Yes, You Can Go Faster Than Speed Of Light

[Moronium]

More from Builder's paper:

 

It is true that we cannot measure these absolute velocities; but, subject to this limitation, all observable predictions of the Maxwell-Lorentz equations can be verified by observations made in any arbitrarily selected inertial reference system. This may be expressed more specifically by saying that the postulate is sufficient because, if it is correct, it follows that the relativistic equations of electrodynamics must. hold in any arbitrarily selected inertial reference system...

 

It is true that we can predict the relation between these measures in S and S if we know the velocity of S' relative to S. Yet we cannot ascribe any causal significance to this relative velocity... It is true that we cannot measure these speeds, because we cannot identify the system So; but this is not necessary, because all the observable consequences of (4) and (5) can be verified by measurements made in any inertial system S and by calculations using equations (1) and (3).

 

 

 

Get it, Fundies?

 

I didn't think so.

Edited July 24, 2018 by Moronium

[Moronium]

I understand Builder to be saying essentially this:

 

1..Any "absolute" frame would necessarily be inertial.

 

2.  Therefore, any inertial frame, anywhere in the universe, is either (1) the absolute frame, or else (2) moving uniformly with respect to it.

 

3.  We therefore know that any acceleration relative to any inertial frame is also, by necessity, acceleration with respect to the absolute frame.

 

4. Acceleration is universally acknowledged to be absolute, not relative.  Since we know this, we can conclude that all motion, inertial or non-inertial, is absolute (not relative) motion.

 

We don't even have to ever know which frame is the absolute one to know this.

Edited July 24, 2018 by Moronium

[Moronium]

Posted Today, 12:50 PM

 

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.

 

 

So how does SR come to "know" the individual speeds of two clocks?  Empirically, it doesn't know anything.  But it can still just make crap up.  It REQUIRES an observer to say his speed is zero.  It then arbitrarily assigns ALL of the relative motion to the other object, thereby "learning," if you're naive enough to call it that, the speed of that object also.

 

Put another way, it treats the observer's frame as the absolute one--the preferred frame whose absolute speed is ZERO.

Edited July 24, 2018 by Moronium

[Moronium]

What this all boils down to is something I've said several times when discussing the twin paradox (again, most people don't even seem to know what the true "paradox" is).  Builder says it is not a paradox, but rather a contradiction, which it is.

 

Builder is making the same point (with different conclusions) that Herbert Dingle made before him.  Dingle was then slandered as being a senile quack, and thereafter brutally ridiculed in the SR community, but that's another issue--one which doesn't reflect well on the ideological SR adherents (aka the fundies, to answer your question, Dubbo).

 

So what is this "point?"  It's actually very simple, and you would think that any average person would readily understand it, if he reflected upon it.

 

The point is this:  It is impossible to get an absolute answer (such as that one twin really is younger than the other) from a strictly relative theory of motion.

 

Think about it, eh, Fundies?

Edited July 24, 2018 by Moronium

[Moronium]

The point is this:  It is impossible to get an absolute answer (such as that one twin really is younger than the other) from a strictly relative theory of motion.

 

Think about it, eh, Fundies?

 

 

Newton encountered the same phenomenon when he debated the "relationists" (relativists) of his day, such as the brilliant German philosopher, Leibnitz.  As much as they adamantly attempted to deny the concept of absolute motion, they, all the while, tacitly assumed it in their own mechanics.  They couldn't even see their own self-contradictions.

Edited July 24, 2018 by Moronium

[Moronium]

 what does fundie mean 

 

 

A fundie is a person who does not base his statements or beliefs on rational analysis.  He doesn't need that, or anything else either.  He has faith, which is more than sufficient to defeat all comers.  He doesn't need no stinking "facts" when he has revealed TRUTH at his disposal from the get-go.  He need only cite scripture to irrefutably "prove" his point.

 

Like a bible-thumping religious fundamentalist, ya know?

 

Or an SR fundie.

Edited July 24, 2018 by Moronium

[Shustaire]

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?

  

 

 

 

 

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? 

 

 

You know I cannot tell if you even comprehended anything I have said at all with the above post.

 

Obviously I am wasting my time if you cannot comprehend the simplistic nature of my posts. You asked what the consequences are of preferred frames. I answered that via the blade example if I recall.....

 

 You agreed no choice can be made on the blade example, well this example applies to all forms of preference.

 

You then seem to restrict the word observer as being only human senses. It is also a short hand of also describing any performed measurement....or any other form of comparison such as that involved in any relationship....

 

I'm sorry you cannot comprehend SR, (or terminology under physics, perhaps if you truly approached the subject without the biases you have set for yourself with all the conspiracy blah blah that keeps cropping into your posts you might actually think about the problem with objectivity...

 

A good example is your different view of symmetry which you still haven't described how it differs from that of physics...

 

  I haven't caught up with the posts with 006 yet, not sure if I should bother...

Edited July 24, 2018 by Shustaire

[Moronium]

You know I cannot tell if you even comprehended anything I have said at all with the above post.

 

Obviously I am wasting my time if you cannot comprehend the simplistic nature of my posts. You asked what the consequences are of preferred frames. I answered that via the blade example if I recall.....

