Yes, You Can Go Faster Than Speed Of Light

[Shustaire]

I wouldn't doubt we have metaphysical differences. I rarely bother with metaphysic arguments

[Shustaire]

  Wrong, on all counts.  A particle accelerator doesn't even pretend to see, ascertain, measure, or otherwise concern itself with the "perspective" of the other object.  However, the GPS does.

 

If you tried to use, say, a clock in Chicago, as the master clock in the GPS, it  wouldn't work.  One reason, perhaps the primary reason, that ECI is used as the preferred frame in the GPS is because it is the one which gives the correct predictions (cf the Hafele-Keating experiment). It is not merely a "convenient" frame of reference.

 

Obviously, in all these posts I have only been talking about the effects of speed on clocks. I have just ignored the time dilational effects of gravity, to avoid needless and irrelevant complications.  That is an entirely separate matter.  I am not "confusing" the two.

 

As a broader issue here, the motion must be treated as absolute, not relative.  If the GPS actually took the proposition that A and B are "both correct" when they make mutually exclusive claims about who is moving and whose clock is slower (as SR requires) seriously, the GPS would be dead on arrival.  You could not draw any meaningful conclusions at all in that case.

 

Well for one thing a master clock is meaningless under SR, the proper terminology is reference clock. The reference clock is not absolute even under SR. Motion cannot be absolute as it involves rate of change. Which involves time.

 

You will never be able to see the other clock in the same frame if your standing at the other clock. However you can compare the recorded elapsed time.

 

so in the example above that will correspond to the half life of the radio-isotopes involved in the two atomic clocks used in this particular experiment. (was done using MT Everest if I recall).

 

This is post 194 I don't see a question here but assertions did you request the right post ?

 

Absolute motion is Galilean transformations SR and GR discount absolute motion as all motion is relative.

 

GPS satellites involve a more complex analysis, you need to account also for tidal forces.

 

 It might be easiest to think of clock rates via the number of recorded ticks. If you place a clock on a mountain top and stand beside it the rate of ticks will look normal. The same will apply if you stand by the clock at sea level. It is only when you compare the number of clock ticks to the other clock will you notice a difference.

 

( you don't need to see the other clock at all times to record the passage of time by recording the number of ticks on a clock.)

Edited July 22, 2018 by Shustaire

[Moronium]

This is post 194 I don't see a question here but assertions did you request the right post ?

 

 

 

No, sorry, I meant 1194, not 194.

Edited July 22, 2018 by Moronium

[Moronium]

Well for one thing a master clock is meaningless under SR, the proper terminology is reference clock. 

 

Call it whatever you want, it doesn't change the point any.

 

The reference clock is not absolute even under SR. Motion cannot be absolute as it involves rate of change. Which involves time.

 

It is absolute in the sense that I'm using the term, which is basically "frame independent."  Put another way NOT frame dependent.  But, again, it's not the definitions or terminology which matters.  It's the concepts.

 

Absolute motion is Galilean transformations SR and GR discount absolute motion as all motion is relative.

 

In SR all INERTIAL motion is relative.  But the GPS does not use SR. Accelerating motion is deemed to be absolute, even in SR, but that's not the point here, just an observation.

 

( you don't need to see the other clock at all times to record the passage of time by recording the number of ticks on a clock.)

 

I agree.  As you said in this same post 'However you can compare the recorded elapsed time."

Edited July 22, 2018 by Moronium

[Shustaire]

I seriously doubt it but anything is possible even under physics. All of physics is extremely interconnected to displacement. Every law AFIAK can be modelled via geometric displacement. (ie every theory has a Langrene.).  This includes relativity in any form...Your describing every interaction under physics by the use of inertial frames.

 

Inertial reference frames are also involved under Galilean relativity.

 

 

  Is it possible for the laws of physics to not be THE SAME in all inertial frames?

Edited July 22, 2018 by Shustaire

[Moronium]

The reference clock is not absolute even under SR.

