Yes, You Can Go Faster Than Speed Of Light

[Moronium]

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.

 

As I have pointed out, the term "preferred frame" has different meanings in different contexts, which is something you can't seem to grasp.  But I agree that your last sentence is one valid use of the term.

[Moronium]

I'm re-posting this again because I get the impression that nobody commenting on this "preferred frame" topic has even read it in full, and I know no one will ever go back to look at it now.

 

People make the mistake of thinking that a preferred frame has to be something ABSOLUTE and universal.  It doesn't.  There can be a preferred frame as between only two objects, without regard for anything else in the universe.

 

In the twin paradox, the earth twin is in the preferred frame. As between the two, his instruments have not been distorted, because he is not the one moving (relative to his twin).  The twin is moving, so his instruments have been distorted.

 

Being the preferred frame, the earth has the "correct" time, the traveller doesn't.  If the traveller used the earth's frame, instead of his own distorted one, to measure time, then he too would get the correct answer, just as his twin does.  The correct answer being that he is really aging less, not his twin. Put another way, the two frames are not "equally valid."  One gives you the correct answer, and the other doesn't.

 

SR tells you as much.  It is the moving clock that slows down.  The problem with SR is that it forces you to pretend that moving things are not moving.

 

Even leaving motion and instrumental distortion aside, the earth is the preferred frame in this example because it gives the "correct" answer.  For that reason alone it would be considered to be "preferable" to the frame which gives you the wrong answer.

Edited July 8, 2018 by Moronium

[Shustaire]

Give us a mathematical reason why one reference frame should have a preference over the other if both are inertial that applies in all cases not just under a central force but also under a scalar field. There must be some mathematical distinction otherwise there is no preference.

 

A preferred location counts under the above as a point of converging or diverging vector field. However it does not count for the all situations of LT.

Edited July 8, 2018 by Shustaire

[Moronium]

There must be some mathematical distinction otherwise there is no preference.

 So you say because the ONLY thing you seem to understand is math.

 

In the example I just gave, the math used to get the correct answer would be much simpler in the earth frame.  Things would be more complicated for the twin.  He would have to "adjust" his measurements to make them match those prevailing in the earth's frame--an additional step for him.  It's kinda like the difference between trying to apply Newton's laws in an inertial frame as opposed to a frame that is accelerating.

Edited July 8, 2018 by Moronium

[Moronium]

Here are a few excerpts from wiki's page on preferred frames:

 

1.In theoretical physics, a preferred or privileged frame is usually a special hypothetical frame of reference in which the laws of physics might appear to be identifiably different (simpler) from those in other frames.

 

2.Preferred frame in aether theory:  In theories that presume that light travels at a fixed speed relative to an unmodifiable and detectable luminiferous aether, a preferred frame would be a frame in which this aether would be stationary.

 

3. Although all inertial frames are equivalent under classical mechanics and special relativity, the set of all inertial frames is privileged over non-inertial frames in these theories.

 

 

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

 

Notice that #2 gives a particular meaning in the context of relativity theory and that the definition is NOT based on math.

Edited July 9, 2018 by Moronium

[Shustaire]

Really you don't find a stationary field mathematically significant ? Of course a stationary field is mathematically significant that would be a scalar field. As opposed to a vector field needed to define direction of force.

 

The very term stationary literally means unchanging when coupled to a field INVARIANT

 

You even highlighted IDENTIFIABLY DIFFERENT however in Physics this means mathematically different.

Edited July 9, 2018 by Shustaire

[Moronium]

Really you don't find a stationary field mathematically significant ?

 

I didn't say it wasn't mathematically significant.  To repeat, what I said was that the definition of a preferred frame in the the context of theories of motion was not based on math.

Edited July 9, 2018 by Moronium

[Moronium]

You even highlighted IDENTIFIABLY DIFFERENT however in Physics this means mathematically different.

 

 

I see you keep adding to this post.  What you fail to mention is that in the same highlight the word "simpler" was included parenthetically.

 

Now go back to the Smoot quote and see what HE says about simpler laws.

 

What you also fail to see is the the whole thing in #1 was conditioned by the word "usually" in physics, and not just "in physics" as you have changed it to.

 

Then of course it goes on to definition 2, which is the one primarily at issue here.

Edited July 9, 2018 by Moronium

[Shustaire]

Everything in physics is based on math....You must be able to identify and describe any object by math. You must describe how it interacts, how long it survives, how long does it take to decay, How much does A affect B.

 

A field is a mathematical construct to describe multi particle systems. It is an abstraact mathematical device in and of itself.

 

To apply significance requires a mathematical one.

[Moronium]

Everything in physics is based on math....

 

 

Wrong.  As far as theoretical physics goes, every theory starts with, and is based on, concepts, not math (like SR's postulates, or Newton's three fundamental laws of motion).  I'm interested in discussing fundamental concepts, not boring math.  Math is just a "language."  It is simply a tool, not a scientific theory.  Math quantifies the concepts, but only if it first has concepts.

