Yes, You Can Go Faster Than Speed Of Light

[Moronium]

Another early conclusion Einstein made was that it was impossible to split the atom to release its energy.... he stated he was antiwar and pacifist, and yet ended up being critical to the development of atomic weaponry. He was an amazing man, but very confused at times, but an eccentric genius he was.

 

The very definition of the word "atom" presumes (or at least did, at that time)  that it, among other things, is indivisible.

 

Einstein truly was a pacifist, but he wasn't a damn fool.  He knew if the A-bomb was coming, we HAD to get it before Hitler did.

Edited July 10, 2018 by Moronium

[Moronium]

No doubt he was a great man, but his speciality was in relativity, he didn't grasp quantum mechanics as well as his collegues who created the theory, but isn't it always the case you understand your own better than others will?

 

 

I think most experts agree that Einstein "grasped" QM just as well as anybody.  He actually pioneered the whole field.

 

From wiki:

 

Einstein was the first physicist to say that Planck's discovery of the quantum (h) would require a rewriting of the laws of physics. To support his point, in 1905 he proposed that light sometimes acts as a particle which he called a light quantum (see photon and wave–particle duality). Bohr was one of the most vocal opponents of the photon idea and did not openly embrace it until 1925.

 

 

He just didn't agree with the Copenhagen interpretation, which, by some accounts, most physicists no longer accept either.  However, at that time, his peers judged that he had "lost" his debate with Heisenberg and Bohr on the subject.  The whole field had become rife with subjectivists, while Einstein had repudiated his earlier positivism and was then a realist, not a subjectivist.

 

Heisenberg pointed out to Einstein that he himself had kicked off the whole subjectivist trend with SR.  Einstein basically admitted as much, but said it was all nonsense just the same.

 

More from wiki

 

In his last writing on the topic, Einstein further refined his position, making it completely clear that what really disturbed him about the quantum theory was the problem of the total renunciation of all minimal standards of realism, even at the microscopic level, that the acceptance of the completeness of the theory implied. Although the majority of experts in the field agree that Einstein was wrong, the current understanding is still not complete. There is no scientific consensus that determinism [i.e. Einstein's position] would have been refuted.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bohr%E2%80%93Einstein_debates#Post-revolution:_Fourth_stage

Edited July 10, 2018 by Moronium

[A-wal]

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?

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?

You are such a braindead idiot.

 

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.

Neither can said to be moving while the other is at rest because that doesn't make sense. There is NOTHING to distinguish one from the other. Each one is in motion relative to the other so each one sees the other's clock running slowly. From the perspective of the one who stays inertial it's very simple, the one who changed frames ends up younger because of the time dilation on their clock while they were in relative motion.

 

From the perspective of the one who changes frames, the clock of the observer that remains inertial is running slower while they're in motion relative to each other but it ends up ahead of their own clock. That's because when they move back into their original frame (that the other observer has always been in) they're in a frame of reference in which they themselves were time dilated so it will be their watch that ends up behind, from their perspective they see the clock of the observer who stays inertial speeding up when they accelerate back into that frame.

 

From the perspective of the frame of reference of the observer who stays inertial I suppose you could claim it was the other object that was moving and therefore has experienced less time but that's an arbitrary choice of a coordinate system, although it's the simplest in this situation. But while they're in motion relative to each other neither has a case for being in motion or at rest, the one who stays inertial could accelerate into the new frame of the one who accelerated first and then it would be that frame that you could claim was at rest and that they started off in motion.

Edited July 10, 2018 by A-wal

[Moronium]

.But while they're in motion relative to each other neither has a case for being in motion or at rest...

 

 

Completely wrong, but what else is new?  So is virtually everything else in this post.

[Moronium]

 the vacuum simply drags them away faster, so long as this really is the case. 

 

Yeah, so? If I happen to be going down the road at top end of around 150 mph and then some hurricane-strength tailwind comes along and pushes me an additional 50 mph, I'm still going 200 mph, know what I'm sayin?

