Yes, You Can Go Faster Than Speed Of Light

[Moronium]

I don't believe you.

 Believe whatever you want.  In the GPS a guy standing on a street corner in Chicago, a car going 80 mph en route to LA from New York, a satellite orbiting the earth, and everything else is "moving."  Chicago itself is moving. The ECI aint.  Every moving object has a clock which is running slower  than the "master clock" at the ECI.  The faster they are moving relative to the ECI, the slower their clock ticks. Notice that I said relative to the ECI, not "relative to each other," as SR would have it.

Edited June 25, 2018 by Moronium

[A-wal]

That's an arbitrary choice of a coordinate system. It's a preferred frame because of convenience, not because it's an actual 'preferred' frame in the technical sense of the word.

 

The relative motion of any two objects causes each to be time dilated from the perspective of the other, this is true of the GPS system just as in particle accelerators and all other places in the universe.

 

You might be getting mixed up with the gravitational time dilation involved in GPS that isn't subject to the same rules as inertial frames.

[Farsight]

Red shift cannot tell us anything about a galaxy that is travelling FTL away from us because we would not be able to see the light coming from such a galaxy! We can only see redshift from galaxies that are travelling slower than light speed at the time the light was emitted.

This is wrong I'm afraid. See https://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0310808 : "We show that we can observe galaxies that have, and always have had, recession velocities greater than the speed of light". Also see the ant on the rubber rope on Wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ant_on_a_rubber_rope  

[Moronium]

That's an arbitrary choice of a coordinate system. It's a preferred frame because of convenience, not because it's an actual 'preferred' frame in the technical sense of the word.

 

The relative motion of any two objects causes each to be time dilated from the perspective of the other, this is true of the GPS system just as in particle accelerators and all other places in the universe.

  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.

Edited June 25, 2018 by Moronium

[Moronium]

This is wrong I'm afraid. See https://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0310808 : "We show that we can observe galaxies that have, and always have had, recession velocities greater than the speed of light". Also see the ant on the rubber rope on Wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ant_on_a_rubber_rope  

 

Thanks for that citation, Farsight.  Good find.  Although it looks like a very interesting article, I haven't read it all yet.  However, for my purposes, I did take special notice of this excerpt from the abstract:

 

 

Attempts to restrict recession velocities to less than the speed of light require a special relativistic interpretation of cosmological redshifts. We analyze apparent magnitudes of supernovae and observationally rule out the special relativistic Doppler interpretation of cosmological redshifts at a confidence level of 23 sigma.

 

This is just another (of many) indication(s) that SR's attempt to regulate "reality" via mathematical formulas (which themselves create conflicts) is not the ideal approach.  Trying to "restrict" the speed of light with a postulate and a slide rule doesn't do much, in itself.

Edited June 25, 2018 by Moronium

[DaveC426913]

I keep wondering..,is there ANYBODY who even understands what I'm saying here?  Anybody at all?  Surely someone must understand that the conclusions you reach are strictly dependent upon the assumptions (postulates) you start with. 

And surely someone must understand that your starting assumptions can never be proven.  You take them as a given (whether right or wrong) and go from there. Where they take you may persuade you to abandon them (i.e., they can be "disproven"), but the fact that you don't (or won't) abandon them doesn't prove that they are "true."

Yes.  See paragraph 2 in this post. We all know what postulates are.

 

No one is trying to prove anything is "true". That's a straw man.

[Farsight]

Thanks for that citation, Farsight.  Good find.  Although it looks like a very interesting article, I haven't read it all yet.  However, for my purposes, I did take special notice of this excerpt from the abstract:

 

This is just another (of many) indication(s) that SR's attempt to regulate "reality" via mathematical formulas (which themselves create conflicts) is not the ideal approach.  Trying to "restrict" the speed of light with a postulate and a slide rule doesn't do much, in itself.

Einstein came up with his postulate in 1905, and abandoned it in 1907. There’s a Wikipedia article on the Variable Speed of Light. Take a look at an old version dating from 2014, you can see a section entitled Einstein’s VSL attempt in 1911. This says Einstein first mentioned a variable speed of light in 1907 and reconsidered the idea more thoroughly in 1911. However it then goes on to say Einstein abandoned the idea in 1912 because it only predicted half the deflection of light by the Sun. However it isn’t true. Einstein didn’t abandon the idea. That’s why you can find him saying the same thing year after year.

