Yes, You Can Go Faster Than Speed Of Light

[A-wal]

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?

It doesn't need to. The formula is an observation of how objects already behave.

 

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.

That requires a third object.

[Moronium]

1.  No, it is not an observation.  It is strictly a deduction, derived from assumed premises.  By "it" I am assuming you are referring the the speed of objects as imputed by the addition formula.  The formula is derived from theory, not observation.

 

2.  What requires a third object?

Edited June 23, 2018 by Moronium

[Farsight]

See the other meaning of special relativity by Robert Close. He explains why you always measure the speed of light to be c. It's because of the wave nature of matter. It's rather straightforward once the penny drops. Note however that the speed of light is not constant. It varies in the room you're in. That's why optical clocks go slower when they're lower. It's also why light curves and why your pencil falls down.

[A-wal]

1.  No, it is not an observation.  It is strictly a deduction, derived from assumed premises.  By "it" I am assuming you are referring the the speed of objects as imputed by the addition formula.  The formula is derived from theory, not observation.

No it's also an observable fact, In particle accelerators for example it takes more energy for the same amount of acceleration to occur the faster the particles are already moving relative to the accelerator so their mass is increasing as their speed increases. You can work out the relationship between relative velocity and mass and see that mass approaches infinity as the speed of light is approached, meaning no amount of acceleration will allow an object to reach the speed of light. If you think of units of energy as being velocity increases then you get the velocity addition formula as mass increases.

 

2.  What requires a third object?

For the relative velocity between two objects to change without either of those objects accelerating.

 

Note however that the speed of light is not constant. It varies in the room you're in. That's why optical clocks go slower when they're lower. It's also why light curves and why your pencil falls down.

Yes but the consistency of the speed of light only applies to inertial frames, not accelerated ones.

Edited June 23, 2018 by A-wal

[Farsight]

No it's also an observable fact, In particle accelerators for example it takes more energy for the same amount of acceleration to occur the faster the particles are already moving relative to the accelerator so they mass is increasing as their speed increases. You can work out the relationship between relative velocity and mass and see that mass approaches infinity as the speed of light is approached, meaning no amount of acceleration will allow an object to the speed of light. If you think of units of energy as being velocity increases then you get the velocity addition formula as mass increases

That's because of the wave nature of matter too. Remember the Einstein-de Haas effect which "demonstrates that spin angular momentum is indeed of the same nature as the angular momentum of rotating bodies as conceived in classical mechanics". Also note that we can make an electron (an a positron) in gamma-gamma pair production. Then we can diffract electrons, then when we annihilate the electron with the positron we get gamma photons again. So think of an electron as light going round and round in a circular path. When you accelerate the electron the path looks helical. Moving it faster and faster is like stretching a helical spring. You can't stretch it straighter than straight. In similar vein the electron can never go faster than the light from which it's made.    

[exchemist]

That's because of the wave nature of matter too. Remember the Einstein-de Haas effect which "demonstrates that spin angular momentum is indeed of the same nature as the angular momentum of rotating bodies as conceived in classical mechanics". Also note that we can make an electron (an a positron) in gamma-gamma pair production. Then we can diffract electrons, then when we annihilate the electron with the positron we get gamma photons again. So think of an electron as light going round and round in a circular path. When you accelerate the electron the path looks helical. Moving it faster and faster is like stretching a helical spring. You can't stretch it straighter than straight. In similar vein the electron can never go faster than the light from which it's made.    

What crap.

[Moronium]

No it's also an observable fact, In particle accelerators for example it takes more energy for the same amount of acceleration to occur the faster the particles are already moving relative to the accelerator so their mass is increasing as their speed increases. You can work out the relationship between relative velocity and mass and see that mass approaches infinity as the speed of light is approached, meaning no amount of acceleration will allow an object to reach the speed of light. If you think of units of energy as being velocity increases then you get the velocity addition formula as mass increases..

 

But what is "the speed of light?"  Suppose A and B are moving at .9c relative to each other.  They both agree to this (were getting away from the velocity addition formula here, but that's OK). That, alone does not tell us anything.  They could be moving at the exact same (absolute) speed (.i.e., each could be moving at .45c toward or away from each other).  But, ignoring that for now, let's say (as SR compels you to do) that one is motionless and the other is moving at .9c.  For now let's just ignore which one it is that's moving.  Either way, the theory says that EACH will be unable accelerate a mass IN ITS FRAME to "the speed of light."  But they're different frames.  One is stationary, the other is travelling at .9c.  So, however measured locally, one is ALREADY going faster in one frame than the other.  Therefore the "speed of light" cannot be the same.  It can be MEASURED (locally) to be the same, sure, but that's an entirely different issue.

