Yes, You Can Go Faster Than Speed Of Light

[Moronium]

Other physicists, better than you (I know you think that's impossible, but....), CAN entertain alternative theories simultaneously.  Here's an example (one I've probably posted elsewhere at least twice elsewhere):

 

Test theories of special relativity give a mathematical framework for analyzing results of experiments to verify special relativity. An experiment to test the theory of relativity cannot assume the theory is true, and therefore needs some other framework of assumptions that are wider than those of relativity. For example, a test theory may have a different postulate about light concerning one-way speed of light vs. two-way speed of light, it may have a preferred frame of reference, and may violate Lorentz invariance in many different ways....

 

...A similar model was introduced by Reza Mansouri and Roman Ulrich Sexl (1977).[2][8][9] Contrary to Robertson, Mansouri–Sexl not only added additional parameters to the Lorentz transformation, but also discussed different synchronization schemes. The Poincaré–Einstein synchronization is only used in the preferred frame, while in relatively moving frames they used "external synchronization", i.e., the clock indications of the preferred frame are employed in those frames. Therefore, not only the two-way speed of light but also the one-way speed is anisotropic in moving frames.

 

...Mansouri and Sexl spoke about the "remarkable result that a theory maintaining absolute simultaneity is equivalent to special relativity."...They also noticed the similarity between this test theory and Lorentz ether theory of Hendrik Lorentz, Joseph Larmor and Henri Poincaré.

 

.

 

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

 

Can you understand what that is saying, Dubbo?

Edited July 16, 2018 by Moronium

[GAHD]

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.

Glad you dredged up experiments that reinforce what I said, though I would honestly be surprised if you find ones that didn't... Keep in mind the train thing too, since that kind of thought experiment has a couple interesting sub-steps you can take if you go relativistic. The force exerted on earth by a train accelerating to any significant fraction of C would indeed "move" the planet. Closer train was to C the closer earth would have to be too, which is a mind-bending concept that pans-out if energy isn't completely ignored for convenience instead of conservation... but that's just a funny digression used to make grad students frown and rethink their "mastery." :rofl: Try it some time, it's remarkable how fast "negligible" tuns into "this can't be right!" Especially for people who need to use matlab, They're always the best to stump with a cocktail napkin that tell them things in 8-12 lines matlab takes 12+ hours to spit out an answer for them to believe.

 

Frames are rather interesting things, you can be in one, inside another, inside another, inside another...and for the most part you can ignore all but the most local one. It's the weird little details that force you to recognize bigger ones. Often, those weird little details are "rounded off" for the same reason 0.999...(inf) = 1, convergence to the point of "triviality". Somewhat related thought: Planck length does offer some interesting points on that. Is there meaning in 9/10 of a planck? 99/100 of one? Depends on how many dimensions you're measuring I suppose, and how much they overlap, and how many of them you add together. Cantor would have gone sane again if he had to play with that one(oh wait, he did...). Would you even notice how much Sol alters your clocks between noon and midnight, or how much they just slow down over the Rockies? (GOCE if you want to look into it.) Degrees of certainty are such annoying things.

 

On a more prosaic note though: You might want to try and condense your thoughts into a single post, especially when replying to the same post multiple times. Makes it a headache for others you're conversing with, and who wants that?

[Moronium]

On a more prosaic note though: You might want to try and condense your thoughts into a single post, especially when replying to the same post multiple times. Makes it a headache for others you're conversing with, and who wants that?

 

 

As you can see, I'm failing to follow your suggestion right now, eh, GAHD?  There are two basic reasons why I don't generally do what you suggest:

 

1.  I don't know how.

2.  Even if I did I don't think I'd want to use it much.

 

Because, for one thing, I would rather focus on one thing at a time.  Maybe others find this distracting or confusing, but I don't. I do try to include the specific portion I responding to in the post doing the responding, to help alleviate that problem.  Given one post by another poster, I may want to response at length to several (or more) different points.  Given my long-winded proclivities, my response might soon be a mile long.