 

When responding in that post, I notice that you did not address the point I raised in last (summation) paragraph, which was;

 

As a broader issue here, the motion must be treated as absolute, not relative.  If the GPS actually took the proposition that A and B are "both correct" when they make mutually exclusive claims about who is moving and whose clock is slower (as SR requires) seriously, the GPS would be dead on arrival.  You could not draw any meaningful conclusions at all in that case

 

.

The proposition of "reciprocal" clock retardation is absolutely essential to SR.  SR won't suffice to operate the GPS.  In fact, reciprocal clock retardation is virtually refuted by the GPS.

[Moronium]

I seriously doubt it but anything is possible even under physics.

 

 

OK, thanks.  That certainly helps clarify where you're "coming from."  At this point I won't even ask why you "seriously doubt it," but that issue may come up down the road.

[Shustaire]

OK, thanks.  That certainly helps clarify where you're "coming from."  At this point I won't even ask why you "seriously doubt it," but that issue may come up down the road.

 

Well I've studied enough theories that I know every theory I have read all apply displacement of geometry to describe any process when it involves any vector quantity. We can treat portions of observations under scalar (magnitude only quantities) but those are largely approximations. Ie Brownian motion relations to scalar quantity temperature. Potentials only represent the strength at a given coordinate.

 

 I cannot think of any process that isn't describable via action under Langrene

Edited July 22, 2018 by Shustaire

[Moronium]

Well I've studied enough theories that I know every theory I have read all apply displacement of geometry to describe any process when it involves any vector quantity. We can treat portions of observations under scalar (magnitude only quantities) but those are largely approximations. Ie Brownian motion relations to scalar quantity temperature. Potentials only represent the strength at a given coordinate.

 

 I cannot think of any process that isn't describable via action under Langrene

 

I can't see where this is relevant to the question.  Even according to SR, the laws of physics are posited to be the same ONLY in inertial frames.  Accelerating frames are non-inertial and that motion is deemed to be absolute motion (in both SR and GR).  

 

Since the laws of physics are not said to be the same in those frames, what effect would that have on the comments you made above?

 

Let me ask this another way:  Do you "seriously doubt" that the "laws of physics" are somehow (without even trying to say how) different in noninertial frames?

Edited July 22, 2018 by Moronium

[Shustaire]

Well if the laws of physics are different in each reference frame how will you get repeatable experimentation at any two given locale ?

 

I'd say that does apply as a valid argument vs the postulate laws of physics not applying equally in every inertial frame wouldn't you ?

 

we already agree everything is in motion...

 

edit: added side argument " How does a law under physics become a law without repeatable experimentation ?

Edited July 22, 2018 by Shustaire

[Moronium]

Well if the laws of physics are different in each reference frame how will you get repeatable experimentation at any two given locale ?

 

I'd say that does apply as a valid argument vs the postulate laws of physics not applying equally in every inertial frame wouldn't you ?

 

we already agree everything is in motion...

 

Well, I'm not sure what you're saying here.  But let's take two frames, one inertial and one noninertial.  Now let's assume the "laws of physics" are not the same in the two frames.  So what? Does that invalidate the laws?  And that would mean EVERY law is different?  If any law is different (say 1 out of 100) then they would not be the same, so it's not clear to me what the postulate is even saying.  In accelerating frames, so-called fictitious (inertial) forces appear, but does that really "change the laws of physics" or just complicate the application of the same old laws (say Newton's 3 laws)?

 

Whatever it means, the whole of physics doesn't just "fall apart" because a frame happens to be accelerating.  We can deal with it, no real problem.  What's the big deal?  Why should it be unimaginable that the laws could be different (not be "the same") in different frames?  

Edited July 22, 2018 by Moronium

[Moronium]

An excerpt from wiki on the topic of the "laws of physics"

 

The laws of motion in non-inertial frames do not take the simple form they do in inertial frames, and the laws vary from frame to frame depending on the acceleration.[2][3] To explain the motion of bodies entirely within the viewpoint of non-inertial reference frames, fictitious forces (also called inertial forces, pseudo-forces[4] and d'Alembert forces) must be introduced to account for the observed motion, such as the Coriolis force or the centrifugal force, as derived from the acceleration of the non-inertial frame.[5] As stated by Goodman and Warner, "One might say that F = ma holds in any coordinate system provided the term 'force' is redefined to include the so-called 'reversed effective forces' or 'inertia force'."

