Edited July 6, 2018 by Shustaire

[DaveC426913]

My take on all this is that Moronium is primarily questioning the validity of reciprocal time dilation. He does agree that time dilation is a fact, but he suspects it is non-reciprocal, and he is not alone in thinking that.

 

Of all these tests that you mention, can you point to ONE that validates reciprocal time dilation? I have searched around and could not find any and in fact have found references that say this has never been tested.

 

If that is true, it is perfectly reasonable to question it.

 

Thanks, OB. That does actually provide some clarity, assuming you are correct in your assessment of his argument.

[Moronium]

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. 

 

I have already responded to this claim, noting that this is NOT "the critical assumption" of SR at all.  The paper Popeye just linked also explains why the claim is not true:

 

SR does not preclude an absolute reference frame...SR cannot distinguish between an absolute reference frame and other inertial reference frames. This is because SR predicts equivalent, reciprocal time dilation and length contraction between any two inertial reference frames, including a potential absolute reference frame.

 

http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0115550&type=printable

 

SR does not even claim that the laws of physics would be any different in a preferred frame.  What it does do, however, is to prohibit using one, because that would destroy the theory. Again this is just another (misguided but typical) attempt to deny the validity of SR (which many consider to be blasphemous) while denying that you are denying it.

 

It's kind of like Galileo writing a preface to his dialogues claiming that his discussion of copernican theory was strictly an intellectual exercise and that a heliocentric theory could not possibly be true.  He believed otherwise, but he also needed to avoid persecution for heretical beliefs.

Edited July 7, 2018 by Moronium

[Moronium]

Here's an excerpt from that same paper which I think is misleading:

 

 

...absolute directional time dilation is also observed between inertial reference frames. Satellites of the global positioning system (GPS) are in inertial reference frames because they are in free-fall orbits around the Earth, similar to the inertial reference frame of the ECI that arises from its free-fall orbit around the Sun.

 

 

This is GR's conception of an inertial frame, not SR's.  SR simply adopts Newton's definition without modification.  So it is not proper to assess SR in terms of GR definitions.

 

This sentence quoted is directed toward Popeye's assertion that an orbiting satellite in the GPS is not in inertial motion.  I agree with him on that.

 

But it doesn't undermine the argument that time dilation is NOT reciprocal, as SR claims for, at least two reasons:

 

1.  By the express assumption of SR (the "clock hypothesis") acceleration has NO effect on time dilation to begin with, so you can't claim that SR in inapplicable for that reason.

 

2.  Experiment is irrelevant anyway.  There is no need for an empirical test to reject a claim that is logically impossible.

Edited July 7, 2018 by Moronium

[Shustaire]

Personally I wouldn't place any faith in the article you just mentioned. For one thing cosmology doesn't follow SR but follows GR in which proper time follows the worldline and not the at rest observer. The author of that paper is obviously unaware of this distinction between the different definitions of proper time and coordinate time in the SR and GR treatments.

[Moronium]

Personally I wouldn't place any faith in the article you just mentioned. For one thing cosmology doesn't follow SR but follows GR in which proper time follows the worldline and not the at rest observer. The author of that paper is obviously unaware of this distinction between the different definitions of proper time and coordinate time in the SR and GR treatments.

 

 

I don't know why you say he's "obviously unaware."  He explicitly says:

 

Historically, SR has not been used extensively in general relativistic cosmology (GRC). This can be attributed in part to the historical view that Minkowski spacetime applies only in situations devoid of mass and energy [49], and the designation of SR as a limiting case of GR that is only valid in small, local settings [50]. These historical considerations would not apply to ALT, which is not encompassed by Minkowski spacetime or current GRC theories.

 

I'm not claiming he's right about the "cosmological implications," and I'm not claiming he's wrong, either.  The discussion here isn't about cosmology, it's about the premises of SR, and that's the part I find relevant to this discussion.

Edited July 7, 2018 by Moronium

[Shustaire]

Thats not the reason at all. In SR the propertime is the non inertial observer (at rest) the inertial event is the moving observer. Which  can change roles as per which you set as the observer and which you set as the event. GR treats all events as inertial. So all events are coordinate time while the proper time is defined by the worldline

between events.

 

the principle of equivalence m_g=m_i  would be an argument I would use against the papers claim. The mass energy sets the gravitational potential.