 

If you're one of these "physics is math and math is physics" kinda guys, then we won't have a lot to talk about.

Edited July 9, 2018 by Moronium

[Shustaire]

 Oh I caught your references to metaphysics based arguments a long time ago. The problem with metaphysics is it tends to ignore the physics described under math when inconvenient. Hence the two are not the same.

 

  Under physics symmetry the very meaning of that term has mathematical meaning so how does metaphysics discuss symmetry without applying a mathematical meaning ? Ignore the math when each term in this list has mathematical meaning ?

 

{energy, mass, particle, space-time, entanglement, relative, ratio, change of state,..... }

 

Where is the Objective Reality by ignoring the math relations involved

Would it not be better to master that math so you can counter a math argument with metaphysics under math ? Combine the two ?

 

For that matter how do you even discuss something when like gravity without understanding the kinematic properties of freefall ? even under Galilean ?

Edited July 9, 2018 by Shustaire

[Moronium]

 Oh I caught your references to metaphysics based arguments a long time ago. The problem with metaphysics is it tends to ignore the physics described under math when inconvenient. Hence the two are not the same.

 

  Under physics symmetry the very meaning of that term has mathematical meaning so how does metaphysics discuss symmetry without applying a mathematical meaning ? Ignore the math when each term in this list has mathematical meaning ?

 

{energy, mass, particle, space-time, entanglement, relative, ratio, change of state,..... }

 

Where is the Objective Reality by ignoring the math relations involved

Would it not be better to master that math so you can counter a math argument with metaphysics under math ? Combine the two ?

1.  I'm not sure which "two" you are talking about which are not the same, but I agree that metaphysics is not math or physics.

 

2. Symmetry has a meaning independent of math.  I notice that you didn't use numbers to say it.

 

3.  Math has a way of soon becoming oblivious to any intelligible physical meaning or reality, especially in the hands of those who think all meaning and truth lies in math (like the ancient pythagorean sect, or string theorists, for example). Some, like Plato (and many others) think that numbers are objectively real, too.  I don't.

 

I tend to look at math as simply being a specific application of logic.  But logic exists without math.

 

There is nothing wrong with learning the russian language in order to talk to a russian, but I aint gunna do it.  If some russian wants to speak his language, there's plenty of his kind around.  He doesn't need me, and I don't need him.

Edited July 9, 2018 by Moronium

[Shustaire]

 Well good luck with understanding what your talking about without math as described by the mathematics. You will never understand mass without it.

[Moronium]

Among physics professors, there's a stock approach which they call "shut up and calculate."  In other words, don't waste my time asking too many questions about fundamental assumptions. That's not what I'm here for. Just learn to do the math we teach you. .

 

This is not too conducive to actually understanding the concepts which underlie the formulas.  The average scientist is notoriously naive about the philosophy of science.  And that's fine with them.  It's not a topic they're even interested in.  But, now, when it comes to using a scientific calculator, their eyes really light up.

[Moronium]

 Well good luck with understanding what your talking about without math as described by the mathematics. You will never understand mass without it.

 

I understand mass as being a resistance to acceleration, aka inertia.  That's good enough for me.  Nobody has been able to give a widely accepted account of the origin of inertia, it's cause, or anything like that.  It's just a mystery.  I'm not pretending to, or seeking to, engage in advanced physics when talking about simple theories of motion like SR and LR.

 

I don't need to know any details about the math of special relativity in order to see that it is subjective and solipsistic in it's fundamental assumptions.

Edited July 9, 2018 by Moronium

[Shustaire]

 Well lets put it simply when you talk metaphysics and I talk physics it will never agree. The difference is I understand the cannotations and commutations given by any model I am familiar with.  SR is rudimentary when my current studies involve the coupling constants in the trilinear gauge as opposed to the quartic gauge of the Higg's electroweak symmetry breaks. ( still struggling with the doublet vs singlet groups)

 Love to see you apply your logic under HuP for a static field sometime lmao

 

But then you haven't even defined a preference to a given Preferred frame have you ? you cannot even define a Preferred frame that will satisfy observations and thus supportable under math.

 Trust me any observable kinematic motion is easily defined under math....lmao calculus of variation is quite diverse relativity aside...

Edited July 9, 2018 by Shustaire

[OceanBreeze]

Give us a mathematical reason why one reference frame should have a preference over the other if both are inertial that applies in all cases not just under a central force but also under a scalar field. There must be some mathematical distinction otherwise there is no preference.

 

A preferred location counts under the above as a point of converging or diverging vector field. However it does not count for the all situations of LT.

 

A lot of this conversation is related to the twin paradox, and the GPS and other examples where the Earth's gravitational field is involved.

 

I notice you say there is no mathematical distinction under a scalar field, but the Earth's gravitational field is a vector field as it points to the center of the Earth.

 

That provides the distinction you are looking for, and the Earth can be a preferred frame for both the GPS and the twin paradox, and in fact for any body that is in free fall towards the Earth.

 

Bodies DO fall to the Earth and not the other way around, in accord with F=ma

Edited July 9, 2018 by OceanBreeze