Yes, You Can Go Faster Than Speed Of Light

[Moronium]

Who is saying all motion is absolute ? all frames are inertial so not absolute. An absolute quantity is invariant. This includes any field treatments.

 

I just quoted a rather prominent physicist who says there may be no inertial frames.  Now you tell me ALL frames are inertial.  Hmmm......who to believe here....it's a tough one.

[Shustaire]

Well thats your dilemna, under GR the choice is all frames are inertial. It might help to understand that the symmetry is defined by vector symmetries including the ct coordinate. This is the where the time reversal symmetry is described. Absolute frames are invariant in regards to time. All quantities are invariant if they are absolute.

Edited July 7, 2018 by Shustaire

[Moronium]

Well thats your dilemna, under GR the choice is all frames are inertial.

 

GR is a theory of gravity.  It is not a theory of relative motion, which is what I'm talking about here.  SR is the theory of motion, not GR.

[Shustaire]

Why then does GR use freefal in its primary ds^2 line element then if it does not account for motion ? GR describes gravity as a result of the curvature term. It does not treat it as a force. it is a constant inertia treatment. It is part of a particles worldline that freefall condition

Edited July 7, 2018 by Shustaire

[Moronium]

Well thats your dilemna, under GR the choice is all frames are inertial. It might help to understand that the symmetry is defined by vector symmetries including the ct coordinate. This is the where the time reversal symmetry is described. Absolute frames are invariant in regards to time. All quantities are invariant if they are absolute.

 

 

According to this guy...

The general theory replaces Newton's first law with a more general law: objects in inertial motion move along the trajectory that is the trajectory along which the amount of proper time is the largest possible.

 

In the case of the inertio-gravitational field, the determining factor for what an observer will measure is the acceleration of the observer with respect to the field. For observers that are accelerating at different accelerations with respect to the local inertio-gravitational field the field manifests itself differently.

 

 

http://www.cleonis.nl/physics/phys256/general.php

 

For some damn reason, he seems to be talking about acceleration and accelerating.  That doesn't quite sound like an inertial frame to me.

 

I don't know much about GR. I've never studied it, and never will.  You and your friend can entertain yourselves by posting pages of formulas pertaining to GR 24/7, and that's fine with me.  I just won't take any interest in them.

Edited July 7, 2018 by Moronium

[Moronium]

Why then does GR use freefal in its primary ds^2 line element then if it does not account for motion ? 

 

 

I didn't say that GR doesn't recognize, acknowledge, deal with, or "account for" motion.  Every area of the hard sciences does that, out of necessity.  I just said that it's not a theory of relative motion. As I understand it, objects in freefall are in inertial motion, according to GR.   Other things aint.  So, if that's right, ALL objects are not in "inertial frames," as I understood you to say.

Edited July 7, 2018 by Moronium

[Moronium]

The general theory replaces Newton's first law with a more general law: objects in inertial motion move along the trajectory that is the trajectory along which the amount of proper time is the largest possible.

 

 

This notion certainly has its similarities to standard theories of relativistic motion.  In those, if you could somehow locate and identify the frame which has the fastest time in the whole universe, then THAT would be the motionless (aether) frame, i.e., the universally preferred frame.

 

For Newton that frame would be the center of all mass in the universe.

Edited July 7, 2018 by Moronium

[Shustaire]

forceless not motionless. No force acting upon= constant inertia under  Newtons law's of inertia hence freefall. A CoM is a valid treatment under GR an example is the Schwartzchild metric its just done in the forceless condition.

Edited July 7, 2018 by Shustaire

[Moronium]

forceless not motionless. No force acting upon= constant inertia under  Newtons law's of inertia hence freefall. A CoM is a valid treatment under GR an example is the Schwartzchild metric its just done in the forceless condition.

 

 

Freefall is also a state of motion where Newton's gravitational mass equals its inertia mass, for whatever that's worth.

Edited July 7, 2018 by Moronium

[Shustaire]

Its worth a lot in terms of symmetry relations. It also satisfies the conservation laws via a closed system. A closed group is finite. When you compactify a group you find the finite portion on infinite quantities. The freefall condition satisfies that condition.

Edited July 7, 2018 by Shustaire

[Vmedvil2]

I just quoted a rather prominent physicist who says there may be no inertial frames.  Now you tell me ALL frames are inertial.  Hmmm......who to believe here....it's a tough one.

 

There are no interial reference frames because from any distance gravity at the speed of light is acting upon the object in motion or with Energy-mass, gravity and Electromagnetism's length of action is infinite for gravitational attraction or repulsive forces, so there is no object truly at rest with no forces acts upon it. There is always a action at some magnitude working upon the object the idea of inertia reference frame is a mathematics construction to make the calculations easier, The Force of gravity from one side of the universe still has a small magnitude on the object from the other side same with Electromagnetism which is why photons can travel through Time-space without a medium while charge can too, infinitely. Any object with Charge or Energy-mass can attract or repulse a body from the other side of the universe slightly.

