Paradoxes and Dilemmas

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote><font size=2 face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>1- The relativistic factor gamma, still approaches infinity as v² approaches c². This means that, either c is the "speed limit," or that time goes backward as c is reached and surpassed, or that the formula is not a true representation of reality. <hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote></font id=quote><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size=2 id=quote>It's not the time that goes backwards, it's like a movie watched backwards. Think of where exactly is the kinetic energy of rectilinear motion stored - it can't be stored in the moving object, since changing ref frame changes that energy, so it must be stored in the medium, i.e. in the aether in the form of some kind of wave. As you approach the speed limit, wavefront surface grows infinitely, i.e. energy of the push is sunk into an infinitely growing conic surface. In order to brutally push through that speed barrier, you must supply the energy density greater than aether can handle in the top of that cone. Our aether is nothing other than the quantum vacuum, it's prone to spontaneously create matter once the energy density exceeds certain limit; like when energy in a sphere of Compton radius exceeds mass of a particle-antiparticle pair - such a pair is created. Thus a superluminal motion would create an expanding shockwave cone of matter creation.<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote><font size=2 face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>There is a (Galilean) principle of relativity. There is no preferred frame. Space is Euclidian. Velocities can be added. Waves travel at a speed determined by the medium they propagate in. All of the experiments supporting the theory of relativity (SR and LR), took place in earth's strong gravitational field; outside of it there may be different, or no, relativistic effects. <hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote></font id=quote><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size=2 id=quote>That may be exactly the case if you so prefer. An absolute time may be introduced as globally as you prefer; the "relativity of simultaneity" is long forgotten and experimentally disproved by the GPS. Then, since GR and all other competing metric theories describe no other than hydrodynamic medium, their metric tensors and stress-energy tensors both must be rewritten for this absolute time coordinate and their components further used for coordinate transformation into the underlying Euclidean space and to describe real sound waves and fluxes in the aether superfluid.<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote><font size=2 face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>There is no speed limit, but many practical problems to be overcome.<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote></font id=quote><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size=2 id=quote>As to the technical problems - the most immediate of them are quite evident.
First - real superfluid is a macroscopic quantum system described by one common wave function, i.e. it is exactly the same thing in every its point, and I mean the same - not simply identical. When an object moves at constant speed lower than the speed of sound in such medium, it feels no resistance since every next point is exactly the same as before; yet acceleration meets resistance due to finite speed of sound in superfluid, so that the effective mass of an object is a sum of the proper mass and the mass of superfluid expelled by object's volume. If we manage to make every point on the object surface appear as exactly the very same point, then we may expect that no relative motion of the object and medium finds resistance, be it accelerated or not; that's because for an infinitesimal time dt an equally infinitesimal surface area dS of the object/medium border undergoes change in superposition of wave functions, rather than full finite surface area superposition change in case of normal non-modified object. Thus we need the surface of the object be superfluid as well, or we could try to wrap the object in a layer of static (wrt the object surface) superfluid.
Extending the superfluid analogy to the quantum aether, we thus get the idea of what must be done to the object to move both superluminally and without resistance - we must enwrap the object into internally generated static layer of aether.

This whole issue of time slowing down seems to be undecidable. I notice that if I put a chemical solution into a refrigerator and time how long a reaction takes to occur that it slows down as I reduce the temperature. Is time slowing down or a physical effect occuring? No one has measured relativistic time dilation outside of a particle accelerator and it might well be a PHYSICAL effect caused by the electromagnetic field on the particle it is accelerating. Even if we measure time changes we can just as easily hold time constant and declare that the length scale is varying. I think the relativistic notion of light speed as a limit only exists because we haven't proven anything else faster yet. We could change the beta factor relation to

B = sqrt[1-(v/nc)^2]

where n is a multiple of c that varies according to the natural speed of the phenomena that we are observing. If we use this relation we do not get the silly time paradoxes that relativists are so hung up on. Why don't they claim that time will move backward when a jet exceeds the velocity of sound? The only limits are in our imagination.

The particle accelerator does not slow time down because it is inducing the effect on the particle, the particle cannot exert a similar magnitude of effect back because the tail doesn't wag the dog. The same is true for the universe, how could the spacecraft have nearly the effect on the rest of the universe as the universe will have on it? But this of course argues for a preferred frame with the universe as opposed to the spaceship. We are incapable of measuring absolute time but that does not mean it doesn't exist.

<b><font color=orange>[Moderator note: Messages to this topic by Makis and Patrick were deleted at the authors' request. The reason becomes apparent as the thread progresses.]</font id=orange></b>

[Makis]
"The rocket must accelerate to get the speed up to c. Therefore, a reference system attached to the rocket is not an inertial frame. Therefore, a transformation such as you suggested is invalid. Obviously, the rocket departed."

You're right. I believe the twins paradox to which my scenario is similar in construction, usually has the traveler passing earth at a constant speed approaching the speed of light. I neglected that part for simplicity. Sorry.

Come on, everybody, there's no twin paradox even in the SR. Just do the calculations for all the ref frame boosts the traveller experiences. The "paradox" arises when one tries to sit in two different ref frames simultaneously.
(The boost in the far point must be carefully accounted for...)

[AB]"Come on, everybody, there's no twin paradox even in the SR."

I thought I said that. Anyway, thanks for the feedback. Neil

Neil,

My point was that no magic is required in SR to resolve the "paradox". No matter how many illogical SRish "resolutions" are floating around, there is a quite logical SRish explanation (well, inasmuch as SR is logical<img src=icon_smile.gif border=0 align=middle>).
BTW, did you get the message that all the 2A/2B/2C from your original post may be equally correct simultaneously?