Yes, You Can Go Faster Than Speed Of Light

[Shustaire]

The motion of the Earth was assumed under SR and M$M for good reasons, called previous scientific research and evidence. This is not the same however as your previous claim it assumed it as being at rest.

 

You can't even stick with your own arguments but keep changing your own views. Shall I quote the relevant posts where you make incorrect claims then claim were reading them wrong?

 

Either way the M$M experiment did not test Earths motion, it is literally designed to test for an ether and required the Earths motion to relate to an ether wind. It was designed to test for Fitzgeralds claim that in one direction of the Earths motion there would be an ether wind causing a contraction or expansion in light paths. Google Lorentz-Fitzgerald contraction for details.

 

The null results proved this wrong.

Edited July 22, 2018 by Shustaire

[Moronium]

. This is not the same however as your previous claim it assumed it as being at rest.

 

You can't even stick with your own arguments but keep changing your own views. Shall I quote the relevant posts where you make incorrect claims then claim were reading them wrong?

 

 

Yes quote them.  They don't exist.  I never made any such claim, and in fact clearly stated the opposite, many times.

Edited July 22, 2018 by Moronium

[Shustaire]

fair enough lets do this

[Shustaire]

You're right about this, of course.  The H-K experiment showed this.  With respect to the "stationary" clock at the Naval Station, the clock flying east moved faster and showed less time elapsed, while the clock flying west  moved slower and hence more time elapsed on that clock.

 

Applying SR would suggest that the time difference would be equal, since their respective speeds relative to the "stationary" clock were identical.

 

But they were not moving equally relative to the preferred frame (the ECI), which had to be used in order to apply the theoretical structure required to predict (more like postdict, really) and explain the data.

 

Within the framework of that (preferred frame) theory, the faster the clock moved, the more it slowed down, as predicted by the LT.

 

As previously noted, SR always uses a preferred frame too.  It's the frame YOU are in, which is hypothesized to be "stationary."  But the wrong preferred frame is being used in SR because the motion involved is absolute, not relative.

 

 

we covered that there is no preferred frame.

[Shustaire]

What-say we take  a little closer look at the holy, omnipotent, and infallible Math involved here, eh?

 

Both SR and a PFT tell you that it is only the moving clock which runs slow.  So what is the difference, mathematically, between the two theories?

 

Lorentz's equations, while telling you that only the moving clocks run slow, do not, and cannot, by themselves, ever tell you which of two given objects is the one moving slower.  You'll have to figure that out for yourself, by some other means.  Math aint quite so omnipotent in his scheme.

 

SR altered Lorentz's transforms (not in form, but in permissible applications of the formula), to suit its purposes.  In SR's scheme the answer to an empirical question like "which one is moving faster?" is no longer an empirical question. The MATH answers it for you, all conveniently in advance.  This makes it easier, because such potentially difficult empirical questions are eliminated. 

 

It's kinda like magic, know what I'm sayin? Now, with SR, you know that you are the aether. A nice side benefit to this is being told that you're *very* special, eh?  Now, that's my kinda omnipotent deity, sho nuff!  Now the entire universe revolves around ME!  MATH akbar!

 

Aint that right, Censorhip Crew!?  It's kinda your holy obligation to defend the world from any heretic who would DARE suggest that the entire universe doesn't revolve around YOU.  I can understand that.  Maybe some 9/11 style attacks should be made on any university which aids, abets, and harbors some criminal infidel blasphemer who denies the TRUTH of SR, eh?

 

we covered that the observer will always see the emitter clock as slow

[Shustaire]

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.

 

we covered that this is incorrect, especially thee bolded part which is different that your recent post on M%M testing that the two way speed of light is the same

Edited July 22, 2018 by Shustaire

[Moronium]

we covered that there is no preferred frame.

 

 

Heh.  You didn't "cover" anything except to chant the SR mantra 24/7.  You still don't even understand the topic here, do you?

[Shustaire]

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.

 

 

this is wrong as well see bold section for the errors.

[Moronium]

we covered that this is incorrect, especially thee bolded part which is different that your recent post on M%M testing that the two way speed of light is the same

  Heh, once again, you have "covered" nothing.  You haven't even begun to give any kind of relevant response to that post.  Your 'responses' consist only of self-serving proclamations of victory, without a shred of rational  argument or support.

 

By the way, are you ready to concede that you can't even read my posts?  Where are those "quotes" you were going to find, eh?

Edited July 22, 2018 by Moronium

[Shustaire]

It had everything to do with the earth being (non)stationary.  Sure, the prevailing view at the time was that there was an aether.  But the whole attempt to detect it was based on two premises: 1.  That the earth was orbiting the sun, and 2.  That the aether was absolutely stationary.  If the earth was not presumed to be moving, the the experiment could never has been conceived.  The idea was to measure the absolute speed of the earth through space (the aether). If the earth was not moving, then no movement through space could be detected.

 

 

http://scienceworld.wolfram.com/physics/Michelson-MorleyExperiment.html

 

Again, his own article says:

 

 

The motion of the earth could not be detected, and, as I correctly said, the Lorentz transforms were invented for the purpose of explaining the null result in terms of time dilation and length contraction.

 

I think that's a big part of your problem on this topic, Dubbo.  You just look at conclusions, without ever analyzing or understanding the premises which necessarily underlie them.

 

 

Funny how this falsifies your previous quoted  post

[Moronium]

this is wrong as well see bold section for the errors.

 

What's wrong about it?  Point out any errors you think you see, rather than just posting raw, unsupported conclusions.

[Shustaire]

  Heh, once again, you have "covered" nothing.  You haven't even begun to give any kind of relevant response to that post.  Your 'responsess' consist only of self-serving proclamations of victory, without a shred of rational  argument or support.

 

By the way, are you ready to concede that you can't even read my posts?  Where are those "quotes" you were going to find, eh?

 

 

Let me know when you develop the skills to apply a rational argument Moron

[Shustaire]

What's wrong about it?  Point out any errors you think you see, rather than just posting raw, unsupported conclusions.

 

I'm not going to bother repeating my previous responses you can look them up yourself. You ignored them the first time so repeating them isn't going to change that

Edited July 22, 2018 by Shustaire

[Moronium]

Funny how this falsifies your previous quoted  post

 

How?  Have any argument to make?

[Moronium]

I'm not going to bother repeating my previous responses you can look them up yourself

 

 

Yeah, that's exactly what I thought.

[Moronium]

Let me know when you develop the skills to apply a rational argument Moron

 

 

Heh. Rave on, Fundie.

 

Certainly none advanced by you, since you have offered none.

[Shustaire]

Ye your usual tactic, resort to insult whenever told wrong. You simply have no skills whatsoever in presenting a well founded argument. Talking to you is like talking to a child. Except even children has a greater IQ.

 

I already repeated posting the same arguments dozens of times that SR has no preferred frames, SR simply uses the rest frame for mathematical convenience, Neither SR nor Lorentz claimed the Earth wasn't in motion. You argued that the M$M tested the Earths motion which it does not. However when 006 stated I was correct and you were wrong you argued with him then changed your view a few posts later.

 

 However the only brilliant argument you can ever come up with is

 

Rave on to everyone else, talk about a total lack of any brain power. That must be the most intelligent thing you have ever said this entire thread.

 

Face it is clear to everyone how wrong you are except you. So you go right on ahead believe whatever falsehoods you like. The rest of us will focus on actual physics.

 

Quite frankly you really are a friggen waste of time. Like I stated my 13 year old granddaughter understands relativity better than you do. She actually knows the mathematics for one thing....

Edited July 22, 2018 by Shustaire