 

For another, I may wish to respond to different points raised in a different order than they are given.  Maybe it's just my lack of technical knowledge regarding "multi-quotes," or whatever you call them, but it's easier for me to just address them one at a time, in the order I'd like, for that reason also.

Edited July 16, 2018 by Moronium

[Moronium]

 Would you even notice how much Sol alters your clocks between noon and midnight

 

Yeah, things get interesting when you start trying to factor in compound motions, such as the fact that the earth both rotates AND revolves around the sun.  An object affixed to the earth's surface is travelling about 1,000 miles per hour faster at midnight than it is at noon, as I recall.  Trying to then also factor in the solar system's motion due to revolving around the Milky Way's barycenter and also it's (approx. 1,000,000 mph) speed toward the "great attractor" gets beyond my limited abilities to calculate.

Edited July 16, 2018 by Moronium

[Moronium]

I don't know who you are trying to insult here, it was I who educated you on absolute motion in the context of Machian relativity to which you had no clue.

 

I'm not trying to "insult" anyone, but with the super-defensive attitude you've displayed it doesn't surprise me that you think so.  If someone even asks you for your source you get angry and say your integrity has been challenged.

 

You mentioned "Mach's principle" in a meaningless way which I pointed out at the time, but you didn't "teach"me anything about absolute motion.  On the other hand, it was like pulling teeth to get you to understand and concede that gravitational dilation (and hence lightspeed) is absolute in GR.  You repeatedly denied it because you didn't understand the relevant concepts.

 

But that's neither here nor there. I was attempting to see if you had any serious intention of discussing the theory of SR (as opposed to just endlessly reciting it's premises as being "true").  I still haven't seen any indication that you are capable of discussing theoretical concepts. You seem far more interested in playing the phony role of being pre-eminent expert who knows all the "facts" and is gracious enough to try to inform the ignorant by dispensing the "truth."

[sluggo]

Moronium # 851;

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

 

----
Postulate 1. If the circumstance is the same for both, observing a clock moving relative to you, each must observe the same physical behavior, i.e. a slow running clock.
Your problem is still the same as before. Perception is reality confined to the mind. Each has their personal perception of events, BUT, perception does not influence the distant clock. Perception is the processing of images of the distant clock which is passive, looking at the clock does not affect it. That only happens if you are probing microscopic particles with light, as an example. You are confusing observations of an object with the behavior of the object.

[Moronium]

Sluggo, you say:

You are confusing observations of an object with the behavior of the object.

 

How in the world am I doing that?  That's what SR does, which is the primary reason it is objectionable.  At least you are able to make the distinction between the objective behavior of an object and the subjective perception of that behavior, Sluggo.  Few here seem to be able to make that distinction, so congrats.  But you say:

 

...each must observe the same physical behavior, i.e. a slow running clock.

 

 

 

This is where you go astray and miss the crucial point.  Nobody "sees" (observes) a slow running clock.   They conclude (not perceive) that it is "slow running" if, and only if, they assume that they themselves are the object which is "at rest."   Otherwise they conclude (again not perceive) that the other clock is "fast running." Can you agree with this?

 

The "physical behavior" is what is observed, not that the rate of the clock ticking is slower.  You see that the tick rate is "different" than your clock, but that doesn't prove it's "slower."  So here you are committing the very error which you say I am committing, i.e. "confusing observations of an object with the behavior of the object."  Can you see that?

Edited July 17, 2018 by Moronium

[Moronium]

You're such a pompous blowhard, Dubbo.  Instead of making long-winded assertions of your superiority and self-declared victory, would you care to address the post I just made to Sluggo (#871)?

 

Do you even understand the questions being raised there?

 

It's a subordinate theoretical question which could lead to answering the question of why a Harvard physics professor who wrote a textbook on physics would say this:

 

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

 

 

Do you even understand that question?

