Yes, You Can Go Faster Than Speed Of Light

[Shustaire]

The dipole anistropy is unrelated to a preferred frame its simply a poor accounting for our motion relative to the CMB. It wa predicted long before Planck measurements and the anistropy showed up as not all factors were taken into consideration. In other words it was a filtering problem not accounting for all influences our locality had upon the measurements. Errors in calibration.....

 

That does not mean its a preferred frame anymore than those articles you just linked state that. It simply means you can arbitrarily choose to set it as such in precisely the same manner SR sets the Observer.

 

There is no distinction between the two both are simply ARBITRARY CHOICE.

 

Cosmological scales do not define how Gravity works The FRW metric may use GR but it does nothing to define GR. GR is due to local anistrophies between coordinate potentials. within a field between two events.

 

LMAO the rate of expansion per Mpc ie Hubbles constant is over 1100 times greater than it is today so it certainly isn't at rest. Not at time of the CMB its got a whole lot more motion than our universe today, IE far higher temperatures which is the average kinetic energy...

Edited July 8, 2018 by Shustaire

[Moronium]

Cosmological scales do not define how Gravity works The FRW metric may use GR but it does nothing to define GR. GR is due to local anistrophies between coordinate potentials. within a field between two events.

 

 

You constantly try to change the discussion to the topic of GR.  We're talking about theories of relative motion here, not theories of gravity.

[Moronium]

The choice of the preferred frame is not "arbitrary"  The HK experiment evidences that.  The clock readings were what they were...that couldn't be changed.

 

The question became how to interpret them.  H and K had expected to find the results that SR would predict, but that didn't work.

 

The ONLY frame which could be used which could make predictions which would match the clock readings was the ECI, and then only if a preferred frame theory was used as the model for motion.

Edited July 8, 2018 by Moronium

[Moronium]

Well look, hate to throw a spanner in the works, but this sounds circular. By symmetric one would have to mean synchronised clocks experiencing a symptotic time. Dilation is still a proven fact, and arguments about whether A dilates relative to B or whether B relative to A, the comparing of clocks will still varify whose time went slower - this happens all the time when clocks are measured by two observers, one located here on Earth and another in orbit around the Earth. 

 

I think I agree with most of what you're saying here.  I don't know about the "spanner in the works" part, but that was just a passing observation.  It has nothing substantial to do with the topic.

 

Even so, I would agree with Feynman on that point.

 

But, yes, as to the rest of it.  All indications are that clock retardation is not reciprocal and that it is the moving clock which will register less time elapsed.

Edited July 8, 2018 by Moronium

[Moronium]

. I don't know about the "spanner in the works" part, but that was just a passing observation.  It has nothing substantial to do with the topic.

 

Even so, I would agree with Feynman on that point.

 

 

 

Feynman wasn't setting out to make this point, but others have.  If motion was truly relative, then any theory which set out to capture it would predict no clock differences.  You simply can't get an absolute answer out of a truly relative theory.

 

But we do get absolute answers, so....

[Shustaire]

Please don't tell me you still cannot distinquish when loss of symmetry occurs with which types of motion ? Did I waste my time here? You know the friggen tenet of the transformation CONSTANT INERTIA>>>>>

 

acceleration doesn't qualify. IE LOSS of SYMMETRY>

 

Why don't you sit down with the LT formulas themselves and see for yourself under examination of the vectors for time. Or can you not recognize something so Simple as you have one unit defined by CT in the positive direction is symmetric with that same vector of identical magnitude in the opposite direction 180 degrees.

 

Why can't you understand such a simple thing as that ?

Edited July 8, 2018 by Shustaire

[Moronium]

Please don't tell me you still cannot distinquish when loss of symmetry occurs with which types of motion ? Did I waste my time here? You know the friggen tenet of the transformation CONSTANT INERTIA>>>>>

 

acceleration doesn't qualify. IE LOSS of SYMMETRY>

 

Why don't you sit down with the LT formulas themselves and see for yourself under examination of the vectors for time. Or can you not recognize something so Simple as you have one unit defined by CT in the positive direction is symmetric with that same vector of identical magnitude in the opposite direction 180 degrees.

 

Why can't you understand such a simple thing as that ?

 

 

I can't understand much of what you say, but I certainly get the impression that you think you know it all.  Maybe you should take your "LMAO" wisdom to George Smoot and give him a good schooling, eh?  He doesn't know much.  There are others who, like him, won over a million dollars on a TV game show, and I bet you're one of them and that you've probably won at least $10 million.  You've probably won more nobel prizes too.

Edited July 8, 2018 by Moronium

[Shustaire]

What I am telling you is commonly known in every friggen GR and SR textbook. Nothing I have said this thread lies outside those teachings.

 

Knowing this stuff doesn't make me brilliant it simply makes me more informed. Why is it everyone thinks some forum pumps up their egos. If you wish to continue to make mistakes by not spending the time actually understanding the material that is your problem.

