The speed of light may have been broken.

[billvon]

Of course not, because no observer agrees with any other observer in SR. Everyone in SR will say they are at rest and it's really the other guy that's in motion.

Nope. No one in SR is necessarily at rest - but (and here's the important part) all physical laws work still work as if they are.

Fortunately we have come far in our understanding of this since the days of the Flintstones. (Well, most have.)

 

[Motor Daddy]

Nope. No one in SR is necessarily at rest - but (and here's the important part) all physical laws work still work as if they are.

Fortunately we have come far in our understanding of this since the days of the Flintstones. (Well, most have.)

How does SR define "at rest?"

 

[billvon]

How does SR define "at rest?"

You can only be at rest relative to other things.

Here's a question for you - are you currently at rest?

 

[keith1]

Not to feign anal-retentive incompetence as if virtuous tenacity, allow me to direct this discussion back to the OP:

Is the Universe's frame traveling at the speed of light?

And:

If, it is found irrefutable, in further testing, that an object within the Universe's frame displays tachyonic characteristics, would the Universe then be prone to be observed as having a similar FTL dynamic?

 

[Motor Daddy]

You can only be at rest relative to other things.

I asked you how SR defines "at rest?"

Here's a question for you - are you currently at rest?

No, I am not at rest, even sitting in my chair at the computer desk. "At rest" is not relative to my monitor, it is relative to light travel time.

 

[billvon]

I asked you how SR defiones "at rest?"

There is no absolute rest that has any meaning. The only observable "at rest" is relative to other things.

No, I am not at rest, even sitting in my chair at the computer desk.

You are correct! And yet if you closed the shades and the door to your room, you could not measure any difference in the speed of light in any direction. (You could, however, determine that you are slowly turning with the planet if you had very, very sensitive instruments.)

 

[arfa brane]

How does SR define "at rest?"

You really don't know, do you?
But you're convinced the theory that you don't understand any of the basic principles of is wrong.

I find your lack of faith . . . disturbing.

 

[Motor Daddy]

You really don't know, do you?
But you're convinced the theory that you don't understand any of the basic principles of is wrong.

I find your lack of faith . . . disturbing.

That's what I thought, SR is faith based.

 

[Motor Daddy]

There is no absolute rest that has any meaning. The only observable "at rest" is relative to other things.

How can you consider yourself "at rest" in SR, when you say "at rest" is only relative to other things. So you have faith it's really you at rest and not the other guy? You basically just randomly say you have a zero velocity. Why not randomly say you have a 436,000 m/s velocity?

You are correct! And yet if you closed the shades and the door to your room, you could not measure any difference in the speed of light in any direction. (You could, however, determine that you are slowly turning with the planet if you had very, very sensitive instruments.)

Wrong, because distance and time are inseparable.

 

[Tach]

Correct.

You are much more delusional than you initially let on. The consolation is, your condition isn't curable.

 

[Motor Daddy]

You are much more delusional than you initially let on. The consolation is, your condition isn't curable.

Ah, but using the concept of SR that you firmly believe in, I can correctly say that I am normal and you are the one that's delusional. See how that works?

If I understand things differently than you, then you are wrong, and I am the one that's right. Everyone is right, and nobody is ever wrong, just ask them, they'll tell ya.

 

[Tach]

Ah, but using the concept of SR that you firmly believe in, I can correctly say that I am normal and you are the one that's delusional. See how that works?

Nope, the situation is not symmetrical, you are absolutely delusional, not relatively. Take solace in the fact that your condition isn't curable.

 

[Motor Daddy]

Nope, the situation is not symmetrical, you are absolutely delusional, not relatively. Take solace in the fact that your condition isn't curable.

Absolutely delusional relative to what?

 

[OnlyMe]

Not to feign anal-retentive incompetence as if virtuous tenacity, allow me to direct this discussion back to the OP:

Is the Universe's frame traveling at the speed of light?

