FTL - New Thoughts and Questions

[why06]

FORGET ABOUT GRAVITY FOR A SECOND!<br /><br />I fear you all are going terribly off subject. It doesn't matter one way or another. like that one dude said...if you really want to know the speed of gravity than remove thesun, but untill than shutup about it. <br />Wern't we talking about tachyons<br />Maybe some of you didn't catch my post earlier, but I just said that a ship could instantly become faster than light with a limited amount of tachyons.<font color="yellow"></font> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <div>________________________________________ <br /></div><div><ul><li><font color="#008000"><em>your move...</em></font></li></ul></div> </div>

 

[yevaud]

With the possible exception of the fact that Tachyons don't exist, sure. <br /><br />The point behind the debate about gravity and equivalence is directly related to the limiting factor, "C." <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><em>Differential Diagnosis:  </em>"<strong><em>I am both amused and annoyed that you think I should be less stubborn than you are</em></strong>."<br /> </p> </div>

 

[spacechump]

I'm not going to "shut up" why.<br /><br />bonzelite was showing a clear misunderstanding of GR.<br /><br />As for tachyons, if they exist, it'd be a neat thing if we could figure out how to generate a large amount of them. There would be some interesting experiments for sure.

 

[derekmcd]

I believe he meant the 2 forces are "indistinguishable" in that experiements using either mass OR acceleration will have the same result. I could be wrong, but that is my interpretation. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <div> </div><br /><div><span style="color:#0000ff" class="Apple-style-span">"If something's hard to do, then it's not worth doing." - Homer Simpson</span></div> </div>

 

[spacechump]

No, you're exactly right.

 

[mars_or_die]

You are all wrong about GR, Einstein was on to something, but the average human being does not possess the intellect to fully understand what he was postulating. Prior to a bad head injury or two I was exceptionally intelligent and I spent many an hour trying to understand GR. I am still trying and I believe that in Time I will eventually wrap my mind around what relationship time, space, matter, gravity and accelleration have with each other.<br /><br />There are a few aspects of this I have come to believe, they are:<br />1.) It does not take an INFINITE amount of Energy to Exceed C,<br />2.) Your mass does not become infinite as you get near C,<br />3.) C is not the ABSOLUTE speed of the universe.<br /><br />Let's go back billions of years to the point that the universe was created. There was a pinpoint singularity of infinite mass and energy that suddenly erupted. Spewing mass and energy outward at an incredible speed. If light had traveled faster than the matter we would not be able to look back in time by monitoring the light coming at us from the center of the universe. The light would have past us billions of years ago and left us in the dark.<br /><br />Additionally, saying that Light travels at the absolute maximum speed of anything in the universe would mean that TIME is slower than light and relative to the speed of light. Yet we can slow the speed of light without affecting time. Additionally, it has been proven that the faster you travel the slower time gets. Even in the vacuum of space.<br /><br />I postulate that the speed of matter is not limited by the speed of light, but that it is actually the other way around. The speed of light is limited by matter. If gravity, electromagnetic fields, etc. can bend light, then matter (or more specifically mass) can most definitely effect the speed of light. We know that light travels at a maximum speed within our solar system. But we have no idea how fast light actually travels outside of the mass and gravitational influe

 

[yevaud]

<i>electromagnetic fields, etc. can bend light</i><br /><br />Um, no it cannot. Photons carry no charge. Electromagnetics cannot effect them in the way you say. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><em>Differential Diagnosis:  </em>"<strong><em>I am both amused and annoyed that you think I should be less stubborn than you are</em></strong>."<br /> </p> </div>

 

[bonzelite]

