Yes, You Can Go Faster Than Speed Of Light

[Moronium]

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

  

As I have noted before, this is the prevailing theory of motion (a PFT) used in cosmology, and has been for decades:

 

This would seem to violate the postulates of Galilean and Special Relativity but there is a preferred frame in which the expansion of the Universe looks most simple. That frame is the average rest frame of the matter and CMB and from that frame the expansion is essentially isotropic....This is good evidence that Galileo is right - the Earth does go around the Sun....The CMB is then the standard frame of reference for cosmology work.

 

 

http://aether.lbl.gov/www/projects/u2/

 

"the Earth does go around the Sun"--that is a claim that motion is absolute, not relative as SR would have it.

Edited July 19, 2018 by Moronium

[Moronium]

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.

 

I don't like the "nothing's actually moving, space is just expanding" explanation for at least two reasons:

 

1.  I view it as a strictly ad hoc revision devised for the sole reason of "saving" the SR postulate of light being the maximum attainable speed.  Apart from being artificial, I'm not inclined to think there's anything worth "saving" to begin with.  Approaching the problem from the theoretical perspective of a preferred frame theory eliminates this postulate, so there's nothing to "save" in that view.

 

2.  It utterly wrecks the whole concept of motion, in a nonsensical way.  You could take the absurd view that NOTHING ever moves and that motion is just an illusion.  Under that line of reasoning, why not claim I don't move at all if I drive from NY to LA, for example, but rather that the space between my car and LA just shrunk, that's all.

 

There are a lot of different suggestions for explaining the apparent ftl speed.  A simple one involves no dark energy, no esoteric particles, no multiverses, and just one simple, well-known concept:  Motion.  Good arguments have been made that the expansion of universe is merely a deceptive appearance caused by our peculiar motion, which is not comoving with the Hubble flow, and that the expansion is actually decelerating, :

 

Peculiar motions, accelerated expansion and the cosmological axis

 

Peculiar velocities change the expansion rate of any observer moving relative to the smooth Hubble flow. As a result, observers in a galaxy like our Milky Way can experience accelerated expansion within a globally decelerating universe, even when the drift velocities are small. The effect is local, but the affected scales can be large enough to give the false impression that the whole cosmos has recently entered an accelerating phase. This implies that observers experiencing locally accelerated expansion, as a result of their own drift motion, may also find that the acceleration is maximised in one direction and minimised in the opposite.

 

Realistic observers do not simply follow the smooth universal expansion, but have their own ‘peculiar’motions as well. The dipolar anisotropy of the Cosmic Microwave Background (CMB), in particular, has been interpreted as the result of our drift flow (at roughly 600 km/sec) relative to the cosmic rest-frame.  Peculiar motions can locally mimic the effects of dark energy. Furthermore,the affected scales can be large enough to give the false impression that the whole universe has recently entered an accelerating phase.

 

 

https://arxiv.org/abs/1107.4045

 

cf.  http://www.nbcnews.com/id/44690771/ns/technology_and_science-science/t/accelerating-universe-could-be-just-illusion/#.W1GkitVKiUk

Edited July 20, 2018 by Moronium

[GAHD]

I don't like the "nothing's actually moving, space is just expanding" explanation for at least two reasons:

 

1.  I view it as a strictly ad hoc revision devised for the sole reason of "saving" the SR postulate of light being the maximum attainable speed.  Apart from being artificial, I'm not inclined to think there's anything worth "saving" to begin with.  Approaching the problem from the theoretical perspective of a preferred frame theory eliminates this postulate, so there's nothing to "save" in that view.

 

2.  It utterly wrecks the whole concept of motion, in a nonsensical way.  You could take the absurd view that NOTHING ever moves and that motion is just an illusion.  Under that line of reasoning, why not claim I don't move at all if I drive from NY to LA, for example, but rather that the space between my car and LA just shrunk, that's all.

 

There are a lot of different suggestions for explaining the apparent ftl speed.  A simple one involves no dark energy, no esoteric particles, no multiverses, and just one simple, well-known concept:  Motion.  Good arguments have been made that the expansion of universe is merely a deceptive appearance caused by our peculiar motion, which is not comoving with the Hubble flow, and that the expansion is actually decelerating, :

 

 

https://arxiv.org/abs/1107.4045

 

cf.  http://www.nbcnews.com/id/44690771/ns/technology_and_science-science/t/accelerating-universe-could-be-just-illusion/#.W1GkitVKiUk

Possible but...

 

https://phys.org/news/2017-06-universe-flat-topology.html

 

 

Math and CMBR seems to point to the middle one.

[Moronium]

Possible but...

 

https://phys.org/news/2017-06-universe-flat-topology.html

 

 

Math and CMBR seems to point to the middle one.

 

Hmmm.  Well, I'll be the first to admit that I know little about GR, and am in no position to discuss the various possibilities in any detail.  Truth be told, I don't even know why you're suggesting that a flat universe would preclude the "dark flow" explanation being discussed.

