Yes, You Can Go Faster Than Speed Of Light

[Moronium]

This whole exchange about floor/ceiling light speed in GR is actually a good springboard for a further analysis of SR.

 

Well, but it's [sR's postulate] since been proven to be a fact, right?  NO!  Absolutely not, as any theoretical physicist worth his salt will tell you.

 

I want to point out that I said "theoretical physicist" here, not simply "physicist."

 

The vast majority of practicing physicists are experimental physicists, not theoretical physicists.  With this class, many of them will also naively say the postulate is a proven fact.  That's because they were primarily taught equations, not the significance of the assumptions underlying the equations which they are executing are based on.  

 

Experimental physicists (and people with a physics education but who ended up working in other fields) are notoriously naive in the area of the philosophy of science. This is one of the dangers and drawbacks to relying on "just the math."

 

As soon as you get to the point of "working out" the result of a particular situation by mechanically running numbers through the LT formulas, you are far past the assumptions which generated those formulas in the first place.  If you're using SR's version of the LT, then you have already concluded that the assumptions of SR are correct, and the equations you use will simply reflect that.

Edited July 11, 2018 by Moronium

[Moronium]

A college professor could personally disbelieve the postulates of SR and still teach it quite competently and without any self-contradiction.  It's simply a matter of pointing out the implications of two postulates.  That's just a matter of impersonal logic, which has nothing whatsoever to do with whether or not your assumptions are sound.  For example, if you say that:

 

1. All grass is blue and

2. This specimen is a piece of grass..

 

Then without hesitation or compunction I will tell you that the premises imply that "this specimen is blue."  That doesn't mean I believe that all grass is blue.  That wasn't the question.  The question was simply what's the logical implication of the premises?

 

If I were a professor teaching SR, I would start out by saying something like: "These are the two postulates of SR.  You are free to accept them as "true" or not, that's your choice.  But I'm not being paid to teach you what that choice should be. I'm here to teach you what those two postulates entail in a primarily mathematical fashion, that's all.  Now, let's get started...."

 

Here's the way David Morin, a Harvard professor of physics who wrote a textbook on the topic, put it:

 

We’ll start with the speed-of-light postulate:

 

• The speed of light has the same value in any inertial frame.

 

I don’t claim that this statement is obvious, or even believable. But I do claim that it’s easy
to understand what the statement says (even if you think it’s too silly to be true).

 

 

http://www.people.fas.harvard.edu/~djmorin/chap11.pdf

 

You can certainly sense that perhaps he doesn't invest full faith and credit in SR's postulates, eh?

Edited July 11, 2018 by Moronium

[A-wal]

Even though I liked your post, he's not entirely brain dead idiot.

Not dead no. On life support struggling to breath.

 

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

Fine argument. See, idiot.

 

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!?

:) Wow. The twin paradox doesn't say that only one is moving, because that makes absolutely no sense. Even if a preferred frame did make sense those two objects would still be in motion relative to each other, one can't be static relative to the other while the other is in motion relative to the other, obviously (to anyone who's not a total idiot).

 

If there were a preferred frame (there isn't because there's nothing that could define one and the fact that the rate of time dilation isn't affected by direction of motion completely disproves it) they would still have to be in motion relative to each other, but one could be in motion relative to the preferred frame while the other isn't.

[Super Polymath]

Look Moron! I think I can speak for everyone when I say I'm sick of your *****. Just drop it!!

[Moronium]

Look Moron! I think I can speak for everyone when I say I'm sick of your *****. Just drop it!!

 

Do us a favor and keep a barf-bag handy, eh, Polly?  I wouldn't want to see you hurlin chunks all over the damn forum, know what I'm sayin?

Edited July 11, 2018 by Moronium

[Super Polymath]

Do us a favor and keep a barf-bag handy, eh, Polly?  I wouldn't want to see you hurlin chunks all over the damn forum, know what I'm sayin?

[Super Polymath]

"Some men, ya jus' kaint  reach!"

[Moronium]

To put it as briefly as possible, anyone who truly believes a train moving on stationary tracks is Exactly the same as the tracks and the entire planet, moving under the stationary train, is either insane or hasn’t studied much physics or a combination of both.

 

Now, after saying all that, I agree with Einstein that the principle of relative motion is a useful one, as long as it is not taken to insane extremes. Believe me, in my field of engineering I have met more than my share of nutcases who believe in such extremes and they are frankly dangerous people to be around.

