Yes, You Can Go Faster Than Speed Of Light

[Moronium]

I have been banned four times, because I refuse to be spoken to on uneven terms. As I have always said, if you can't get back as good as you give, don't bother. All four bannings were down to me and my response to posters there.. 

 

http://www.scienceforums.com/topic/34394-new-equivalence-principles/?p=362123

 

Banned four times, eh?  All on account of insulting other posters, eh?

 

Like, whooda thunk, I ax ya?

Edited July 18, 2018 by Moronium

[Moronium]

How many times did I try and speak on level terms with you, even tried to help you understand...

 

.

 

What a joke.  You refuse to make any kind of substantive contribution or answer any questions.  You just pontificate without any rational argument whatsoever.  You deal in dogmatic pronouncements, and that's it.

 

You made it clear that your so-called "olive-branch" was strictly conditioned upon agreeing with anything and everything you said.

 

No, thanks.  Homey don't play dat.  If I was looking for an infallible "teacher" I would at least choose one who knew what he was talking about, know what I'm sayin?

Edited July 18, 2018 by Moronium

[Moronium]

You did at one  point refuse to agree with a poster who was encouraging you to "run me off," I'll give you that.  But, all the same, shortly thereafter you said this:

 

If you are incapable of listening, maybe your threads should be closed? I would advise not to open any more on the same subject though.

 

 

That was months ago.

 

It does not, strictly speaking, call for me to be banned.  Just that my thread be closed and no more allowed.

 

But the same old demand was there:  "Listen to"  (i.e. agree with)  you or get out (be censored by the admins).

Edited July 19, 2018 by Moronium

[Moronium]

**** off you moronic piece of... 

 

it was Ocean, I remember the debate. You are actually calling me liar. Let's see if Ocean is man enough to admit their own desires. 

 

Who was Ocean?  The guy who was encouraging you to try to run me off was Exchem, not Popeye.

 

Popeye at one point said he was sorry he had encouraged me because he thought I had an agenda (or something like that). Perhaps you are claiming that he was talking to you in private, but I NEVER saw him suggest that I be banned.  I'm also confident that's it not something that a person with his integrity and intelligence would do.  He's not too weak to tolerate dissent or disagreement, like way too many are these days.

 

Once again:  Do you have a cite showing that the words you are imputing to him are accurate?

 

I didn't think so. 

Edited July 19, 2018 by Moronium

[Moronium]

Popeye at one point said he was sorry he had encouraged me because he thought I had an agenda (or something like that).

 

 

As I have stated more than once, I do have an agenda, of sorts.  But it is a philosophical one, "metaphysical," you might say.

 

I don't dispute that SR is internally consistent, mathematically. I would have no objection to it of much significance if its adherents merely took the position that it was a useful mathematical tool without any necessary relationship to objective reality.

 

But they don't do that.  They try to claim that it is "true" and then invent all kinds of specious and sophistic arguments in an attempt to support its supposed "truth."  It makes any number of illogical claims, all while selectively adopting, then rejecting, its own premises in the process. These sophistries are designed to induce one to reject any meaningful notion of "reality." For SR, there is no reality "out there."  All truth is subjective, and what a person "thinks," however irrationally, is deemed to be "true."

 

This is simply bad practice, in science or anywhere else, but many let themselves get bamboozled by this crap.

 

Fundamentally, SR is subjective, and presupposes that there is no objective reality.  Once you start down that road, all reason, all standards, all criteria for evaluating claims from the perspective of rationality go out the window.

 

Solipsism then reigns as the implicit ontology.  That's what I oppose.   

Edited July 19, 2018 by Moronium

[Moronium]

I really can't be bothered, but if it was exchem, then I apologise to you both... 

 

 

Truth be told, I'm shocked that you were willing to apologize.  Pleasantly surprised.  Speaking for myself, I accept your apology.

[Moronium]

I don't dispute that SR is internally consistent, mathematically. I would have no objection to it of much significance if its adherents merely took the position that it was a useful mathematical tool without any necessary relationship to objective reality.  

 

 

This is what Lorentz did with what he called "local time," which he also invented.  For him it was strictly a mathematical fiction which served as a useful shortcut when doing calculations. Local time was simply an artifact of mismeasurement by one who was ignorant of, or ignored, his own motion, and could not in any way reflect "reality" or "truth."