<font color="yellow"><br />I believe he meant the 2 forces are "indistinguishable" in that experiements using either mass OR acceleration will have the same result. I could be wrong, but that is my interpretation.</font><br /><br />i'm not misunderstanding anything. <i>i know what Einstein meant</i>, what GR basically says, and i am saying he is 1/2 right and 1/2 wrong, however you wish to look at it. because acceleration alone can create "g," <i>as Einstein himself says,</i> then "g" should be re-examined and thought about differently. i am saying that there may not be <i>whatsoever</i> an endemic quality of gravity to mass or matter. this is the part Einstein did not say. he insists upon "spacetime" as warping light and space itself around massive objects. i'm saying that part may be entirely false. "g" related to mass is not necessary, for example, to calculate orbital profiles or of insertion of probes into orbit. these are purely geometric functions. Galileo proved this with d=1/2at^2. the "a" in the equation does not need "g" to be put into it's place to garner accuracy or usefulness, as his version of the equation predated Newton and Einstein, yet remains useful today as it stands. gravity, as well, may be <i>purely</i> geometric as this is proven by Einstein's elevator.

 

[spacechump]

<i>and i am saying he is 1/2 right and 1/2 wrong, however you wish to look at it. because acceleration alone can create "g," as Einstein himself says, then "g" should be re-examined and thought about differently.</i><br /><br />Based....on....what?<br /><br /><i>he insists upon "spacetime" as warping light and space itself around massive objects. i'm saying that part may be entirely false.</i><br /><br />Again...based....on.....what?<br /><br />Einstein used GR to predict the results of a gravitational warping of a star's light on the other side of the sun during an eclipse. Predictions that turned out to be accurately observed.<br /><br /><i>Galileo proved this with d=1/2at^2. the "a" in the equation does not need "g" to be put into it's place to garner accuracy or usefulness,</i><br /><br />I bet to differ. You're trying to make it sound much more simplistic than it really is. Try reading up on the math they actually use for spacecraft trajectories. They don't necessarily need GR because the level of accuracy they need is good enough for Newton's concepts.<br /><br /><i>gravity, as well, may be purely geometric as this is proven by Einstein's elevator.</i><br /><br />And again, what you fail to see is that you need to impart an acceleration on the object being acclerated. If I go out to deep space with a square of styrofoam, I'm not going to be pulled to it any quicker than two relatively low mass objects can be and be able to walk across the surface...not unless there is a big rocket behind it that can KEEP a consistant 9.8m/s^2 acceleration <i>equivalent</i> to one earth g.<br /><br /><i>i'm not misunderstanding anything</i><br /><br />Actually you do and lack the substance to show otherwise.

 

[alokmohan]

When light is going up from zero speed,it may not exceed c.But if light is coming from another universe where minimumspeed is c,it approaches from other direction.c is the limiting speed ,itmay be maximum or minmum speed.As for tachyons it is perfectly possiblethat there is tachyon.Ask George Sudarshan.

 

[yevaud]

<i>However, tachyons are not entirely invisible. You can imagine that you might produce them in some exotic nuclear reaction. If they are charged, you could "see" them by detecting the Cherenkov light they produce as they speed away faster and faster. Such experiments have been done. So far, no tachyons have been found. Even neutral tachyons can scatter off normal matter with experimentally observable consequences. Again, no such tachyons have been found.</i><br /><br />[...]<br /><br /><i>The bottom line is that you can't use tachyons to send information faster than the speed of light from one place to another. Doing so would require creating a message encoded some way in a localized tachyon field, and sending it off at superluminal speed toward the intended receiver. But as we have seen you can't have it both ways: localized tachyon disturbances are subluminal and superluminal disturbances are nonlocal.</i><br /><br />http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/ParticleAndNuclear/tachyons.html <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><em>Differential Diagnosis:  </em>"<strong><em>I am both amused and annoyed that you think I should be less stubborn than you are</em></strong>."<br /> </p> </div>

 

[bonzelite]

