Yes, You Can Go Faster Than Speed Of Light

[Shustaire]

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

 

agreed its a well thought out definition

[Moronium]

 do you have an answer to how to assign a blade preference in my example above? 

 

 

I now see you have added to your post.  That's not always self-evident.  I don't generally go back an keep re-reading a post I've already quoted and responded to.

 

Yes, I do have an answer.  I wouldn't assign any preference.  Do you think I should?

Edited July 24, 2018 by Moronium

[Moronium]

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.

 

 

Say what?  How does this differ from anything I've said?  

 

1. I agree, at least in a nominal sense. But you haven't answered my question:  So what?

 

2.  Depends on what kind of symmetry you mean, as I've pointed out. As I said, I'm certainly not counting mere symmetry of APPEARANCE as being necessarily indicative of some objective symmetry.  Do you disagree?

Edited July 24, 2018 by Moronium

[Shustaire]

who said anything about symmety as being simply appearance /geometry. Any descriptive one can use is a representation. Whether that is a symmetry under geometry, math, perspective, etc. Any symmetric property is one that is invariant ie not different.

Edited July 24, 2018 by Shustaire

[Moronium]

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

 

 

Liebnitz, who had who notorious extended debates with Newton over absolute motion, harbored an a priori, metaphysical doctrine which he called the "identity of indiscernibles."

 

The basic idea was that if we couldn't detect a difference between two things, they had to be identical things.

 

I don't agree.

 

For one thing, this is primarily an epistemological stance, which he tries to turn into an ontological truth.

Edited July 24, 2018 by Moronium

[Shustaire]

well then there is part of our differences in metaphysics views. We have differences in opinion on the meaning of symmetry. Quite frankly I follow the invariance view.

Edited July 24, 2018 by Shustaire

[Moronium]

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

 

I'm not sure when you made this post, or if you added to it, but I just now saw it.  I really have no idea of what comments of mine some of this might be addressed to.

 

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.

 

 

What!?  As far as I know, the only thing called a "newton scale" was his version of a thermometer.  But you're talking about "weights" here.  The weight of an object will vary greatly, depending upon the gravitational field it's in.  But that in no way changes the "law" (what you're calling f=ma).

[Moronium]

who said anything about symmety as being simply appearance /geometry. Any descriptive one can use is a representation. Whether that is a symmetry under geometry, math, perspective, etc. Any symmetric property is one that is invariant ie not different.

 

 

Let me say it again, in the form of a question.  Please answer these questions.  A simple yes or no will do.

 

1.  Is it possible, as an OBJECTIVE matter, for the earth to orbit the sun, and, at the same time, for the sun to orbit the earth?

 

2.  Is it impossible to decide which object orbits which?

[Shustaire]

Well considering they both orbit a CoM and not each other then no. It is possible if you include a third observation or reference point under the assumption that Com is the Sun ( it isn't but not important) then you can. However using only the sun and the Earth then no. How we view motion is always observer dependent

Edited July 24, 2018 by Shustaire

[Moronium]

Well considering they both orbit a CoM and not each other then no. It is possible if you include a third observation or reference point under the assumption that Com is the Sun ( it isn't but not important) then you can. However using only the sun and the Earth then no. How we view motion is always observer dependent

 Is that a yes or a no to 1?

Is that a yes or no to 2?

 

They both orbit (revolve around) the solar barycenter, but that WASN'T the question.

 

How we view motion is always observer dependent

 

 

Why in the world would you say this?  You don't sound like any kind of objectivist after all.  You sound like a hard-core, dyed in the wool, solipsist.

 

If A and B are moving relative to each other, that fact is NOT "observer dependent."  Both will agree that they are in relative motion.

Edited July 24, 2018 by Moronium

[Moronium]

You seem to have a good knack for answering questions that were never asked.