 

Einstein attempted to turn this fiction into reality.  He decided to claim that Lorentz's "local time" was "true time."  This was later re-dubbed as "proper time," to make it sound, well, you know, "proper."  And that's where all the inconsistencies started. Thereafter the absurdities and paradoxes generated just kept multiplying.

Edited July 19, 2018 by Moronium

[OceanBreeze]

I really can't be bothered, but if it was exchem, then I apologise to you both... but for different reasons. I apologise to you for making error if that is the case, but I implore you to remember the moral of this story, before you make any more enemies. And maybe what has become between us, may change but it actually depends on you, not whether i get the person in question wrong. 

 

Well, I don't accept this apology. This is the second time that Dubbelosix has confused me with exchemist and this time I have reported his post which accuses me of conspiring to get Moronium banned. I have never suggested any such thing and in fact have consistently defended Moronium's right to post his ideas here. On the other hand, making false accusations and being annoying to other members, as Dubbelosix is now doing, IS a clear rules violation and I hope the moderators here take some action. There is a good reason why Dubbelosix has been banned from several other science forums, multiple times. Maybe the mods here should take that into account when considering this case?

[OceanBreeze]

**** off you moronic piece of... 

 

it was Ocean, I remember the debate. You are actually calling me liar. Let's see if Ocean is man enough to admit their own desires. 

 

I am man enough to call you out on your LIE.

[OceanBreeze]

You are a lying unbalanced POS.

 

The mods will have a chance to check your LIE.

Edited July 19, 2018 by OceanBreeze

[Vmedvil2]

This is what Lorentz did with what he called "local time," which he also invented.  For him it was strictly a mathematical fiction which served as a useful shortcut when doing calculations. Local time was simply an artifact of mismeasurement by one who was ignorant of, or ignored, his own motion, and could not in any way reflect "reality" or "truth."

 

Einstein attempted to turn this fiction into reality.  He decided to claim that Lorentz's "local time" was "true time."  This was later re-dubbed as "proper time," to make it sound, well, you know, "proper."  And that's where all the inconsistencies started. Thereafter the absurdities and paradoxes generated just kept multiplying.

 

That is not true proper time was invented because the movement of objects slowed down time, it was found that Lorrentz was correct is what made this time the dominate time to use, not the fact that it just popped into existence as correct, This had to go through the scientific method like anything else.  It has since that time always be found to be a better theory because time actually does slow down which can be found by taking a moving atomic clock versus one at rest. This can be found to happen in airplanes or satellite atomic clocks lorrentz and Einstein where proven to be correct in this much like any other scientific theory otherwise it would have been thrown away long ago. 

 

The article below proves it to be correct and still a correct theory of time.

 

https://www.newscientist.com/article/mg23331184-900-atomic-clocks-make-best-measurement-yet-of-relativity-of-time/

Edited July 19, 2018 by VictorMedvil

[Moronium]

**** off you moronic piece of... 

 

it was Ocean, I remember the debate. You are actually calling me liar. Let's see if Ocean is man enough to admit their own desires. 

 

I pointed out that you were mistaken.  Fragile being that you are, you said this was tantamount to calling you a liar, which it aint.  But, since that's your definition, you should have no problem with Popeye applying it to you.

[Moronium]

That is not true proper time was invented because the movement of objects slowed down time, it was found that Lorrentz was correct is what made this time the dominate time to use, not the fact that it just popped into existence as correct, This had to go through the scientific method like anything else.  It has since that time always be found to be a better theory because time actually does slow down which can be found by taking a moving atomic clock versus one at rest. This can be found to happen in airplanes or satellite atomic clocks lorrentz and Einstein where proven to be correct in this much like any other scientific theory otherwise it would have been thrown away long ago. 

 

The article below proves it to be correct and still a correct theory of time.

 

https://www.newscientist.com/article/mg23331184-900-atomic-clocks-make-best-measurement-yet-of-relativity-of-time/

 

1.  You have it exactly backwards, Vic.  As I have pointed out several times, the notion that local time is "true time" should serve to dispense with the lorentz transforms--which imply a mismeasurement of time.  After Minkowski came along, that was precisely the theoretical tact taken--i.e., to deny that the LT were real and claim instead that they were illusory.  This erroneous view prevailed for decades until it was experimentally shown that time dilation was a real phenomenon, not an illusory one.  Then theoreticians like Bondi and Robertson had to quickly "revise" the theory.  All they did was take it back to Einstein's 1905 view.  But then, the inconsistency returned., i.e., local time can't be said to be "true time" if it is deemed to be distorted time (as the LT presuppose).