<font color="yellow"><br />and i am saying he is 1/2 right and 1/2 wrong, however you wish to look at it. because acceleration alone can create "g," as Einstein himself says, then "g" should be re-examined and thought about differently. <br /><br />Based....on....what? </font><br /><br />on the geometric acceleration. mass is not necessary to create g. he posits the example himself, but digresses into "spacetime." <br /><br /><font color="yellow"><br />he insists upon "spacetime" as warping light and space itself around massive objects. i'm saying that part may be entirely false. <br /><br />Again...based....on.....what? <br /></font><br /><br />based on the geometric acceleration to create g. it is shown that mass is not necessary to create g. <br /><br /><font color="yellow"><br />Einstein used GR to predict the results of a gravitational warping of a star's light on the other side of the sun during an eclipse. Predictions that turned out to be accurately observed.<br /></font><br />the warping may not have been created by the mass of the star bending the light. such light can bend in the elevator being accelerated, geometrically, without need for mass. he states this as well. <br /><br /><font color="yellow"><br />I bet to differ. You're trying to make it sound much more simplistic than it really is.</font><br /><br />it is simple. zenlike. <br /><br /><font color="yellow"> They don't necessarily need GR because the level of accuracy they need is good enough for Newton's concepts. </font><br /><br />right. GR is far too irrelevant for trajectories and un-necessary. GR is too theoretical and impractical and is not even used in most industrial applications insofar as space probes or satellites. their paths follow geometric laws. <br /><br /><font color="yellow"><br />And again, what you fail to see is that you need to impart an acceleration on the object being acclerated.</font><br /><br />i'm not overlooking that part at all. i k

 

[spacechump]

<i>mmm yeah. and the acceleration of the styrofoam elevator platform will be sufficient to create "gravity." without that acceleration, it will not be sufficient to create 1g. this proves that g is acceleration derived. as long as, for example, the "rocket" constantly maintains 1g acceleration, it can be far, far less massive than earth and the 1g will be maintained.</i><br /><br />Do you even write what you type? Think about this bonze....real hard now! So we can accelerate an object and use the inertia of the object sitting on top of it to keep it prove a gravitational like force. So what is the earth accelerating through? Its angular acceleration (ie its orbit and its rotation) won't do it. If it's not mass, what is this mechanism you speak of?<br /><br /><i>right. GR is far too irrelevant for trajectories and un-necessary. GR is too theoretical and impractical and is not even used in most industrial applications insofar as space probes or satellites. their paths follow geometric laws.</i><br /><br />Wrong. It's effect is accounted for on GPS satellites to keep GPS coordinate accurate. Read up on atomic clocks and GPS. That's where the level of accuracy is needed.<br /><br /><i>it is simple. zenlike.</i><br /><br />This is why no one takes you seriously.

 

[bonzelite]

<font color="yellow"> If it's not mass, what is this mechanism you speak of? </font><br /><br />the earth itself, pressing up on all objects upon it. the earth is accelerating from it's center outward, in every direction, constantly accelerating it's surface at 1g. <br /><br /><font color="yellow"><br />This is why no one takes you seriously.</font><br /><br />some people do. i'm here for those who do. not you.

 

[spacechump]

<i>the earth itself, pressing up on all objects upon it. the earth is accelerating from it's center outward, in every direction, constantly accelerating it's surface at 1g.</i><br /><br />This would mean the earth is expanding. I can assure you its the same diameter it was yesterday. What is your evidence that this is happening?<br /><br /><i>some people do. i'm here for those who do. not you.</i><br /><br />Then should at least know they're being mislead into a path of non-critical thinking.

 

[bonzelite]

<font color="yellow">What is your evidence that this is happening? <br /></font><br /><br />objects fall to earth at the same rate regardless of mass --another condition where mass is irrelevant. <br /><br />critical thinking is to question accepted official theory. you are running among the sheep.

 

[spacechump]

<i>objects fall to earth at the same rate regardless of mass --another condition where mass is irrelevant. </i><br /><br />Yes they do. No one is going to argue with you there. But those objects fall at different rates on other planets and moons...planets and moons with different masses.<br /><br /><i>critical thinking is to question accepted official theory. you are running among the sheep.</i><br /><br />Official theory has gotten us this far hasn't it? To question theory is fine. To use misguided concepts is another issue. It seems like the only thing you want to accomplish on this forum is to disagree with anything mainstream regardless of topic. That's you're only objective.

