Yes, You Can Go Faster Than Speed Of Light

[Super Polymath]

I don't know how we could test this though. Even in space, gravity acts like a type of friction. It raises an important question, about the interaction of bodies in space and their resistance to motion (Newtons laws of inertia). As far as I understand it now, while space is the closest thing to a frictionless world, its not exactly frictionless.

 

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

I know you don't like it when I address your thoughts "directly" (especially not in your own threads), but you said it yourself there's no such thing as a perfect vacuum.

 

I myself view space, time, matter & energy to be apart of one continuum. Causally inseparable. To have zero friction in such a reality fabric would be to have time occur instantly, making it impossible for an event to actually occur before another event, it's not possible in two dimensional space, just lie in a perfect three dimensional space it would take forever for anything to happen so time would be on pause, one event could not predate another thus inhibiting causality. The dimensions have to shift between 2 & 3 if you think about it in non-numerical geometric terms where there is a depth removed but it's not really removed per say because that distance loses it's meaning when no absolute value can be placed on it, no metric, no geodesic because there's infinite relative observers, the scalar dynamic is infinite, recurring fractals, logic and proportion don't apply to zeno's paradox, yet it's the only way for one event to predate another, the only way for causation to occur. It's hard to explain, you have to perceive it without conventional language, meaning, or syntax. Seeing is believing.

Edited June 20, 2018 by Super Polymath

[Super Polymath]

you think about it in non-numerical geometric terms where there is a depth removed but it's not really removed per say because that distance loses it's meaning when no absolute value can be placed on it, no metric, no geodesic because there's infinite relative observers, the scalar dynamic is infinite, recurring fractals

[Super Polymath]

It does also mean though that Newton's notion of rest is not fundamental.

But you can test for sub-planckian events even if they're "immeasurable" using a TSVF to triangulate pre-observed particle states from their post-observed particle states if that TSVF isn't based on the standard interpretation of quantum mechanics. But you'd have to know how to plot spherical coordinates and handle thread-scheduling recursive fractals, and worst of all tangent, cotangent, sine and cosine for conic sections. If you could do that then follow these instructions for a TSVF that's not based on the standard quantum interpretation.

 

You don't need a planck metric when you follow that pattern in my thread to it's final conclusion for a black hole of about (n)e-54 meters as your graviton metric in the core of an anti-proton existing for about (n)e-17 seconds. That's the minimum size for the anti/proton/neutron. Any more mass from the fusion of two or more 33rd photon compactment to & the minimum volume (your metric) doubles exponentially until you have a planck particle which is more formally known as a micro black hole.

 

That's big the secret. The code that breaks capitalism & the private commonwealth down.

[Super Polymath]

 

 

''Straight line motion is an approximation that will work in many, but not all cases of gas experiments. They don't actually ever move in a perfect straight line. Even in Earth's atmosphere at high altitudes where mean free path length is long, gas molecules follow elliptic gravitational orbits, just like satellites.''

Between 300 and 400 AD a Greek writer elaborated on Anixamander's ideas, Achilles Tatius spoke of literally there being no unmoved mover

 

 

For 500 years hundreds of thousands of well educated wise-men sat, drinking wine, spent their whole lives philosophizing about a round earth and a round spinning set of celestial bodies, how to graph those 3 dimensions on paper long before Newton's calculus or the computer, to answer the big questions, what are we made of? The fundamental elements and whether there was an unmoved mover :

 

 

^^^what 006 was talking about, all things have motion:

 

within the atoms invented by Socrates long before Einstein spoke of such structures.

 

It wasn't until Einstein showed that time is relative that they put two & two together and found that the speed of light doesn't dictate all interactions, a few cases that have a causal effect that defies celestria's constant are unruh radiation in the rindler effect, neutrinos in earth's atmosphere and the core of the sun where light keeps getting deflected while neutrinoes phase right on through, the casimir effect, quantum entanglement, & there are a few other documented effects that meet the description of tachyons.

 

Literally two world wars were waged to keep time dilation and Pythagoras' sacred geometry, that fractal structure within flowers, snowflakes, and diamonds that people think Helge Von Koch invented yet David's Star faaar predates Helge Von Koch, but Helge Von Koch, & Tesla, and many others of Einstein's era were becoming wise to the facts, weren't they Ocean Breeze?

Edited June 20, 2018 by Super Polymath

[Moronium]

 To make a train accelerate, you needed to provide fuel to system to make it go at faster velocities. These systems do make sense with Newtons laws, because everything round us is subject to the law of friction.If you remove friction entirely, is this still the case, and why?

 

There is no independent "law of friction."  Friction is really just a "force" which causes an object to accelerate.  Some might say "decelerate," but it's the same thing, i.e. a change in speed.  So, if you remove the "force" of friction, then you're right back to where Newton said you would be, i.e., moving at a constant speed in a straight line.

 

But the better way to look at it is what I've already said.  Mass is resistance to acceleration, and it is innate, not external.  Even an accelerated object still has mass, so you're not going to accelerate it more (i.e., overcome its inherent resistance to acceleration) without a force.  Friction is an "external force," but mass is innate resistance to acceleration.  Mass also resists friction trying to slow it down. The less friction, the less it will slow down (accelerate).

