Yes, You Can Go Faster Than Speed Of Light

[OceanBreeze]

Popeye said:

 

.

Wiki says:

 

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Faster-than-light

 

How you measure time and distance (and therefore speed) also depends on the assumptions you make before measuring.

 

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comoving_and_proper_distances#Uses_of_the_proper_distance

 

A "co-moving coordinate" is one that treats the CMB as a preferred frame (which violates the taboo of SR) and is co-moving with the CMB.  It is used by astronomers, astro-physicists, cosmologists. etc.  SR is NOT used.  As you can see, the "velocity addition formula" (along with other so-called "facts") goes out the window when you quit treating SR as absolute truth. 

 

The "it depends on your assumptions (theory)" point is one I've been trying to make here.  But people tend to treat their initial assumptions as indubitable fact, so it's hard to even discuss that consideration with people who have been indoctrinated with the assumptions of SR, and treat them as sacrosanct.

 

 

Nothing there contradicts what I wrote. Any redshift that we observe now MUST be coming from an object that was travelling slower than the speed of light when the light that we see was emitted. That is a fact that simply cannot be denied.

 

It may be possible, in the very distant future, IF the Hubble expansion catches up to the light from a galaxy that is travelling FTL, the light may eventually reach us, or it may not. It would be many billions of years into the future if it happens at all and maybe the universe will not even exist by that time. So, I won't waste my time on such a hypothetical case.

Edited June 25, 2018 by OceanBreeze

[OceanBreeze]

I keep wondering..,is there ANYBODY who even understands what I'm saying here?  Anybody at all?  Surely someone must understand that the conclusions you reach are strictly dependent upon the assumptions (postulates) you start with.  And surely someone must understand that your starting assumptions can never be proven.  You take them as a given (whether right or wrong) and go from there. Where they take you may persuade you to abandon them (i.e., they can be "disproven"), but the fact that you don't (or won't) abandon them doesn't prove that they are "true."

 

 

Well, SR has passed every test thrown at it, so it is reasonable to accept the conclusions reached by using the theory.

 

Your arguments, while interesting food for thought, have not been tested the way that SR has been, have they?

 

I find your arguments to be more philosophical than scientific, but as I say, interesting at least.

[Moronium]

Well, SR has passed every test thrown at it, so it is reasonable to accept the conclusions reached by using the theory.

 

Your arguments, while interesting food for thought, have not been tested the way that SR has been, have they?

 

Yes, absolutely.  They have been tested every time SR is tested.  And they too "pass every test."  I have discussed (and cited authoritative sources which show) this at some length in other threads.

Edited June 25, 2018 by Moronium

[Moronium]

.  And they too "pass every test.."

 

Well, I shouldn't really say "too."  Preferred frame theories  do entail some conclusions which SR does not (such as reciprocal time dilation versus directional time dilation), and, as I think I noted in a recent post in this thread, the observed facts disfavor SR in this respect.

[OceanBreeze]

Yes, absolutely.  They have been tested every time SR is tested.  And they too "pass every test."  I have discussed (and cited authoritative sources which show) this at some length in other threads.

 

 

Well, if both SR and your theory pass the same tests every time, how do they differ?

[Moronium]

Well, if both SR and your theory pass the same tests every time, how do they differ?

 

 See the post I made just before yours.  Here's an except  from the post I was referring to there (post 147)

 

 

SR, as a theory, says that an orbiting satellite in the GPS system will "see" earth clocks as having slowed down.  But the GPS has proven that that's NOT how the satellite "sees" it.  The satellite "sees" the earth clock going FASTER, not SLOWER.  So which is it?  Is the earth clock going faster or slower?  One conclusion is deduced (posited, actually) from theory.  The other conclusion is actually based on empirical fact.  Theory and fact are not the same. Observation and deduction are not the same.

 

Now, either way, it's still true that we can't directly "observe" what the satellite clock "sees," so we're still making deductions, either way. But we do know this:  If we 'treat" the satellite clock as "seeing" the earth clock move faster, the system works.  If we treat it the other way, the whole system fails miserably.