 

Needless to say, you also completely ignored (as is usual) this question, which I directly asked you in post 864. 

https://en.wikipedia...cial_relativity

 

Can you understand what that is saying, Dubbo?

 

Do you have anything of substance to say on these topics?  Anything other than rhetorical claims or your own expertise?  How about the expertise of Sexl and Mansouri?

Edited July 17, 2018 by Moronium

[Moronium]

Just answer the damn question, eh, Dubbo?  The one(s) I just asked in post #876, that is.

[Moronium]

No. You don't deserve it. I stuck up for you when people wanted you banned, I wish I hadn't now. 

 

 

Nothing of substance to add, eh?  Exactly what I thought.

 

Nor does it surprise me in the least that you would demand that someone who calls your sorry bluff be banned. 

Edited July 17, 2018 by Moronium

[Moronium]

To repeat myself;

 

Just answer the damn question, eh, Dubbo?  The one(s) I just asked in post #876, that is.

 

[Moronium]

 I warn anyone, that if they spend time here speaking with him...you will become moot and meaningless to me. Do not give this man any time..

 

 

 

Well, there y'all have it then, eh?  Ya done been warned!  Obey the command or suffer the absolutely unbearable consequences.

[Super Polymath]

This thread wreaks of Moron

[Shustaire]

This thread wreaks of Moron

 

couldn't agree more with that sentiment 53 pages of absolute useless.

 

Total waste of space and a clear indicator of the uselessness of metaphysics when improperly applied.

 

Ie you should at the very least understand the model including the math before applying metaphysics to it.

Edited July 18, 2018 by Shustaire

[Moronium]

 

you should at the very least understand the model including the math before applying metaphysics to it.

 

One should understand the nature of a scientific theory, the concepts underlying it, and the physical (not mathematical) implications of those concepts before EVER thinking about quantifying them.  From what I've seen, you have not done that with SR.  Quantification can never add to the apprehension of a theory without that pre-existing basis.  On the contrary, it generally gives one a wholly misplaced sense of "understanding."  You have it exactly backwards: The "metaphysics," as you call it, must necessarily precede the formulation of the "model" and its implications, whether mathematical or physical, not vice versa.

 

Like Dubbo, you just make hollow, meaningless general assertions without even trying to address any of the "metaphysical" issues raised.  Perhaps you would like to answer some of the questions which he can't, because he lacks the necessary understanding, eh?  Such as:

 

Just answer the damn question, eh, Dubbo?  The one(s) I just asked in post #876, that is

 

 

Don't even bother, though, if you think either the questions, or the answers, are mathematical ones.  An internally-consistent mathematical scheme can be established to "prove" the most absurd premises.

Edited July 18, 2018 by Moronium

[OceanBreeze]

I do, officially give up on you. And I warn anyone, that if they spend time here speaking with him, over experimehtally varified facts, you will become moot and meaningless to me. Do not give this man any time, I was very nice to him. I tried one last CHANCE, and he refused and required that I answer his question.

 

 

This man is a fraud of intelligent thinking. Just like Trump, the fake president. 

 

WTF? Are you actually Warning people here about where they post or whom they choose to reply to?

 

That is Hilarious! 

 

 

No. You don't deserve it. I stuck up for you when people wanted you banned, I wish I hadn't now. 

 

 

And this is even more hilarious, coming from someone who has been banned from yet another science forum. For denying relativity, of all things!

 

Dubbelosix 

Banned

 

 

If I were you, I would get off of that high horse. Maybe, just maybe, the rest of the world isn't wrong. It might be you!

[Moronium]

Look out, Popeye!  Your days here are now numbered.  You're now an object of "interest" to Dubbo!  The banning is now inevitable.

 

 

I mean it Ocean, as I stated to Moronium, you'll become a bit of an interest to me if you start insulting my integrity. 

 

How does someone "insult his integrity?"  By pointing out that he's wrong, that's how.

 

Ya done went and done it, now, sho nuff!