 

[bonzelite]

<font color="yellow"><br />Yes they do. No one is going to argue with you there. But those objects fall at different rates on other planets and moons...planets and moons with different masses. </font><br /><br />expansion rates are the same. however <i>relative distances of expansion vary</i> from body to body, depending on their sizes relative to each other. the relative distance of the expansion of the moon is less than the earth. so the force of this "gravity" upon rocks on it's surface will be less than earth, as earth's relative expansion distance is greater. jupiter's relative expansion is even greater, even though it's <i>absolute rate</i> of expansion is the same. <br /><br />i'm not here to disagree with everything. that's far too tiring and unwarranted. i agree with some things, particularly with mars-related issues. as well, i disagree with a lot.

 

[spacechump]

Expanding into what bonze? Expanding into what?<br /><br /><i>however relative distances of expansion vary from body to body, depending on their sizes relative to each other. the relative distance of the expansion of the moon is less than the earth.</i><br /><br />I don't know how you came to this conclusion. If a beach ball size object was dense enough to contain enough mass equal to earth, you'd get a 9.8 m/s^2 acceleration at its surface.

 

[bonzelite]

<font color="yellow"><br />I don't know how you came to this conclusion. If a beach ball size object was dense enough to contain enough mass equal to earth, you'd get a 9.8 m/s^2 acceleration at its surface.</font><br /><br />right, based on the mass/gravity premise. <br /><br />a size/gravity expanding object premise would render the "gravity" of the beach ball, of equal mass as earth, with far, far less relative expansion to earth and thus less "gravity." i'm setting up a size matters idea. as mass does not necessarly "matter."<br /><br /> this is being built upon the geomtric nature of accelerated bodies creating "gravity" with very little mass. and this is substantiated in einstein's elevator. he revealed that mass is not necessary to create gravity; acceleration is. therefore, the earth is expanding/accelerating constantly at 9.8m/s^2.<br /><br />expanding into space. <br /><br />what do you think?

 

[spacechump]

<i>a size/gravity expanding object premise would render the "gravity" of the beach ball, of equal mass as earth, with far, far less relative expansion to earth and thus less "gravity." i'm setting up a size matters idea. as mass does not necessarly "matter." </i><br /><br />That goes against observed evidence. What about neutron stars the size of Earth that have a tremendous gravitational pull due to its density for such a small size?<br /><br /><i>expanding into space.<br /><br />what do you think?</i><br /><br />If an object in space is expanding then its expanding. Notice the fact that the Earth isn't growing in size, or any of the other planets for that matter. Or are you throwing extra dimensions in? <br /><br />Edit: I'm out for two days...you all have fun arguing!

 

[bonzelite]

i'm going to bed. later. <br /><br />

 

[mlorrey]

"electromagnetic fields, etc. can bend light <br /><br />Um, no it cannot. Photons carry no charge. Electromagnetics cannot effect them in the way you say. "<br /><br />Sorry, but you are wrong. Photons are an electromagnetic phenomenon. What do you think radio waves are? They are photons too. That is why it is called the "electromagnetic spectrum". A historical example is how the british used radio beams to bend the guidance radio beams that the Germans used to guide their bombers over England. This caused the Germans to dump their bombs in open countryside rather than on cities.

 

[mlorrey]

Bonzelite: objects fall to earth the same regardless of mass, but only when that mass is miniscule compared to the mass of the Earth. Compared to, say, the mass of the moon, you need to calculate the acceleration of the earth toward the moon as well as the acceleration of the moon toward the earth. This is why the three body problem is so difficult.

 

[yevaud]

Photons are massless and chargeless, whereas EM waves have an electrical and magnetic component.<br /><br />A simple example: a Radio or TV transmitter produces an intense E/M field. Ever see one bend light around the antennae? <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><em>Differential Diagnosis:  </em>"<strong><em>I am both amused and annoyed that you think I should be less stubborn than you are</em></strong>."<br /> </p> </div>