How to have light move faster than C

cut and paste hackjob - .

incomplete thought - I meant to basically say that the entire article is a cut and paste from stormfront - http://www.stormfront.org/forum/t928728/ - the OP has yet to show his work on any of his ‘thought’ experiments.

Also, don’t quote entire other message board posts (that you did not make) in your reply. You can link to the post for reference or as a cite, but don’t quote it yourself. I have taken the whole quoted part out of your post.

There are 4 kinds of motion the thought experiment works with, Rotation, Vibration, linear acceleration and more weakly with linear velocity.

But Vibration is hard to imagine with velocities near C.

Linear acceleration is fine, but it only allows the moments that the anomaly occurs to a one shot (one instant) unless you increase the number of clocks and sensors.
Put a kid on a Ferris wheel and you can watch them go bay all day, put them on a train and you will only see them go by once without turning the train around.

Only that rotation rubs the observation in your face longer.

Not co-incidental, rather extremely obvious.
The same conclusion could be reached with sound if we did the same experiments and held the same observations.
I have repeated that so many times I feel very reluctant to repeat it so please search for it rather than having me repeat it, search for “sound”.

Additionally the speed of light has been found to exceed the regular speed of likt and everyone agrees with an astronomical observation of a radio wave, but that reference was deleted from my post for some reason (I copied a post from elsewhere) so I’ll have too find a source that works since I’d rather not link to the site because it happened to be on a racist forum.

Not at all, I was just trying to show that length contraction makes sense even if I believe that the aether moves with the earth which invalidates Lorentz reason for proposing length contraction and time dilation, while showing why I still think it is pretty reasonable.

And so when mentioning him should I have refereed to him as a schizophrenic Bum or a respected scientist?
Since he is the latter I will mention that.
I am not saying that credentials don’t matter at all, only that they don’t matter absolutely.

Or only matter if you have to take someone on faith.

But when straight-forward logic is involved, I honestly don’t care about if it comes from the schizophrenic itinerant, or the tenured professor.
Or if it is found from reversing beetles tracks.

As to what he implies, he implies 2 slightly separate things. One thing he calls motion of the void I would term motion of the aether since nothing can’t move.
And later where he mentions aether he refers to condensates which is a slightly different concept but also compatible with my understanding.

I readily agree he is not precisely and overly referring to the classic “lumiferious” aether, but then again neither can I, though mine carries light in some form and he would never say that unless he wanted to lose his job.

I figured it was better taste not to link to a racist website personally than reproducing it.

I guess others agree with you, now at least people can follow it, but don’t blame me if the replies to the first post on that board turn out to be anti-Semitic.

Oh and lol at idle Thoughts, I think if I made a thread on religion everyone there would think it funny the only ‘Religion’ I wanted to talk about was Special Relativity.

I made another version to send, in the event this clarifies anything:

The gist of this experiment is that we will let light travel between 2 sensors (A and B), each sensor will send a signal to two highly accurate clocks, one clock is time dilated from acceleration (General Relativity’s equivalence of gravity and inertial force - G-force) and the other in sitting in the lab, the censors and the clock to be time dilated are rotated with care to have the clock somehow experiencing the same time dilation as the censors.

The idea is that both clocks see the light to be at C because they see they receive the same signals, the sensors are in the same separation of the.sensors so they agree on the distance but disagree on the time.
But actually the time dilated frame actually sees the light (assumed to be from a source at rest with respect to the lab) move further since the light isn’t taking the most direct path due to the perpendicular motion involved.

Hopefuly this picture helps clarify:
Inline image 2
Actually, this experiment would imply something else interesting, if being subjected to gravity and resisting it is equivalent to acceleration, and acceleration causes time dilation…
Then a dropped clock that is dropped in a gravity, the moment it is let go of (weightlessness when falling) it is no longer feeling acceleration and hence should no longer be effected by time dilation from gravity. After all if gravity is a distortion of space, by going with it you aren’t really accelerating, you are accelerating by standing still.