 

As I've said before (without response from you), Popeye, I think you under-estimate the catastrophic consequences for SR if Einstein conceded this point.  You seem to think it's OK to pick and choose by rejecting SR when you realize it's physically non-sensical, but affirming it when you don't see any apparent contradictions.  But it's really an all-or-nothing proposition with SR.

 

The question about movement between two objects is crucial to the "no preferred frames" bait and switch, the supposed relativity of simultaneity, the issue of reciprocal time dilation (since motion controls that), and beyond.

 

I have pointed out that rejecting the viewpoint that, as between the two, the train is not moving and the earth is, destroys SR as a theory, but you don't seem to agree..

 

I recently quoted you Einstein's own words about the logical impossibility of each of two clocks running slower than the other, but I get the impression that you still think it's possible.

 

While I still have this Harvard physics prof's paper open, I'll cite what he said about reciprocal time dilation:

 

One might view the statement, “A sees B’s clock running slow, and also B sees A’s clock running slow,” as somewhat unsettling. But in fact, it would be a complete disaster for the theory if A and B viewed each other in different ways. A critical fact in the theory of relativity is that A sees B in exactly the same way that B sees A.

 

 

http://www.people.fas.harvard.edu/~djmorin/chap11.pdf

 

Why would it be a COMPLETE DISASTER for SR if time dilation was not purportedly reciprocal?  Why do you think he says that?

 

Of course there's nothing inherently contradictory is saying 2 people "see" things differently, but it is a contradiction to say reciprocal time dilation "really happens."

Edited July 12, 2018 by Moronium

[OceanBreeze]

Yes, I know what you have said before, and I have responded before.

 

To some people, relative motion between two objects is an all or nothing proposition, but that is not how I see it. In fact, I don’t believe that is the way that Einstein saw it. He saw it as a useful principle, and indeed it is but it can be taken to extremes. I gave an example with the train where the principle of relative motion was taken to an extreme where it conflicted with the second law of thermodynamics.

 

I am not going to repeat all of that here. I will just say that it helps to have a knowledge of physics AND have some common sense in applying that knowledge.

 

This has been an interesting discussion, but I have had enough of it, as it is leading nowhere. I am out of it.

[Moronium]

Keep in mind: if you add up all the values, the train CAN be going net-slower than the tracks in an absolute reference frame, all it needs to do is "accelerate" against it's net-vector relative to the other body.

 

You're right about this, of course.  The H-K experiment showed this.  With respect to the "stationary" clock at the Naval Station, the clock flying east moved faster and showed less time elapsed, while the clock flying west  moved slower and hence more time elapsed on that clock.

 

Applying SR would suggest that the time difference would be equal, since their respective speeds relative to the "stationary" clock were identical.

 

But they were not moving equally relative to the preferred frame (the ECI), which had to be used in order to apply the theoretical structure required to predict (more like postdict, really) and explain the data.

 

Within the framework of that (preferred frame) theory, the faster the clock moved, the more it slowed down, as predicted by the LT.

 

As previously noted, SR always uses a preferred frame too.  It's the frame YOU are in, which is hypothesized to be "stationary."  But the wrong preferred frame is being used in SR because the motion involved is absolute, not relative.

Edited July 15, 2018 by Moronium

[Moronium]

Keep in mind: if you add up all the values, the train CAN be going net-slower than the tracks in an absolute reference frame, all it needs to do is "accelerate" against it's net-vector relative to the other body.

 

 

 

But all that is really unrelated to the question of which of two objects is moving relative to the other.  According to SR, this can never be discovered, which is obviously an ill-taken proposition.  The west bound clock is the one moving with respect to the earth clock.  Same with the east bound clock.  Both had to be accelerated, relative to the earth, an accomplishment which requires work and energy.

 

We can "know" that the earth is orbiting the sun, rather than vice versa, without any need of knowing their "absolute" speeds.  Galileo made this clear.  Yet SR tries to claim that Galileo said the opposite.

 

Go figure, eh?

Edited July 15, 2018 by Moronium

[Moronium]

To some people, relative motion between two objects is an all or nothing proposition, but that is not how I see it. In fact, I don’t believe that is the way that Einstein saw it. He saw it as a useful principle, and indeed it is but it can be taken to extremes. I gave an example with the train where the principle of relative motion was taken to an extreme where it conflicted with the second law of thermodynamics.

 

 

Well, no one claimed that the concept of "relative motion" couldn't be "useful." But I had asked you a different question, to wit:

 

Why would it be a COMPLETE DISASTER for SR if time dilation was not purportedly reciprocal?  Why do you think he says that?

 

 

If you don't want to try to answer that, fair enough.  Your choice.  