 

1912: “On the other hand I am of the view that the principle of the constancy of the velocity of light can be maintained only insofar as one restricts oneself to spatio-temporal regions of constant gravitational potential”.

1913: “I arrived at the result that the velocity of light is not to be regarded as independent of the gravitational potential. Thus the principle of the constancy of the velocity of light is incompatible with the equivalence hypothesis”.

1914: “In the case where we drop the postulate of the constancy of the velocity of light, there exists, a priori, no privileged coordinate systems.”

1915: “the writer of these lines is of the opinion that the theory of relativity is still in need of generalization, in the sense that the principle of the constancy of the velocity of light is to be abandoned”.

1916: “In the second place our result shows that, according to the general theory of relativity, the law of the constancy of the velocity of light in vacuo, which constitutes one of the two fundamental assumptions in the special theory of relativity and to which we have already frequently referred, cannot claim any unlimited validity”.

1920: “Second, this consequence shows that the law of the constancy of the speed of light no longer holds, according to the general theory of relativity, in spaces that have gravitational fields. As a simple geometric consideration shows, the curvature of light rays occurs only in spaces where the speed of light is spatially variable”.

 

The latest version of the VSL article says as much. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Variable_speed_of_light#Einstein's_updated_proposals_(1905–1915). This is why Einstein said special relativity is nowhere precisely realized in the real world: https://einsteinpapers.press.princeton.edu/vol7-trans/156?highlightText=%22precisely+realized%. Where is the speed of light constant? Nowhere.

Edited June 26, 2018 by Farsight

[Moronium]

The latest version of the VSL article says as much. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Variable_speed_of_light#Einstein's_updated_proposals_(1905–1915). This is why Einstein said special relativity is nowhere precisely realized in the real world: https://einsteinpapers.press.princeton.edu/vol7-trans/156?highlightText=%22precisely+realized%. Where is the speed of light constant? Nowhere.

 

Yeah, around 1949 Einstein finally admitted that it was "unjustified" and "indefensible" for him to have tried to save SR by building his GR metric "on top of it."

 

Thanks again for your extensive research.  I'm impressed.

Edited June 26, 2018 by Moronium

[Moronium]

Huh? When did he say this?

 

My memory tells me when he formulated the SRT he immediately realized it was limited which lead him to the general theory which indeed was built on the logical premise of limited flat spacetime. 

 

I posted the source in another thread--not sure I can easily find it again.

 

Your memory aint so hot, though, eh?

 

Shortly after August 10, 1912 by his own recollections of this period, he began to realize that an entirely new geometry for space-time was needed. The space-time used by special relativity did not fit the bill at all. Its flat geometry insured that any pair of reference frames would be tied together by a single, constant relative velocity which would preclude the accelerating affects of gravity.

https://einstein.stanford.edu/content/relativity/q25.html

Edited June 26, 2018 by Moronium

[OceanBreeze]

This is wrong I'm afraid. See https://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0310808 : "We show that we can observe galaxies that have, and always have had, recession velocities greater than the speed of light". Also see the ant on the rubber rope on Wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ant_on_a_rubber_rope  

 

As I posted earlier, from Wikipedia:

Galaxy GN-z11 is currently the oldest and most distant known galaxy in the observable universe. It is also the most red-shifted object we have observed.  GN-z11 has a spectroscopic redshift of z = 11.09, which corresponds to a proper distance of approximately 32 billion light-years (9.8 billion parsecs)

 

Also, the equation for Relativistic Doppler Redshift is:

 

[math]Z=\sqrt { \frac { 1+v/c }{ 1-v/c }  } -1[/math]

 

So, just plug the numbers in for Gn-z11 and you find that its recession velocity works out to 0.986c

 

I don’t see how there can be any other galaxy moving away with a faster recession velocity than this, since this is the most red-shifted object that has ever been observed!

 

However, I also noticed the same thing that Moronium did:

 

“Attempts to restrict recession velocities to less than the speed of light require a special relativistic interpretation of cosmological redshifts. We analyze apparent magnitudes of supernovae and observationally rule out the special relativistic Doppler interpretation of cosmological redshifts at a confidence level of 23 sigma.”

