Yes, You Can Go Faster Than Speed Of Light

[Shustaire]

Try this

 

Galilean transform

[math]\acute{x}=x-vt[/math]

[math]\acute{y}=y[/math]

[math]\acute{z}=z[/math]

 

[math]\acute{t}=t[/math]

 

The laws of physics is the same in each reference frame. The above represents Alice and Bobs frame of reference.

 

The ratio of change between Alice and Bob is the Lorentz transform.

 

Lorentz transforms

 

[math]\acute{x}=\gamma(x-vt)[/math]

[math]\acute{y}=y[/math]

[math]\acute{z}=t[/math]

[math]\acute{t}=\gamma(t-\frac{vx}{c^2})[/math]

 

the transforms are specifically the changes to the Galilean transformations when comparing frames when looking at their own frame the Galilean transforms apply directly.

 

It is the relativistic CORRECTIONS to the Galilean transformation rules.

 

BOTH Alice and Bobs frame uses precisely the same transformation rules under Galilean laws so neither is privileged.

 

 

This was my response to the previous quoted section which I have been addressing

Edited July 21, 2018 by Shustaire

[Moronium]

Hence this post being so poorly inaccurate

 

 

Ya don't say.  Point out one single sentence where the claims I made in that post are "inaccurate"

 

 

Seems to me that you have already acknowledged their validity when you said that the rest frame is not "real" (true) and that the theory was merely a mathematically convenient one.

 

How many times to you want to keep re-hashing your confusions?

[Shustaire]

You are, in effect, merely affirming a point I have made many times, to wit:

 

The very need for a "transformation" implies that the physics are NOT the same in all inertial frames.

 

The transformation is required only to explain why they falsely "appear" to be the same, to different observers.  This is what lorenztian relativity explains.  

 

For many decades SR took the now-discredited theoretical position that the LT were mere illusions, i.e. the position that time dilation and length contraction are not "real." They are not needed if SR is correct.  I agree with that.

 

However, SR had to back off of that interpretation once modern technology proved that the LT distortions, such as time dilation, are real phenomena, not "illusions."

 

 

Both frames have the same transforms [math]\gamma=0[/math] Lorentz is not required which means Galilean laws are the same in both frames.

 

Simple but you can't understand that can you. No Lorentz transform.....

 

NO SR NEEDED.

 

IS THAT SIMPLE ENOUGH FOR YOU or do I have to beat it into your head with a wet noodle lol

Edited July 21, 2018 by Shustaire

[Moronium]

This was my response to the previous quoted section which I have been addressing

 

 

Yeah, and it is completely irrelevant to the point we're discussing.  You seem to think any non sequitur you choose to talk about somehow makes your point (whatever you think it is) and refutes my simple statements.

 

I asked you this, in a recent post:

 

To reflect WHAT?

 

What position are you even arguing for?

 

 

You haven't answered that.

Edited July 21, 2018 by Moronium

[Moronium]

Both frames have the same transforms [math]\gamma=0[/math] Lorentz is not required which means Galilean laws are the same in both frames.

 

Simple but you can't understand that can you. No Lorentz transform.....

 

NO SR NEEDED.

 

IS THAT SIMPLE ENOUGH FOR YOU or do I have to beat it into your head with a wet noodle lol

 

 

Of course not. The clock is the same in every frame in Galilean relativity.  He had no reason to know, or even suspect, that clock rates would be altered at relativistic speeds.

 

But what's your supposed "point?"  Can you even articulate it?

Edited July 21, 2018 by Moronium

[Shustaire]

Oh yes I have you simply refuse to see it

[Shustaire]

Of course not. The clock is the same in every frame in Galilean relativity.  He had no reason to know, or even suspect, that clock rates would be altered at relativistic speeds.

 

But what's you supposed "point?"  Can you even articulate it?

 

Yeah my point is your not discussing SR when you don't apply its purpose. Its purpose is to transform between two Galilean frames. As each Galilean frame is identical in how each is described no preference from Nor eather is involved.

 

Just how bluntly do I have to continuously restate my position ?

Edited July 21, 2018 by Shustaire

[Moronium]

Yeah my point is your not discussing SR when you don't apply its purpose.

