Yes, You Can Go Faster Than Speed Of Light

[Shustaire]

The Earth is a central potential system of the field a localized anisotropy. Gravity can also portray scalar characteristics such as a homogenous and isotropic field a strictly photon field as one example. In this regards any arbitrary point an be equally considered a CoM.  Here a preferred central potential is meaningless a homogenous and isotropic field under GR is uniform in mass distribution. So how does one define a preference to a CoM? any arbitrary coordinate choice will sum to the same potential.

For that matter photons can exert gravity but that's in an anistropic distribution. Gravity requires curvature .

 

 

 I specified that the two does have mathematical significance in distinguishing one from the other in identifying each type. Moronium felt there was no distinction. F=ma doesn't apply to only central potentials the Newton formula that describes that is [math]F=\frac{GMm}{r^2}[/math].

Gravity however isn't the only thing covered by SR.

 

He also needs that preferred frame to work with inertial frames ie two spaceships moving away from each other. So central potential also is meaningless here

Edited July 9, 2018 by Shustaire

[GAHD]

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.

Here you go. Math and concepts in a way you can ignore the math while still understanding it. 3Blue1Brown is probably a good go-to for your understanding, at least from what I'm seeing from you.

[OceanBreeze]

The Earth is a central potential system of the field a localized anisotropy. Gravity can also portray scalar characteristics such as a homogenous and isotropic field a strictly photon field as one example. In this regards any arbitrary point an be equally considered a CoM.  Here a preferred central potential is meaningless a homogenous and isotropic field under GR is uniform in mass distribution. So how does one define a preference to a CoM? any arbitrary coordinate choice will sum to the same potential.

For that matter photons can exert gravity but that's in an anistropic distribution. Gravity requires curvature .

 

 

 I specified that the two does have mathematical significance in distinguishing one from the other in identifying each type. Moronium felt there was no distinction. F=ma doesn't apply to only central potentials the Newton formula that describes that is [math]F=\frac{GMm}{r^2}[/math].

Gravity however isn't the only thing covered by SR.

 

He also needs that preferred frame to work with inertial frames ie two spaceships moving away from each other. So central potential also is meaningless here

 

 

Do you agree that the Earth's gravitational field is a vector field or not?

 

A simple yes or no will suffice. Thanks

[Shustaire]

Of course one of my previous posts mentioned just that however one can also treat it as a scalar field with a gradient.

[OceanBreeze]

Of course one of my previous posts mentioned just that however one can also treat it as a scalar field with a gradient.

 

 

 

Well, Ok then. Since the gradient of a scalar filed is a vector field,

 

That should satisfy your requirement for the Earth being a preferred location, no?

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.

 

What I mean is the Earth can be considered a preferred location for two of the scenarios that have been mentioned in this thread, namely the GPS system and the twin paradox.

 

It cannot describe a preferred location for two identical spacecraft in deep space, away from any gravity field.

 

But, in that case we don't really know if velocity time dilation occurs at all. Yes, according to SR it does but do we have any way of confirming that?

 

By the way, I still am convinced SR is a good theory, but I am at least trying to understand any and all possible objections to it.

[Moronium]

By the way, I still am convinced SR is a good theory, but I am at least trying to understand any and all possible objections to it.

 

This speaks highly for you, Popeye.  I've encountered quite a few cocky, dogmatic responses here, but you're the only one who I've noticed with a truly "scientific" spirit.  Science requires open-mindedness and a degree of healthy skepticism in order to maintain its vitality.

 

As far as objections go, and on the topic of reciprocal clock retardation, did you read my post 638?  And, from that same post, what's your response to this statement?:

 

"The problem with SR is that it forces you to pretend that moving things are not moving."

 

http://www.scienceforums.com/topic/32241-yes-you-can-go-faster-than-speed-of-light/page-38

Edited July 9, 2018 by Moronium

[Moronium]

 I specified that the two does have mathematical significance in distinguishing one from the other in identifying each type. Moronium felt there was no distinction. F=ma doesn't apply to only central potentials the Newton formula that describes that is [math]F=\frac{GMm}{r^2}[/math].

Gravity however isn't the only thing covered by SR.

 

He also needs that preferred frame to work with inertial frames ie two spaceships moving away from each other. So central potential also is meaningless here

 

All this shows that you have no real comprehension of what I've said or what I'm saying.  You evidently don't even read my posts.  If you do, you just do so in a cursory fashion.

 

1.  I said the preferred frame employed in the analysis of the motion of objects in a system need not be univeral.   All physics is local, as Einstein said.

 

2.  I have pointed out that the definition of a "preferred frame" in the context of theories of relative motion has nothing to do, per se, with math.

 

3.  With respect to math, however, I have also pointed out how the math required in the two frames involved is identifiably different (simpler in one frame) in the example I gave.

