You don't have a method. You have a delusion.MD said:
The Relativity of Simultaneity
- Thread starter Motor Daddy
- Start date
Motor Daddy:
You do live in Einstein's world. You're just in denial about it.
Neither does Einstein's.
There are no causality violations in Einstein's world, because nothing can travel faster than the speed of light. Please re-read my previous post, where I explained.
There's no way to synchronise clocks across different reference frames.
I already paid attention. That example is irrelevant, as I explained in my previous post.
No. It's your turn to do some work. No new scenarios. Show me you understand Einstein's universe.
I wrote a long post that you totally ignored. Read back if you missed it. I said I would give you those answers if you spelled out your scenario in sufficient detail for me to be able to do that.
Don't accuse me of dodging questions when you regularly ignore whole slabs of posts that I write, or even entire posts.
For instance, I have now asked you more than 4 times whether you agree that an object is always at rest in its own reference frame. A simple yes/no answer (with justification) is all that is required, but you've ducked this question over and over again.
Right back at you.
Nothing travels faster than light, so there are no causality violations.
Of course it doesn't. There's no speed limit in the Motor Daddy universe, and the speed of light is nothing special.
You do live in Einstein's world. You're just in denial about it.
Neither does Einstein's.
There are no causality violations in Einstein's world, because nothing can travel faster than the speed of light. Please re-read my previous post, where I explained.
There's no way to synchronise clocks across different reference frames.
I already paid attention. That example is irrelevant, as I explained in my previous post.
No. It's your turn to do some work. No new scenarios. Show me you understand Einstein's universe.
I wrote a long post that you totally ignored. Read back if you missed it. I said I would give you those answers if you spelled out your scenario in sufficient detail for me to be able to do that.
Don't accuse me of dodging questions when you regularly ignore whole slabs of posts that I write, or even entire posts.
For instance, I have now asked you more than 4 times whether you agree that an object is always at rest in its own reference frame. A simple yes/no answer (with justification) is all that is required, but you've ducked this question over and over again.
Right back at you.
Nothing travels faster than light, so there are no causality violations.
Of course it doesn't. There's no speed limit in the Motor Daddy universe, and the speed of light is nothing special.
Motor Daddy
Valued Senior Member
Excuse me??? In light of the current neutrino findings, you have some serious causality problems in SR that need to be addressed.
Let's just assume the findings are true. SR is shattered because the speed of the neutrino being faster than light means it violates causality in SR.
But guess what, James?? It doesn't violate causality in my universe, as in my universe it doesn't matter how fast an object travels, it is impossible for there to be a causality violation, as is true in the REAL WORLD!
Delusions...delusions...
Why should we assume that?
It means the potential is there, yes.
But your universe is completely imaginary, as we have established at length previously.
Motor Daddy
Valued Senior Member
So that we can look at the effect it has on SR if proven in the future to be true beyond all doubt. In my eyes, the assumption is not unreasonable since the findings were the results of the most technologically advanced equipment, with some of the finest scientists in the world performing the experiments. Furthermore, the scientists that performed the experiments seem to have exhausted all possible explanations as to any errors that could be the cause of erroneous results.
I would go further and say more than potential, but that there are findings that are unexplainable as to why the results are as they are. They don't have a reason why the findings shouldn't be set in stone at the moment. How long do we wait, and how many experiments will validate the findings in your mind, James??
No it is not imaginary, it is simply distance and time, and the implications of the current definitions. There is nothing imaginary about 1 second of light travel meaning light traveled 299,792,458 meters. It is a fact, set in stone! Distance and time are inseparable by definition.
Last edited:
I'm not or particle physicist, but http://arxiv.org/abs/1109.6562 looks extremely convincing. That seems pretty strong evidence that the findings are not true.
But muons have exceeded the speed of light, isn't it?
Muon Velocity
They can carry information faster than light, isn't it?
Errr.... that page says muons move at 98.9% the speed of light. They even draw a box around it at the end. Where are you getting that they move faster than light from?
Please read your sources.
Please read your sources.
Oh, yes? Why don't you recount for us what's been done so far to double-check the results, since you think they've already been verified? Have you suddenly become our resident expert on neutrino beams and detectors? Even if the results did hold up (very unlikely), there are already various schemes for fixing Relativity to match such a scenario, and even if such schemes didn't fit the puzzle, you'd be left with the mystery of why Relativity works to near perfection in a million other situations where classical physics falls apart.
Read the sentence after that!
You do realise there's more text right? You can scroll down.
Facts are the distance and the time which imposes the speed 2.0x10^9 m/s.
I don't wonder how and why this speed.
The question is simple:
"They can carry information faster than light?" Yes or No.
Your brilliant intelligence!
Else can you add? If only that you have to say I will report you as Troll.
No, it doesn't. The site clearly explains why not, it is not our fault that you can't comprehend.
Has nothing to do with Emil's inability to read English. Has everything to do with Emil's inability to understand physics and math.
Motor Daddy
Valued Senior Member
No really, my perpetual motion machine does what I say it does. Hold on, before I show you I have to change the battery.
Start by the time issue. If no time elapses for a photon, how much time elapses for a faster moving neutrino, in your whackjob "theory" that is SR??
Yes. Delete.
Talking to your reflection in the mirror again, MD?