Yes, You Can Go Faster Than Speed Of Light

[A-wal]

 

[Shustaire]

I've said this before, but rather spend a ton of time trying to locate it, I'll just repeat it.  This relates to the PURPOSE of the LT.

 

Why did Lorentz even invent the LT to begin with? What was its purpose?  Let go back to 1892, and see.

 

The M-M experiment was unable to detect any motion of the earth.

 

Does that mean there is no such motion?  If so, that would invalidate almost everything we believe.  Newton's theory of gravity would just be the first thing to go.

 

Lorentz said:  "No, it does not mean that the earth is not moving.  It is moving."

 

So the question was: "Well, Lorentz, if you want to claim it's moving, how can you explain the fact that we can't detect that motion?"

 

Lorentz:  "We don't detect it because our measuring instruments have been distorted by motion. 

 

 

incorrect the M&M experiment showed no eather not no motion. It never claimed the Earth was not in motion.

 

get your facts straight. Another false understanding on your part

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michelson%E2%80%93Morley_experiment

Edited July 21, 2018 by Shustaire

[Vmedvil2]

Why isn't this thread locked yet, the amount of sheer stupidity. *gets a nose bleed from sheer stupidity* Message sent to sanctus, this time.

Edited July 21, 2018 by VictorMedvil

[Shustaire]

Why isn't this thread locked yet, the amount of sheer stupidity. *gets a nose bleed from sheer stupidity* Message sent to sanctus, this time.

 

no idea it should have been long ago

[Moronium]

incorrect the M&M experiment showed no eather not no motion. It never claimed the Earth was not in motion.

 

get your facts straight. Another false understanding on your part

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michelson%E2%80%93Morley_experiment

 

 

Heh, try it yourself.  From the very same cite you gave above:

 

By analyzing the return speed of light in different directions at various different times, it was thought to be possible to measure the motion of the Earth relative to the aether. The expected relative difference in the measured speed of light was quite small, given that the velocity of the Earth in its orbit around the Sun has a magnitude of about one hundredth of one percent of the speed of light.

 

 

The whole idea was to detect absolute motion. You could substitute "space" for aether in this context.  Einstein was soon saying that it would be improper to claim that the earth revolves  around the sun.  I just quoted him to that effect, remember?

Edited July 21, 2018 by Moronium

[Moronium]

no idea it should have been long ago

Hahahahahahaha.

 

After all I said, all the claims I made which expose your lack of understanding, all the unanswered questions I've asked you, and all you can come up is to show your misunderstanding of the significance of the M-M, and then scream once again you have the thread locked!?

 

If you have no sufficient answers and want to avoid it, the remedy is simple:  Don't read the thread.

 

Why do you see it as serving your purposes to have it locked, I wonder?

 

Same for you, Vic.  Your last tautological "explanation" was so feeble that I would probably withdraw from the discussion if I were you too.  Just leave the thread if you can't handle it.  

Edited July 21, 2018 by Moronium

[Vmedvil2]

Hahahahahahaha.

 

After all I said, all the claims I made which expose your lack of understanding, all the unanswered questions I've asked you, and all you can come up is to show your misunderstanding of the significance of the M-M, and then scream once again you have the thread locked!?

 

If you have no sufficient answers and want to avoid it, the remedy is simple:  Don't read the thread.

 

Why do you see it as serving your purposes to have it locked, I wonder?

 

Same for you, Vic.  Your last tautological "explanation" was so feeble that I would probably withdraw from the discussion if I were you too.  Just leave the thread if you can't handle it.  

 

No, this isn't a debate SR is correct and you are wrong, they have been trying to disprove SR for like 100 years and you are not going to be the one to do it, I told you how it works, this thread will be locked soon because you just keep repeating the same crap and get the same explanations back, there is no point in speaking to you, you have the inability to learn. SR is how it works since you reject SR, then please just stop speaking yourself until sanctus or buffy get on. needless to say all of your words are meaningless saying that Einstein or Lorrentz disproved of their own theory won't change it either even though that is a lie due to the fact they worked their entire lives on these theories. Please just stop moronium. It makes you look as if you are a uneducated retarded person nearly all of your arguments have been weak you will have to excuse me just giving up on you like so many others.

Edited July 21, 2018 by VictorMedvil

[Moronium]

No, this isn't a debate SR is correct 

 

You're right, and wrong.  

 

1.  You're right that there has been no "debate" here--just a lot of assertions which all presuppose, without independent supporting argument of any kind, that SR is "correct"

 

2.  You have absolutely no factual basis for saying that SR is "correct" and LR is not.  Sorry, extreme indoctrination and zealous faith does not count as a "factual basis" in this regard.

Edited July 21, 2018 by Moronium

[Vmedvil2]

You're right, and wrong.  

 

1.  You're right that there has been no "debate" here--just a lot of assertions which all presuppose, without independent supporting argument of any kind, that SR is "correct"

 

2.  You have absolutely no factual basis for saying that SR is "correct" and LR is not.  Sorry, extreme indoctrination does not count as a "factual basis" in this regard.

 

Every-time I have posted, I posted the SR was right because of experimental evidence, I have tried to explain this to you like I dunno about 5 times, so I give up on you moronium, you are unable to learn, this is why I couldn't be a science teacher and am a science researcher I couldn't handle students that do stuff like you do. it is annoying and personally I am sick of listening to you babble on about things that are not relevant to redefining physics SR and GR are one of the pillars of modern physics and with your arguments of Lorrentz was wrong are very weak arguments without any scientific proof what so ever, that is why I want this thread locked, you have no idea what you are talking about and have no proof to backup any of your claims other than silly nonsense.  Alot of people say bad things about Polymath but at-least he uses logical arguments with proof unlike you, I hate people like you honestly, and this will be my last post about the many problems with you trying to disprove SR with the methods you are using, Goodbye I have better things to do on a Saturday evening then debate with you moronium over silly stuff that has nothing to do with SR.