 

But, back to the original point:  Say you're on object A.  You can observe your speed.  But you're not on B.  You can't directly "observe" the "speed of light" on B.  You can merely deduce what your theory tells you that you "would" supposedly see, IF you were on B.  That's a deduction, not an observation.  This still doesn't address the velocity addition formula, but I'll get to that in the next post.

Edited June 23, 2018 by Moronium

[Moronium]

Let's go back to the original example. As I recall there were 3 objects, A, B,and C with B in the middle.  B sees each one moving away from him at .75c so he "naively" concludes that, relative to each other, A and C are travelling 1.5c.  Now then, the addition formula presupposes, as a postulate, NOT an observation, that the speed of light is the same in all frames.  Again, that's an assumption, not an observation.

 

Now we're told that, by applying that formula, A and C will each "see" themselves as moving at .96c relative to each other and NOT at 1.5c, like B concludes.  But which is it?  1.5c, or .96c?  Is B wrong when he makes HIS measurements of speed?  Are A and C preferred frames over B? B "sees" one thing.  A and C supposedly "see" another.  Which one is "seeing" correctly?  You can't "observe" the situation from A, B, AND C, because you can only be on one of them, not all 3.  You must deduce (from theory) what the other 2 will "see."  You can't "observe" what they see, you're not them.

 

SR, as a theory, says that an orbiting satellite in the GPS system will "see" earth clocks as having slowed down.  But the GPS has proven that that's NOT how the satellite "sees" it.  The satellite "sees" the earth clock going FASTER, not SLOWER.  So which is it?  Is the earth clock going faster or slower?  One conclusion is deduced (posited, actually) from theory.  The other conclusion is actually based on empirical fact.  Theory and fact are not the same. Observation and deduction are not the same.

 

Now, either way, it's still true that we can't directly "observe" what the satellite clock "sees," so we're still making deductions, either way. But we do know this:  If we 'treat" the satellite clock as "seeing" the earth clock move faster, the system works.  If we treat it the other way, the whole system fails miserably.

Edited June 23, 2018 by Moronium

[Moronium]

Now we're told that, by applying that formula, A and C will each "see" themselves as moving at .96c relative to each other and NOT at 1.5c, like B concludes.  But which is it?  1.5c, or .96c?  Is B wrong when he makes HIS measurements of speed?  Are A and C preferred frames over B? B "sees" one thing.  A and C supposedly "see" another.  Which one is "seeing" correctly? 

 

Your position implies that B is "wrong." and that the relative speed of A and C is "really" what the theory says they will measure it to be.  You say the formula doesn't have to force A and C to conform to its dictates, because we "observe" A and C travelling at .96c, when we never "observe" any such thing.

 

You are, in effect, saying that A and C (as we predict they will conclude) are RIGHT and that B is WRONG.  In doing so you are just singling out a frame which is to be "preferred," which itself violates the most fundamental premise of SR.

Edited June 23, 2018 by Moronium

[Vee]

I Did it With Words. When using multi entendre you make the variables mulplicative  Rap High as a Pilot. = the speed of sound.it evolves further  similar to a word like Iron. iron/ metal / character / and words turn into I earn into learn these are called evolving entendre an extreme version is one i thought of called RAO symbolizing over 83 acronyms The Sphinx Near Giza with the Moon These are actually symbolizing Ra , Anubis , Osiris Egyptians being spiritually merged. but never-less when using those multi entendre you are technically going Faster then you think. if the right words are said you can do stuff :)

[OceanBreeze]

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.

 

 

 

 

This is correct if by “Doppler light shift” you are referring to the relativistic Doppler shift, and not the simple version which is used when the velocity is much less than c.

Relativistic Doppler shift Z :

 [math]Z=\sqrt { \frac { 1+v/c }{ 1-v/c }  } -1[/math]

 

As you can see, the Lorentz transform is already built into the equation.

 

 

Using the red shift of distant galaxies puts them at velocities far greater than the speed of light.

 

 

This is not correct or at the very least it is written in a confusing manner and requires some explanation.

