Yes, You Can Go Faster Than Speed Of Light

[Shustaire]

There is no way to describe using any language objective reality. All our experiences are interpretations of signals. Even our sense of self or self aware is a collective community of individual cells working together to interpret stimuli. Our very bodies and thoughts are due to a cooperative effort of a huge collection of living organisms (cells).

[Moronium]

The laws of physics still apply in non inertial (accelerating frames).  It is the symmetry that is directly affected not the laws.

 

I tend to agree with this, but it is almost universally said that the "laws of physics" are different in non-inertial frames. The wiki excerpt I quoted is just one of many possible examples of this.  But, if your view is correct, what does it even mean to say that the laws of physics are the same?  What could that possibly add to any postulate?  Why even say it?

 

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

 

It doesn't explicitly say that, no.  It implicitly says it though, because it limits its application to inertial frames.  Going beyond the few words of the postulate, Einstein spent many years attempting to "relativize" acceleration.  He finally gave up, conceding defeat.  So acceleration remains absolute in GR as well as SR.  So, when you look at the bigger picture, the only way you can reasonably interpret this postulate is that it is intended to apply ONLY to inertial frames and to EXCLUDE non-inertial frames.

 

So, again, it unclear to me what it's even supposed to mean to say that "the laws of physics are the same in all INERTIAL frames."

Edited July 23, 2018 by Moronium

[Moronium]

There is no way to describe using any language objective reality. All our experiences are interpretations of signals. Even our sense of self or self aware is a collective community of individual cells working together to interpret stimuli. Our very bodies and thoughts are due to a cooperative effort of a huge collection of living organisms (cells).

 

 

You say you don't deal with metaphysics, but you seem to be getting quite heavily into it now.  I don't disagree with what you are saying, per se, but I don't see why it's relevant or why you bring it up in this context.

 

Is there any such thing as an "objective reality," in your view, or not?

 

I asked you a question designed to elicit information from you that would provide me with a better understanding  of what YOU (not I) meant when you said the postulates of SR are "true."

 

You seem to be evading that question.  Are you simply trying to say that there is no truth?

Edited July 23, 2018 by Moronium

[Moronium]

The laws of physics still apply in non inertial (accelerating frames).  It is the symmetry that is directly affected not the law.

 

I'm getting ahead of myself here, but, since you say this, keep it in mind in future discussions.

 

Adopting a preferred frame theory of relative motion might be considered by some to be tantamount to contradicting the SR postulate, because, it is claimed, the laws of physics would not be the same in all inertial frames in such a theory.  But if any difference is simply a matter of asymmetry, and not the laws of physics per se, then the perceived "contradiction" would not be there.

Edited July 23, 2018 by Moronium

[Moronium]

You chose to respond to a post that I made much earlier in this thread.  I then responded to your comments with my own (see posts #1203 and #1205).  I was at least implicitly inviting a reply from you after seeing my comments, but you have ignored all those responses.  Do you have any comments?  Do you disagree with anything I said in response?

 

http://www.scienceforums.com/topic/32241-yes-you-can-go-faster-than-speed-of-light/?p=362534

Edited July 23, 2018 by Moronium

[Shustaire]

So, again, it unclear to me what it's even supposed to mean to say that "the laws of physics are the same in all INERTIAL frames."

 

 

I'm going to answer this with a metaphysics view but will have to include a bit of math.....this will also address the question on preferred frames and how this statement applies to the laws of physics.

 

 Lets do this as a thought experiment, lets pick a fan up... we look at each blade and the are identical (symmetric), we however need to also understand how the blades move. We find they all have the same motion and rates of change in motion.

 

1 ) can you pick out a preferred blade ?

-Is there some distinction in any blade either as an object or object in motion ?

 

So does it make sense to have a preferred blade ?

 

Now change the blades to an inertia frame and apply the same two questions above. Treat the laws of physics to the mathematical application of the Lorentz transforms as describing vector addition rules.  How many models of physics apply vector addition ?

 

A preferred frame requires some distinction, in the example above a blade that is uniquely identified (asymmetric) either as an object or under motion.

 

The Lorentz transforms  also conform to the conservation laws in particular the conservation of linear and angular momentum. 

