Yes, You Can Go Faster Than Speed Of Light

[Moronium]

You say:

 

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

 

 

If you have been following the conversation at all, you would know that you're contradicting Einstein when you say this, right?  I just quoted him.  He says you cannot properly make such a claim:

 

 

http://www.scienceforums.com/topic/32241-yes-you-can-go-faster-than-speed-of-light/?p=362428  See posts 1102 & 1103 also.

Edited July 24, 2018 by Moronium

[Moronium]

Oh dear god... 

 

 

The earth is rotating with respect around the sun which can be considered at rest. 

 

 

As I said before, I completely agree!  Einstein doesn't, as you had tried to claim, but.....

 

All the motion you're talking about here is ABSOLUTE motion, not relative motion, which he said was the ONLY motion that can be ascertained.

Edited July 24, 2018 by Moronium

[Moronium]

There is only relative motion, there is no absolute motion. 

 

 

Heh, you don't even know the difference, as the terms are used in the context of theories of motion.

 

You should try speaking on topics which you understand.  

 

Do you deny that Einstein contradicted your statement?  Yes or no?

Edited July 24, 2018 by Moronium

[Moronium]

The famous physicist Geoffrey Builder published a very influential scientific paper way back in the 1950's entitled "Ether and Relativity."   Later, in the 1970's, Hafele and Keating discovered that, contrary to their initial expectations, SR could not possibly explain the readings on the clocks that were returned.  They then cited Builder's paper and employed a preferred frame theory to explain the results, which did the trick (at the expense of invalidating SR).

 

I can't find Builder's paper in a PDF format, so I can't really quote from it.  To summarize, he said, using irrefutable logic, that SR itself presupposed an absolute frame of reference, and that nothing in SR actually precluded it, notwithstanding the tremendous efforts exerted by many to say that it did.

 

But here's a link to it, if anyone here cares to educate themselves on the topic.

 

http://adsbit.harvard.edu/cgi-bin/nph-iarticle_query?bibcode=1958AuJPh..11..279B&db_key=AST&page_ind=0&plate_select=NO&data_type=GIF&type=SCREEN_GIF&classic=YES

Edited July 24, 2018 by Moronium

[Moronium]

Here's another famous paper which made basically the same points, long ago (1993):

 

The Physical Interpretation of Special Relativity - a Vindication of Hendrik Lorentz

 

Modern astronomy has revealed the existence of a cosmologically-based fundamental reference frame associated with the distribution of matter in our universe. The existence of such a frame offers a firm basis to H. A. Lorentz's approach to the understanding of the relativistic effects associated with the transformation named after him. Lorentz's approach and his notion of an "ether" evolved over a number of years, and it has been further refined as a result of our new view of the universe. It now provides a complete interpretation of Special Relativity based on a single assumption - that light-propagation takes place with respect to a unique, observable, fundamental reference frame. This interpretation links Einstein's theory with Lorentz's findings and so further develops our understanding...

 

...In the new context of an observable and defined fundamental reference frame for light propagation, the physical theory developed by Heaviside, Fitzgerald, Larmor, Poincare and Lorentz (and others) falls into place very beautifully, and their programme has been further systematised and generalised by Ives [18], Builder [19] and Prokhovnik [20], The 'NeoLorentzian' approach to Special Relativity resolves all the ambiguities and apparent paradoxes of the theory...

 

So, we can now actually estimate our local motion relative to the universe at large by measuring the temperature of the background radiation in different directions from our standpoint; it appears to be about 300 kilometres per second.  Thus, whether we like it or not, we do now have an observable 'preferred' reference frame, and it may be shown [17] from the Robertson-Walker theory describing this expanding frame that it is the unique frame in respect to which light (all forms of energy) propagates at speed c in all directions. The manifest existence of such a frame constitutes a cosmological imperative; yet strangely, this is ignored and evaded by the main body of physicists who still insist that the Einstein-Minkowski version of Special Relativity is sufficient, as if no preferred frame existed! Further, the endeavours of particle physicists has led to the conviction that empty space is by no means featureless but, instead, should be considered as a physical vacuum - a likely seat for field activity as envisaged by Lorentz....

 

Only by astronomical observation can we discern the existence of the fundamental frame and our movement relative to it...  It remained for Builder [19] to disclose the source of these two separate time results and hence present a fully-integrated "Neo-Lorentzian" interpretation of Einstein's Special Theory

 

.

 

http://zfn.mpdl.mpg.de/data/Reihe_A/48/ZNA-1993-48a-0925.pdf

Edited July 24, 2018 by Moronium

[Moronium]

look, such subjects are too much outdated you cannot possibly be taken seriously here?

 

Here? In Fundie Heaven?  Of course not.  They'll never be "taken seriously," no matter how mainstream they are.  The fundies here reject all such facts, a priori, and wouldn't even think about educating themselves.

