Yes, You Can Go Faster Than Speed Of Light

[Moronium]

 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.

 

 

Completely wrong.  Under SR a non-inertial frame is deemed to be moving absolutely (i.e. all frames agree that it is accelerating).

Edited July 24, 2018 by Moronium

[Moronium]

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.

 

There you go again.  Can you understand that fact is distinct from theory.  EVEN THERE ARE NOT, NEVER WERE, AND NEVER WILL BE ANY SUCH THING AS A FACT?

[Shustaire]

Completely wrong.  Under SR a non-inertial frame is deemed to be moving absolutely (i.e. all frames agree that it is accelerating).

absolutely not

 

wow talk about not even close to being right, accelerating frames are non inertial f=but it is not the only non inertial frames under SR.

 

Inertial frames are ones that are under constant velocity. The reason c is not inertial is the null coordinates ds^2=0 there is no separation distance light under the math is everywhere at once. It is not aa valid reference frame for this very reason. 

Edited July 24, 2018 by Shustaire

[Moronium]

 

NOT ARBITRARY CHOICE>

 

 

 

Again, you seem to be unable to make simple distinctions.  If I say (rightly or wrongly) that a given frame is at rest, then it, and only it, will have lengths and times are NOT distorted by motion, whereas all other frames in motion relative to it WILL be distorted.  That a very significant difference.  

[Moronium]

Inertial frames are ones that are under constant velocity. The reason c is not inertial is the null coordinates ds^2=0 there is no separation distance light under the math is everywhere at once. It is not aa valid reference frame for this very reason. 

 

 

Learn up, eh?

 

Do moving clocks always run slowly?

 

A commonly heard phrase in the realm of special relativity is "Moving clocks run slowly".  But—even in the context of special relativity—is it always true?  The answer is no.  It's only true when a clock's ageing is measured in an inertial frame.  This assumption of inertiality might not always be stated explicitly in textbooks, but it's always there.

 

The inertial clock measures the orbiting clock to age slowly. This can only mean that the orbiting clock measures the inertial clock to be aging quickly.  The frame of the orbiting clock is accelerated, and the (inertial) clock that moves within this frame ages quickly, not slow.

 

 

http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/SR/movingClocks.html

 

Can you see that all pretense to "reciprocity" goes out the window in this case?  Can you see that the speed of light is no longer constant between the frames?  Why? Because the motion is deemed to be absolute, not relative.

Edited July 25, 2018 by Moronium

[Moronium]

In standard Newtonian mechanics, acceleration is indeed considered to be an absolute quantity, in that it is not determined relative to any inertial frame of reference (constant velocity). This fact follows directly from the principal that forces are the same everywhere, independent of observer...Note also that the same statement applies to Einstein's Special Relativity.

 

 

https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/173/is-acceleration-an-absolute-quantity

Edited July 25, 2018 by Moronium

[Shustaire]

Now try that under relativity. It also doesn't state acceleration is inertial. Please try to distinguish proper  terminology in your arguments. Ie in this case connect the 3 laws of inertia to an inertia frame.

Edited July 25, 2018 by Shustaire

[Moronium]

Now try that under relativity. It also doesn't state acceleration is inertial.

 

 

Are you talking about GENERAL relativity?  See the quote above for special relativity.

 

OF COURSE, "acceleration is not inertial."  That's the very definition of non-inertial (accelerating).

Edited July 25, 2018 by Moronium

[Moronium]

A non inertial frame is at rest

 

That is just wrong.  Only an inertial frame can be "at rest," per Newton.  If it's not at rest, then it is moving uniformly. ALL accelerating frames are moving, just not uniformly.  SR adopts Newton's definition of inertial motion.

Edited July 25, 2018 by Moronium

[Shustaire]

Are you talking about GENERAL relativity?  See the quote above for special relativity.

 

OF COURSE, "acceleration is not inertial."  That's the very definition of non-inertial (accelerating).

 

that is not the definition of non inertial. it is simply one form of non inertial. An at rest frame is also non inertial as there is no friggen motion. Everything is at friggen rest so how can you state this is inertial.????????