 

So, these authors have taken it upon themselves to abandon the mathematics of Relativistic Doppler Redshift in favor of some other formula? I would like to know what formula they are using and how they can detect the redshift, or any light at all for that matter, from “galaxies that have, and always have had recession velocities greater than the speed of light”

 

It makes no sense to me. Can they also see tachyons?

[OceanBreeze]

I can see where it is possible to choose a preferred frame in this situation or in the situation where a rocket blasts off from the Earth, as in the twin paradox, just based on the huge difference in mass, but how would you pick a preferred frame where the two objects are the same mass?

Let’s take an example of two 100 kg masses that are out in space away from any massive bodies and connected by a powerful spring. Now the spring is sprung and the masses are each accelerated up to 0.8c in opposite directions, from the viewpoint of the spring, which remains at the same position in space.

By the velocity addition formula, the relative velocity between the two objects is 0.9756c and according to SR they would both be time dilated and length contracted with respect to each other. (reciprocal time dilation)

What would a preferred frame theory say, and how would one frame be preferred over the other?

 

 

I would still like to see your response to this, Moronium.

[OceanBreeze]

Do you know what... if you think you can go faster than speed of light, it's not about the objections for, its about the experimental evidence against. This doesn't rule out a class of tachyons that exist above the speed of light speed, but you can never approach or accelerate above it in the vacuum of space with any standard model particle. The only time we can do this, is by changing the medium in which electrons move through, which satisfies the argument tachyons at least exist in nature. 

 

I agree with everything but the last sentence. The question is, can anything go faster than the velocity of light in a vacuum?

 

Changing the medium doesn't answer that as it has been demonstrated that even light, in a vacuum, can go faster than light in certain other mediums. 

[Super Polymath]

The question is, can anything go faster than the velocity of light in a vacuum?

Yes an electron moving through red-shifted photon aether still produces a superluminal tug in the opposite direction to the way in which it is going in the form of a gw wave the addition of velocities because it itself is dilated that's why it moves at 1/365 x c. So in the redshifted vacuum quadrillions of c + 1/365( c ) velocities time contract to 46,777( c )

Edited June 26, 2018 by Super Polymath

[Super Polymath]

src

 

That was legitimately a mathematical proof. It just doesn't plot any particles in particular, but does give instructions on how to do so it's just taking him an eternity to do it.

[Moronium]

So, ya have two objects--A and B.  One is travelling at .99c.  In that frame you can theoretically accelerate a particle to .99c.  So how fast would that particle actually be going?

 

To take it a step further, if that particle had a lab, then it could accelerate another particle, call it particle B, to another .99c from there.  

 

So how fast would particle B actually be going?

 

Suppose particle B also has a lab...ad infinitum.

Edited June 26, 2018 by Moronium

[Moronium]

I never got a coherent explanation for this confusing situation.  Does anyone have one?

 

We have two objects, A and C.  Let's look at this from A's perspective.  He sees C moving away from him at .9c.  And, of course, C will also see A receding from him at .9c, because that's their relative velocity, right?

 

Now then, let's say that A notices object B, which is between him and C.  He sees B as going in the same direction as C, except that B is receding from him at the rate of only .45c.

 

What will B see?   He will see  A receding from him at .45c, right?  He has to, because that's how A sees him. That's their relative velocity. He will also see C receding from him at the rate of .45c, but in the opposite direction, right?

 

Going back to A's perspective, because he noticed B, A no longer sees C receding from him at .9c.  A now sees C receding from him at the lesser speed of (approx) .75c, right?  With respect to C, A's doppler readings have now changed, right?

 

But, if B suddenly explodes, and ceases to exist, A will once again see C receding from him at .9c, right?

 

We know all this because the velocity addition formula tells us it's true, and because we know that formula has been CONCLUSIVELY PROVEN to be true.  What A sees doesn't matter at all.  It's what B tells us that A will see that is "really true."

Edited June 26, 2018 by Moronium

[Moronium]

Here's how it works, they say.  If B was "naive" then he might think that A and C have a relative speed of .9c, just like they naively think.

 

But he aint naive.  He knows better.  So he hauls out his trusty calculator, gets out his velocity addition formula, and punches some buttons.  He determines that A and C can't have a relative speed of 9c, because his calculator says so.  Upon hearing this, A and C both slow down to the extent necessary for their true speed to match the calculator's findings.

Edited June 26, 2018 by Moronium