Edited July 24, 2018 by Moronium

[Moronium]

Here, once again, is a very recent quote from a nobel-prize winning physicist, Prof. George Smoot.  It gets totally ignored every time I post it.  It will again:

 

This would seem to violate the postulates of Galilean and Special Relativity but there is a preferred frame in which the expansion of the Universe looks most simple. That frame is the average rest frame of the matter and CMB and from that frame the expansion is essentially isotropic....The CMB is then the standard frame of reference for cosmology work.

 

 

http://aether.lbl.gov/www/projects/u2/

 

That is the long-accepted mainstream view, unbeknownst to all the fundies who are still living in 1930.

Edited July 24, 2018 by Moronium

[Moronium]

far too much observational evidence supports otherwise.. Why should the moderators keep this thread open, can you give me any good reason?

 

Hahahahaha.

 

Rave on, Fundie.

Edited July 24, 2018 by Moronium

[Moronium]

There is no such frame,Smoot is definitely wrong. The aether is not fundamentally a frame either. 

 

You tell em, boy!  You'll probably get 2-3 Nobel prizes once you do, eh?

Edited July 24, 2018 by Moronium

[OceanBreeze]

There is only relative motion, there is no absolute motion. 

 

Oh? Have you forgotten what you wrote here?

 

1. A black hole moving fast relative to an observer at rest will appear hot.

 

2. An observer moving at relativistic speeds will measure the black hole to be cooler. 

 

 

That sounds suspiciously like absolute motion!

 

That is why you got your butt kicked off of yet another science forum!    

[Moronium]

i asked you a relevant question 

 

 

You didn't ask any question.  As always, you just made unsupported, half-baked assertions, presented as fact.

 

School yourself, son.

[OceanBreeze]

The famous physicist Geoffrey Builder published a very influential scientific paper way back in the 1950's entitled "Ether and Relativity."   Later, in the 1970's, Hafele and Keating discovered that, contrary to their initial expectations, SR could not possibly explain the readings on the clocks that were returned.  They then cited Builder's paper and employed a preferred frame theory to explain the results, which did the trick (at the expense of invalidating SR).

 

I can't find Builder's paper in a PDF format, so I can't really quote from it.  To summarize, he said, using irrefutable logic, that SR itself presupposed an absolute frame of reference, and that nothing in SR actually precluded it, notwithstanding the tremendous efforts exerted by many to say that it did.

 

But here's a link to it, if anyone here cares to educate themselves on the topic.

 

http://adsbit.harvard.edu/cgi-bin/nph-iarticle_query?bibcode=1958AuJPh..11..279B&db_key=AST&page_ind=0&plate_select=NO&data_type=GIF&type=SCREEN_GIF&classic=YES

 

The PDF is here

 

 

 

Abstract

The relative retardation of clocks, predicted by the restricted theory of relativity, demands our recognition of the causal significance of absolute velocities. This demand is also implied by the relativistic equations of electrodynamics and even by the formulation of the restricted theory itself. The observable effects of absolute accelerations and of absolute velocities must be ascribed to interaction of bodies and physical systems with some absolute inertial system. We have no alternative but to identify this absolute system with the universe. Thus, in the context of physics, absolute motion must be understood to mean motion relative to the universe, and any wider or more abstract interpretation of the "absolute" must be denied.

[Moronium]

The PDF is here

 

 

 

Thanks, Popeye!  I'll bookmark that.

[OceanBreeze]

wf... you didn't even understand any of it, so what chance do you have here? You're pretty much a relevant form of scum to moronium, no wonder friendships blossomed. 

 

Now you are showing your true character, and it isn't pretty!

 

I simply stated the facts. You Did get booted from yet another science forum and it was because of your claim of absolute motion as reflected in the exact quote I referenced. Face up to it!

[Moronium]

The PDF is here

 

Abstract

 

 Thus, in the context of physics, absolute motion must be understood to mean motion relative to the universe, and any wider or more abstract interpretation of the "absolute" must be denied.

 

What Builder is saying here, if you read it in context, is that it may or may not be, and could be argued, that the universe itself is also moving.  But that would not be a question of physics, and is therefore irrelevant in physics.  Such "abstract interpretations" would be strictly metaphysical in character.

Edited July 24, 2018 by Moronium

[Moronium]

Builder:

 

...according to the restricted theory, the calculation of the relative retardation of the two clocks requires a knowledge of their individual speeds as measured in some inertial reference system. It is not sufficient to know the velocity of the clocks relative to one another; it would still be necessary to know the velocity of one of the clocks and we would then know the speeds of both.

 

Edited July 24, 2018 by Moronium

[Moronium]

Builder (the remainder of his abstract, which Popeye didn't bother to quote):

 

Interaction of bodies and physical systems with the universe cannot be described in terms of Mach's hypothesis, since this is untenable. There is therefore no alternative to the ether hypothesis. It is shown that this is compatible with the restricted theory of relativity and even provides a tenable basis, when taken together with the principle of relativity, for that theory. It is shown that the hypothesis provides a satisfactory and sufficient causal explanation of the predicted relative retardation of clocks...