Edited July 7, 2018 by VictorMedvil

[Moronium]

There are no interial reference frames because from any distance gravity at the speed of light is acting upon the object in motion or with Energy-mass, gravity and Electromagnetism's length of action is infinite for gravitational attraction or repulsive forces, so there is no object truly at rest with no forces acts upon it. There is always a action at some magnitude working upon the object the idea of inertia reference frame is a mathematics construction to make the calculations easier, The Force of gravity from one side of the universe still has a small magnitude on the object from the other side same with Electromagnetism which is why photons can travel through Time-space without a medium because charge can too, infinitely.

 

Sounds right to me.

[DaveC426913]

I just quoted a rather prominent physicist who says there may be no inertial frames.  

He did not say that.

 

"Not being able to find an inertial frame" is not the same as "all frames are accelerating".

 

And you continue to cherry-pick fragments of quotes without bothering to understand the context.

Edited July 8, 2018 by DaveC426913

[OceanBreeze]

There are inertial frames but they are locally approximated. 

 

Exactly. An object in free fall is inertial locally only. If you are falling towards the surface of the earth, neglecting air resistance, you can drink a beer on the way down and no beer will spill out of the bottle. You can release the bottle and it falls right along with you. Everything is just fine . . .until you hit the ground!

 

That's when you discover that your nice inertial frame was all the time accelerating towards the ground at 9.8 m/s^2 and you and beer will make a fine SPLAT!

[Moronium]

"Not being able to find an inertial frame" is not the same as "all frames are accelerating".

 

And you continue to cherry-pick fragments of quotes without bothering to understand the context.

 

No, it's not the same.  Nor did I say it was.  Nor did I say "all frames are accelerating."  Do you have any point, here?

 

By the way, Dave, ya got the number for that missing clock reading yet?  I'm still waiting:

 

Here's a little puzzle for you:

 

Let's say we have two clocks which run at different rates, for whatever reason.  Not necessarily anything to do with relative motion, maybe one just has a battery that's run down.  The main thing is that they run at different rates.

 

Now we set both of them to 12:00 and start them ticking.

 

One hour later one of the clocks (A) reads 1:00

 

Now give me a time which the other clock could read which would indicate that it is runs both faster and slower than this one.  Take your time.  Hint: It's not 12:59.  It's not 1:01.  What is it?  Any number you want, just give me the number and we'll fill it in as the time for clock B.

 

Remember A has to run slower than B AND B has to run slower than A.

 

Edited July 8, 2018 by Moronium

[Moronium]

Remember A has to run slower than B AND B has to run slower than A.

 

 

 

For those who still can't see the logical impossibility of the reciprocal time dilation proposition, let me try putting it this way.  We can talk about motion instead of clocks, since clock retardation is only associated with speed.  Without a difference in speed you will have no difference in the rate at which two different clocks tick. So....

 

A and B are moving relative to each.  Each of them perceives and acknowledges this fact. Now....

 

A says:  "I'm at rest, you're moving."

 

B says:  "No, I'm at rest, you're the one who's moving."

 

Can they both be at rest, and still have relative motion between themselves?  

 

Doesn't at least one of them have to be mistaken about his claim, i.e., doesn't at least one of them have to be moving?

Edited July 8, 2018 by Moronium

[A-wal]

For those who still can't see the logical impossibility of the reciprocal time dilation proposition, let me try putting it this way.  We can talk about motion instead of clocks, since clock retardation is only associated with speed.  Without a difference in speed you will have no difference in the rate at which two different clocks tick. So....

 

A and B are moving relative to each.  Each of them perceives and acknowledges this fact. Now....

 

A says:  "I'm at rest, you're moving."

 

B says:  "No, I'm at rest, you're the one who's moving."

 

Can they both be at rest, and still have relative motion between themselves?  

 

Doesn't at least one of them have to be mistaken about his claim, i.e., doesn't at least one of them have to be moving?

For the last time this is a STRAWMAN you ****ing idiot! Neither is actually at rest, both agree that they're are in motion relative to each other and both agree that it's the other's clock that runs slow but if one of both accelerate so they're in the same frame then they agree on the amount of time that's elapsed on each clock. There is no contradiction!

 

If there were a preferred frame then objects would be seen to speed up through time, have their length extended instead of contracted and have a reduced mass if they move in the direction that slows them down rather than speeds them up relative to the preferred frame. So how come this never happens Mr Strawman?

 

Delusional moronic strawman idiot!