Yes, You Can Go Faster Than Speed Of Light

[Moronium]

Bullshit! You refused to answer the question then just like you're refusing to answer it now. You're a ****ing joke Moronium. :warped:

 

If you are fortunate enough to have been prescribed some meds for your condition, A-wal, I would urge you to take some now.

[A-wal]

I'm not aware of any prescription medication for the condition of recognising moronic strawman bullshit when I see it.

 

Answer the sodding question or admit that you can't!

[Shustaire]

I really hope this thread isn't going to to degenerate back into a bunch of useless name calling and squabbling. That sort of thing never convinces anyone they are right or wrong the person being singled out will automatically stop trying to learn and take a defensive stance so it does absolutely nothing to convince someone when they are wrong.

 

Try supportive fact and articles instead... have a proper physics discussion instead of an emotional argument.

 

Everything in physics is to reasonable approximation hence we have a term called Orders of approximation to the second order of approximation GR works quite well. The higher orders of approximation due to extreme distances and the range of force etc all have negligible influence. It takes a certain amount of energy to perform what is known as ACTION.  This is assigned the unit quanta. A quanta of action is observable under QM and QFT treatments. Any influence under a quanta of action remains part of the field or internal lines of a Feymann diagram in the propagator group.

 

Here is the trick with symmetry relations of a group. Each group is specific to the mathematics used to define the group. It specifically organizes how the vectors such as the tangent vectors commutate. For purposes of GR we only need to deal directly with Observable action. Under QFT this would be defined by the Operators.

 

 GR doesn't deal with quantum level effects and only deals with the effective action of the gravitational field. When a particle displaces from one coordinate to another you have an effective action. If there is no displacement you have no action.

 

Both GR and SR recognizes this detail, hence the renormalization problem itself ie the divergence problem. However it does effectively describe the kinematics of the Observable coordinate changes. We need not worry about forces less than an quanta of effective action until such time as they cause an effective action.

 

This is the action of a field which is usually the propagator as the field propagates momentum. Hence the meaning of the term Propogator.

Edited July 8, 2018 by Shustaire

[A-wal]

I really hope this thread isn't going to to degenerate back into a bunch of useless name calling and squabbling. That sort of thing never convinces anyone they are right or wrong the person being singled out will automatically stop trying to learn and take a defensive stance so it does absolutely nothing to convince someone when they are wrong.

 

Try supportive fact and articles instead... have a proper physics discussion instead of an emotional argument.

He just has to answer the question. He can't. It completely destroys his argument.

[Moronium]

If there were a preferred frame then objects would be seen to speed up through time, have their length extended instead of contracted and have a reduced mass if they move in the direction that slows them down rather than speeds them up relative to the preferred frame. So how come this never happens Mr Strawman?

 

You're still such a solipsist that you think conceptual theories control reality.  The whole point of the LT is to explain why they DON'T see things that way in their own frame.  Then again, the implication of the LT is that they don't see things as they "really are."

 

It doesn't take any more "force" for two ball players on a plane to throw a ball back and forth regardless of the direction they're throwing it.  This is true whether the plane is still on the runway or flying 500 mph.  The ball doesn't have any more or less "mass" depending on the direction it's thrown in. One player on a moving plane doesn't have "throw harder" if  he's at the front of the plane instead of the rear.

 

If I, on earth, was watching them fly over, I might conclude otherwise.  But they wouldn't.  I'm not in their frame of reference.

 

This is pretty basic crap, A-wal, going way back to Galileo. It's called inertia.

 

There, I answered your confused question again for you.  Satisfied?.  

Edited July 8, 2018 by Moronium

[Shustaire]

I am curious about one thing Moronuim. If you discount SR due to what you percieve as Not being exact, then why support Galilean laws and Newton laws when they are conclusively shown as incomplete as well ? Is it not the same thing ?

 

You discounted SR in the entirety due to not being complete and ignore its range of applicability as a result. Yet Newtons and Galilean laws suffer the same problems with regards to how we measure events at extreme energy etc.

Edited July 8, 2018 by Shustaire

[A-wal]

You're still such a solipsist that you think conceptual theories control reality.  The whole point of the LT is to explain why they DON'T see things that way in their own frame.  Then again, the implication of the LT is that they don't see things as they "really are."

 

It doesn't take any more "force" for two ball players on a plane to throw a ball back and forth regardless of the direction they're throwing it.  This is true whether the plane is still on the runway or flying 500 mph.  The ball doesn't have any more or less "mass" depending on the direction it's thrown in. One player on a moving plane doesn't have "throw harder" if  he's at the front of the plane instead of the rear.

 

If I, on earth, was watching them fly over, I might conclude otherwise.  But they wouldn't.  I'm not in their frame of reference.

 

This is pretty basic crap, A-wal, going way back to Galileo. It's called inertia.

 

There, I answered your confused question again for you.  Satisfied?.  

You haven't answered the question at all. If there's a preferred frame then time dilation, length contraction and mass variation would all depend on the motion of objects relative to that frame, so why is this not what's observed?

 

If an object were to speed up relative to the preferred frame they would be length contracted, their clock would be time dilated and their mass would increase but if they were to slow down relative to the preferred frame then they would be length extended, their clock would speed up and their mass would decrease, so why has this never been observed?

 

Why do all objects behave as if there motion is only relative to each other and not some mystical preferred frame?

[Shustaire]

Lorentz eather ie a absolue matter feild is a good example to the last post. There is no detecton of this field in terms of the M&M experiment. This would induce a one way speed of light scenario which cannot be ignored.