 

 You agreed no choice can be made on the blade example, well this example applies to all forms of preference.

 

 

No, it doesn't in any way apply to "all forms of preference."  You seem to think that the most unwarranted and bizarre inferences you draw from your own statements make them self-proving.  Fraid not, sorry.

[Shustaire]

afraid so but I really don't care if you agree or not. Its not my place to tell you what to believe.

 

The replies I have provided has nothing to do with believe, but how physics and mathematics agree a preferred frame implies. I take far greater weight in their opinions than anything I have seen in this thread.

 

 You need a valid reason to choose one frame over the other. Something distinctive enough that all observers can agree upon. Or is provable as distinct under math, quite frankly I can check but I'll also bet it applies under philosophy.

 

so quite frankly the onus is yours to prove us wrong when we answer based on the standard models of physics. It is not our problem if you refuse to understand or accept our replies.

 

I'm almost afraid to hear your definition of an absolute quantity. Mine is "same for all observers, unchanging hence invariant ".

 

(just in case you can't figure it out but I include the quantity absolute motion under the above)

 

Funny how the speed of light c follows under the above descriptive under relativity. Luminiferous eather is static unmoving so still invariant but doesn't have motion.

Edited July 24, 2018 by Shustaire

[Moronium]

 

 

 You need a valid reason to choose one frame over the other. Something distinctive enough that all observers can agree upon. Or is provable as distinct under math, quite frankly I can check but I'll also bet it applies under philosophy.

 

I agree with that much.  But I've already given some examples of that, which are self-evident to begin with.  If two objects are travelling at different speeds, for example, that is a universal fact.  Is this a "relevant" distinction?  Sure, so much so that elaborate transforms are needed to compare the two.

 

I'm almost afraid to hear your definition of an absolute quantity. Mine is "same for all observers, unchanging hence invariant ".

 

Absolute motion does not necessarily use the adjective "absolute" in the same sense other references might.  One dictionary definition (for physics) is "motion relative to a preferred frame," for example.  Another common meaning (which I've already given you) is "frame independent."  If you can't understand that, then I'm at loss to help you much further.

 

(just in case you can't figure it out but I include the quantity absolute motion under the above)

 

Funny how the speed of light c follows under the above descriptive under relativity. Luminiferous eather is static unmoving so still invariant but doesn't have motion.

 

c is NOT invariant.  It is merely measured to be, for reasons I've (by citing Lorenz) fully explained.  You might say it's "co-varient," but if it were invariant there would be no transforms.

 

As a theoretical matter, any frame can be designated as a "preferred frame," however arbitrarily.  The doghouse in my backyard, for example.  If I postulate that to be a preferred frame (i.e., at rest), then, under my hypothesis, anything moving with respect to it is in "absolute motion."

Edited July 24, 2018 by Moronium

[Shustaire]

 The transforms apply only to the space-like components not the time like. the speed c is not a valid reference frame under SR. It is an invariant quantity as all observers will measure the same value. You also have to recall the length component also contracts so separation distance  is ds^2=0. under GR hence describes the invariant worldline of or null geodesic. So under math c is invariant as all observers will measure c.

 

Hence the frame to model this is variant and not invariant. An invariant frame is Galilien in the time and x dimensions. The geometry of two Galilean frames are identical.

Edited July 24, 2018 by Shustaire

[Shustaire]

As a theoretical matter, any frame can be designated as a "preferred frame," however arbitrarily.  The doghouse in my backyard, for example.  If I postulate that to be a preferred frame (i.e., at rest), then, under my hypothesis, anything moving with respect to it is in "absolute motion."

 

incorrect for reasons above.

[Moronium]

incorrect for reasons above.

Then you don't even understand what I meant by saying "theoretically."  If it is "at rest" then it is distinct from all other frames for that reason alone, if no other reason(s).

Edited July 24, 2018 by Moronium

[Shustaire]

I wish you posted your replies outside the quote box, ah well . On point one when your referring to the question Reference frame being absolute in some quantity, it means the geometry under 4D treatments. 3D as well as a reference frame is a geometric object

[Shustaire]

Then you don't even understand what I meant by saying "theoretically."  If it is "at rest" then it is distinct from all other frames for that reason alone.

 

No I do however you also previously agreed countless times all objects are in motion. A non inertial frame is at rest, hence one of the previous mentioned problems of SR and why GR changed this to all frames are inertial.

 

We have been describing inertial frames having certain requirements in order for an inertial frame to be preferred, obviously if you have a group of inertial frames with one frame being non inertial you have a distinction. That has been precisely my point. you require distinction to have a preferred frame.

NOT ARBITRARY CHOICE>

 

we went over the laws of physics aspects, in point of detail on the properties under inertial frames. With key terminology some of which you don't agree with ie symmetry grr might as well talk different languages when you can't agree on terminology....

Edited July 24, 2018 by Shustaire

[Moronium]

No I do however you also previously agreed countless times all objects are in motion. 

 

1.  I never agreed with that.

 

2.  Can you distinguish theory from fact?  At all?

[Shustaire]

no one can distinquish fact that is a metaphysics argument unto itself, all theories are simply to the best of our understanding and never fact. I have told you this many times before.