 

Edited June 25, 2018 by Moronium

[Moronium]

As I have pointed out (at inordinate length) in a number of other threads, the GPS does NOT use SR as a foundational theory.  Instead it posits a preferred frame (the ECI).  Same with the prevailing theory which posits the CMB as a preferred frame.  It too rejects SR.  The conclusions are different.  Using the CMB as a preferred "co-moving" coordinate (which really just means one that is "at rest" with respect to the CMB) "allows" different conclusions.  FTL speed is allowed in preferred frame theories.  It is prohibited by SR.

Edited June 25, 2018 by Moronium

[OceanBreeze]

As I have pointed out (at inordinate length) in a number of other threads, the GPS does NOT use SR as a foundational theory.  Instead it posits a preferred frame (the ECI).  Same with the prevailing theory which posits the CMB as a preferred frame.  It too rejects SR.  The conclusions are different.  Using the CMB as a "co-moving" coordinate (which really just means one that is "at rest" with respect to the CMB) "allows" different conclusions.  FTL speed in allowed in preferred frame theories.  It is prohibited by SR.

 

I can see where it is possible to choose a preferred frame in this situation or in the situation where a rocket blasts off from the Earth, as in the twin paradox, just based on the huge difference in mass, but how would you pick a preferred frame where the two objects are the same mass?

Let’s take an example of two 100 kg masses that are out in space away from any massive bodies and connected by a powerful spring. Now the spring is sprung and the masses are each accelerated up to 0.8c in opposite directions, from the viewpoint of the spring, which remains at the same position in space.

By the velocity addition formula, the relative velocity between the two objects is 0.9756c and according to SR they would both be time dilated and length contracted with respect to each other. (reciprocal time dilation)

What would a preferred frame theory say, and how would one frame be preferred over the other?

[A-wal]

You mean people who try to correct your errors?

No I mean people who try to invent errors where none exist in a pathetic attempt to deflect attention away from their own errors like when you thought that SR doesn't include acceleration and thinking that when two objects are moving in opposite directions towards a central object you have to apply the velocity addition formula to get their closing velocity on each from the perspective of that third object.

 

These aren't terminology errors, these are fundamental misunderstands of the most basic concepts or relativity. No wonder you're going to such lengths trying to distract attention from them.

 

There is no such thing as a relative velocity of 2c anywhere in the observable universe.

If an object is moving away from an observer at .9c and a second object is moving in the opposite direction at .9c away from the same observer then obviously (obviously to anyone with a basic grasp of the subject rather than a simple minder wiki parrot fraud) those two objects are moving away from each other at 1.8c from the perspective of that central observer.

 

Despite your arrogance, at least you are now starting to use the proper terminology of Closing Speed. So maybe you are finally starting to learn something from my posts.

 Great!

I wanted to be as clear and concise as possible, given how easily confused you obviously are.

 

All I've learned from your posts is how someone incapable of understanding a subject they think they can grasp reacts to being shown up.

Edited June 25, 2018 by A-wal

[OceanBreeze]

No I mean people who try to invent errors where none exist in a pathetic attempt to deflect attention away from their own errors like when you thought that SR doesn't include acceleration and thinking that when two objects are moving in opposite directions towards a central object you have to apply the velocity addition formula to get their closing velocity on each from the perspective of that third object.

 

These aren't terminology errors, these are fundamental misunderstands of the most basic concepts or relativity. No wonder you're going to such lengths trying to distract attention from them.

 

If an object is moving away from an observer at .9c and a second object is moving in the opposite direction at .9c away from the same observer then obviously (obviously to anyone with a basic grasp of the subject rather than a simple minder wiki parrot fraud) those two objects are moving away from each other at 1.8c from the perspective of that central observer.

 

I wanted to be as clear and concise as possible, given how easily confused you obviously are.

 

All of learned from your posts is how someone incapable of understanding a subject they think they can grasp reacts to being shown up.

 

 

Grow up and stop embarrassing yourself.

[Moronium]

Popeye said:

 

...there can be no relative velocity greater than c in the observable universe. 

 

 

Popeye, you have repeatedly made dogmatic statements like this.  But this is the kind of approach that serves to inhibit you from even entertaining alternate possibilities and alternate theories.  The statement quoted above is basically just an assertion of an SR postulate as an undisputed, and indisputable, FACT.  But it aint.

Edited June 25, 2018 by Moronium

[Moronium]

What would a preferred frame theory say, and how would one frame be preferred over the other?

