Jump to content


Photo
- - - - -

Yes, You Can Go Faster Than Speed Of Light


  • Please log in to reply
29 replies to this topic

#18 Farsight

Farsight

    Understanding

  • Members
  • 433 posts

Posted 12 June 2018 - 11:08 AM

You can't go faster than light because you are effectively made of light. It sounds odd I know, but don't forget gamma-gamma pair production along with electron spin and the wave nature of matter. We don't have gamma-ray bursters for nothing. 



#19 Moronium

Moronium

    Explaining

  • Members
  • 622 posts

Posted 12 June 2018 - 11:17 AM

You can't go faster than light because you are effectively made of light. It sounds odd I know, but don't forget gamma-gamma pair production along with electron spin and the wave nature of matter. We don't have gamma-ray bursters for nothing. 

 

 

Cut and pasted from a post in another thread:

 

Posted 10 June 2018 - 01:55 AM

 

More magic from SPACETIME!!

 

There are many galaxies visible in telescopes with red shift numbers of 1.4 or higher. All of these are currently traveling away from us at speeds greater than the speed of light....The current recession velocity of the points from which the CMB was emitted is 3.2c. At the time of emission their speed was 58.1c, assuming (ΩM,ΩΛ) = (0.3,0.7). Thus we routinely observe objects that are receding faster than the speed of light and the Hubble sphere is not a horizon....Apparent superluminal motion is observed in many radio galaxies, blazars, quasars and recently also in microquasars....it is thought that galaxies which are at a distance of more than about 14 billion light-years from us today have a recession velocity which is faster than light.

 

https://en.wikipedia...ster-than-light

 

Well, hold on a minute here--this is quite disturbing...wouldn't all that faster than light travel kinda disprove special relativity?

 

http://www.sciencefo...e-2#entry358317


Edited by Moronium, 12 June 2018 - 11:20 AM.


#20 DaveC426913

DaveC426913

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 46 posts

Posted 15 June 2018 - 07:10 PM

 the relative velocity between our galaxy and the very distant galaxy is 75% the speed of light + 75% the speed of light which equals 1.5 times the speed of light.

I am afraid this is incorrect.

 

When calculating relativistic velocities, you must use the relativistic velocity addition equation.

 

The two galaxies are only moving at 0.96c with respect to each other.

 

 

 

 

http://hyperphysics....iv/einvel2.html

About halfway down the page is a calculator where you can see for yourself. (Don't forget one value should be negative!)

 

Note that even at +0.999999c and -0.999999c, the galaxies are only moving at 0.9999999999995001c with respect to each other.


Edited by DaveC426913, 15 June 2018 - 07:14 PM.


#21 Moronium

Moronium

    Explaining

  • Members
  • 622 posts

Posted Yesterday, 05:03 AM

The two galaxies are only moving at 0.96c with respect to each other.

 

That's not what your reference says.  It says:

 

The Einstein velocity relationship transforms a measured velocity as seen in one inertial frame of reference (u) to the velocity as measured in a frame moving at velocity v with respect to it (u').

 

 

 

You say the speed IS .96c.  Your reference merely addresses how velocity is (allegedly) "seen" and/or "measured" from particular frames.  To its credit, it doesn't, as you do, purport to tell you what the speed actually "is."

 

Concocting a mathematical formula can NEVER cause an object in nature to change its velocity.  Its velocity is what it is, regardless of how it may be "seen" (i.e. interpreted in accordance with presuppositions which may themselves be extremely dubious) or "measured."  Niether subjective perceptions nor distorted measurements can change an object's speed either.

 

Referring someone to a math formula or graph of math computations does not really address the question raised.


Edited by Moronium, Yesterday, 05:59 AM.


#22 Moronium

Moronium

    Explaining

  • Members
  • 622 posts

Posted Yesterday, 05:38 AM

Concocting a mathematical formula can NEVER cause an object in nature to change its velocity.  Its velocity is what it is, regardless of how it may be "seen" 

 

 

So many people seem to fail to understand the difference between what an object is and how it is seen, that I'll take a minute to elaborate.

 

Suppose you construct a square table top.  Using very precise instruments you make it so that all 4 sides are 5 feet long, and all angles are exactly 90 degrees.

 

Now get your eyeball directly over its center, and look down.  You will "see" a square.

 

Now put 100 people in a room standing around it.  No two of them will have the same perception, nor will any of them "see" a square.  So, now it has been "seen" in 100 different ways by different observers.  But have any of their perceptions changed the table top in the least?  Have the lengths of it's sides, or any other physical aspect of it, changed?

 

Of course not.

 

In  theory, you could nonetheless construct a math formula which incorporates viewing angle, distance from the table, etc., to tell you what each individual observer will see, given their position.  Would the math formula change the physical aspects of the table?

 

Of course not.


Edited by Moronium, Yesterday, 06:10 AM.


#23 Moronium

Moronium

    Explaining

  • Members
  • 622 posts

Posted Yesterday, 06:06 AM

Now get your eyeball directly over its center, and look down.  You will "see" a square.

 

 

This frame of reference would then be the "preferred frame" in theoretical terms.  Why?  Because it is the only frame where what you "see" accurately reflects what the object actually is.  The square only "looks" square from this frame.  All other frames merely get you deceptive appearances.

 

As "seen" from the moon, the table top would be undetectable.  Would that mean the table top has ceased to exist?

 

As seen from the roof of a skyscraper, the table top might appear to be about the size of an ant.  Does this mean the table top has physically shrunk?

 

Of course not.  Those appearances only indicate that you are not looking from the preferred frame.


Edited by Moronium, Yesterday, 06:17 AM.