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-inertial_reference_frame

Edited July 22, 2018 by Moronium

[Moronium]

Another question for you, Shus.  If 1 and 2 (below) are accepted, for the sake of argument, does that make 3 "true" in the way you are using the term when you say the postulates of SR are true? You say they are true "when properly understood in the context SR is designed to address."

 

1. All polar bears are black

2.  This animal is a polar bear.

 

3.  Therefore, this animal is black

Edited July 22, 2018 by Moronium

[Shustaire]

Well, I'm not sure what you're saying here.  But let's take two frames, one inertial and one noninertial.  Now let's assume the "laws of physics" are not the same in the two frames.  So what? Does that invalidate the laws?  And that would mean EVERY law is different?  If any law is different (say 1 out of 100) then they would not be the same, so it's not clear to me what the postulate is even saying.  In accelerating frames, so-called fictitious (inertial) forces appear, but does that really "change the laws of physics" or just complicate the application of the same old laws (say Newton's 3 laws)?

 

Whatever it means, the whole of physics doesn't just "fall apart" because a frame happens to be accelerating.  We can deal with it, no real problem.  What's the big deal?  Why should it be unimaginable that the laws could be different (not be "the same") in different frames?

 

 

It will make a difference, if the laws of physics is different in one inertial frame compared to the other, then experiments wouldn't be repeatable to the same accuracy between experiments at two locale. Acceleration can be handled via instantaneous velocity. So one can model an acceleration with SR has using instantaneous velocity to apply an inertial frame.

 

 As a matter of detail acceleration is handled through a  rotation instead of a boost but that's a quage group detail. SR is capable of handling acceleration you simply lose time reversal symmetry. The laws of physics still apply in non inertial (accelerating frames).  It is the symmetry that is directly affected not the laws.

 

SR also does not state that the laws are different in non inertial frames, it simply states that SR applies inertial frames and in those inertial frames the laws of physics is the same. This doesn't mean it implies the laws are different in non inertial frames. The vector commutations would be affected via Minkowskii tensor rotation but that is within the bounds of the laws of physics,

 

It is incorrect to think SR states that non inertial frames would have different laws it doesn't state that by simply expressing SR uses inertial frames in the first postulate. SR only applies directly to inertial frames on the base transforms

Edited July 23, 2018 by Shustaire

[Shustaire]

Another question for you, Shus.  If 1 and 2 (below) are accepted, for the sake of argument, does that make 3 "true" in the way you are using the term when you say the postulates of SR are true? You say they are true "when properly understood in the context SR is designed to address."

 

1. All polar bears are black

2.  This animal is a polar bear.

 

3.  Therefore, this animal is black

 

these are just representations of reality or what we interpret to be a bear. Color is also a property that requires an interpretation of signals. Everything we describe or define via language including math is simply representations.

 

Anything we see/ measure/ interact with/ observe and experience are representations of how we interpret reality.

Edited July 23, 2018 by Shustaire

[Moronium]

these are just representations of reality or what we interpret to be a bear. Color is also a property that requires an interpretation of signals.

  That's all true, but it doesn't answer (or even address) the question that I asked.

Edited July 23, 2018 by Moronium

[Moronium]

these are just representations of reality or what we interpret to be a bear. Color is also a property that requires an interpretation of signals.

 

This does appear to be making a statement of some kind, even if it doesn't respond to the question.

 

Are you implying that there simply is no objective reality whatsoever and that only mental impressions "really" exist?  The most extreme application of this view basically concludes that there is no material world whatsoever, i.e., that there is no mind/body duality, only mind.  Monism, not dualism.

Edited July 23, 2018 by Moronium