But wait, there is more…

If you decide somehow that sensor A and sensor B trigger inline with the time dilated frames expectation of measuring C then you may think that if we placed stationary censor A2 as close to being in precisely the same location as A as we can get and B2 as close as we can get again to B, then surely now the expectation of the stationary frame should be met.
But Only if B2 which is fractionally behind censor B actually detects the photon before B does!, in other words if the photons detection in space depends on your state of motion The single photon travels back to be detected when B needs it later! Now we have lost simultaneity between different frames in the same location!

And if you decide that the stationary frame should measure the light slowed, then we have just decided that any time you have 2 co moving objects separated at any distance, all the space between them will be time dilated.

And it gets worse.

If you decide that it is perfectly ok for light to seem to be slow for the time dilated observer because he is accelerating and that causes objective and absolute time dilation that all can agree on… then let’s just waive a magic wand and make it disappear momentarily.
It must still detect the speed of light to be faster than expected since it is going a longer distance in the same time.

Ok, now the vibration version probably needs no explanation, it doesn’t rotate, it vibrates.

For the linear one, we take a train, paste the sensors on to opposite windows, one clock is on the train and the other is in the middle of the track, brushes used to take the signals from the sensors.

Additional considerations are possible of course, the clock in each frame could be split in 2, one at each end with each set in sync when together in the middle, then moved out to the censors symmetrically, but that doesn’t do anything but clean up delays that apply to both sides while causing potential simultaneity arguments.

I have ignored SR’s symmetrical inertial reference frame time dilation because that slows things down mutually for each frame since it is relative.
But I do have objections to that one too.

Additionally I am aware that the speed of light being constant is just an axiom of Relativity and that it is not addressed by SR.
But if the speed of light can be shown to be impossible, then the axiom is false and there is nothing to it.

I would also add this, If you expected the speed of sound to vary with the way the earth moved through space…
And if you assumed that a vehicle approaching you honking it’s horn should be emitting 'faster sound than one driving away honking it’s horn.
And If you assumed when driving in a car (windows up) that the speed of sound would be effected by the motion of the car when measured in the car.

You may assume the speed of sound were constant also.

As far as I can tell (I am am amateur),but I can’t see how Lorentz contractions of time or space can help light that is slowed by motion without heaping problems even more on light going the other way.

And if you say there is no light equivalence to air (no entrained aether) then why does the mirror in this experiment need to move to be moving relative to light of all things?

If quantum particles don’t prefer the laboratory frame, they do they obviously pop in the laboratory frame any more than a random distribution of all possibile velocities between stationary and C?

I really did not intend to retype this, but I have, I was going to paste another version I had previously written.
While largely redundant and too long, I will include it in the event it clarifies anything.

Why would anybody lose a job over it?

Neither Michaelson nor Morley lost their jobs over showing the luminiferous ether didn’t exist, which was just as startling.

They didn’t lose their jobs because they had a valid, repeatable result.

You don’t seem to understand this about scientists. If you have a repeatable result that contradicts current theory, other scientists will climb over you to get a piece of the hot, new action.

It’s the mark of a conspiracy theorist to believe there is some kind of staid league of scientists that prevents researchers from publishing findings that contradict current theory. Instead, it happens all the time. The reasons you don’t hear about them are usually mundane, by comparison. There’s often experimental error or no actual experiment or nobody else could repeat the result. Except for cases of outright fraud, it’s rare there are any consequences over it, either. But I agree it’s sexier to play the scrappy underdog or aggrieved party.

snipping mine -

yeah - it clarifies that you’re still copying and pasting and not doing your own work.

I will say that reading through all these SR threads is definitely making time crawl for me, so perhaps there’s something to it?

Well, according to your diagram, the best I can understand, the signals are being sent out through the center of your disk towards the center of the other disk while it rotates. So what difference does it make if the disk is rotating or not? How would there even be a doppler shift if the signal sources aren’t moving with respect to each other? Why is it vibrating?

