Yes, You Can Go Faster Than Speed Of Light

[Vmedvil2]

You know what I am going to end this debate with the fact that Relativity is correct because the universe displays time dilation as my proof since someone asked for proof.

 

https://futurism.com/the-most-accurate-clocks-in-the-world-just-confirmed-that-time-is-not-absolute/

 

There is your proof Relativity absolutely happens in the real universe.

 

 

Even light time dilation by motion which is even moving at the speed of light, Time is always relative even for light.

 

 

Continued here is it explained in great detail.

 

Edited July 7, 2018 by VictorMedvil

[Moronium]

You know what I am going to end this debate with the fact that Relativity is correct because the universe displays time dilation as my proof since someone asked for proof.

 

https://futurism.com/the-most-accurate-clocks-in-the-world-just-confirmed-that-time-is-not-absolute/

 

There is your proof Relativity absolutely happens in the real universe.

 

 

Even light time dilation by motion which is even moving at the speed of light, Time is always relative even for light.

 

 

  

Nobody disputes that time dilation happens, but that does not mean "relativity happens" if by "relativity" you mean SR.

 

Nobody disputes that it is the MOVING clock which slows down, either, as your video is designed to show.

 

It is the Lorentz transformations which quantify the degree of clock retardation, but proving their validity does NOT prove SR, and that's what this discussion is about.

 

I have already discussed the experiment which your link refers to, at some length, elsewhere in another thread.  I'll try to keep it brief here.  Your article says:

 

Pacôme Delva of the Paris Observatory and his team used fiberoptic links to test time dilation between these strontium clocks in London, Paris, and Braunschweig, Germany. Because of their positions on the Earth’s surface, the clocks would tick at slightly different rates. If the theory of relativity was accurate, it would correctly predict those differences.

 

 

This is correct.  Ignoring gravitational clock retardation, which is an entirely different issue, let's look at time dilation due to speed. In SR, assuming it applies (and it does) there would be absolutely NO differences in clock ticking rates as between clocks in Germany and Paris.  Why?  Because they never move relative to each other.  

 

However, differences in clock rates were detected in this experiment. Cities in Germany and France do move, and move differently, with respect to other frames of reference such as the earth-centered inertial frame ("ECI"). These scientists used a preferred frame theory (the Robertson-Mansouri-Sexl test theory, "RMS" for short) employing the ECI as a preferred frame to make the predictions about how much time dilation should be expected.  The results matched up perfectly with the predictions

 

In short, they abandoned SR from the get-go, and basically disproved it with their experimental results.

 

They did confirm a "theory of relativity," but SR was not the theory confirmed.  It was what is often called "Neo-Lorentzian Relativity," a preferred frame theory which is totally antithetical to SR.  This is the theory from which SR lifted the lorentz transformations to begin with.

Edited July 7, 2018 by Moronium

[Vmedvil2]

Nobody disputes that time dilation happens, but that does not mean "relativity happens" if by "relativity" you mean SR.

 

Nobody disputes that it is the MOVING clock which slows down, either, as your video is designed to show.

 

It is the Lorentz transformations which quantify the degree of clock retardation, but proving their validity does NOT prove SR.

 

SR is time dialation and Length Contraction along with Mass relativity it does prove it because one element is displayed it brings credit to the fact that the other parts are correct too, even from the frame of Light which should be timeless in its motion, the time even for light which is in motion has relativistic dilation effects it absolutely proves it correct.  If Time is dilating then Energy is increasing along with length contracting for the photons. They are all connected into a single measurement Lorentz invariance if you didn't gather that. If one is true then the other elements of SR must be too.

Edited July 7, 2018 by VictorMedvil

[Shustaire]

The postulate of REST frame is one of the problems under the postulate of SR being discussed. In GR this is solved by all frames being inertial and no one has an issue with GR itself. A rest frame is a type of preferred frame and as mentioned an absolute frame isn't relative. The time reversal symmetries are still applied under GR just not between a non inertial frame.

Edited July 7, 2018 by Shustaire

[Vmedvil2]

The postulate of REST frame is one of the problems under the postulate of SR being discussed. In GR this is solved by all frames being inertial and no one has an issue with GR itself. A rest frame is a type of preferred frame and as mentioned an absolute frame isn't relative.