Edited July 25, 2018 by Shustaire

[Moronium]

that is not the definition of non inertial. it is simply one form of non inertial.

 

 

Wrong again. It's the ONLY definition in SR.  There is no other.

 

Einstein's concept of inertia remained unchanged from Newton's original meaning (in fact, the entire theory was based on Newton's definition of inertia).  However, this resulted in a limitation inherent in special relativity: the principle of relativity could only apply to reference frames that were inertial in nature (meaning when no acceleration was present).

 

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inertia

Edited July 25, 2018 by Moronium

[Shustaire]

wrong again. the definition yo need to apply is

 

Inertia is defined as the tendency of objects to keep moving in a straight line at a constant velocity as per the 3 laws of inertia. under SR...or even Galilean , Newtonian physics.

 

Do you even know the three laws of inertia? they friggen apply.

perhaps you should also refresh your memory on how motion is observed

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Motion_(physics)

 

key lines.

 

"If the position of a body is not changing with respect to a given frame of reference (reference point), the body is said to be at rest, motionless, immobile, stationary, or to have constant (time-invariant) position." oh my exactly what I have been describing imagine that .....

 

oh could this be a coincidence on a similar discussion where I pointed out the same.

 

​"Motion of a body is observed by attaching a frame of reference to an observer and measuring the change in position of the body relative to that frame."

 

study the friggen terminology before trying to rewrite its meaning to suit your needs instead of how it is properly defined.

Edited July 25, 2018 by Shustaire

[Moronium]

.

perhaps you should also refresh your memory on how motion is observed

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Motion_(physics)

 

key lines.

 

"If the position of a body is not changing with respect to a given frame of reference (reference point), the body is said to be at rest, motionless, immobile, stationary, or to have constant (time-invariant) position." oh my exactly what I have been describing imagine that .....

 

You can't even read, sorry to say.

 

oh could this be a coincidence on a similar discussion where I pointed out the same.

 

​"Motion of a body is observed by attaching a frame of reference to an observer and measuring the change in position of the body relative to that frame."

 

study the friggen terminology before trying to rewrite its meaning to suit your needs instead of how it is properly defined.

 

You should read your own website.  It defines Newton's 3 laws of mechanics, including this one:

 

In an inertial reference frame, an object either remains at rest or continues to move at a constant velocity, unless acted upon by a net force.

 

 

Accelerated motion is NEVER "at rest."  Inertial motion can be, but is not necessarily, at rest.  Inertial motion is not the same thing as 'inertia," per se.

Edited July 25, 2018 by Moronium

[Moronium]

Do you even know the three laws of inertia? they friggen apply.

 

 

Good question to ask yourself.  Do you, perchance, mean to say "three laws of mechanics" (not "of inertia")?

 

You are EXTREMELY confused.

Edited July 25, 2018 by Moronium

[Moronium]

 GR hence describes the invariant worldline of or null geodesic. So under math c is invariant as all observers will measure c.

 

 

This too is completely wrong too, btw, not that's it's even relevant to the discussion of SR.  All observers will NOT "measure c" in different frames in GR.  Gravitational time dilation is absolute, not relative, in GR.  We just had an extended discussion about this in this thread, which you obviously either ignored or couldn't understand.

Edited July 25, 2018 by Moronium

[Moronium]

I'm not trying to make any particular point here, but it's something to think about:

 

Amusement park rides, such as a roller coaster, do not rely on speed to provide excitement.  Chances are that you traveled at a higher speed driving to the amusement park in your car than you will ever reach on the roller coaster there.  It is the radical changes in acceleration, not speed, that creates the thrills.  But a roller coaster, and the sensations it generates, gives you a good idea why acceleration is absolute, not relative.  And it also tells you that an accelerating object is not one that is "at rest."

Edited July 25, 2018 by Moronium

[Shustaire]

whatever you like to believe. this thread has gotten too fustrating see ya.

Edited July 25, 2018 by Shustaire