Edited July 8, 2018 by Shustaire

[Moronium]

You haven't answered the question at all. If there's a preferred frame then time dilation, length contraction and mass variation would all depend on the motion of objects relative to that frame, so why is this not what's observed?

 

If an object were to speed up relative to the preferred frame they would be length contracted, their clock would be time dilated and their mass would increase but if they were to slow down relative to the preferred frame then they would be length extended, their clock would speed up and their mass would decrease, so why has this never been observed?

 

Why do all objects behave as if there motion is only relative to each other and not some mystical preferred frame?

 

I completely answered your question, but, as I already knew, you are unable to comprehend it.  They wouldn't "observe" it that way, EVEN IF IT DID HAPPEN, at least not if they're using their own measuring instruments, to calculate time, distance, speed, etc.

 

You really seem to lack even the most basic understanding of relativity, whether it's special relativity or lorentzian relativity.

Edited July 8, 2018 by Moronium

[Shustaire]

Um if they use their measuring  in their own reference frame they will never disagree with any measurement as all measurements are done in the same reference frame. This is what is meant by the laws of physics being the same. An Observer measuring any event in his own reference frame the Galilean laws/ Pythagorus etc will be identical to all Observers measuring within their own frames.

 

It is when they measure each others frame that this will require the LT.

 

Just to complicate matters, they have measured time dilation at a distance that equates to you head and feet. In other words their is time dilation to a miniscule amount between any two potentials. Potential energy being a result of location relative to another.

 

LOL its a good thing GR uses infinitisimals

Edited July 8, 2018 by Shustaire

[Shustaire]

Here is a detail everyone forgot in terms of force and GR>

 

If you take a time slice, the speed limit of information exchange applies to BOTH the field and the particle. Forces outside the region of CAUSALITY do not apply within that time slice.

 

This is called Einstein locality.

[Shustaire]

There are inertial frames but they are locally approximated. 

 

This is the local approximation referred to here Einstein locality specifically the range of causality within a given time slice of both the field and the particle.

Edited July 8, 2018 by Shustaire

[A-wal]

I completely answered your question, but, as I already knew, you are unable to comprehend it.  They wouldn't "observe it that way," EVEN IF IT DID HAPPEN, at least not if they're using their own measuring instruments, to calculate time, distance, speed, etc.

 

You really seem to lack even the most basic understanding of relativity, whether it's special relativity or lorentzian relativity.

You didn't answer the ****ing question you stupid lying ****-tard!!!

 

If you want to claim that time dilation is not reciprocal then it must depend on a preferred frame and the time dilation that's been observed must be in response to the object increasing its velocity relative to the preferred frame. That would mean that if objects were moving in the opposite direction in the test frame then their velocity would obviously be decreasing relative to the preferred frame.

 

We know that time dilation can be measured and you want to claim that it isn't reciprocal so it MUST depend on motion relative to the preferred frame and clocks that slow down when they're moving in one direction MUST speed up when they're moving in the opposite direction, motion MUST cause time dilation and length contraction to depend on an objects direction in the test frame as well as its relative velocity, so why is observed time dilation independent of direction?

[Moronium]

Read what I said again, A-wal.  Not that it would help.  You're incapable of understanding.

 

Here, I'll try to give you a little more help, another hint, you might say.

 

That would mean that if objects were moving in the opposite direction in the test frame then their velocity would obviously be decreasing relative to the preferred frame.

 

 

Can you even understand your own words?  Yes the velocity would be decreasing relative to the preferred frame.

 

But you're not in the preferred frame, so you will never "observe" that.  They are not speeding up or slowing down any more or less relative to you.  Think of the two guys playing catch on the moving plane.

Edited July 8, 2018 by Moronium

[Shustaire]

No observer can be in a Preferred frame so that ends that problem. Why bother with a problem that is never measurable. Its just like the Lorentz eather being undetectable. This literally means of zero measurable influence. Hence not needed to describe any change, so pointless to model.

 

Here is the thing still being ignored ie for reasons of approximation. The two players playing catch is an example of a first order approximation. At second order approximation the ball never travels in a smooth arc it will zig zag according to the Langrene. This Langrene depends on Einstein locality.

 

So a preferred frame would only be possible via higher order examinations would be restricted to infinitesimal regions.

Edited July 8, 2018 by Shustaire

[Moronium]

No observer can be in a Preferred frame so that ends that problem. Why bother with a problem that is never measurable. Its just like the Lorentz eather being undetectable. This literally means of zero measurable influence. Hence not needed to describe any change, so pointless to model

 

 

Spoken like a true, hard-core, positivist, Shus.  Unfortunately, the status of that theory in the philosophy of science was totally rejected many decades ago.  Ironically, Einstein himself, who was actually one of the premier philosophers of science in his day, saw the deficiencies of that line of thought long before his contemporaries. He admitted to being a positivist himself when he formulated SR, but later said that it was nonsense nonetheless.

Edited July 8, 2018 by Moronium

[A-wal]

Read what I said again, A-wal.  Not that it would help.  You're incapable of understanding.

 

Here, I'll try to give you a little more help, another hint, you might say.

 

 

Can you even understand your own words?  Yes the velocity would be decreasing relative to the preferred frame.

 

But you're not in the preferred frame, so you will never "observe" that.  They are not speeding up or slowing down any more or less relative to you.  Think of the two guys playing catch on the moving plane.

This is unreal, I've never seen anything quite like this level of ignorance.

 

If time dilation is non-reciprocal and depends motion relative to a preferred frame then observed time dilation would have to vary depending on motion relative to that preferred frame and therefore would have to depend on the direction of motion in the test frame, so why doesn't it?

 

Answer the question!