Vmedvil2 Posted April 13, 2019 Report Share Posted April 13, 2019 (edited) It may help you to point out that this is the precise assumption made by QM, i.e. that time is absolute, not relative. Yes but the other 3 frameworks QFT,GR, and SR do assume it is relative which there are four main frameworks Modern Physics is based off. Edited April 13, 2019 by VictorMedvil Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vmedvil2 Posted April 13, 2019 Report Share Posted April 13, 2019 (edited) What would the physical effect be? By the way, no it wouldn't do that. You could travel faster than the speed of light without doing a bunch of weird stuff to space would be the physical effect. I wouldn't be working on a Warp Drive or Wormhole Generator you could travel at as fast a speed through space as you wanted. Edited April 13, 2019 by VictorMedvil Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moronium Posted April 13, 2019 Author Report Share Posted April 13, 2019 You could travel faster than the speed of light would be the physical effect. OK, good, that would be one implication. Whether you could actually do it, or not, it would no longer be theoretically prohibited. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vmedvil2 Posted April 13, 2019 Report Share Posted April 13, 2019 (edited) OK, good, that would be one implication. Whether you could actually do it, or not, it would no longer be theoretically prohibited. Exactly, you wouldn't need negative Energy or Negative Mass to travel faster than light theoretically. Basically if you can get something to travel faster than light without Negative Energy-mass it would destroy Relativity forever. Edited April 13, 2019 by VictorMedvil Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moronium Posted April 13, 2019 Author Report Share Posted April 13, 2019 (edited) Here's another implication: Although "time" would not change in the frame of a moving object, if he thought he was not moving, he would still calculate the speed of light to be c. (the same would go for length) He would be relying on a slowed clock to provide him with the time, and contracted rods to measure distance. Edited April 13, 2019 by Moronium Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vmedvil2 Posted April 13, 2019 Report Share Posted April 13, 2019 (edited) Here's another implication: Although "time" would not change in the frame of a moving object, if he thought he was not moving, he would still calculate the speed of light to be c. (the same would go for length. But see moronium here is the problem with that it has been tested and if particles could travel faster than light by just acceleration the CERN and Fermilab Particle accelerators would have already breached the Light Barrier at 8 Tev, thus Relativity must be correct it cannot be a linear increase in energy with velocity. Edited April 13, 2019 by VictorMedvil Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moronium Posted April 13, 2019 Author Report Share Posted April 13, 2019 Vic, to you believe there can be any difference in what "time" is measured to be, and what it actually is? I mean is that possible, ya figure? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vmedvil2 Posted April 13, 2019 Report Share Posted April 13, 2019 (edited) Vic, to you believe there can be any difference in what "time" is measured to be, and what it actually is? I mean is that possible, ya figure? I do because of Mass increase and energy increase of the system during acceleration, the variance of time and space, is equal to the Increase of mass and Energy in the system which is the Lorrentz Factor "Beta" which is the reason that Negative Energy/Mass will undo the effect at the same geometric amounts and densities. Trust me if I didn't need to introduce negative Energy-mass into the system to travel faster than light I wouldn't, if it were something I could change I would but that is how the universe works. Edited April 13, 2019 by VictorMedvil Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moronium Posted April 13, 2019 Author Report Share Posted April 13, 2019 (edited) But see moronium here is the problem with that it has been tested and if particles could travel faster than light by just acceleration the CERN and Fermilab Particle accelerators would have already breached the Light Barrier at 8 Tev, thus Relativity must be correct it cannot be a linear increase in energy with velocity. Well, let's suppose, then, that IN A GIVEN REST FRAME, c cannot be exceeded. What would be the speed of light be in OTHER (moving) frames of reference? Edited April 13, 2019 by Moronium Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vmedvil2 Posted April 13, 2019 Report Share Posted April 13, 2019 (edited) Well, let's suppose, then, that IN A GIVEN REST FRAME, c cannot be exceeded. What would be the speed of light be in OTHER (moving) frames of reference?Well technically if you were moving at the speed of light in the oppose direction of a photon it would be traveling at 2C from your frame of reference but that isn't how it is viewed, if it were a Absolute Frame of Reference being yours. Edited April 13, 2019 by VictorMedvil Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moronium Posted April 13, 2019 Author Report Share Posted April 13, 2019 (edited) Well technically if you were moving at the speed of light in the oppose direction of a photon it would be traveling at 2C from your frame of reference but that isn't how it is viewed. That isn't how it is viewed BY YOU (or by SR, if you prefer), you mean, eh? Edited April 13, 2019 by Moronium Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vmedvil2 Posted April 13, 2019 Report Share Posted April 13, 2019 (edited) That isn't how it is viewed BY YOU (or by SR, if you prefer), you mean, eh?Yes, but technically if you were always in a state of rest and the rest of the universe would moving in that scenario it would be moving at 2C as velocity of the photon but the aether theory has been disproven which was the theory before relativity. Basically, that light moved in some directions faster than others due to the aether. Edited April 13, 2019 by VictorMedvil Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moronium Posted April 13, 2019 Author Report Share Posted April 13, 2019 Yes, but technically if you were always in a state of rest and the rest of the universe would moving in that scenario it would be moving at 2C as velocity of the photon but the aether theory has been disproven which was the theory before relativity. Basically, that light moved in some directions faster than others due ot the aether. 1. The "ether theory" has never been "disproven." Even Einstein never claimed that. 2. You don't need an "ether" for time to be absolute, anyway, so it really isn't relevant to the revised assumptions I'm asking you to make. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vmedvil2 Posted April 13, 2019 Report Share Posted April 13, 2019 (edited) 1. The "ether theory" has never been "disproven." Even Einstein never claimed that. 2. You don't need an "ether" for time to be absolute, anyway, so it really isn't relevant to the revised assumptions I'm asking you to make. Honestly, I don't know but as I said if there were no relative motion photons traveling opposite direction then another photon would be traveling at 2C, I have always used relativity to calculate such things so I don't really know, but from relativity they are just traveling both at C in their own frames of reference. Edited April 13, 2019 by VictorMedvil Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moronium Posted April 13, 2019 Author Report Share Posted April 13, 2019 Honestly, I don't know but as I said if there were no relative motion photons traveling oppose then another photon would be traveling at 2C, I have always used relativity to calculate such things so I don't really know. OK, fair enough. That's just saying that you have never even considered a world where the postulates of SR weren't "true," I suppose. That might be one reason you think they have been "proven," i.e. because you don't think there's any other plausible way of looking at things and have never seriously considered the possibility. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vmedvil2 Posted April 13, 2019 Report Share Posted April 13, 2019 (edited) OK, fair enough. That's just saying that you have never even considered a world where the postulates of SR weren't "true," I suppose. That might be one reason you think they have been "proven," i.e. because you don't think there's any other plausible way of looking at things and have never seriously considered the possibility.The reason for that is I was born during the era of Particle accelerators, all I have to do is see the results of the particle acceleration tests to know relativity exists and is correct. a proton moving at 8 Tev would be traveling a velocity of 39,152,702,738.591712017603119320395 Meters per second or 130 times the speed of light if relativity was incorrect during acceleration tests which is what Newtonian physics yields for velocity like I said if it were something that were wrong we would have already breached the light barrier. Edited April 13, 2019 by VictorMedvil Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moronium Posted April 13, 2019 Author Report Share Posted April 13, 2019 I said before that an ether is not required for time to be absolute. So what is required? As a strictly theoretical matter, nothing beyond positing a single "preferred" frame which is deemed to be at rest/ Once you do that, time is absolute, as is motion, as is simultaneity. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.