 

What do you claim is its "purpose?"  I have in fact discussed that at some length, but tell me.

[Shustaire]

read above x posted

[Shustaire]

You might be better off to confine your comments to something you understand, eh?  Lorentzian relativity doesn't seem to be one of those things.  The essential difference between PFT's, which posit a "privileged" frame, and SR is that SR absolutely and categorically prohibits a preferred frame.  To do so would be to commit suicide for SR.  It would visit a "complete disaster" on the theory, like the Harvard prof said.

 

SR does not posit a privileged frame. For precisely the reason that two Galilean frames are identical. However you obviously accused me of thinking otherwise to the transforms I posted in the previous post to this quote. To accuse me of not understanding relativity. It has been my stance that SR never posits a preferred frame those transforms DO NOT show a preferred frame.

Edited July 21, 2018 by Shustaire

[Moronium]

. Its purpose is to transform between two Galilean frames. As each Galilean frame is identical in how each is described no preference from Nor eather is involved.

 

 

I see now that you said this while I was composing my last post.

 

That is not the "purpose" of SR.  It is the purpose of the Lorentz Transforms, which SR merely lifted from LR.  By the way, a preferred frame theory is in no way dependent on the existence of an "aether."

Edited July 21, 2018 by Moronium

[Moronium]

this post is also wrong.

 

 

Yeah?  Explain how and why you make that claim.

[Shustaire]

already corrected that when I re read the post. The correction to the accusation I don't understand relativity still stands I understand it quite well hence showing your the transforms and what it entails.

Edited July 21, 2018 by Shustaire

[Shustaire]

Lets make this simple.

 

DO YOU AGREE NO privilege observers is required under SR postulates if so then were done.

[Moronium]

I've said this before, but rather spend a ton of time trying to locate it, I'll just repeat it.  This relates to the PURPOSE of the LT.

 

Why did Lorentz even invent the LT to begin with? What was its purpose?  Let go back to 1892, and see.

 

The M-M experiment was unable to detect any motion of the earth.

 

Does that mean there is no such motion?  If so, that would invalidate almost everything we believe.  Newton's theory of gravity would just be the first thing to go.

 

Lorentz said:  "No, it does not mean that the earth is not moving.  It is moving."

 

So the question was: "Well, Lorentz, if you want to claim it's moving, how can you explain the fact that we can't detect that motion?"

 

Lorentz:  "We don't detect it because our measuring instruments have been distorted by motion.  The result is that we measure no motion.  But measurement is not "fact."  The fact is that we've actually moving."

 

And then he developed a math formula to quantify the implications of his hypothesis.

 

Moral of the story,  as far as SR is concerned?  The speed of light is NOT the same in all frames  We just erroneously MEASURE (GET THAT? MEASURE, MEASURE MEASURE) it to be, because we fail to factor in our own motion and we therefore naively rely on our distorted clocks and rods.

 

That is the PURPOSE of the LT, i.e., to explain why every inertial frame MEASURES (erroneously) the speed of light to be the same, even when it really isn't.

Edited July 21, 2018 by Moronium

[Moronium]

I've said this many times too, and have repeatedly quoted high authority, including Einstein himself, in support of it:

 

LR was then, and is now, a perfectly consistent and coherent theory of relative motion that has been confirmed many, many times, and NEVER disconfirmed.  SR is not "the only game in town."  In fact, it has effectively been disconfirmed. To the extent it was previously deemed confirmed, it was generally the LT, not SR itself, that was being confirmed.  But LR also relies on the LT.   The LT were in fact invented in connection with a PFT, for the purpose just explicated in my last post.

Edited July 21, 2018 by Moronium

[Moronium]

SR is not "the only game in town."  

 

 

We've probably all heard the phrase "the only game in town."  But a lot of people are not familiar with its origin.

 

An inveterate gambler was once asked why in the world he kept gambling at a casino when it was commonly known that they cheated the crap out of every "customer" who came in the joint.

 

In response, he said:  [guess what?]

 

SR cheats like a mofo.  Fortunately, it aint the only game in town, eh?