 

4.  Even apart from the math, there is a clear distinction between the two objects in my example, to wit:  one is moving relative to the other, and one is stationary relative to the other. This implies another difference, to wit: the measuring instruments in one frame have been distorted by motion in one frame, and they are therefore unreliable for calculations, unless adjusted (cf 3, above).

 

5. Beyond that, only one frame gives you the correct answer, and that frame HAS to be preferred to the other.

 

6.  I also pointed out that the two frames are NOT "equally valid" (symmetrical) for the reasons stated in 4 and 5.  Hence there is no "reciprocal time dilation," as SR concludes by its own account of the situation.

 

You don't purport to take issue with anything I've said above. I'm not saying anything Feynman didn't say, either explicitly or tacitly. You simply ignore ALL of it. I guess that's one way to "deal" with it.

Edited July 9, 2018 by Moronium

[Moronium]

Ya know, many years ago (back in the '50's as I recall)  Prof. Herbert Dingle published a paper questioning the consistency of SR as a truly relative theory.  The essence of his question was "how can a relative theory predict an absolute result?"  How, for example, how can you say that one twin is younger if absolute motion is undetectable and time dilation is reciprocal?

 

This led to a long series of responses and counter responses between Dingle and various physicists.  After a while the publications decided to "end" the debate by refusing to publish any more papers on the subject.

 

Thereafter, Dingle was denounced in physics circles as being senile, crazy, etc., and he became an object of obligatory ridicule and scorn if one wanted to fall in line with his superiors and their colleagues.

 

Many years later a physicist from Harvard reviewed the whole affair in great detail.  He concluded that throughout the whole ordeal, not a single opposing physicist answered the question Dingle was asking.

 

I kinda know how he must have felt, after being in this forum.

Edited July 9, 2018 by Moronium

[A-wal]

1.  I said the preferred frame employed in the analysis of the motion of objects in a system need not be univeral.

First of all it was the CMB, then it was Earth, then it was the CMB, then it was variable, then it was the CMB again, now it's variable. When someone shows that a variable preferred frame doesn't work he says it's fixed and when it's shown that a fixed preferred frame does work either he says it's variable. In other words, insane nutjob who shouldn't be allowed access to anyone other mental health professionals, certainly not access to the internet let alone this site.

 

Ya know, many years ago (back in the '50's as I recall)  Prof. Herbert Dingle published a paper questioning the consistency of SR as a truly relative theory.  The essence of his question was "how can a relative theory produce an absolute result?"  How, for example, how can you say that one twin is younger if absolute motion is undetectable and time dilation is reciprocal?

Because the twin who changed frames is always the one who ends up younger you ****ing idiot!

Edited July 9, 2018 by A-wal

[Moronium]

First of all it was the CMB, then it was Earth, then it was the CMB, then it was variable, then it was the CMB again, now it's variable. When someone shows that a variable preferred frame doesn't work he says it's fixed and when it's shown that a fixed preferred frame does work either he says it's variable. In other words, insane nutjob who shouldn't be allowed access to anyone other mental health professionals, certainly not access to the internet let alone this site.

 

Because the twin who changed frames is always the one who ends up younger you ****ing idiot!

 

I've explained how and why preferred frames are essentially local many times (as have whole papers which have been cited in this thread).

 

Why does he "change frames?"  Because he was moving.  He could change frames a million times and SR would STILL say he ages less.  Not because he changed frames, but because he was moving.  Time dilation has nothing to do with changing frames, per se.

Edited July 9, 2018 by Moronium

[A-wal]

I've explained how and why preferred frames are essentially local many times (as have whole papers which have been cited in this thread).

Oh so it's local now is it, not the CMB or Earth, or the seventeenth moon of Zorcreb?

 

Why does he "change frames?"

I don't know, maybe he's bored. Because they accelerates.

 

Because he was moving.

Relative to what?

 

He could change frames a million times and SR would STILL say he ages less.  Not because he changed frames, but because he was moving.

Bullshit! In SR the observer who accelerates is the one who ages less BECAUSE they changed frames! How can you expect anyone (other than OceanBreeze) to take you seriously if you continually use strawmen by lying about what SR actually says?

 

Time dilation has nothing to do with changing frames, per se.

Time dilation is the slowing of clocks that are in motion relative to the observer, that's not what I'm talking about. I'm taking about the difference in age between two observers who start out and end up in the same frame after being in motion relative to each other.

 

That is caused entirely by one of them changing frames and the one who changed frame is always the one who ends up younger. Changing frames is acceleration but acceleration isn't the direct cause of the difference in age because if they waited twice as long before accelerating back into the frame of the one who stayed inertial the age difference would also be doubled.

[Moronium]

Relative to what?

 

Who and what do you think?  The twin whose age he is being compared with, that's who.  You know, the guy who was NOT moving and hence did NOT change frames.