Edited July 21, 2018 by VictorMedvil

[Moronium]

 SR was right because of experimental evidence, I have tried to explain this to you like I dunno about 5 times... your arguments of Lorrentz was wrong are very weak arguments without any scientific proof what so ever, that is why I want this thread locked...I hate people like you honestly

 

 

And you always ignore all facts which undermine your faith.  Even the slightest bit of research would have revealed to you what every theoretcal physicist worth his salt from Einstein's day (including Einstein himself) to the present knows:  There is every bit as much experimental evidence for a PFT, if not more, as there is for SR.

 

But you didn't even have to do any research.  I did it all for you have have posted it many times.  You just ignore it and drone on.  You merely display your willful ignorance, Vic, sorry.

 

Hate is a pretty strong emotion, but nothing surprising there.  You have consistently demonstrated that you have a very strong emotional attachment to SR.

Edited July 21, 2018 by Moronium

[Super Polymath]

 Alot of people say bad things about Polymath but at-least he uses logical arguments with proof

 

Wait, who said "bad things" about me?? What does "bad things" entail!?

 

Oh, I know what it is:

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F5kCN0dbT8I

[Vmedvil2]

 

Wait, who said "bad things" about me?? What does "bad things" entail!?

 

Oh, I know what it is:

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F5kCN0dbT8I

 

Well, Basically polymath you are trying to do what Moronium is doing in the proper way, some people say you are a crackpot other than that, you are fine, but I think you could be like Einstein unlike Moronium you use logic and are attempting to do it properly rather than arguments like, Lorentz and Einstein disproved of their own theories like Moronium. You use something called the scientific method something that has be woefully neglected on moronium's posts.

Edited July 21, 2018 by VictorMedvil

[Super Polymath]

 I think you could be like Einstein

God no

 

[Vmedvil2]

God no

 

Lol, I mean you actually have a chance at redefine physics unlike moronium, something called potential but moronium's arguments have no chance learn from this and don't make his mistakes.

[Super Polymath]

Lol, I mean you actually have a chance at redefine physics unlike moronium, something called potential but moronium's arguments have no chance learn from this and don't make his mistakes.

I already have. Vicariously, through 006. That Scotchman's about to be on TV around the world a few months from now when he translates what I fathomed using mathematica.

 

Let's see here, with an inch & 1/2 of handwritten symbols he can give that old rusty D-wave machine several orders of magnitudes more processing power than the exascale processors of the 2020s, send transmissions that are to satellite communication as the telegraph was to the messenger pigeon, quantum controlled muon catalyzed fusion that is literally in the hundreds of times more efficient & cost effective than what the private industries have invested in the 2030s, the wireless transmission of electrical power, anti-hydrogen, 3D printed limbs, organs & faces, nano cancer cell killers, nano-factories that print mechanical parts & other precious materials as if they were paper & something even better than mind-uploading.

 

[Vmedvil2]

I already have. Vicariously, through 006. That Scotchman's about to be on TV around the world a few months from now when he translates what I fathomed using mathematica.

 

Let's see here, with an inch & 1/2 of handwritten symbols he can give that old rusty D-wave machine several orders of magnitudes more processing power than the exascale processors of the 2020s, send transmissions that are to satellite communication as the telegraph was to the messenger pigeon, quantum controlled muon catalyzed fusion that is literally in the hundreds of times more efficient & cost effective than what the private industries have invested in the 2030s, the wireless transmission of electrical power, anti-hydrogen, 3D printed limbs, organs & faces, nano cancer cell killers, nano-factories that print mechanical parts & other precious materials as if they were paper & something even better than mind-uploading.

 

 

Ya, I cannot wait to have inorganic nanofactories, I commonly do experiments with RNA and DNA based equivalents of Nanofactories, I dunno I am bored polymath, I dunno what to do with myself anymore, This may be depressing but I am running out of stuff to talk about, I have burned through most of my material in the last year, I suppose now I am just waiting to make a Organic Nano-virus to make myself immortal then sit in a chair and watch the world decay around me in the 2040s forever...... That is the time period I am waiting for is the Technological Singularity then after that in 2050s the colonization of Mars. I dunno, I may try and go to Mars before I die if possible after the basic colonization process, but thats what I believe will happen after the Nano-revolution in the 2030s.

Edited July 22, 2018 by VictorMedvil

[GAHD]

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:

 

 

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.

In short: Math from observable universal energy. Basic idea is that Mass energy and vacuum energy (aka dark energy) and gravitational energy "balance out" like (+~1 +~1 = +~2)  == (+1+1-2 =0+/-)  if the universe is "flat". Side note: Some people here don't like the word "negative" with gravity, and you might need to understand tensors and whatnot to get past that mental block if you have it.

 

 

Calculating the curvature of the universe via CMB "clump" sizes is within error margin of predicted "flat" value. If vacuum energy is "fake" or "virtual" then the energy equation doesn't balance for a flat universe and we should be seeing a "Closed" CMBR, which to margin we are not. See Lawrence Krauss for a good mix of lay and technical in ~an hour or so lecture, try not to be distracted by his personal battles against zealotry if you go hunting on your own. It's a rabbit hole and rather cutting edge with modern observations, you'll prob enjoy it. I don't have the time or inclination to spoon-feed it out beyond that. There's a well, you can drink or not. Your choice. :)

 

Flow is an interesting idea, but that's why I don't quite jive with it. I'll back-burner your points, as I think I understand the flow argument, but the data I've accumulated doesn't work in it's favor. Took a sip, bit too salty for hydration. ;)