Edited June 20, 2018 by Moronium

[Moronium]

Like gravity, no one has come up with a satisfactory explanation for "inertia" (aka "mass," aka "resistance to acceleration").  We may deduce certain mathematical relationships from observation (like Newton's "universal law of gravity"), but that does not "explain" anything.  Newton never claimed to "explain" his law, and in fact denied that he was even attempting to do so ("I frame no hypotheses," he said). That is why it is merely a "law" of gravity, not a "theory" of gravity (even though it is often mistakenly referred to as "Newton's theory of gravity").

 

Newton said:

 

That gravity should be innate, inherent, and essential to matter, so that one body may act upon another at a distance, through a vacuum, without the mediation of anything else, by and through which their action and force may be conveyed from one to another, is to me so great an absurdity, that I believe no man who has in philosophical matters a competent faculty of thinking, can ever fall into it. Gravity must be caused by an agent, acting constantly according to certain laws; but whether this agent be material or immaterial, I have left to the consideration of my readers.

 

 

It's a long sentence, but you can see that he's saying that only a fool would think that "matter attracts matter" as his formula seems to imply.  Like Einstein, he did not believe in "spooky action at a distance."

Edited June 20, 2018 by Moronium

[A-wal]

This is bollocks! According to the standard model, distant galaxies do move at speeds greater than c relative to us.

Sigh...

 

No its not bollocks. These distant galaxies are not [actually] moving at the speed of light. They are quite literally, riding the vacuum. The reason why they appear to be moving faster, is because spacetime is expanding faster than light, not because the galaxy is. If you think this is unusual, it isn't.

Yes yes, it's viewed as the expansion of space that allows for distant galaxies to be moving away faster than c if there's enough space between them, but you said that they're not actually moving away faster than c and this is wrong.

 

They are moving away faster than c however you look at it and what DaveC426913 said about needing to apply the velocity addition formula is completely wrong because redshift is caused by their relative velocity. It makes no sense to say that redshift isn't affected by the addition formula, which is basically what he's saying.

 

In my own personal view it's ridiculous to think that there's a distinction between movement caused by a change in the amount of space between two objects. That's true of all movement!

 

After inflation, many parts of the universe were left expanding at different rates

That's crackpot fairy tale physics in my view but it is mainstream crackpot fairy tale physics. Inflation isn't an explanation of anything, it's like dark matter and dark energy. All three are examples of the standard model not correctly predicting the real universe, they're the difference between the model and reality. The only 'evidence" for inflation is that it's needed for the model to work.

[Moronium]

. It makes no sense to say that redshift isn't affected by the addition formula, which is basically what he's saying.

 

In my own personal view it's ridiculous to think that there's a distinction between movement caused by a change in the amount of space between two objects. That's true of all movement!

 

The only 'evidence" for inflation is that it's needed for the model to work.

 

Indeed.

 

http://www.scienceforums.com/topic/31220-spacetime-more-hogwash-from-fairy-tale-physics/page-2?do=findComment&comment=358317 (post #22)

 

The semantical and conceptual distortions which theoreticians are willing to resort to in order to "save" their theories are rather astounding, really.

Edited June 20, 2018 by Moronium

[A-wal]

Indeed.

 

http://www.scienceforums.com/topic/31220-spacetime-more-hogwash-from-fairy-tale-physics/page-2?do=findComment&comment=358317 (post #22)

 

The semantical and conceptual distortions which theoreticians are willing to resort to in order to "save" their theories are rather astounding, really.

But you think it shows that the velocity addition formula is invalid. I don't think that at all, I think that Doppler light shift simply isn't a reliable indicator of relative velocities. The standard explanation that the velocity addition formula doesn't apply because the space between objects increasing is somehow different from what always happens when objects are moving away from each other is by far the dumbest explanation.

[A-wal]

i don't care what you think in mainstream is crackpot, but rest assured, when I tell you something, rank it as seldom wrong.

This coming from the same dude who very recently claimed that an object will continue to accelerate at a constant rate without being subject to a force. That's by far the most basic misunderstanding of physics I've ever come across. A middle school student would be embarrassed by that, seriously. You've some nerve showing up again under the same profile so credit for that.

 

When I tell you that spacetime is moving at speed of light, does not mean the galaxy itself is moving faster than light.

Oh so it's spacetime that's moving. So you think distant galaxies aren't moving away from us faster than light? :)

According to the accepted model, distant galaxies do move away from each other faster than c. The fact that (again, according to the accepted model) their relative velocities are caused by an expansion of the space between them does NOT mean that they aren't moving away away from each other faster than c.

 

I read into this subject extensively...

That's no good if you can't understand it.

 

... not because I believed it must mean they were moving faster than light, but because I accepted what I was told and with reading why, I was happy afterwards. Do the same.

I'd rather use common sense. The space between objects always expands if those objects are moving away from each other, that's what moving away from each other means. It's absurd to claim there's a distinction between the two.