Galaxy GN-z11 is currently the oldest and most distant known galaxy in the observable universe. It is also the most red-shifted object we have observed.  GN-z11 has a spectroscopic redshift of z = 11.09, which corresponds to a proper distance of approximately 32 billion light-years (9.8 billion parsecs)

 

Plugging the numbers for GN-z11 into the equation for Z, you find the recession velocity v for GN-z11 works out to around 98.6% of the velocity of light.

 

This makes sense because once a galaxy reaches a recession velocity that is FTL, we would no longer be able to detect light that is being emitted NOW from that galaxy. We can only detect light that was being emitted before the galaxy reached a superluminal velocity. So, the galaxies with the highest red shifts, such as GN-z11, will be travelling away from us with a recession velocity just under c, at the time the light from them was emitted. We can infer however, that by now, GN-z11 is already moving away from us at a superluminal velocity, but we cannot detect the light being emitted by it now.

 

 

 

 

 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.

 

 

 

 

That 2c is not a velocity! A velocity is a vector quantity, that is, it has both magnitude and direction. From the point of view of the observer in the middle, the distance between the two moving galaxies is increasing at a rate with a greater magnitude than the speed of light, but it does not have one specific direction, in fact it has two opposite directions and cannot be a vector and so cannot be a velocity.

[OceanBreeze]

I Did it With Words. When using multi entendre you make the variables mulplicative  Rap High as a Pilot. = the speed of sound.it evolves further  similar to a word like Iron. iron/ metal / character / and words turn into I earn into learn these are called evolving entendre an extreme version is one i thought of called RAO symbolizing over 83 acronyms The Sphinx Near Giza with the Moon These are actually symbolizing Ra , Anubis , Osiris Egyptians being spiritually merged. but never-less when using those multi entendre you are technically going Faster then you think. if the right words are said you can do stuff :)

 

What the bloody hell are you talking about?

[Vee]

Okay, dont quote someone if you can't read the quote.

but english wasnt good enough. 

 

 

 

lets break it down super simple for mr pop eye here..

the word No means No in spanish. BOOM NAILED IT.

okay seriously though when you think about it the transfer is instantaneous.

we dont even notice it it's so fast. that is our communication problem.

 

3Dimensional ═

3Directions 4

3Dialogues    Right / Wright / Write

 

 

Realise = real lies = real eyes

now when you group words up like this to form a sentence you go time traveler fast :)

 

 

"Jack Sparrows Playing Destiny in San Andreas as a Key-Word"

 

[A-wal]

But what is "the speed of light?"

The speed at which light propagates through space, a constant for all inertial observers, c.

 

Suppose A and B are moving at .9c relative to each other.  They both agree to this (were getting away from the velocity addition formula here, but that's OK). That, alone does not tell us anything.  They could be moving at the exact same (absolute) speed (.i.e., each could be moving at .45c toward or away from each other).

No you already said that they're moving at .9c relative to each other. If there were a third object between them so that from this third objects perspective the other two are moving at 4.5c relative to each other then they wouldn't be moving at 4.5c relative to each other from their own perspectives because this is where you need to apply the velocity addition formula. It would probably come out at around .75c (as a guess).

 

But, ignoring that for now, let's say (as SR compels you to do) that one is motionless and the other is moving at .9c.  For now let's just ignore which one it is that's moving.  Either way, the theory says that EACH will be unable accelerate a mass IN ITS FRAME to "the speed of light."  But they're different frames.  One is stationary, the other is travelling at .9c.  So, however measured locally, one is ALREADY going faster in one frame than the other.  Therefore the "speed of light" cannot be the same.  It can be MEASURED (locally) to be the same, sure, but that's an entirely different issue.

No that's the exact opposite of how relative velocity works. Neither is motionless relative to the other, there's only one relative velocity between any two objects, the velocity which the other object is moving relative to themselves.

 

But, back to the original point:  Say you're on object A.  You can observe your speed.  But you're not on B.  You can't directly "observe" the "speed of light" on B.  You can merely deduce what your theory tells you that you "would" supposedly see, IF you were on B.  That's a deduction, not an observation.  This still doesn't address the velocity addition formula, but I'll get to that in the next post.