 

That's kinda where LR comes in handy too.  It doesn't have an absolute speed limit, so it doesn't get contradicted.

Edited July 10, 2018 by Moronium

[Moronium]

From the perspective of the frame of reference of the observer who stays inertial I suppose you could claim it was the other object that was moving 

 

We're talking about the twin paradox.  The whole thing presupposes that one (and only one) is moving.  You're TOLD that he goes to a distant star, and then back.  You don't have to guess about it, or be ignorant of it.  It's a given, ex hypothesis.

 

Now you just want to change the known facts.  Typical, sho nuff.

 

You put in a demand for that tuition refund yet?  If you're too damn lazy, I'll help you for 50%.  Whaddaya say!?

Edited July 10, 2018 by Moronium

[OceanBreeze]

Even though I liked your post, he's not entirely brain dead idiot. He does have a grasp of physics which two posters here I know of could only hope to grasp... but he does suffer from a strong dogmatism to his own set beliefs, rooted from a mixture of a hate and disdain for relativity but coupled with several misunderstandings.

 

One that always stuck in my mind, was the nature of the post - things can travel at superluminal speeds, because distant galaxies can. He seems to have read this in some popular buzzword article and had no idea of why the buzzwords did not violate relativity, simply because the galaxy is not moving at superluminal speeds in its local frame - the vacuum simply drags them away faster, so long as this really is the case. It's already predicted in Hubbles laws, that the more distant a galaxy, the faster it recedes but is only an illusion of the scale factor. I always wondered why that was never extended to eliminate this idea that only the outermost parts of the universe was now moving faster than light because of the vacuum, because then you need dark energy to try and explain why it even happens, when it could easily be the Hubble effect of galactic recession over varying distances.  

 

 

Yes, I agree that Moronium is very intelligent, far more intelligent that the person who constantly refers to him as an idiot!

[OceanBreeze]

When did you get that mech eng. because I have a few friends who were the same profession but admit their knowledge would out of date now. I think the argument is, is that education changes quick in that area because technology booms as a process. 

 

I make an effort to stay current. Anyway, enough about me, back to the topic at hand!

[OceanBreeze]

Wrong. A hurricane pushing me to a speed, really will result in me going at that speed, because, well, its a hurricane. Matter is not as fundamental as space itself, geometry flows, like a Ricci flow and in fact, the heat equation for a Riemannian manifold is the heat equation for the Ricci flow. In other words, geometry flows. Matter simply surfs the wave of the vacuum, it isn't moving faster than light locally in its frame of reference, can you get this into your head? Or do I need to apologize to A-wall and admit you are actually an idiot?

 

WTF? I think what Moronium wrote is actually in agreement with you.

 

The speed limit on everything in the Universe, including light, is only applicable locally, where locally does not include vast inter-galactic distances where the expansion of space itself becomes a factor. Even there, light still moves locally at c but adding in the rate of expansion of space means it is moving away from distant galaxies faster than c.

 

Taking M's example, say if you have a car that is limited by horsepower and gearing and transmission efficiency, whatever, to have an absolute top speed of 150 mph with respect to the road and there is no possible way the car can exceed that. But now the road itself turns out to be a conveyor belt moving at an additional 50 mph in the same direction as the car is going. Obviously, and you will agree, the car is moving at 200 mph with respect to anything that is stationary with respect to the road before it started moving. The car has not violated the “law” that it can only do 150 mph with respect to the road.

 

In the same way, if a distant galaxy is exceeding the speed of light, with respect to our galaxy, due to expansion of inter-galactic space, there is no violation of the Universe’s speed limit of c.

 

But I am sure you all understand this, so sorry about the lengthy explanation.

[OceanBreeze]

And no, you are wrong, the speed of light is not only applicable to local conditions. 