 

But that's not the issue, the point is that although the expansion of the space between distant galaxies is thought of as the reason why they're able to move away from each faster than c, nobody but you (and DaveC426913) claims that it's generally accepted that they're not moving faster than c relative to each other.

[A-wal]

Relative to us ''they appear to move faster than light.'' But they aren't I'm done, I told, do some reading.

I don't need to do any reading because I'm not the one digging myself an ever deeper hole of wrongness.

 

And... the reason I do not accept it is because for it to work in a vacuum, if something made of matter really moving at that speed, you should know, is forbidden by mainstream. 

Er, what does a vacuum have to do with it? We're not even talking about light, we're talking about the velocity of massive objects. What's forbidden by mainstream is for objects to be accelerated (by a force obviously, not by magic) up to a relative velocity of the speed of light, instead using the velocity addition formula.

 

What's also accepted by mainstream physics is that galaxies are moving away from other galaxies that are over a certain distance from each other at well over the speed of light because of the expansion of space between them, not because "spacetime is moving at the speed of light", whatever the hell that means.

Edited June 20, 2018 by A-wal

[A-wal]

Why would objects behave any differently in zero gravity than they do in a gravitational field? The most fundamental aspect of general relativity is that they don't.

[Moronium]

And... the reason I do not accept it is because for it to work in a vacuum, if something made of matter really moving at that speed, you should know, is forbidden by mainstream. 

 

You always ignore the fact that this is a mere postulate, not an empirical fact.  It has never been proven, and can't be.

 

Many highly persuasive academic papers have questioned this postulate. Abandoning the SR postulates and adopting a preferred frame theory (which does not, by fiat, prohibit light speeds in excess of those measured locally with distorted measuring instruments), would, they say, eliminate the need for dark matter and dark energy.  The time will come (it's well on it's way) when the postulates of SR will finally be seen for what they are:  metaphysical speculations which cause more problems than they try to solve.

Edited June 21, 2018 by Moronium

[Moronium]

No, there was more to it actually, I said it could in a frictionless world. With more consideration, the vacuum is not without friction and experiences gravitational drag... so I am not even sure anyone can test whether accelerated objects in true frictionless would continue to accelerate. The video shown certainly suggests so. It would certainly imply a special condition for a true vacuum.

 

 

You are quickly slipping right back into your confused "understanding" of Newtonian physics.  There are only 3 fundamental laws of motion.  Everything else is just a matter of applying those laws to given circumstances, which vary from case to case.

 

Once again, there is no "law of friction," as you characterized it.  Friction is not a law, it is merely one of many possible "forces" which the law of inertia considers.  If there is no net force exerted on an object it will maintain a constant speed while travelling in a straight line.  Otherwise that object will accelerate (change direction and/or speed).

 

Friction is just another of many possible "forces" that may or may not be acting on a particular object in particular circumstances.  Gravity is another.  Neither the potential existence of any of those forces, nor their effect on any given object, changes any of the 3 fundamental laws of Newton, contrary to what your posts tacitly presuppose.  Forces are not fundamental laws, they merely accidental factors to be considered when applying the fundamental laws.

Edited June 21, 2018 by Moronium

[DaveC426913]

I'm afraid this is incorrect. The relativistic velocity addition equation doesn't apply to redshift because redshift supposedly gives you the relative velocity,

Sorry, when did we start talking about redshift?

 

The assertion to which I responded was simply about taking two opposing velocities of galaxies and naively adding them together to get a value greater than c.

[A-wal]

Sorry, when did we start talking about redshift?

 

The assertion to which I responded was simply about taking two opposing velocities of galaxies and naively adding them together to get a value greater than c.

Doppler light shift is how the relative velocities of galaxies is measured. If the velocity addition formula does apply then it would apply to the light shift so would already be taken into account, it doesn't make any sense to say that you have to apply the velocity addition formula to them. Using the red shift of distant galaxies puts them at velocities far greater than the speed of light.

 

How can you have "two opposing velocities"? There's only one relative velocity between any two objects. Do you mean two galaxies moving in opposite directions from the perspective of a third galaxy? The relative velocity limit in the case of two objects other than the observer is 2c.

[Moronium]

Suppose I say I want 8 numbers which add up to 10,000.  Dividing by 8 would give a quick answer to that (1250, 8 times).  But one of those could also be 1249 and another 1251, etc.  The set would be infinite.

 

The point?  If I tell a mathematician , in advance, the goal I want to reach, it's easy for him to do it.  If I tell him that I want numbers (i.e., a formula) which will achieve the goal of having every possible frame of reference measure the speed of light to be the same, no sweat.  Here ya go....a velocity addition formula.  But does that formula go out into the world and make all objects conform to it?

 

How can you have "two opposing velocities"? There's only one relative velocity between any two objects

 

.

Although I agree with the premise underlying your question, that's not my understanding.  Not within special relativity, anyway.  In SR there can be an infinite number of relative speeds between any two objects.  It just depends on what frame of reference you're calculating from and what the velocity addition formula will say.

Edited June 22, 2018 by Moronium