If they're moving at .5c relative to each other then to each observer light is moving at .5c relative to the other object, but to each observer light is moving at 1c relative to themselves because they're are length contracted and time dilated from the perspective of the other observer and that lowers the speed of light to .5c relative to themselves from the perspective of the other observer. This can't be directly observed no, but it has been directly observed that the speed of light doesn't change if you accelerate (while you're accelerating it does but when you're inertial again it's still c).

 

Let's go back to the original example. As I recall there were 3 objects, A, B,and C with B in the middle.  B sees each one moving away from him at .75c so he "naively" concludes that, relative to each other, A and C are travelling 1.5c.

A and C are traveling at 1.5c relative to each other in that example, from B's frame of reference. Two other object can be moving at any velocity below 2c because objects can move at any velocity below c relative to an observer but two other objects can be moving in opposite directions, each below 1c.

 

Now then, the addition formula presupposes, as a postulate, NOT an observation, that the speed of light is the same in all frames.  Again, that's an assumption, not an observation.

It was observed first that a change in relative velocity doesn't alter the relative velocity of the speed of light. It was that observation that lead to special relativity and to the velocity addition formula which has been conclusively proven through the mass increase of accelerated particles. The mass of an object doesn't change from its own perspective, from the perspective of any inertial observer objects in relative motion have increased mass.

 

Special relativity is the description of how the relative velocity of light can be unaffected by a change in the relative velocity of the observer, something that had been confirmed before it was formulated. SR took the view of the already existing Galilean relativity that all inertial motion is relative (all frames are equivalent) to explain that the speed of light doesn't change in experiments when relative velocity changes simply because light moves at the same velocity in all inertial frames.

 

It means that if you view the motion of objects in four dimensions then all objects (even accelerating ones) move through spacetime at the speed of light. If an object is at rest relative to the observer then it's moving at the speed of light through time from that observer's perspective so their clocks are in sync and objects that are in motion relative to the observer have that relative velocity through space and so have a decreased velocity through time to keep their overall speed in four dimension constant and it's mirrored for any pair of objects. It's beautiful.

 

Now we're told that, by applying that formula, A and C will each "see" themselves as moving at .96c relative to each other and NOT at 1.5c, like B concludes.  But which is it?  1.5c, or .96c?  Is B wrong when he makes HIS measurements of speed?  Are A and C preferred frames over B? B "sees" one thing.  A and C supposedly "see" another.  Which one is "seeing" correctly?

Nobody is wrong. All observers are correct from their own perspective because motion is relative, not absolute.

 

You can't "observe" the situation from A, B, AND C, because you can only be on one of them, not all 3.  You must deduce (from theory) what the other 2 will "see."  You can't "observe" what they see, you're not them.

You don't need to observe what they're seeing because all inertial frames are equivalent and equally valid.

 

SR, as a theory, says that an orbiting satellite in the GPS system will "see" earth clocks as having slowed down.  But the GPS has proven that that's NOT how the satellite "sees" it.  The satellite "sees" the earth clock going FASTER, not SLOWER.  So which is it?  Is the earth clock going faster or slower?  One conclusion is deduced (posited, actually) from theory.  The other conclusion is actually based on empirical fact.  Theory and fact are not the same. Observation and deduction are not the same.

 

Now, either way, it's still true that we can't directly "observe" what the satellite clock "sees," so we're still making deductions, either way. But we do know this:  If we 'treat" the satellite clock as "seeing" the earth clock move faster, the system works.  If we treat it the other way, the whole system fails miserably.

Satellites are moving faster through time from our perspective because they're in a lower gravitational field but slower through time because of their motion relative to us. From the satellites perspective we're moving slower through time because of being in a higher gravitational field and slower again because we're in motion relative to the satellites. Apparently GPS does need to take this into account: http://www.astronomy.ohio-state.edu/~pogge/Ast162/Unit5/gps.html

 

Your position implies that B is "wrong." and that the relative speed of A and C is "really" what the theory says they will measure it to be.  You say the formula doesn't have to force A and C to conform to its dictates, because we "observe" A and C travelling at .96c, when we never "observe" any such thing.

 

You are, in effect, saying that A and C (as we predict they will conclude) are RIGHT and that B is WRONG.  In doing so you are just singling out a frame which is to be "preferred," which itself violates the most fundamental premise of SR.

B is not wrong, A and C are moving at 1.5c relative to each other from B's reference frame but moving at .96c relative to each other in their own frames. None of them are wrong and there is no preferred frame.