 

2.  I have dealt with the article you've cited here at some length in other posts.  I'll see if I can find them.  Suffice it to say that this very experiment REJECTED the premises of SR and instead adopted a preferred frame theory to accurately measure the lorentz transforms.  So the representations of the authors here are misleading.

Edited July 19, 2018 by Moronium

[Moronium]

2.  I have dealt with the article you've cited here at some length in other posts.  I'll see if I can find them.  

 

 

I should have said that I have addressed the experiment, not this particular article.  Rather than try to track it down, I'll summarize.  Under the premises of SR there would be NO difference in clock rates in different cities.  Why not?  Because, according to SR, motion, and hence time dilation, is relative, and two cities never move relative to each other.

 

However this experiment detected a difference, and measured it very precisely.  That finding contradicts SR.  They used the ECI as a preferred frame to measure the absolute (not relative) motion of the clocks in different cities, and confirmed that preferred frame theory (not SR).  Just one more strike against SR as a valid theory, insofar as it pertains to "reality."

 

As I have also repeatedly pointed out, the GPS also eschews SR and adopts the ECI as a preferred frame in order to achieve accurate results.

Edited July 19, 2018 by Moronium

[Moronium]

But I also said, dont forget the moral of the story... do you know the moral at all?

 

 

No, I've forgotten already.  Remind me.  What's the "moral" supposed to be?

[Moronium]

The moral is, my forgetful friend, do not forget who stuck up for you when others wanted to oust you. It's similar to the concept of do not bite the hand that feeds. If you give people reason to put their backs to you after such magnanimous, yet under-appreciated attempts of others, then no one, not just me will not want to talk to you. You may be able to spend the rest of your days talking to Ocean, but I am sure you would agree that would be pretty boring. 

 

I haven't forgotten what you said about closing my threads, either.

 

Look, I'm just trying to discuss issues honestly.  I'm not trying to form "allegiances" and then shape my answers accordingly.  I'll just say what I think, and anyone who wants to agree can, and anyone who wants to disagree can.  Any such responses shouldn't be based on who you're "friendly" with, as I see it.

 

If I think you're wrong, I'll say so (and I have).  If I think you're right, I'll say so (and I have).  I'm not "attacking" anyone just because I may happen to disagree with them.  That includes you.

 

Fair enough?

[Moronium]

For instance, the sole purpose of your idea's of faster than light moving systems are experimentally validated by the the outermost parts of our observable universe in which it is accelerating faster than light... but this isn't true, it is in fact the vacuum moving at those speeds. The matter is simply being dragged along so is not a true independent parameter of the actual velocity of the system. 

 

That's one interpretation, but not one I'm quick to accept.  There are others, held by respected physicists, which I've already mentioned and which are also possible.

 

One such alternative is to use the CMB as a preferred frame.  Doing so oliberates the SR postulate that c cannot be exceeded.

 

 

There are many galaxies visible in telescopes with red shift numbers of 1.4 or higher. All of these are currently traveling away from us at speeds greater than the speed of light. Because the Hubble parameter is decreasing with time, there can actually be cases where a galaxy that is receding from us faster than light does manage to emit a signal which reaches us eventually....

 

Rules that apply to relative velocities in special relativity, such as the rule that relative velocities cannot increase past the speed of light, do not apply to relative velocities in comoving coordinates..in general relativity, velocity is a local notion, so velocity calculated using comoving coordinates does not have any simple relation to velocity calculated locally.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Faster-than-light

Here a "co-moving" coordinate is a frame which is at rest relative to the CMB (the so-called "cosmic rest frame").  

 

But I make no pretense to "knowing the answer" to such questions. Unlike you I don't pretend to have the "facts" and possess the "truth," as you do.  You say, for example:

 

...but this isn't true, it is in fact...

 

 

 

And, frankly, I think it is very naive and unscientific of you to even make such claims, especially about such obscure matters which are fraught with so many uncertainties.

Edited July 19, 2018 by Moronium