Also, could you state clearly what you mean by simultaneity? For the record, quantum tunneling is not FTL. It is quite literally teleportation. The particles don’t just traverse an area faster than they’re supposed to. They traverse an area that to the best of people’s knowledge, they aren’t able to traverse. It’s not a matter of me running from the earth to the Sun in 6 seconds even though light takes 8 seconds. It’s that I have no business running to the sun in any amount of time.

Sorry, sound waves experience length and time contraction/dilation? I didn’t catch that the first time around. Also, I don’t know what you mean by obvious.

[quote]

Additionally the speed of light has been found to exceed the regular speed of likt and everyone agrees with an astronomical observation of a radio wave, but that reference was deleted from my post for some reason (I copied a post from elsewhere) so I’ll have too find a source that works since I’d rather not link to the site because it happened to be on a racist forum.

As Antiblob said, I think if he legitimately thought he could overturn michelson morley, he couldn’t publish that paper any faster. It practically guarantees a second Nobel.

Case in point - the scientists in Italy who had a measurement that showed neutrino velocities faster than c.

They thought there was an experimental error somewhere but couldn’t find it. So, they announced their findings. None of them lost their jobs over it, and none were worried about backlash. The result? Equipment error.

In fact, other scientists were giving interviews about what it would mean if the result were verified and lots of “what if” kind of stuff. Grad students were salivating over the possibilities if the result could have been verified. It’s too bad for them it wasn’t, but it was a nice additional verification of our current understanding.

While trying to disprove Special Relativity, I have come upon an interesting question that has implications for General Relativity.

It is well known that time is meant to slow in a gravity field, and dramatically in a black hole.

It is also clearly established that General Relativity insists that there is no difference in any sense between acceleration (G-forces) and actual gravity, also insisting that the same time dilation take effect.

Which brings up a very interesting point, if you were in Einstein’s accelerating elevator thought experiment, and remembering that this form of time dilation is absolute (agreed on by all observers), you would notice your clock to tick slower, but you wouldn’t expect a non-accelerating clock to tick slower also that you pass by! (at least not based on General Relativity)

So if we are to be unable to tell if we are in an accelerating elevator outside of a gravity field, or in gravity field sitting on a planet…

Then a clock that is dropped in the accelerating elevator must behave the same, which is to say tick faster the instant it is dropped (not accelerated).

And if the clock is not accelerating and so isn’t subject to any time dilation in the inertial example…

So if we were to drop a clock into a black hole, it shouldn’t tick any slower to our outside perspective UNTIL it is no longer sucked into the gravity well and instead begins to feel the pull of gravity, as we do standing on earth as we resist gravity.

If Gravity is a distortion of space, you can accurately say that as we stand on earth we are actually experiencing acceleration relative to space, and that a falling object (or an object that is thrown up) is not accelerating but is in a constant inertial frame as far as space in concerned.

So by simple logic, since it is untenable to assume that an accelerating space elevator will effect clocks arbitrarily around it (that it views as falling) then gravity can’t effect the time rate of a clock unless gravities acceleration is being resisted.

Hence a clock falling into a black hole should tick normally if gravity and acceleration are actually equivalent, at least with respect to time dilation from General Relativity.

And yet this does not seem to be an acknowledged component of General Relativity.

Basically this would argue that while you are falling (even if you are moving upwards momentarily as a thrown ball) you are weightless and gravity is not real for you, not only can you not detect it, it doesn’t slow your clock.

I didn’t read the whole thing, but you went off the rails here:

Your clock ticks normally for you. A clock you’re approaching speeds up, and as you’re moving away from it it slows down.

Correction, this:

Should read: Then a clock that is dropped on earth must behave the same as the clock dropped in the accelerating elevator, which is to say tick faster the instant it is dropped (not accelerated).

True, but that is Special Relativity you are talking about, this is General Relativity.

Also the instant you accelerate at 1G you experience the time dilation from that 1G.
But the instant you start accelerating, your motion relative to the non-accelerating clock is essentially zero.

Indeed if the clock is moving away from you (it is in an inertial frame) and you accelerate towards it you will eventually match it’s velocity before overtaking it, this would be like a ball thrown up as we stand on earth.