 

If by local conditions you mean an atmosphere or anything other than a vacuum, I agree. But that is so obvious that I did not feel the need to mention it.

[Moronium]

Ernest Rutherford, was a British physicist and Nobel laureate who came to be known as the father of nuclear physics. Encyclopædia Britannica considers him to be the greatest experimentalist since Michael Faraday (1791–1867).  After his death in 1937, he was honored by being interred with the greatest scientists of the United Kingdom, near Sir Isaac Newton's tomb in Westminster Abbey.

 

With regard to GR, he said: "The theory of general relativity by Einstein, quite apart from any question of its validity, cannot but be regarded as a magnificent work of art."

 

But SR was a whole different story. With respect to that he said:  "No Anglo-Saxon can understand special relativity, they have too much sense."

 

Ernst wasn't no chump.

Edited July 10, 2018 by Moronium

[OceanBreeze]

Ernest Rutherford, was a British physicist and Nobel laureate who came to be known as the father of nuclear physics. Encyclopædia Britannica considers him to be the greatest experimentalist since Michael Faraday (1791–1867).  After his death in 1937, he was honored by being interred with the greatest scientists of the United Kingdom, near Sir Isaac Newton's tomb in Westminster Abbey.

 

With regard to GR, he said: "The theory of general relativity by Einstein, quite apart from any question of its validity, cannot but be regarded as a magnificent work of art."

 

But SR was a whole different story. With respect to that he said:  "No Anglo-Saxon can understand relativity, they have too much sense."

 

Ernst wasn't no chump.

 

Your knowledge of the History of science is impressive, as well as entertaining, that's why I like your posts.

[Moronium]

If two objects are moving relative to each other, then they are.  It is a complete artifice to say that neither is moving at all, but the space between them is expanding.  Either way, they're moving relative to each other.  But that aint the main point.

 

The main point is that such a stance completely obliterates any intelligible meaning of "motion."  That's just a bogus explanation invented ad hoc to save SR when we starting getting superluminal doppler readings.

[Moronium]

Just because we measure something moving faster than light, must mean we are in the wrong frame of reference since it violates relativity. 

 

And you want to call me dogmatic?  It doesn't violate relativity.  But you can't even begin to conceive otherwise because you're too thoroughly indoctrinated to think relativity can mean anything other than SR.

[Moronium]

From John Baez's website:

Those who argue that distant measurements are all about coordinates and make no physical sense will have a problem with the fact that GPS works.  This is because they will probably say that it makes no sense to talk about time running more quickly onboard a GPS satellite compared to time's flow on Earth, because, they will argue, "it's all about coordinates only—it's not real".  But time certainly does run more quickly onboard a GPS satellite.

 

If you're fixed to the ceiling, you measure light that is right next to you to travel at c.  And if you're fixed to the floor, you measure light that is right next to you to travel at c.  But if you are on the floor, you maintain that light travels faster than c near the ceiling.  And if you're on the ceiling, you maintain that light travels slower than c near the floor.

 

 

http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/SpeedOfLight/speed_of_light.html

 

So there ya go then.  Gravitational dilation is absolute, so you got faster than light travel, right there (not to even mention a variable speed of light).

 

I'm on the floor. I see light in my frame (on the floor) going c, but it's going faster (ahem, that would mean faster than c) in an absolute sense, on the ceiling.

 

Is that local enough for you---floor versus ceiling in the same damn room?

 

Those two paragraphs aren't really related, btw, I just threw them in together because they were both on the same page.  Then again, they are kinda related if you just want to talk about "frames of reference" 24/7, combined with what's really happening and what "makes sense."

Edited July 10, 2018 by Moronium

[Moronium]

... the biggest growing up concerns admitting when one is wrong.

 

I'll take your word on that.  You should surely know.

Edited July 10, 2018 by Moronium

[Moronium]

answer: The master has lost more times than the student has won. 

 

As between you and John Baez, who would be the master, ya figure?