 

Bullshit! In SR the observer who accelerates is the one who ages less BECAUSE they changed frames! 

 

Hahahaha.  How and why does that cause him to age less?  Within SR the only recognized explanation for time dilation is relative motion.

 

Time dilation is the slowing of clocks that are in motion relative to the observer, that's not what I'm talking about.

 

Obviously not.  However it is what I'm talking about.

 

I'm taking about the difference in age between two observers who start out and end up in the same frame after being in motion relative to each other.

 

That is caused entirely by one of them changing frames and the one who changed frame is always the one who ends up younger. Changing frames is acceleration but acceleration isn't the direct cause of the difference in age because if they waited twice as long before accelerating back into the frame of the one who stayed inertial the age difference would also be doubled.

 

The rest of your post is incoherent.  You're right that acceleration is not the cause, though.  Neither is changing frames.. Acceleration is just incidental to motion.  Same with changing frames.  You could say that a guy who accelerates from 0 to 5c has "changed frames" an infinite number of times during the acceleration, but you can't say that caused an aging difference.  It is motion that causes clock retardation, not some derivative of motion.

 

The ultimate point remains this:  At the end, each clock did not end up slower than the other.  There is an absolute difference in their ages.  There is no "reciprocal time dilation."  Why?  Because one guy was moving, the other one wasn't.  Had they travelled together, then their ages would still be the same.  But they didn't travel together.

Edited July 9, 2018 by Moronium

[Moronium]

That is caused entirely by one of them changing frames and the one who changed frame is always the one who ends up younger. 

 

Yeah, and breathing air causes death in human beings because every human who ever died breathed. 

 

Well, maybe it's two eyes that causes aging, because every twin who went into space and back had two eyes.  Or maybe having two feet is the ENTIRE CAUSE, who's to say?

 

Just curious, A-wal...did you ever take a course in elementary logic?  If so you should demand a tuition refund, eh?

Edited July 9, 2018 by Moronium

[Moronium]

Overheard on a short bus:

 

A. Oh, my God.  Look at that thing next go the bus driver.

 

B.  What is that?

 

A.  It's frame of reference, that's what!  Don't go near it unless you want to be back in kindergarten!  It will reach into your heart, your lungs, your brain, your bones, your skin tissues...everything, and then it will punch a "reset button" that will reset them all to a prior time!  It steals your age, see?

Edited July 9, 2018 by Moronium

[Super Polymath]

Yes, polymath if everything in the universe had a oppose charge then it would have the opposite spin as well, which makes you wonder if Dark Energy isn't left handed as you suggest because Normal matter is Right handed and  expansion a property of left handedness that suggests, but would a antimatter universe still expand that makes you wonder or have the opposite effect when dealing with Dark Energy and contract the universe instead in a Antimatter universe, maybe that is why the universe consists only of Normal Matter and not Antimatter because in a Antimatter universe the universe would collapse in on itself because of an opposite effect of Dark Energy which is contraction, Would the Universe even exist in a Antimatter universe or always be a Singularity never to have a Big Bang Event because of lack of expansion stress by Dark Energy.

 

 

Yes spin arises to provide a centrifugal force which imitates dark energy. Hoyle and Narlikar has shown that a rotary property exponentially decreases as a universe expands linearly. Inflation could be, a very rapid expansion which dropped off as the universe got large enough. I suspect there is a relationship with the universe overcoming the local gravitational attraction of gravity and the accelerated expansion we expect happening today. If the universe is not accelerating, the model still works. 

 

 

A full classical equation of motion, will satisfy all the pseudoforces of nature however, so the Euler force and the Coriolis force (I have shown this in previous work). It's also evident that a rotary property to the universe makes the universe itself part of the full Poincare group of space symmetries, so there is no objection to this physical nature in respect to physics: In fact, it should be expected. 

 

 

However I reject the idea dark energy are particles, or anything related to as such. It's not a real force and so is not mediated by particles, no more gravity is mediated by a graviton.

 

 

This is actually an unexpected good question. In fact, physics says it should be completely identical. There may be some indications though, not all antimatter particles share pure CPT symmetry, such as the Kaon particle. Needless to say, it only takes a small deviation for the rules of physics in a universe to change and for life to not exist. These are known as the fine tuning parameters. If there is a CPT imbalance, this alone should explain why a universe favored some matter over antimatter, or may explain why the lifetime of certain families of antiparticles may be outlived by matter. Who knows, but unexpected good question. 

 

 

But big problems with this. If a universe did spin, it is a centrifugal force we owe to dark energy, not a particle of ''dark energy.'' In fact, this isn't even the current thinking, modelling it as a particle, we tend to attribute it to a vacuum energy of sorts. The CC just arises as a integration constant in Einstein's equations. The true analogy of ''normal matter'' as you put it, is antimatter, which has nothing to do with dark energy.