 

This has been an interesting discussion, but I have had enough of it, as it is leading nowhere. I am out of it.

 

 

It will lead nowhere beyond the point that you want it to.  Again, fair enough.  Whatever you're comfortable with.  If you do care to think about it further, and have an answer to the question, let me know.  If not, that's cool, too.

Edited July 15, 2018 by Moronium

[Moronium]

I'm curious if you have an opinion on the question I asked you a while back, Dubbo:

 

 

Since you mentioned light clocks, Dubbo, let me ask you a related question. And anyone else who may care to answer.

 

Here's the scenario. 

 

1. I'm hanging out down on the corner, guzzling a 40,  with a light clock next to me.  It's going straight up and down, OK?

 

2.  I spot a guy overhead who also has a light clock next to him. It looks "slanted," as you say, to me.

 

3.  Presumably, my clock looks slanted to him and his clock is going straight up and down for him, OK?  With me so far?

 

4.  I conclude that I'm stationary and that he's moving, and that therefore his clock is running slower than mine.

 

Here's the question:

 

How would it look the least bit different (to me) from what it already does if I were the one moving?

 

Would it look different?

 

I mean, obviously, if I were the one moving and I therefore thought his clock was running fast compared to mine, then I would be right.  If I was the one moving, but insisted I wasn't, then I would be wrong, and I would think his clock was running slow compared to mine when it wasn't.

 

So there IS a difference, to be sure, but that's not what I'm asking.

Edited July 15, 2018 by Moronium

[Moronium]

I'm curious if you have an opinion on the question I asked you a while back, Dubbo:

 

Still not willing to hazard a guess, Dubbo?

 

I guess I'll have to answer my own question:  It wouldn't look the least bit different.

 

So, the real question here is:  What justification do I have for this conclusion?:

 

4.  I conclude that I'm stationary and that he's moving, and that therefore his clock is running slower than mine

 

.

Whatever justification I may have, if any, isn't based on what I "see."

 

So why do SR adherents always claim that I "see" the other clock running slow?

 

Because they're told to, by SR. 

 

And why do they act like that claim is indisputable?

 

Can anyone answer THAT question?

[Moronium]

Not because they are told so per se, Einstein never told the universe to run like this, all his equations do is attempt to explain phenomenon in an experimentally-varifiable way. You have an insipid hate for the foundations of relativity, most specifically, that you can see whose clock runs slower.... when you actually compare clocks. I don't know why this is such a strange concept for you, we've demonstrated this phenomenon, both gravitationally and those contributions to high velocities in space. It happens, simple as that. 

 

Heh, you clearly don't understand a word I've said.

 

Yes, SR says you MUST consider yourself to be stationary.  It does claim that clock retardation is reciprocal--well, except tor when it doesn't, and is forced to say it isn't, like in the twin paradox.

 

Yes, as a theoretical matter, Einstein DID tell the universe to "run like this," but that doesn't mean it's true. You still can't discern the difference between theory and fact.

 

"Relative simultaneity" is simply another implication from postulatation which has no necessary bearing on reality.  Other theories, superior theories, really, posit absolute simultaneity, and deny this claim of yours:  "you can never actually agree when an event happens (ie. simulteneity) when comparing a relativistically-moving observer to someone at rest watching from a distance." Again, you can't even see why that proposition is a matter of theory, not fact.

Edited July 16, 2018 by Moronium

[Moronium]

 you may be able to come to agree whose clock went a bit slower 

 

Not "may," but can and do, as repeated experiments have shown.   And it's not a matter of subjective "agreement."  It's a matter of empirical fact. That means that motion is absolute, not relative, but you can't even understand that implication, let alone understand why it is the case.

[Moronium]

Dubbo, you just seem to be incapable of discussing theories at the level they have to be discussed, i.e., the theoretical level.  You're incapable of comparing and contrasting alternative theories, because you assume that one particular theory is indisputably true. Then, from that point on, all you want to do is make assertions about what's "indubitably true."

 

The "reasoning," such as it is, is strictly circular.

 

Try this for a test.  Assume that the speed of light is NOT the same in all inertial frames.  Just hypothetically.  What would that entail? 

 

So far, all I've seen from you in response is the claim that it IS the same in all inertial frames, damn it, and you can't get past that.  But that is just a postulate of SR, not a proven fact.  You can't, don't, and won't even try to work out the implications of an alternate theory.  You can't consider, even hypothetically, any other proposition.  You don't seem capable of critically analyzing fundamental assumptions.

Edited July 16, 2018 by Moronium