And:

If, it is found irrefutable, in further testing, that an object within the Universe's frame displays tachyonic characteristics, would the Universe then be prone to be observed as having a similar FTL dynamic?

That may have been the OP for the current discussion, where ever and what ever thread it actually began in, but this thread had two OPs being combined as one thread. Both are cited below...

Several discussions going on in this thread have little to do with the original thread and OPs.

Just something to ponder about...

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-15017484

It's not Superman -- but the neutrino. Here's the claim:

"A total of 15,000 beams of neutrinos - tiny particles that pervade the cosmos - were fired over a period of three years from CERN towards Gran Sasso 730 (500 miles) km away, where they were picked up by giant detectors.

Light would have covered the distance in around 2.4 thousandths of a second, but the neutrinos took 60 nanoseconds - or 60 billionths of a second - less than light beams would have taken."
(CERN scientists 'break the speed of light')

 

[Tach]

Absolutely delusional relative to what?

Asking the above makes you absolute, period. Take solace in the fact that you can't be cured.

 

[billvon]

How can you consider yourself "at rest" in SR, when you say "at rest" is only relative to other things.

Same way you can tell when you are at rest by looking at the world around you.

So you have faith it's really you at rest and not the other guy?

Nope, no faith - just what I can measure.

What speed are you going at right now, relative to your "absolute zero" speed? If, as you claim, physical laws are based on a zero reference frame, measuring your speed should be trivial for you.

Wrong, because distance and time are inseparable.

What did I say that you disagree with?

 

[KilljoyKlown]

I pulled a section out of the article and would like to know how the physicist on this forum feel about it.

Faster than light neutrinos – Q&A

http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2011/sep/23/faster-light-neutrinos

Are there any theories that might explain the result?

If the result is proved correct – and that is still a big if – you have to go into some relatively uncharted areas of theoretical physics to start explaining it. One idea is that the neutrinos are able to access some new, hidden dimension of space, which means they can take shortcuts. Joe Lykken of Fermilab told the New York Times: "Special relativity only holds in flat space, so if there is a warped fifth dimension, it is possible that on other slices of it, the speed of light is different."

Alan Kostelecky, an expert in the possibility of faster-than-light processes at Indiana University, put forward an idea in 1985 predicting that neutrinos could travel faster than the speed of light by interacting with an unknown field that lurks in the vacuum. "With this kind of background, it is not necessarily the case that the limiting speed in nature is the speed of light," he told the Guardian. "It might actually be the speed of neutrinos and light goes more slowly."

That would make more sense than neutrinos turning into tachyons. But the fact that neutrinos have mass bothers me a bit. But I suppose if a neutrino can take a short cut through space, it would solve that problem?

 

[Emil]

In Newtonian mechanics, that works. In frames moving quickly it does not, since velocity is distance over time, and time is no longer invariant in relative frames. Thus an observer on the ground, trying to calculate the differential speed of two objects, will see a different result if an observer on one of the objects tries to do the same thing.

However, for all intents and purposes, Newtonian mechanics works in our everyday life.

How do you find out the relative speed between two objects?
How do you know the movement is on the trajectory between the two objects and is not diverted to a degree?
You can do this without computing the vector?
How can you know that two objects have a relative speed between them so you can apply the SR?
Please realize that you're still before applying SR. You want to know whether the conditions required by the SR.

 

[billvon]

How do you find out the relative speed between two objects?

Measurement. Time it takes to pass two objects 1km apart, for example.

How do you know the movement is on the trajectory between the two objects and is not diverted to a degree?

Many ways. One example -

Have the object pass through two hoops exactly 1km apart, no larger than the object itself. Ensure that the two hoops are equidistant to you. Measure the time it takes for the object to pass through them. If it takes 1 second, its speed is 1000 meters per second relative to you.

 

[keith1]

Question: Could WMAP or Planck probes be used to detect/time coordinate a neutrino experiment, similar to the CERN/Gran Sasso experiment, through the vacuum of space, sourced from CERN?