 

Anyways if the laws are different in every reference frame, and this is a postulate then every reference frame would have distinct asymmetric characteristics. So how can you take an experiment say were testing laws of inertia and have repeatable results from one spot to the other ?

 

-you can't by the postulate the laws of physics is different in every inertia frame.

 

As far as Objective reality the answer is no we can never perceive anything in nature or experience anything in nature that we can honestly describe its true reality. Any object, property, experience we ever encounter is subjective to an interpretation of what we define as being real.

 

(the laws of physics are the same in all (key word) Inertia frames...ie laws are the laws of inertia, which include conservation laws relating to motion.) We are dealing with inertia frames those are the laws that apply. The fact that it also coincides with other laws of physics is an added bonus. The SR model is specifically referring to the laws of inertia.

 

I don't delve into metaphysics however this doesn't mean I cannot get deep into the topic when I choose to.

[Moronium]

A preferred frame requires some distinction, in the example above a blade that is uniquely identified (asymmetric) either as an object or under motion.

 

The Lorentz transforms  also conform to the conservation laws in particular the conservation of linear and angular momentum. 

 

Anyways if the laws are different in every reference frame, and this is a postulate then every reference frame would have distinct asymmetric characteristics. So how can you take an experiment say were testing laws of inertia and have repeatable results from one spot to the other ?

 

-you can't by the postulate the laws of physics is different in every inertia frame.

 

 

 

These questions aren't that difficult to answer, really.

 

1.  If different inertial frames are traveling at different speeds, that difference is real, and can be easily detected.

 

2.  Symmetry of appearance does not entail "equivalence" or "reciprocity."  A guy who, standing on earth, says "the sun rises in the east" (implying that the sun revolves around him) is "seeing" the same thing as Galileo, who claimed the earth was rotating on an axis.  That certainly doesn't mean that they are "both right," or that it's impossible to judge who is "right."  Likewise, each of them is implicitly adopting a preferred frame, but that doesn't mean that both are properly preferred.

Edited July 24, 2018 by Moronium

[Moronium]

Anyways if the laws are different in every reference frame, and this is a postulate then every reference frame would have distinct asymmetric characteristics. So how can you take an experiment say were testing laws of inertia and have repeatable results from one spot to the other ?

 

1.  They are "repeatable," once you take into account the effects of relevant differences.  Same with accelerating frames.  Would you actually say that an experiment done at sea level is not "repeatable" if you do it again at 10 feet above sea level, just because you might get a slightly different result (depending on what you're testing, such as the boiling temperature of water)?

 

2.  But, let's say they're not "repeatable."  The question is still: so, what?  Who says they have to be?

Edited July 24, 2018 by Moronium

[Shustaire]

Are they think about it. Take the same experiment lets pick one for this thought experiment.  Take a Newton scale and place a test weight on it. Lets assume the f=ma varies in every single locale you try it. Which it must if you require the laws of inertia to be different in every locale.

 

Can you develop any possible theory to account for the variation with zero consistency in measurement ?

 

If you cannot find any consistent basis, then how can you develop any effective descriptive predictive formula under physics.

 

Believe me you require some consistency to develop a testable formula.

 

LOl every car on the road would certainly have a problem under this premise lmao

 

How would you even describe this reality ?

 

we won't get into the detail its probably an impossible postulate and have a universe to begin with lmao

Edited July 24, 2018 by Shustaire

[Shustaire]

These questions aren't that difficult to answer, really.

 

1.  If different inertial frames are traveling at different speeds, that difference is real, and can be easily detected.

 

2.  Symmetry of appearance does not entail "equivalence" or "reciprocity."  A guy who, standing on earth, says "the sun rises in the east" (implying that the sun revolves around him) is "seeing" the same thing as Galileo, who claimed the earth was rotating on an axis.  That certainly doesn't mean that they are "both right," or that it's impossible to judge who is "right"

 

 

You might want to understand symmetry a bit better than this example, were not talking observer perspective but symmetry in objects and nature. Specifically symmetry of the laws of nature in different reference zones. That symmetry has profound implications. The mathematics we use to describe this symmetry is unimportant. So is any label of location from perspective ie the Universe revolves around me.

 

That number 2 is based upon an interpretation of perspective.

 

taking the common definition of objective reality which I hope your using.

reality exists independent of our minds...