 

The Light particles are not at rest but are at rest relative to each-other both moving at the same rate which when moved in another direction experience the effect a second time, Even for Particles in both a Rest and Non-rest state the movement causes relativity Shustaire, there is absolutely no way that doesn't prove relativity works in every scenario, for objects even in both states and relativity still happens. Even the object such as light trapped inside another object doing the count has relative time dilation, which is even a timeless object does experience this.

Edited July 7, 2018 by VictorMedvil

[Shustaire]

Yes that is the essence of the argument and I showed GR's corrections to the prohibation of the preferred rest frame postulate. That postulate usage of rest frame not being treated as equivalent to an inertial frame ie and absolute frame by definition is not relative nor inertial. The twin paradox utilizes a different assignment of proper time than GR does this automatically requires a different examination and will automatically be a barrier of treating SR the same as GR. Which by these differences is not identical.

 

 In essence the real issue isn't isotropy of time reversal the Minkowskii metric is still used under GR via the Newton approximations and the Lorentz group which is a subset of the Poincare group SO(1.3). However this employs the all events are inertial postulate.

Edited July 7, 2018 by Shustaire

[Vmedvil2]

Yes that is the essence of the argument and I showed GR's corrections to the prohibation of the preferred rest frame postulate. That postulate usage of rest frame not being treated as equivalent to an inertial frame ie and absolute frame by definition is not relative nor inertial. The twin paradox utilizes a different assignment of proper time than GR does this automatically requires a different examination and will automatically be a barrier of treating SR the same as GR. Which by these differences is not identical.

 

 In essence the real issue isn't isotropy of time reversal the Minkowskii metric is still used under GR via the Newton approximations and the Lorentz group which is a subset of the Poincare group SO(1.3). However this employs the all events are inertial postulate.

 

 

 

 

Yes, even in GR  T_uv or T_ab still uses the Minkowskii metric coordinates to output the data in to be for motion put through the SR 3-D coordinates system that is Invariant, to use GR properly you need to first calculate the coordinates then put them through SR's coordinates for motion and time dilation and such. So, yes, EFE do output its data into a form useable by SR as they are both needed to calculation the objects if in motion otherwise just GR.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited July 7, 2018 by VictorMedvil

[Moronium]

SR is time dialation and Length Contraction 

 

No, that is the lorentz transformation.  SR, as a theory, has other premises, including, just for example, that time dilation is reciprocal and that all inertial motion is relative.  

Edited July 7, 2018 by Moronium

[Shustaire]

Yes, even in GR  R_uv  still uses the Minkowskii metric coordinates to output the data in to be for motion put through the SR 3-D coordinates system that is Invariant, to use GR properly you need to first calculate the coordinates then put them through SR's coordinates for motion and time dilation and such. So, yes, EFE do output its data into a form useable by SR as they are both needed to calculation the objects if in motion otherwise just GR.

 

 

 

You didn't see my edit, that the Minkowskii metric is still applied but some of its postulates differ and so does the proper time definition. No one is arguing that SR has some valid applicability today. The debate is on which postulates is still valid

Edited July 7, 2018 by Shustaire

[Moronium]

. No one is arguing that SR has some valid applicability today. 

 

Well, you're mistaken about that.  Every poster I've encountered here claims that SR has valid applicability today.

Edited July 7, 2018 by Moronium

[Moronium]

They are moving relative to each other. They are rotating about a central point.

 

SR predicts that, even in rotational motion (such as the thought experiment where spaceships are joined in a circular conga line), relativistic effects apply.

 

A "central point" is not "each other."  I already said what you just said.. The "central point" you're talking about is evidently the preferred frame, the ECI in this case.They are indeed moving with respect to that. But they are not moving relative to each other.

 

As I've pointed out before, an EM wave takes less time to go from NY to LA than it does from LA to NY.  So much for the postulate that says light travels at the same rate regardless of the speed of it's source, eh?  The distance between LA and NY never changes.

Edited July 7, 2018 by Moronium

[Shustaire]

Well, you're mistaken about that.  Every poster I've encountered here claims that SR has valid applicability today.

