Vmedvil2 Posted April 13, 2019 Report Share Posted April 13, 2019 (edited) I said before that an ether is not required for time to be absolute. So what is required? As a strictly theoretical matter, nothing beyond positing a single "preferred" frame which is deemed to be at rest/ Once you do that, time is absolute, as is motion, as is simultaneity. What is required is for that particle to be traveling faster than the speed of light for time to be absolute, A goes to B goes to C , C back to A. Deductive reasoning, that particle moving relativistically thus time is relative too, sorry moronium I wish it wasn't so. Edited April 13, 2019 by VictorMedvil Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moronium Posted April 13, 2019 Author Report Share Posted April 13, 2019 ...like I said if it were something that were wrong we would have already breached the light barrier. No, that's not necessarily true, and I think you just agreed to that. I thought we agreed that, assuming that c cannot be exceeded in a given rest frame, that would not mean that c cannot be exceeded "in the universe," i.e. in other, moving, frames of reference. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vmedvil2 Posted April 13, 2019 Report Share Posted April 13, 2019 No, that's not necessarily true, and I think you just agreed to that. I thought we agreed that, assuming that c cannot be exceeded in a given rest frame, that would not mean that c cannot be exceeded "in the universe," i.e. in other, moving, frames of reference. Does it matter I want to travel the stars, I don't care how. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moronium Posted April 13, 2019 Author Report Share Posted April 13, 2019 What is required is for that particle to be traveling faster than the speed of light for time to be absolute, A goes to B goes to C , C back to A. Deductive reasoning, that particle moving relativistically thus time is relative too, sorry moronium I wish it wasn't so. I don't follow your "logic" here at all, Vic. What is "that particle?" What are you even talking about? The speed of light in a preferred frame, or what? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vmedvil2 Posted April 13, 2019 Report Share Posted April 13, 2019 (edited) I don't follow your "logic" here at all, Vic. What is "that particle?" What are you even talking about? The speed of light in a preferred frame, or what? The Proton in the particle accelerator at 8 Tev is what I am talking about, read the previous posts. Edited April 13, 2019 by VictorMedvil Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moronium Posted April 13, 2019 Author Report Share Posted April 13, 2019 (edited) I don't follow your "logic" here at all, Vic. What is "that particle?" What are you even talking about? The speed of light in a preferred frame, or what? Well, reading it more closely, maybe I do. Are you just saying that IF a preferred frame were posited (thereby establishing a standard of absolute time), THEN c could (and would, depending on direction) exceed c in other frames? I agree with that much. Edited April 13, 2019 by Moronium Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vmedvil2 Posted April 13, 2019 Report Share Posted April 13, 2019 (edited) Well, reading it more closely, maybe I do. Are you just saying that IF a preferred frame were posited (thereby establishing a standard of absolute time), THEN c could (an would, depending on direction) exceed c in other frames? I agree with that much. Exactly moronium spot on, thats why I wish you were right but it isn't the way the universe works. Edited April 13, 2019 by VictorMedvil Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moronium Posted April 13, 2019 Author Report Share Posted April 13, 2019 The Proton in the particle accelerator at 8 Tev is what I am talking about, read the previous posts. How is that even relevant to what we're discussing? I don't get it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vmedvil2 Posted April 13, 2019 Report Share Posted April 13, 2019 How is that even relevant to what we're discussing? I don't get it.Bottom of page 6 Link = http://www.scienceforums.com/topic/35719-the-concept-of-mass/page-6 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moronium Posted April 13, 2019 Author Report Share Posted April 13, 2019 (edited) Exactly moronium spot on, thats why I wish you were right but it isn't the way the universe works. So you say. You actually think the postulates of SR have been "proven," don't you? It's not the way you ASSUME it works. That's about all you can legitimately say about the matter. Edited April 13, 2019 by Moronium Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moronium Posted April 13, 2019 Author Report Share Posted April 13, 2019 (edited) all I have to do is see the results of the particle acceleration tests to know relativity exists and is correct. You didn't even consider the posts I made after that, did you? Again, let's assume that c cannot be exceeded IN A GIVEN REST FRAME. That assumption would not "prove" SR. But, yes, that assumption would preclude you from seeing a particle exceed c in your own frame. They're two different things. Edited April 13, 2019 by Moronium Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vmedvil2 Posted April 13, 2019 Report Share Posted April 13, 2019 (edited) You didn't even consider the posts I made after that, did you? Again, let's assume that c cannot be exceeded IN A GIVEN REST FRAME. That assumption would not "prove" SR. But, yes, that assumption would preclude you from seeing a particle exceed c in your own frame.I get what your saying but that is enough to prove relativity to me, that is all the matters about relativity in my opinion can you exceed the speed of light without exotic matter aka Negative Matter/Energy. Edited April 13, 2019 by VictorMedvil Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ralfcis Posted April 13, 2019 Report Share Posted April 13, 2019 Victor,"Nothing, besides that proven ideas and theories with evidence can lend to the argument that you are right by their merit and evidence." As Pauli would say, "That's not even wrong." Proves my point though how hopelessly faulty Einstein's theory is because it is based on that illogical precept. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moronium Posted April 13, 2019 Author Report Share Posted April 13, 2019 As I recall, Vic, I made some posts, and asked you some questions, pertaining to this topic in another thread. You never responded to them. I even sent you a PM asking you if you had looked at my posts. You never responded to that either. Perhaps it would be more appropriate to continue this discussion in THAT thrread, eh? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moronium Posted April 13, 2019 Author Report Share Posted April 13, 2019 (edited) I get what your saying but that is enough to prove relativity to me, Well, OK, Vic, but that's not really saying much. You can take "no evidence" as "proof," if you so desire. It doesn't take amy evidence to get a kid to believe in Santa Claus. Of course it helps that he really wants to believe, to begin with. Edited April 13, 2019 by Moronium Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vmedvil2 Posted April 13, 2019 Report Share Posted April 13, 2019 (edited) Well, OK, Vic, but that's not really saying much. You can take "no evidence" as proof, if you so desire. It doesn't take amy proof to get a kid to believe in Santa Claus. Of course it helps that he really wants to believe. Did you just not see me prove it with the particle accelerator example adding to what GAHD said. Edited April 13, 2019 by VictorMedvil Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moronium Posted April 13, 2019 Author Report Share Posted April 13, 2019 Did you just not see me prove it with the particle accelerator example adding to what GAHD said. No, I didn't. I saw what you said, but I didn't see you "prove" anything about SR. How do you think you accomplished that feat? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.