 

I do, however, note that the article you cited says this:

 

In 1998, the astronomers discovered dark energy, which is this mysterious force accelerating the expansion of the universe. Whether the universe is open, closed or flat, it's going to keep on expanding. In fact, that expansion is going to accelerate, forever.

 

 

This just raises further questions in my mind:

 

 I wouldn't say we "discovered" dark energy.  We invented it to explain deductions from observations (which themselves made various assumptions) about supernova, etc.   The implications of those observations, and our interpretation of them, seemed impossible under GR without re-introducing Einstein's "biggest mistake," a cosmological constant. 

 

But, if this accelerating expansion is merely illusory, then all those conclusions would also have to be rejected. It's all so intertwined, with assumptions built upon assumptions and interpretations built upon interpretations, that it seems impossible to say that one favored interpretation precludes others.  Perhaps it's just that GR itself needs amending. 

 

The statement quoted above merely presupposes the "truth" of the existence of dark matter, But that whole "truth" goes out the window if you accept a "dark flow" explanation of our observations. All the "proofs" seem to become hopelessly circular.  Many reasonable objections have been made to the notion of dark matter/energy itself, and I would certainly not presume that those concepts are necessarily "true" in the real world.

Edited July 20, 2018 by Moronium

[sluggo]

Moronium #871;

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?

 

---
NO. I'll give you the same advice I give to anyone, make your first reference a good dictionary. Over the years, I've watched many subjects debated by people who didn't understand what they were debating. The problems were linguistic in nature and not scientific.
Perception includes seeing, analyzing, and making a conclusion based on all the facts available, i.e. a more complex process than a visual sensory input. That is why the 'observer' plays the central role in Relativity, and why it IS a theory of perception, regardless of Einstein not declaring it as such.
Classical physics allows 'doppler shift', but that also is perception! The frequency of the emitter doesn't change because the observer changes direction, but the timing of the images received does change. A clock is a frequency, which is dependent on closing speed, in the same manner as red and blue shifted light.
SR allows the observer to assume a rest frame, which is the central idea of postulate 1, and the principle of relativity. If not then an observer would have to know where the magical absolute rest frame is, and experiment cannot find it, because Newton was wrong. There is no such thing as rest. What would be the unit of measure? (It isn't 8 hrs of sleep)
Two objects can be defined to be in a 'rest' state, when both have the same velocity. Then they can be moving at .5c and still be at rest, with no contradiction or paradox.
---
 

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?

 

---
NO. You just said I could tell the difference. Which is it? The drawing is a typical graph drawn by U observing A moving at .3c and B moving at .6c. The clocks are synched and exchange time signals at a pre determined time. Each sends at .68, and returns a time upon detection at 1.00. The SR convention for a pseudo rest frame is to assign the reflection event to the halfway time of the round trip (what you would expect if at rest), (1.47+.68)/2 = 1.075 (red). Each calculates the other clock runs at 1.00/1.075 = .93 of the local rate. The reason is in the graph. The curve of constant time is a hyperbola. The time scale on the vertical ct axis is linear, but the increments on the time lines for A and B are not linear. The measurements indicate a slower clock process, and it's reciprocal. Remember, measurement is the verification tool of science.
 

[Moronium]

Moronium #871;

Two objects can be defined to be in a 'rest' state, when both have the same velocity. Then they can be moving at .5c and still be at rest, with no contradiction or paradox.

 

I agree with most of what you say in the first part of this post, but I can't for the life of me figure out why you think those statements support the conclusion you assert here.  Again, I concede that, if you view "reality" as being a product of purely subjective solipsism, then EVERY possible conclusion can be "true."  But  I again want to stress that I am talking about objective possibilities, not merely subjective ones.

 

You can "define" anything as anything, but I'm not talking about definitions, I'm talking about actual, objective motion.  You don't need to have any preferred frame, and you don't need to know anything about absolute speed, to address this question, so I don't even know why you brought it up.

 

This simply does not follow from anything you've said:  'they can be moving at .5c and still be at rest, with no contradiction or paradox."

 

If you're not sure what I'm even talking about, my post 529 elaborates some:  http://www.scienceforums.com/topic/32241-yes-you-can-go-faster-than-speed-of-light/?p=361444

Edited July 20, 2018 by Moronium

[Moronium]

Moronium #871;

 

NO. You just said I could tell the difference... . The measurements indicate a slower clock process, and it's reciprocal. 

 

 

Here again, nothing you say in this part of the post supports the conclusion you draw from it.

 

Each observer will see that the other clock is running at a rate DIFFERENT than his own, but neither will "see" that the other clock is running "slower."  That is not revealed by the observation,

 

Any such conclusion is a MERE DEDUCTION from what is seen. Deductive conclusions require premises.  What is the premise each must make here?  That HE is not moving (because it is ONLY the moving clock which slows down in SR).   If he assumed otherwise, then he would conclude otherwise, i.e., he would "see" (deduce) that the other clock was running FASTER, not slower.