 

​https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Objectivity_%28philosophy%29

Edited July 24, 2018 by Shustaire

[Moronium]

You might want to understand symmetry a bit better than this example, were not talking observer perspective but symmetry in objects and nature. Specifically symmetry of the laws of nature in different reference zones. That symmetry has profound implications. The mathematics we use to describe this symmetry is unimportant. So is any label of location from perspective ie the Universe revolves around me.

 

That number 2 is based upon an interpretation of perspective.

 

I totally agree that a difference in perspective is simply that (a subjective, not an objective difference).  It has no objective effect on anything.  SR pretends that it does.  That's where SR goes wrong.

 

Are you claiming otherwise?  Now we're back to (one of) the questions you have avoided answering, to wit:  Are you a solipsist?

Edited July 24, 2018 by Moronium

[Moronium]

 

That number 2 is based upon an interpretation of perspective.

 

taking the common definition of objective reality which I hope your using.

reality exists independent of our minds...

 

​https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Objectivity_%28philosophy%29

 

With respect to your addition of the wiki link, yes, I agree absolutely.  There IS an objective reality, if you ask me.

 

When you say "2 is based upon an interpretation of perspective," what significance are you placing on that?   Does it have anything to do with what either you or I said about preferred frames and/or "laws of physics?"

 

You seem to have a habit of, rather than answering a question, just making a whole new set of assertions without even trying to say how it might somehow relate to the issue(s) being discussed.

Edited July 24, 2018 by Moronium

[Shustaire]

It may seem that way to you but if you stop to think about the situations and examples I have been employing then you will realize they do apply to the questions of

1) how does the laws of physics apply with regards to symmetry

2) why is a preferred frame incompatible under two symmetric representations.

 

this in turn replies to the postulate the laws of physics differ in each inertial frame with the added bonus of adding some physics to the discussion. lol

 

 do you have an answer to how to assign a blade preference in my example above? would that preference simply be based upon a chosen preference instead of one based on objective reality. Of course the best we can ever hope for is something all observers can agree upon for a far better objective view than choice of assignment

Edited July 24, 2018 by Shustaire

[Moronium]

You might want to understand symmetry a bit better than this example, were not talking observer perspective but symmetry in objects and nature. Specifically symmetry of the laws of nature in different reference zones. That symmetry has profound implications.

 

 

This is the kind of thing I'm talking about.  What are those "profound implications," and what bearing do they have on anything I've said which you purport to be responding to?

 

If you want to talk about objects, then an object whose length has been altered, or a clock with a retarded rate of ticking, obviously are NOT "symmetrical"  with objects that have not undergone such changes.

Edited July 24, 2018 by Moronium

[Moronium]

It may seem that way to you but if you stop to think about the situations and examples I have been employing then you will realize they do apply to the questions of

1) how does the laws of physics apply with regards to symmetry

2) why is a preferred frame incompatible under two symmetric representations.

 

 

How about you tell me how and why that's supposed to be the case?  Are you disagreeing with anything I've said? If so, what's the basis of your disagreement?  What have I said that you deem to be incorrect?

Edited July 24, 2018 by Moronium

[Moronium]

With respect to your addition of the wiki link, yes, I agree absolutely.  There IS an objective reality, if you ask me.

 

I specifically agree with this definition, as wiki puts it:

 

Objectivity is a central philosophical concept, objective means being independent of the perceptions thus objectivity means the property of being independent from the perceptions, which has been variously defined by sources. Generally, objectivity means the state or quality of being true even outside a subject's individual biases, interpretations, feelings, and imaginings. A proposition is generally considered objectively true (to have objective truth) when its truth conditions are met without biases caused by feelings, ideas, opinions, etc., of a sentient subject.

 

Edited July 24, 2018 by Moronium

[Shustaire]

lol I have been telling you all along...What do you define as symmetric as I employ both the mathematical and physics definition as invariance between any two representations. (math and language are also representations)

 

maybe if I call them added postulates

 

1) if the laws of inertia is not the same in every frame then the two frames are not symmetric.

2) If the frames are symmetric a preferred choice must be arbitrary as there is no distinction between the two frames.

 

 We know this isn't the case due to repeatable experiments which is one implication mentioned

Edited July 24, 2018 by Shustaire