Yes, You Can Go Faster Than Speed Of Light

[Moronium]

Then explain this statement.

  What's to explain?

[Shustaire]

You already stated SR forces an incorrect math setting by admitting that SR's rest frame is false, hence must be inertial so cannot be a preferred frame. You simply have not realized yor arguing against yourself by the incongruity of thinking of SR's rest frame as preferred. Which you know to be false by admitting its not in a true rest condition.

 

How is that for objective reality ? You know its simply a math setting to determine a baseline for the metric of SR.

Edited July 8, 2018 by Shustaire

[Moronium]

You already stated SR forces an incorrect math setting by admitting that SR's rest frame is false, hence must be inertial so cannot be a preferred frame. You simply have not realized yor arguing against yourself by the incongruity of thinking of SR's rest frame as preferred. Which you know to be false by admitting its not in a true rest condition.

 

 

I honestly don't know what you are trying to get at, or even say, here.  A preferred frame would always be inertial.

 

I don't "think of" SR's rest frame as preferred at all, but it does.  SR forces you to treat every inertial observer as being absolutely at rest.  Anything else in the universe, anywhere, that is moving with respect to it is moving (they say).  It aint moving.  This obviously false.

Edited July 8, 2018 by Moronium

[A-wal]

SR forces you to treat every inertial observer as being absolutely at rest.  Anything else in the universe, anywhere, that is moving with respect to it is moving (they say).  It aint moving.  This obviously false.

STOP FUKCING SAYING THAT YOU STRAWMAN GOBSHITE! SR doe NOT say that!!! It says that there's no such thing as being at rest because all motion is relative. An object can either be in motion relative to another object or at rest relative to that object.

 

JESUS!

Edited July 8, 2018 by A-wal

[Moronium]

Your buffoonery is quite tedious, A-wal.  Give it up.

Edited July 8, 2018 by Moronium

[A-wal]

Stop making $hit up then!

[Shustaire]

Oh which inertial frame woulld you set as preferred then ? How would you distinquish a preference under math between two inertial frames ?

 

How would this be any deferent than SR setting the Observer into an at rest frame when SR knows its not a true at rest.

Edited July 8, 2018 by Shustaire

[Moronium]

Oh which inertial frame woulld you set as preferred then ? How would you distinquish a preference under math between two inertial frames ?

The math would be the same in any inertial frame that was treated as preferred as it already is, per Newton.  Did you read the entire post that you quoted an excerpt from?

Edited July 8, 2018 by Moronium

[Shustaire]

So what is the difference between how SR treats it by setting a preference via at rest?

 

The math cannot remain the same if your treating it differently

 

Do yo not understand a tranformation is how to transform between two arbitrary frames regardless of if in a true rest frame or not ? You know very well a true rest frame doesn't exist, its simply used to state between these two frames the ratio of change on geometry is such and such and its quite reasonable to extract that detail via setting one frame as a baseline rest frame for the ratio between them. There is nothing mathematically wrong with doing so You don't establish a ratio between A and B starting from C

Edited July 8, 2018 by Shustaire

[Moronium]

So what is the difference between how SR treats it by setting a preference via at rest?

 

The math cannot remain the same if your treating it differently

Why not?  And what do you even mean by "the math?"

[Shustaire]

The Lorentz transform is the math were discussing. There is nothing wrong with setting one frame as a base frame to compare another frame to establish a ratio of change between them. Can you prove under math this is incorrect in its methodology? Its done in pretty much any math treatments for any RATIO between two objects etc.

Edited July 8, 2018 by Shustaire

[Moronium]

I made a post about preferred frames, as they pertain to theories of relative motion, in post #365 of this thread (page 22).  Maybe we're talking about different things.

[Shustaire]

No were not talking different things How do you define a preferred frame when you argue against SR doing just that ?

[Moronium]

The Lorentz transform is the math were discussing. 

 

The form of the math for the LT is the same for both SR and a PFT, but the substance is different.

 

In SR the v (velocity) is relative.  In a PFT it is absolute.

 

If you're interested in all the gory mathematical details, you can look at the article originally posted by Popeye which was discussed earlier.

 

The one called The cosmological implications of an absolute simultaneity theory, or something like that.  He gave the math for what he called the ALT (absolute lorentz transformation).

Edited July 8, 2018 by Moronium

[Moronium]

No were not talking different things How do you define a preferred frame when you argue against SR doing just that ?

 

 

Did you read post 365?  Here's a link:

 

http://www.scienceforums.com/topic/32241-yes-you-can-go-faster-than-speed-of-light/page-22

Edited July 8, 2018 by Moronium

[Shustaire]

Yeah I did and the CMB isn't a preferred frame as its not at rest. Its a frame used as a fundamental observer. A fundamental observer is one that the background metric is identical to the coordinate choice. Both observers under cosmology are set as fundamental observers. Neither has a preference. The universe is also considered homogeneous and isotropic with both observers so equally uniform on large scales ie greater than 100 Mpc as per the cosmological principle.

 

The CMB's convenience is the uniform mass distribution The surface of last scattering gives us an astronomical object distribution through its Plasma etc that we can measure and test that uniformity.

Edited July 8, 2018 by Shustaire

[Moronium]

Yeah I did and the CMB isn't a preferred frame as its not at rest. Its a frame used as a fundamental observer. A fundamental observer is one that the background metric is identical to the coordinate choice. Both observers under cosmology are set as fundamental observers. Neither has a preference. The universe is also considered homogeneous and isotropic with both observers so equally uniform on large scales ie greater than 100 Mpc as per the cosmological principle.

 

 

Whatever.  I have quoted a number of prominent physicists, such as nobel prize winning George Smoot, saying that it is a preferred frame. Some have called it the "rest frame of the cosmos."  Maybe you would like to read their explanations for saying so.

 

Here's a brief quote from the Smoot group (which I've posted before):

 

We attribute the dipole anisotropy to the motion of the Earth and Solar System relative to the universal CMB radiation field and thus the distant matter in the Universe. This would seem to violate the postulates of Galilean and Special Relativity but there is a preferred frame in which the expansion of the Universe looks most simple. That frame is the average rest frame of the matter and CMB and from that frame the expansion is essentially isotropic.

 

 

http://aether.lbl.gov/www/projects/u2/

Edited July 8, 2018 by Moronium