 

I specifically asked you for, and even put it in ALL CAPS for emphasis,  an OBJECTIVE answer, not a subjective answer.  Yet you respond with this:

 

How we view motion is always observer dependent

 

 

That is little more than a hollow tautology.  "How we view" something is, of necessity, "observer dependent," but that has nothing to do with the question asked.

Edited July 24, 2018 by Moronium

[Shustaire]

To me it does, how anyone describes motion requires observation of change in displacement.

Edited July 24, 2018 by Shustaire

[Moronium]

To me it does, how anyone describes motion requires observation of change in displacement.

 

 

To you, what does?  I don't even know what you're referring to. What is "it?"  And what does "it" do?

 

Can you answer the two questions I asked with either a yes or no? Do that, if you're capable, please, and then you can always elaborate later.

Edited July 24, 2018 by Moronium

[Shustaire]

motion requires observation to model describe or percieve. I already answered your orbit questions. No you cannot distinquish which is orbiting the other without requiring a third reference point. If all you can detect is just the sun and Earth you won't be able to tell which orbits the other. This is due to limits on perspective but in this case it does apply and is unavoidable.

 

It is just like the train scenario, if you cannot perceive the ground or any other reference other than BoB on the ground you will not know who is moving or stationary. Alice on the train or Bob on the ground.

 

Do you know your moving currently at greater than 200 miles per second without observing that motion via reference points ? You cannot feel the motion of our solar system as it orbits the galaxy or the motion of the galaxy. The only way we know we are in motion on those scales is with reference points. We do not feel our motion on this planet we require reference points to even know the Earth is spinning.

 

Mankind at one time thought the Universe was orbiting the earth for this very reason. They could not tell they were in motion....from the observations on Earth prior to astronomy research everyone thought the sun revolved around the Earth. It required other reference points to prove that incorrect.

Edited July 24, 2018 by Shustaire

[Moronium]

If all you can detect is just the sun and Earth you won't be able to tell which orbits the other. 

 

It is just like the train scenario, if you cannot perceive the ground or any other reference other than BoB on the ground you will not know who is moving or stationary. Alice on the train or Bob on the ground.

 

Do you know your moving currently at greater than 200 miles per second without observing that motion via reference points ? 

 

Why do always evade the question and try to answer one that wasn't asked?  You're just like Dubbo who strives to say something he thinks is consistent with SR but ends up contradicting himself without even knowing it because he doesn't understand the implications of his own statements.  

 

To begin with, my question wasn't anything along the lines of "Can you see a door in front of you if you are blind?"    Can you hear if you are deaf?

 

But that's the only answer type you give me.  However that wasn't the question.  Yet you say you have answered the question when all you've done is avoid it.  

 

To repeat, my (most recent) question which you've ignored is this:

 

Can you answer the two questions I asked with either a yes or no? Do that, if you're capable, please, and then you can always elaborate later.

 

 

Are you capable?

 

 

You say:

 

Do you know your moving currently at greater than 200 miles per second without observing that motion via reference points ?

 

Are you claiming that I am moving currently moving at greater than 200 per second?  If so how do you know that?

 

If not answer this:  Is it possible to ever detect, by any means, motion of any kind? 

Edited July 24, 2018 by Moronium

[Moronium]

I have to confess that I got so tired of reading all of your long-winded non sequiturs that I missed your final sentence.

 

....everyone thought the sun revolved around the Earth.  It required other reference points to prove that incorrect.

 

 

 

So you did, ultimately, and perhaps unwittingly, answer the second question.  You say it would be "incorrect" to claim that the sun orbits the earth rather than vice versa.

 

That seems to answer the first question too, but with you, I never know what you're thinking.  What's your answer to my first question?

Edited July 24, 2018 by Moronium

[Moronium]

Of course, Shustaire is consistently correct. You need to look up references to Einstein's two body and three body problems. 

 

 

Heh, and if she, apropos of nothing, said the sky appears blue, you would tell me how correct she was, and then tell me I needed to go outside and look at the sky, wouldn't you?