 

If you understand anything about physics you will learn that every theory has some measure of its range of applicability. The fact that SR is still applied under GR in terms of time reversal symmetries via the Minkowskii metric in

[math]g_{\mu\nu}=\eta_{\mu\nu}+H_{\mu\nu}[/math] shows its still applicable. The symmetry lies with the inner product symmetry of the Minkowskii group. expressed as [math]\mu\cdot\nu=\nu\cdot\mu[/math]

Edited July 7, 2018 by Shustaire

[Vmedvil2]

If you understand anything about physics you will learn that every theory has some measure of its range of applicability. The fact that SR is still applied under GR in terms of time reversal symmetries via the Minkowskii metric in

[math]g_\mu\nu}=\eta_{\mu\nu}+H_{\mu\nu}[/math] shows its still applicable. The symmetry lies with the inner product symmetry of the Minkowskii group. expressed as [math]\mu\cdot\nu=\nu\cdot\mu[/math]

 

He or She is right even when rotating around a center point GR is applicable which can be seen in a Kerr Metric looking at θ and ω. You will find that GR is a entirely different animal then SR when it comes to how these things are treated but both sets of equations are compatible with each other. The relativistic motion of light in orbit can even be predicted around a BH in the Kerr Metric solution to SR. The rotation can be plotted with the below equation which is the Kerr Metric. This makes your argument invalid, the relative motion of the rotating object still has the effects of relativity in modern physics using equations like this one. Here is the equation for time around a radius in Kerr Metric. This will predict any gravitational whirlpool not only BH, but relativity is still very much in effect, there is still a frame of reference.

 

 

 

 

Edited July 7, 2018 by VictorMedvil

[Moronium]

Chances are nobody even knows what I'm talking about anymore, but I'll still attempt to make a point. I'll start by re-posting a excerpt from a prior post about the clock postulate:

 

Does a clock's acceleration affect its timing rate?

 

It's often said that special relativity is based on two postulates: that all inertial frames are of equal validity, and that light travels at the same speed in all inertial frames.  But in real world scenarios, objects almost never travel at constant velocity, and so we might never find an inertial frame in which such an object is at rest.  To allow us to make predictions about how accelerating objects behave, we need to introduce a third postulate.

 

 

http://math.ucr.edu/...y/SR/clock.html

 

If you want to say that virtually everything in the universe is accelerating, and if you want to say that accelerating motion is absolute (the speed of light varies, no reciprocal time dilation, etc.), then what's left of SR?  In essence you're saying that (virtually) ALL motion is absolute, which is exactly what a preferred frame theory says.  But then relative simultaneity, reciprocal time dilation, and all the rest of that mystical baggage goes out the door with it.

 

SR as a theory is then just a quaint curiosity, like the metaphysical speculations of some 14th century Tibetan monk.  It has no practical value at all.

 

Everytime there's some apparent shortcoming in trying to apply SR, it's adherents will say SR is exempt from criticism because it doesn't apply in accelerating frames.  But every "test" made in the same conditions is cited as confirmation of the theory, for some reason.  What's up with that?  That approach makes it immune to falsification and turns in to what Popper would classify as "pseudo-science."

Edited July 7, 2018 by Moronium

[Vmedvil2]

Chances are nobody even knows what I'm talking about anymore, but I'll still attempt to make a point. I'll start by re-posting a excerpt from a prior post about the clock postulate:

 

 

http://math.ucr.edu/...y/SR/clock.html

 

If you want to say that virtually everything in the universe is accelerating, and if you want to say that accelerating motion is absolute (the speed of light varies, no reciprocal time dilation, etc.), then what's left of SR?  In essence you're saying that (virtually) ALL motion is absolute, which is exactly what a preferred frame theory says.  But then relative simultaneity, reciprocal time dilation, and all the rest of that mystical baggage goes out the door with it.

 

SR as a theory is then just a quaint curiosity, like the metaphysical speculations of some 14th century Tibetan monk.  It has no practical value at all.

 

Ya, moronium you just don't like it because you don't understand it, i am convinced at this point you have no idea what you are talking about......

[Shustaire]

 

 

If you want to say that virtually everything in the universe is accelerating, and if you want to say that accelerating motion is absolute (the speed of light varies, no reciprocal time dilation, etc.), then what's left of SR?  In essence you're saying that (virtually) ALL motion is absolute,

 

 

Who is saying all motion is absolute ? all frames are inertial so not absolute. An absolute quantity is invariant. This includes any field treatments.

Edited July 7, 2018 by Shustaire

[Moronium]

Ya, moronium you just don't like it because you don't understand it, i am convinced at this point you have no idea what you are talking about......

 

 

Heh, OK.  This from the same guy who says only dark matter and gravitation can cause a doppler shift, eh?  You've certainly convinced me that you don't know what I'm talking about.

Edited July 7, 2018 by Moronium