 

 

That's a good question, but, again, it is one I have addressed at great lengths in other threads (which I will briefly summarize below)

 

But a prior question is this: Does the fact that you are unable to discern or "pick" a preferred frame mean that there can't be a preferred frame?  Does it mean that all motion is relative, and that there is no absolute motion?

 

The CMB is currently considered to be the "rest frame of the cosmos" for a number of empirically-based reasons, which I won't go into here (I have elsewhere).

 

But, as it turns out, on a local basis the preferred frame will be the center of gravity of the dominant gravitational force in that locality.  The ECI for earth, or near earth, calculations, for example, and the solar barycenter for calculations in the solar system.  That will be the frame that, if treated as preferred, produces accurate predictions in that locality.  There is not one, and only one, "universal rest frame," which is always preferred.

Edited June 25, 2018 by Moronium

[Moronium]

Grow up and stop embarrassing yourself.

 

I have to agree that he is indeed embarrassing himself.  Not on account of any particular thing he says, but because of his super-defensive juvenile attitude which (incorrectly) presupposes that he has superior, essentially infallible, knowledge and that anyone contradicting him is a fool with only face-saving concerns motivating them.

 

It's sad. Methinks the boy doth protesteth too much, know what I'm sayin?

Edited June 25, 2018 by Moronium

[Moronium]

I find your arguments to be more philosophical than scientific, but as I say, interesting at leasti

 

I agree that my arguments are more philosophical than scientific.  Theoretical physics is unavoidably philosophical in nature, and that certainly does not exclude SR.

 

Every scientific theory presupposes certain epistemological and ontological (metaphysical) views.

 

But virtually every scientific theory that ever existed presupposed a "realisitic" philosophy (it could be argued that QM is an exception, but there are certainly good counter-arguments to that contention).  SR stands out as the only theory I'm aware of that rejects realism and instead adopts a solipsistic ontology.  The (dubious) philosophical premises which SR rests upon are the thing I've been trying to point out.  Personally, I reject the philosophy of solipsism.

Edited June 25, 2018 by Moronium

[A-wal]

Grow up and stop embarrassing yourself.

I'm not the one who showed himself to no understanding of two of the most fundamental concepts of relativity that then desperately tried to distract attention away from it by trying to invent flaws in the statements of the one who called me out when really your supposed 'corrections' are just the same thing worded in a different way.

 

What else other than your own embarrassment would motivate such laughable attempts to discredit the person who showed you up as a wiki warrior with no clue what you're on about? You're simply trying to deflect attention away from your own mistakes, the first reaction of the coward.

 

As I have pointed out (at inordinate length) in a number of other threads, the GPS does NOT use SR as a foundational theory.  Instead it posits a preferred frame (the ECI).

Of course it doesn't. You're again misinterpreting the term 'preferred' when it suits you and then switching back to it's technical meaning when you want to claim that it contradicts SR. If you want your arguments to be taken seriously at least try to show a little integrity.

 

This is quite the strawman army you're building up Moronium. Are you going to invade Oz? Take OceanBreeze with you, they might have a cure for chronic wikius parrotaritis.

[Moronium]

Of course it doesn't. You're again misinterpreting the term 'preferred' when it suits you and then switching back to it's technical meaning when you want to claim that it contradicts SR. If you want your arguments to be taken seriously at least try to show a little integrity.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The GPS abandons SR and uses the ECI as a preferred frame in every sense of the word.  You don't say why it doesn't because you can't.

 

You can't for two reasons.  1.  It's not true, so you have no facts to the contrary, and 2. You don't understand the issues in question to begin with.

 

In the GPS the ECI is posited to be the ONLY frame in which the speed of light is isotropic because it the only frame being treated as though it is "at rest." All local motion with respect to it is absolute, not relative. It is therefore the only frame which keeps the correct time. Not surprisingly, this is the only theoretical framework which gives accurate predictions in the local "universe."

Edited June 25, 2018 by Moronium

[A-wal]

In the GPS the ECI is posited to be the ONLY frame in which the speed of light is isotropic because it the only frame being treated as though it is "at rest." All motion with respect to it is absolute, not relative. It is therefore the only frame which keeps the correct time. Not surprisingly, this is the only theoretical framework which gives accurate predictions in the local "universe."

I don't believe you.