006, you seem to be under the impression that you know something new.

 

This is a classical secret far predating Einstein. Due to the Viking descendant Hogh Van Koch rediscovering some of the sacred geometry found in Ancient Roman settlements near then English controlled Wessex during their early raids.

 

This work originating with Thales' through Pythagoras' ole' Grecian formulae behind secret knowledge held by Roman & Catholic Oligarchies (the secret societies of our local communities) through the ages, & this was behind why we went from dating using BC to AD these oligarchs like to think they took control of this world back from whatever else is out there (Philadelphia experiment UFOs [unification field {vector calc} oscillations], MK Ultra program [Timeless Decision Psyche. Theory], & the 1970's War of Worlds [WOW!] Signal made possible by the work that Mandelbrot who stole credit from others who were getting into that ole' Grecian Formula [Pythagoras' sacred geometry] of the Koch Snowflake/Anti-snowflake fractal pattern seen in Old Testament Creation Story [Let there be Light {plotting the universe by compacting light}], Roman Catholic Flowers, the structure of diamond & used for quarks [atomic theory]).

 

What Hogh Von Koch brought to light led to a lot of Tesla's breakthroughs in defining the observations confirmed by his resisted and suppressed experiments into free energy in the form gravitoelectromagnetic innovations that threatened the Gilded Western Capitalist Robber Barons of the era. It also led to the Philadelphia experiment & MK ultra which sort of backfired in the form of the Hippy Movement during the Vietnam pyramid scheme. Now it's the Iraq Pyramid Scheme, terroristic threat, Al-Qaeda, literally 'the database,' was originally the computer file of the thousands of mujaheddin who were recruited and trained with help from the CIA, Osama Ben Lay down Isis, etc. It's a business that backfired with DAVID KORESH & Timothy McVeigh and Terry Nichols.

 

Anyway, back to the PHYSICS; an antimatter universe is the CMB microwave background artifact, the matter universe is what we see today. It's like that whenever the superverse photons get redshifted it reflects the redshift missinfo agent presented as the BBT in the LCDM. QM was intentionally designed to off-put the sacred geometry of the real interpretation so Vmedvil, OceanBreeze, Shustaire, Farsight, & these clowns are all potentially trying to distract from the SG.

[Super Polymath]

They're trying to keep us in the dark ages, the secret society in our very communities, like little leeches and parasites feed off the PR

[Shustaire]

006, you seem to be under the impression that you know something new.

 

This is a classical secret far predating Einstein. Due to the Viking descendant Hogh Van Koch rediscovering some of the sacred geometry found in Ancient Roman settlements near then English controlled Wessex during their early raids.

 

This work originating with Thales' through Pythagoras' ole' Grecian formulae behind secret knowledge held by Roman & Catholic Oligarchies (the secret societies of our local communities) through the ages, & this was behind why we went from dating using BC to AD these oligarchs like to think they took control of this world back from whatever else is out there (Philadelphia experiment UFOs [unification field {vector calc} oscillations], MK Ultra program [Timeless Decision Psyche. Theory], & the 1970's War of Worlds [WOW!] Signal made possible by the work that Mandelbrot who stole credit from others who were getting into that ole' Grecian Formula [Pythagoras' sacred geometry] of the Koch Snowflake/Anti-snowflake fractal pattern seen in Old Testament Creation Story [Let there be Light {plotting the universe by compacting light}], Roman Catholic Flowers, the structure of diamond & used for quarks [atomic theory]).

 

What Hogh Von Koch brought to light led to a lot of Tesla's breakthroughs in defining the observations confirmed by his resisted and suppressed experiments into free energy in the form gravitoelectromagnetic innovations that threatened the Gilded Western Capitalist Robber Barons of the era. It also led to the Philadelphia experiment & MK ultra which sort of backfired in the form of the Hippy Movement during the Vietnam pyramid scheme. Now it's the Iraq Pyramid Scheme, terroristic threat, Al-Qaeda, literally 'the database,' was originally the computer file of the thousands of mujaheddin who were recruited and trained with help from the CIA, Osama Ben Lay down Isis, etc. It's a business that backfired with DAVID KORESH & Timothy McVeigh and Terry Nichols.

 

Anyway, back to the PHYSICS; an antimatter universe is the CMB microwave background artifact, the matter universe is what we see today. It's like that whenever the superverse photons get redshifted it reflects the redshift missinfo agent presented as the BBT in the LCDM. QM was intentionally designed to off-put the sacred geometry of the real interpretation so Vmedvil, OceanBreeze, Shustaire, Farsight, & these clowns are all potentially trying to distract from the SG.

 

Why would you think the CMB has anything to do with antimatter ? In particular an antimatter universe ?

 

No that it matters as it is off topic to this thread but wow call the presses Pink unicorns ride again.

Edited July 9, 2018 by Shustaire