 

You still can't understand this?

 

Would a concrete example help?  Let's say I'm on a moving train, passing a guy standing by the tracks.  Let's say I believe I'm the one moving, not him.  Let's say I understand SR.  Under those circumstances I would conclude that my (not his) watch is running slower.  If he also assumes that he is not moving, then he will reach the same conclusion that I do (mine's slower, his is faster).  There is no "reciprocity" about it, now. We don't disagree about whose watch is running slower, we agree.

Edited July 20, 2018 by Moronium

[Shustaire]

This example doesn't work under SR, under SR the observer is always set as at rest. You cannot change this rule then provide an example which violates SR and then claim it follows SR.

 

I still do no see why you cannot get that the at rest is simply a simplification that the only factor that matter is the vector symmetry of the Lorentz transform under rotation.

 

[math] \acute{x}=x-\gamma vt[/math]   is symmetric if you change vector direction to [math] x=\acute{x}\gamma- vt [/math]

for the time [math] \acute{t}=\gamma (t-\frac{vx}{c^2}[/math] reverse observers [math] t=\gamma (\acute{t}\frac{vx}{c^2})[/math]

 

No matter how you argue against it this is the Lorentz transform and under MATH RULES this is symmetric.....period.

 

it is precisely

 

vector from observer 0 derives a length vector [math]\rightarrow[/math] observer [math] \acute{O} \leftarrow [/math]

 

the symmetry is the VECTOR friggen direction as the magnitude of the vectors is identical the only change is the friggen direction.

 

It does not matter if you set one frame at rest or not. NOT UNDER MATHEMATICAL BASIS>>>>

 

You are determining the friggen change between two reference frames that is what a transform literally means. Regardless if its truly at rest makes ABSOLUTELY no FRIGGEN difference to describe this.

 

However naturally you arbitrarily choose to ignore ANY MATHEMATICS INVOLVED AS THEY WOULD PROVE YOU FRIGGEN WRONG>

 

The whole purpose of any physics Formula is to describe change UNDER GRAPH.

Edited July 20, 2018 by Shustaire

[Moronium]

This example doesn't work under SR, under SR the observer is always set as at rest. You cannot change this rule then provide an example which violates SR and then claim it follows SR.

 

 

OF COURSE it doesn't work "under SR." I have said that a million times.  I'm not trying to claim otherwise. That's the problem with SR.

 

Btw, the "math" you threw in was irrelevant and did nothing to either clarify or resolve the issue here.

Edited July 20, 2018 by Moronium

[Shustaire]

Its not irrelevenat if your USING SR to begin with You cannot use or apply SR without applying the friggen math.

 

If your not applying the transformation rules you are not using SR> period.

Edited July 20, 2018 by Shustaire

[Moronium]

No matter how you argue against it this is the Lorentz transform and under MATH RULES this is symmetric.....period.

 

 

 

 

 

It's obvious that you don't even understand the topic here, and chances are you never will, because you misunderstand the role played by math.

 

The Lorentz transform was invented by Lorentz, but that is NOT what SR uses.

 

In SR the v (velocity) is relative.  In Lorentz's theory it is absolute.  HUGE difference, notwithstanding that the FORM (but not the substance) of the formula is exactly the same.

Edited July 20, 2018 by Moronium

[Moronium]

Its not irrelevenat if your USING SR to begin with You cannot use or apply SR without applying the friggen math.

 

If your not applying the transformation rules you are not using SR> period.

 

 

Yeah, that's what I just said (twice now).

[Shustaire]

Then friggen apply it without claiming its not important.

[Shustaire]

OF COURSE it doesn't work "under SR." I have said that a million times.  I'm not trying to claim otherwise. That's the problem with SR.

 

Btw, the "math" you threw in was irrelevant and did nothing to either clarify or resolve the issue here.

 

You just countered your own claim here with that last post. The Lorentz transforms is the math I posted.

Edited July 20, 2018 by Shustaire

[Moronium]

Then friggen apply it without claiming its not important.

 

 

All I can do at this point is repeat myself.

 

It's obvious that you don't even understand the topic here, and chances are you never will, because you misunderstand the role played by math.

 

[Shustaire]

You could learn what your doing wrong when literally EVERYONE is telling you your wrong. Even the worse posters on this forum recognize that detail.

 

The whole point is to COMPARE reference frames. IT literally does not matter in any manner if one is truly at rest or not to COMPARE between two frames.

Edited July 20, 2018 by Shustaire

[Moronium]

You could learn what your doing wrong when literally EVERYONE is telling you your wrong. Even the worse posters on this forum recognize that detail.

 

The whole point is to COMPARE reference frames. IT literally does not matter in any manner if one is truly at rest or not to COMPARE between two frames.

 

 

Would you even care to address the issues raised (about observation vs inference)?  Or do you, like so many others here, just want to robotically recite, ad infinitum, the postulates of SR?

Edited July 20, 2018 by Moronium