Jump to content
Science Forums

Yes, You Can Go Faster Than Speed Of Light


hazelm

Recommended Posts

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.

 

Yes but if you read what I and Dubbelo have been discussing, the force of gravity is still acting on a body in free fall, because it is accelerating towards the center of the earth at 9.8 m/s^2. The gravitational force cannot develop in classical physics because there is no resistance to it, and in classical physics forces can only appear in pairs of action and reaction. In free fall there is no reaction until the object hits the ground but there is acceleration as we all know, in the earth's gravitational field.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

How many satelites do we communicate with sending signals back and forth to each other and to us ? All of which lie at differing potentials? We have never had an event where there is greater delay in the directions of those signals.

 

 

 

Hold on a second. What satellites are you referring to? The GPS satellites are in low earth orbit and thus are moving with respect to the ECI frame. Consequently, we do need to make corrections for the velocity time dilation under SR as well as the gravitational time dilation under GR. We know the time dilation under GR is directional, but the velocity time dilation under SR should be reciprocal, but in the GPS system it is not. The reason is that even though those satellites are in orbit, and therefore in a state of free fall, they are moving through the earth's gravitational field in a circular path and are accelerating. Anyway, the point is, we do need to correct for velocity time dilation. The geosats are geostationary so no need to make any corrections for time dilation, that I am aware of, and I have a lot of satcom equipment on board ship!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But those tests are also done within or respect to a gravitational field, right?

 

Just suppose for a second that two spacecraft are far out in space, away from any gravitational field (except their own) and they move away from each other at a constant relativistic velocity, so they are both inertial frames.

 

Either one of these two things must happen:

 

1) They each see the other's time as dilated in accordance with SR theory of reciprocal time dilation.

 

2) Velocity time dilation does not happen at all and we have been fooled by gravitational effects.

 

I don't see an option for asymmetrical time dilation in this situation since they both have exactly the same properties; anything that happens must be symmetrical.

 

So, I am considering option #2 as a possibility.

 

 

I just had a funny thought.

 

If velocity time dilation, free of any gravitational influence, is truly reciprocal, How could it ever be detected?

 

If clock A slows with respect to clock B and

 

clock B slows with respect to clock A

 

Nothing has happened!

 

Anything that is 100% reciprocal is the same as nothing happening.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I just had a funny thought.

 

If velocity time dilation, free of any gravitational influence, is truly reciprocal, How could it ever be detected?

 

If clock A slows with respect to clock B and

 

clock B slows with respect to clock A

 

Nothing has happened!

 

Anything that is 100% reciprocal is the same as nothing happening.

:doh: :umno: :ohdear: :rofl:

Edited by A-wal
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I just had a funny thought.

 

If velocity time dilation, free of any gravitational influence, is truly reciprocal, How could it ever be detected?

 

If clock A slows with respect to clock B and

 

clock B slows with respect to clock A

 

Nothing has happened!

 

Anything that is 100% reciprocal is the same as nothing happening.

 

Actually I think Feynman was right in the quote from him I just posted when he said that if things were truly symmetrical, then neither clock would show any difference from the other.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Heh, he's probably happy to have it reported as widely as possible, eh?  He's convinced it proves how smart he is.

8P

 

Actually I think Feynman was right in the quote from him I just posted when he said that if things were truly symmetrical, then neither clock would show any difference from the other.

  :doh: :umno: :ohdear: :rofl: That's not what symmetry means.

Edited by A-wal
Link to comment
Share on other sites

It seems like you still think that reciprocal time dilation is a logical possibility, eh, Popeye?

 

That's why I'm so opposed to SR.  If SR would just say something like:  "We have an internally consistent mathematical system which we've cooked up and which we find useful in making predictions, but it doesn't have much to do with reality," I would have no problem.

 

But they don't do that.  Instead they make all kinds of specious, sophistical arguments in an attempt to convince others (mainly young, impressionable students, who they badger, bully, demean, sneer at, and insult if they don't buy into the bullshit) that it's actually true.

 

They indoctrinate people to abandon rational thinking and to accept a solipsistic philosophy where whatever someone might happen to think is what's true and real.  This is the greatest disservice generated by SR, not its supposedly "scientific" content. They attempt to dispel the notion that there can be any difference between subjective and objective reality. In effect they go further than that. They insist that "reality" is strictly subjective and that there is no "objective reality."

Edited by Moronium
Link to comment
Share on other sites

UTTER BULLSHIT! SR deals only in objective reality, if it were talking about the subjective then it would have to take into account the speed up/slow down of clocks that are moving towards/away from the observer. Reciprocal time dilation and length contraction is what you're left with after accounting for subjective effects and there's nothing illogical or inconsistent about it dummy.

 

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?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've already pointed out the flaws in your "reasoning" A-wal, and I won't bother to do it again.  But here's a suggestion for you that will be the ultimate proof that you're right, eh?:

 

SCREAM IT LOUDER

 

"To be positive: To be mistaken at the top of one's voice." (Ambrose Bierce)

 

Edited by Moronium
Link to comment
Share on other sites

:) You haven't answered the question at all or pointed out any genuine flaws you lying ****tard. If there's a preferred frame then all motion HAS to be relative to that frame, so why the hell isn't it? Why is it never observed that time dilation for example depends on the direction of relative motion? If there were a preferred frame then it would HAVE to!

 

Answer the ****ing question!!!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

:) You haven't answered the question at all or pointed out any genuine flaws you lying ****tard.

 

 

Of course I've answered.  Not that you would know.  You basically just read your own posts, which tend to say the same thing about 10,000 times.

 

Go back about 25 of your repetitions, and you'll see my response (which you're probably incapable of comprehending anyway, but....).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...