 

Can you not look at the Galilean vs Lorentz transforms yourself? they both have the same symmetry relations with the sole exception the Lorentz adds a scale factor called gamma. Other than that they are identical. The gamma factor causes a SKEW symmetry due to length and time contraction.

 

If Lorentz boost by [math]\gamma=0[/math] the symmetry is precisely symmetric and identical to the Galilean transforms. Yet you tell us you don't understand the basics of the math I mentioned yet preach to us how your correct above those that understands the actual math. Yeesh

 

SR doesn't take a genius to understand its taught in many high schools....

Edited July 8, 2018 by Shustaire

[Moronium]

Math is not physics, and, unbeknownst to some, physics is not math.  The concepts can, and should, be understood in terms of everyday language, not symbols.  I met lots of people who are wizards at sliding slide rule, but don't really comprehend anything about the formulas they are faithfully executing.

 

I'm not interested in discussing math, sorry.  I'm sure there are some here who are, and they might come along anytime.  But if they don't, there are certainly threads pertaining to GR which you might prefer to frequent if you can't express yourself in words that well.

Edited July 8, 2018 by Moronium

[Shustaire]

Clearly there has to be, because there are no preferred frames in relativity, we've been through this several times, moronium.

Repeatably

[Moronium]

Clearly there has to be, because there are no preferred frames in relativity, we've been through this several times, moronium.

 

Did you read the post?

[Shustaire]

Math is not physics, and, unbeknownst to some, physics is not math.  The concepts can, and should, be understood in terms of everyday language, not symbols.  I met lots of people who are wizards at sliding slide rule, but don't really comprehend anything about the formulas they are faithfully executing.

 

I'm not interested in discussing math, sorry.  I'm sure there are some here who are, and they might come along anytime.  But if they don't, there are certainly threads pertaining to GR which you might prefer to frequent if you can't express yourself in words that well.

 

Physics is the lanquage of mathematics.  Your not doing Physics if your not looking at the math

[Shustaire]

Did you read the post?

 

Everyone has and everyone is telling you your wrong. How many different posters does it take to get this through to you?

Edited July 8, 2018 by Shustaire

[Moronium]

Everyone has and everyone is telling you your wrong. How many different posters does it take to get this through to you?

 

 

Well, good for everyone then.  All inertial frames (as a class) are preferred frames (but that's not the kind I'm talking about, or Smoot either).  It may be that there are no inertial frames either, but to say the don't exist doesn't end all questions. Almost every scientific theory presumes some "idealized" conditions which may never exist in "reality."  These issues are conceptual, not empirical.

 

In order to plot the paths, masses, etc., of the planets in the solar system, Newton posited the solar barycenter as his "preferred frame" and contrasted it with what he called a "close approximation" to a rest frame in the form of the fixed stars.

 

He chose the barycenter because, relative to it, everything else in the solar system, including the sun, was moving, while it was not.

 

Did he think the barycenter was "absolutely" at rest?  Hell, no.  He said it might well be moving, in the large scheme of things, too.  But, even if it was, it was irrelevant to his concerns.  Any such motion would also be shared by all the planets, and would affect them commonly, so it wouldn't affect his calculations.

 

Positing the barycenter as a theoretically preferred frame bore him extraordinary results.  The concept is not "meaningless," sorry, and any employment of it as a theoretical basis for analyzing motion can prove quite fruitful as a practical matter.

 

It seems obvious, however, that the blowhards who want to end all discussion with the ultimate answer don't really understand this.

Edited July 8, 2018 by Moronium

[Moronium]

It seems obvious, however, that the blowhards who want to end all discussion with the ultimate answer don't really understand this.

 

For me to point out that there is not, and can never be, a "point," as it is defined in Euclidean geometry, would not render geometry "useless." or "meaningless."  And it would not make me some genius who had just revolutionized all geometrical thought with some brilliant insight, either, needless to say.  That said, I could still walk away saying I had just solved all puzzles of geometry by showing the subject to be "invalid," if I wanted to flatter myself, I suppose.

[DaveC426913]

Awright. This is ridiculous.

  

It's only been 13 hours!!!

 

     

Edited July 8, 2018 by DaveC426913

[Shustaire]

Well, good for everyone then.  All inertial frames (as a class) are preferred frames (but that's not the kind I'm talking about, or Smoot either).  It may be that there are no inertial frames either, but to say the don't exist doesn't end all questions. Almost every scientific theory presumes some "idealized" conditions which may never exist in "reality."  These issues are conceptual, not empirical.

 

 

 

Do you even know what Preferred means under math treatment? It literally means it has greater bearing on determining the dynamics of change than another quantity. If two quantities are in essence identical ie two reference frames where within that reference frame the laws of physic are identical. Then neither can be preferred.

 

Greater bearing can mean makes the calculations easier or is more determinant to the resultant. A rest frame does simply the calcs but definitely causes other problems such as your having right now.

Edited July 8, 2018 by Shustaire