But at the moment the ball reaches the peak (apogee) it has no relative motion to you but still find a time rate difference according to the accelerating elevator, and hence also in a gravity field.

This source says: http://www.personal.kent.edu/~fwilliam/Chapter%2013%20General%20Relativity.pdf

The Equivalence Principle says that it’s not just that you’re too inept to figure out a way to differentiate between them, but instead that there is [B]no possible local experiment you can perform to tell the difference, no matter how clever you are**.

And yet, here is a more succinct version of my argument:

If you are in an accelerating space elevator, and you throw a clock upwards and then it falls down (or just drop it), the clock looks to be accelerating to you, but it is in a constant inertial frame not accelerating once you release it, and so your time should slow due to acceleration according to the equivalence principle of General Relativity (Gravity=time dilation & Gravity=inertia force) but you can’t observe other clocks that are in space around you in or out of the box not accelerating to be effected by this form of time dilation obviously, so the INSTANT you release it you would observe it ticking faster.

So if it is equivalent then you should be able to see that if you let a clock be effected by gravity (fall) it should also tick faster than your time rate. Otherwise you can tell the difference!

So a clock thrown into a black hole, at least as far as General Relativity is concerned should be seen to tick at a normal rate to an observer far away from the black hole!

At least until it stops falling.

Am I and the referenced PDF incorrect about the absoluteness of the Equivalence principle claims?

If you are not sure you are in a box deep in a gravity well of a black hole or accelerating at an enormous rate and you drop a clock, and you drop/throw a clock in each and one speeds up insanely fast and the other is mostly unaffected, that is a very very clear difference!

This source says: http://www.personal.kent.edu/~fwilli...Relativity.pdf

The Equivalence Principle says that it’s not just that you’re too inept to figure out a way to differentiate between them, but instead that there is no possible local experiment you can perform to tell the difference, no matter how clever you are.

And yet, here is a more succinct version of my argument:

If you are in an accelerating space elevator, and you throw a clock upwards and then it falls down (or just drop it), the clock looks to be accelerating to you, but it is in a constant inertial frame not accelerating once you release it, and so your time should slow due to acceleration according to the equivalence principle of General Relativity (Gravity=time dilation & Gravity=inertia force) but you can’t observe other clocks that are in space around you in or out of the box not accelerating to be effected by this form of time dilation obviously, so the INSTANT you release it you would observe it ticking faster.

So if it is equivalent then you should be able to see that if you let a clock be effected by gravity (fall) it should also tick faster than your time rate. Otherwise you can tell the difference!

So a clock thrown into a black hole, at least as far as General Relativity is concerned should be seen to tick at a normal rate to an observer far away from the black hole!

At least until it stops falling.

Am I and the referenced PDF incorrect about the absoluteness of the Equivalence principle claims?

If you are not sure you are in a box deep in a gravity well of a black hole or accelerating at an enormous rate and you drop a clock, and you drop/throw a clock in each and one speeds up insanely fast and the other is mostly unaffected, that is a very very clear difference!

You are making a nearly incoherent argument based on what clocks you can see. And whether any are in the elevator. That’s irrelevant. It’s an argument based on torturing the example.

The “clock” doesn’t have to be a physical clock. It can be observation of decay or heartbeats or whatever.

You can be wearing a watch. Or have a second clock with you. It doesn’t matter. The point is your observations of the tossed clock show the passage of time appear to change on the clock while it remains the same for you.

No. The math states this clearly. It doesn’t.

Worse, this isn’t just a cute thought experiment based on physicists playing on chalkboards. These results have been verified again and again in aircraft and in space multiple times. The GPS system itself doesn’t work unless SR and GR work correctly. Things break down.

The referenced PDF is correct. Your are not. It is questionable to use a citation to say something it absolutely doesn’t.

Time already flies, so whether the clock is dropped or thrown shouldn’t make much difference. :slight_smile:

this nonsense is already being dealt with in his other thread… literally = he’s now cross posting to his own threads.