#24 Moronium

Moronium

    Explaining

  • Members
  • 622 posts

Posted Yesterday, 06:26 AM

In  theory, you could nonetheless construct a math formula which incorporates viewing angle, distance from the table, etc., to tell you what each individual observer will see, given their position.  Would the math formula change the physical aspects of the table?

 

Of course not.

 

Such a formula could be useful in determining what the table top actually is.  But only if you use it properly.  It would be an improper use to simply say that what you see is what the table "is."

 

However, if you knew your distance from a square table, knew your viewing angle, etc., you could apply the formula "in reverse" and accurately deduce that "If what I am seeing is this (which is NOT a 5' square), then that would mean that the table top actually is a 5' x 5' square."


Edited by Moronium, Yesterday, 06:31 AM.


#25 DaveC426913

DaveC426913

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 46 posts

Posted Yesterday, 06:44 AM

 

You say the speed IS .96c.  Your reference merely addresses how velocity is (allegedly) "seen" and/or "measured" from particular frames.  To its credit, it doesn't, as you do, purport to tell you what the speed actually "is."

 

Concocting a mathematical formula can NEVER cause an object in nature to change its velocity.  Its velocity is what it is, regardless of how it may be "seen" (i.e. interpreted in accordance with presuppositions which may themselves be extremely dubious) or "measured."  Niether subjective perceptions nor distorted measurements can change an object's speed either.

 

Referring someone to a math formula or graph of math computations does not really address the question raised.

 

What is observed is the only reality we can talk about. Relativity is not an illusion or mirage.

 

Spacetime is curved. As speeds increase, time and distances are altered. The galaxies are traveling wrt each other at 0.96c. 

 
 
Mainstream science does not "concoct" formulae. Use of such words is a red flag that an emotional - rather than rational - argument is in-play.

 

 

 

To the reader: Moronium has his preferred pet theories about relativity. They are not mainstream science. I'm not here to support or refute such claims. Non-mainstream theories can be raised elsewhere.


Edited by DaveC426913, Yesterday, 06:55 AM.


#26 Moronium

Moronium

    Explaining

  • Members
  • 622 posts

Posted Yesterday, 06:57 AM

What is observed is the only reality we can talk about.   Spacetime is curved. 

 

 

When and how have you "observed" spacetime curving?  Did you look outside your window and see it?

 

Relativity is not an illusion or mirage. 

 

 

 

I agree 100%


Edited by Moronium, Yesterday, 06:57 AM.


#27 Moronium

Moronium

    Explaining

  • Members
  • 622 posts

Posted Yesterday, 07:05 AM

Spacetime is curved. As speeds increase, time and distances are altered. 

 
To the reader: Moronium has his preferred pet theories about relativity. They are not mainstream science. I'm not here to support or refute such claims. Non-mainstream theories can be raised elsewhere.

 

 

Since you are so concerned with "mainstream science" let me point out that this has not been the "mainstream" view since about 70 years ago.

 

"Time" is not altered, clocks slow down.  All viable practical systems, such as the GPS, presuppose and utilize this understanding in order to get accurate results.

 

The galaxies are traveling wrt each other at 0.96c.

 

 

Similarly, this is NOT the mainstream view.  No mainstream scientist presents this proposition as a "fact," as you do.  Not even your own reference, as I have already pointed out.


Edited by Moronium, Yesterday, 07:37 AM.


#28 DaveC426913

DaveC426913

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 46 posts

Posted Yesterday, 07:02 PM

This frame of reference would then be the "preferred frame" in theoretical terms.  Why?  Because it is the only frame where what you "see" accurately reflects what the object actually is.

Here is a example where Moronium expresses antiquated ideas about what something is "supposed" to look like when observed.

 

For some reason, he feels the view of a table tabletop is not as valid as when seen from a specific angle of his choosing. Apparently, viewing a tabletop along its y-axis is less valid to him than viewing it along its z-axis. A table that is observed to be 5 feet wide and one inch thick is not what a "real" table is "supposed" to be. i.e., an arbitrary choice of position (that of above the table) leads him to that being a "better" position - the position he personally "prefers" when thinking of a table.

 

Obviously not scientific. That kind of humano-centric view of the world passed out of fashion around the time of the Renaissance. We dispensed with our ideas of the world fitting into our preferred view of it, and learned to accept it for what it is.

 

Mor carries this same error of preference into relativity.

 

This is a science forum. It is best to get your answers about science things from established science, and not from someone's personal ideas.


Edited by DaveC426913, Yesterday, 07:04 PM.


#29 Moronium

Moronium

    Explaining

  • Members
  • 622 posts

Posted Yesterday, 10:06 PM

Obviously not scientific. That kind of humano-centric view of the world passed out of fashion around the time of the Renaissance. We dispensed with our ideas of the world fitting into our preferred view of it, and learned to accept it for what it is.

 

 

Hahahahaha.  The irony of it all, eh?  What's "not scientific," but is instead egocentric to an extremely solipsistic degree, is the notion that the perception of every guy and his brother magically changes the dimensions of a 5' by 5' square table.  Science is objective, not subjective, sorry.

 

The more you pretend to be the authority about what "science" is, the more you demonstrate that  you don't know what it is, I'm afraid.


Edited by Moronium, Yesterday, 10:23 PM.


#30 Moronium

Moronium

    Explaining

  • Members
  • 622 posts

Posted Yesterday, 10:36 PM

For some reason, he feels the view of a table tabletop is not as valid as when seen from a specific angle of his choosing. Apparently, viewing a tabletop along its y-axis is less valid to him than viewing it along its z-axis. A table that is observed to be 5 feet wide and one inch thick is not what a "real" table is "supposed" to be.

 

 

Hint:  A "tabletop" is not a "table."  Two (dimensions) is not three.


Edited by Moronium, Yesterday, 10:43 PM.