Edited July 7, 2018 by Shustaire

[Moronium]

Thats not the reason at all. In SR the propertime is the non inertial observer (at rest) the inertial event is the moving observer. Which  can change roles as per which you set as the observer and which you set as the event. GR treats all events as inertial. So all events are coordinate time while the proper time is defined by the worldline between events.

 

 

You're merely describing how GR treats things, but not "why" it treats them that way.

 

The main reason, in my view, is that SR has a background of flat minkowski spacetime, which GR immediately abandons in favor of "curved" spacetime.

 

Cosmologists do use the CMB as a preferred frame, and a "comoving" frame is one way to explain the doppler shift readings which indicate speeds of recession exceeding that of light.

Edited July 7, 2018 by Moronium

[Shustaire]

So explain this relation/

 

[math] g_{\mu\nu}=\eta_{\mu\nu}+h_{\mu\nu}[/math] The Principle of correspondence demands that the Field equations must be reducible to the Newtonian approximations. There is three distinct class of solutions under GR the Newtonian approximation, the vacuum and the Schwartzchild metric. GR does employ the Minkoskii tensor quite often. The Minkowskii is the first term after the equal sign while the permutation tensor is the second term.

The primary reason for the change in proper time is this is the invariant quantity all observers can agree upon the only quantity under GR for time is along the worldline.

Under the SR definitions an invariant quantity becomes highly problematic when you have more than 2 observers.

 

Particularly since the two observers cannot agree which observer represents the invariant quantities. Its simply set by arbitrary choice of which event is the observer.

Edited July 7, 2018 by Shustaire

[DaveC426913]

Experiment is irrelevant anyway.  There is no need for an empirical test to reject a claim that is logically impossible.

This was how the Greeks thought. They thought the world should be deducible logically from first principles, with no need for experiment.

 

They were right about a lot of things, but they were dead wrong about that.

 

 

The universe does not care what you think is logically impossible. It is very a simpler matter of your logical premises being wrong.

[Moronium]

This was how the Greeks thought. They thought the world should be deducible logically from first principles, with no need for experiment.

 

They were right about a lot of things, but they were dead wrong about that.

 

 

The universe does not care what you think is logically impossible. It is very a simpler matter of your logical premises being wrong.

 

Theoretical physicists routinely reject premises or theories than contain logical contradictions.  It's only a few wacko's that embrace logical impossibilities as "possible."

[Shustaire]

Well in all fairness when it comes to SR there is lots of garden paths to follow many wrong available on the internet. Too many wrong guideposts

[Shustaire]

Theoretical physicists routinely reject premises or theories than contain logical contradictions.  It's only a few wacko's that embrace logical impossibilities as "possible."

 

Those rejections invariably have strong mathematical premises, SR has lots of artifacts of a metric such as the twin paradox which was improperly examined to begin with. Far too often ppl reject learning the current understandings simply from learning the earlier models and seeing the mistakes it entails. They then avoid learning the corrections.

[Moronium]

Those rejections invariably have strong mathematical premises, SR has lots of artifacts of a metric such as the twin paradox which was improperly examined to begin with. Far too often ppl reject learning the current understandings simply from learning the earlier models and seeing the mistakes it entails. They then avoid learning the corrections.

 

Do you have anything specific in mind regarding the twin paradox you mentioned?

[Shustaire]

The twin paradox is essentially examining the reversibility of the Lorentz transformations under change in vector sign of the ct dimension. The ct under natural units gives time units of length. The paradox never fully considered the effect of acceleration upon the loss of this symmetry which of course involves relativity of simultaneity. In this there is two types of acceleration linear ie speeding up and slowing down on leaving and arrival times. Nor the rotation upon turnaround.

 

 It was a poor examination as SR assumed constant velocity under the original examination and under the premises set by the paradox

Edited July 7, 2018 by Shustaire

[DaveC426913]

Theoretical physicists routinely reject premises or theories than contain logical contradictions.  It's only a few wacko's that embrace logical impossibilities as "possible."

The citizens of the 19th century thought 60mph trains and heavier-than-air craft were "logically impossible" until experiment showed that their assumptions were wrong.

 

And that is what you are doing here.

 

You've decided how you think SR works, and then declared it logically impossible.

 

Frankly, I agree. As does the science community. Your idea of SR is logically impossible.

Because your understanding of it is messed up.

 

And no amount of arguing it will convince you - until you go back and pick up a book and read it.