 

I'm not getting drawn into another one of these with you. For whatever reason you've decided that SR can't be true so you ignore and misinterpret sources that validate it to come up with invalid BS objections and I'm tired of knocking down your strawmen.

 

I Did it With Words. When using multi entendre you make the variables mulplicative  Rap High as a Pilot. = the speed of sound.it evolves further  similar to a word like Iron. iron/ metal / character / and words turn into I earn into learn these are called evolving entendre an extreme version is one i thought of called RAO symbolizing over 83 acronyms The Sphinx Near Giza with the Moon These are actually symbolizing Ra , Anubis , Osiris Egyptians being spiritually merged. but never-less when using those multi entendre you are technically going Faster then you think. if the right words are said you can do stuff :)

Er, sure.

 

This is correct if by “Doppler light shift” you are referring to the relativistic Doppler shift, and not the simple version which is used when the velocity is much less than c.

Relativistic Doppler shift Z :

 [math]Z=\sqrt { \frac { 1+v/c }{ 1-v/c }  } -1[/math]

 

As you can see, the Lorentz transform is already built into the equation.

The point was that it makes no sense to claim that the observed redshift of light doesn't already include the relativistic nature of velocity increase.

 

 

Using the red shift of distant galaxies puts them at velocities far greater than the speed of light.

This is not correct or at the very least it is written in a confusing manner and requires some explanation.

Galaxy GN-z11 is currently the oldest and most distant known galaxy in the observable universe. It is also the most red-shifted object we have observed.  GN-z11 has a spectroscopic redshift of z = 11.09, which corresponds to a proper distance of approximately 32 billion light-years (9.8 billion parsecs)

 

Plugging the numbers for GN-z11 into the equation for Z, you find the recession velocity v for GN-z11 works out to around 98.6% of the velocity of light.

 

This makes sense because once a galaxy reaches a recession velocity that is FTL, we would no longer be able to detect light that is being emitted NOW from that galaxy. We can only detect light that was being emitted before the galaxy reached a superluminal velocity. So, the galaxies with the highest red shifts, such as GN-z11, will be travelling away from us with a recession velocity just under c, at the time the light from them was emitted. We can infer however, that by now, GN-z11 is already moving away from us at a superluminal velocity, but we cannot detect the light being emitted by it now.

So "Using the red shift of distant galaxies puts them at velocities far greater than the speed of light."

 

That 2c is not a velocity! A velocity is a vector quantity, that is, it has both magnitude and direction. From the point of view of the observer in the middle, the distance between the two moving galaxies is increasing at a rate with a greater magnitude than the speed of light, but it does not have one specific direction, in fact it has two opposite directions and cannot be a vector and so cannot be a velocity.

If an object is moving away from an observer at .9c and a second object is moving in the opposite direction at .9c away from the same observer then those two objects are moving away from each other at 1.8c from the perspective of that central observer. Don't start this again!

[Moronium]

The speed at which light propagates through space, a constant for all inertial observers, c.

 

You state this as a fact, and I know you think it is.  But it aint. It's merely a postulate, assumed without proof.  It's more persuasive when you know what you're talking about.

 

 

 

This can't be directly observed no, but it has been directly observed that the speed of light doesn't change if you accelerate (while you're accelerating it does but when you're inertial again it's still c).

 

No, it is not "still c."  It is, due to the (further) distortion of instrument caused in accordance with the Lorentz transforms, still MEASURED to be c, that's all.

 

 

 

It was observed first that a change in relative velocity doesn't alter the relative velocity of the speed of light. It was that observation that lead to special relativity and to the velocity addition formula which has been conclusively proven.

 

You're hopeless.  You don't understand what "conclusively proven" even means, and the observation you speak of (but mischaracterize) did NOT lead to SR.  It led to Lorentzian relativity, and the lorentz equations (which SR later highjacked).

Edited June 23, 2018 by Moronium

[Super Polymath]

3Dialogues    Right / Wright / Write

 

 

Realise = real lies = real eyes

God satan

 

goats and

 

hormones

 

whore moans

 

yeah there's a syntax in the English

[Vee]

it means you are all connected. 

we be organic computers mate. 

and when you apply that syntax and forge them into merged themed sentences 

thought cant keep up you are forced to determine a path in communication.

I don't want to limit mine. 4D :) "Sapphire Bird"