Superluminal space travel

jatslo · Sep 8, 2005

frobozz said: Ok, now I've got to wonder sometimes if you post just for the sake of seeing what the response will be. Some (not all) of your posts seem to be nothing more than taking whichever buzz word seems to be on the forum at the moment and combine them to get a new response. Kinda like a chat bot, only a good one. Let's call this conjecture J - J is a chat bot So in the event you were looking for an entertaining response perhaps the above will get you a good laugh. atslo is no chat robot. In regards to what you actually seemed to have posted, all conjectures and such aside, chaos really has nothing to do with this. Physics, as it is, pretty much states the speed of light as a law (with reason). We can play with the law and see what happens for our own amusement and maybe if we're lucky we /might/ get something more out of it, but chaos isn't coming into the picture (in this case - n body class problems not withstanding as that isn't really what's being looked at here). I do not know if, chaos is a factor. First, close your eyes then teleport your soul into a nuclear reactor. Now open your eyes what do you see? You will see a reactor submerged in water that is glowing with an alien blue luminescence, which is an effect of masses of matter -(m) striking the medium (water), at an velocity -(v) greater than the visible-speed-of-light -(c) within the medium (water). Your pretty smart, so you know that water has resistive properties that creates thermal friction that produces energy (-e) for millions of inhabitants on planet Earth. Suddenly, you hear a loud thump, and you turn in the direction of the sound; Loa-and-behold the medium that is beginning to steam is replaced with a new batch of water. Your thinking WOW, that is pretty smart, because that would be very bad for my teleported soul, if the water cracked and the ensuing chain reaction w

raghara2 · Sep 8, 2005

>The proponents of the steady state theory never got round to specifying a mechanism for the creation >of all those hydrogen atoms. Although, to be fair, the proponents of the Big Bang theory have never >specified a mechanism for the creation of the entire Universe in an instant! Interaction of membrane of space with itself. Devirtualization of a virtual particle. Energy conservation caused by theory of tired light.

jatslo · Sep 9, 2005

Jatslo says, "In the following piece of evidence, the evidence states that the word "Random" should be banished; therefore, I propose that we banish chaos too, because there is no such thing as chaos or chaotic.: Quote, and unquote. The proportion p is treated as a uniformly distributed random variable. (Some who take an extreme Bayesian approach to applied probability insist that the word random should be banishedaltogether from probability theory, on the grounds of examples like this one. This proportion is not random, but uncertain. We assign a probability distribution to p to express our uncertainty, not to attribute randomness to p.) Let Xi be the number of "successes" on the ith trial, with probability p of success on each trial. Thus each X is 0 or 1; each X has a "Bernoulli distribution". Suppose these Xs are "conditionally independent" given p. "Bayes' theorem" says that in order to get the conditional probability distribution of p given the data Xi, i = 1, ..., n, one multiplies the "prior" (i.e., marginal) probability measure assigned to p by the "likelihood function" where s = x1 + ... + xn is the number of "successes" and n is of course the number of trials, and then normalizes, to get the "posterior" (i.e., conditional on the data) probability distribution of p. (We are using capital X to denote a random variable and lower-case x either as the htt</safety_wrapper

jatslo · Sep 9, 2005

frobozz said, "Actually, to be fair, the correct term is curvature, not fabric. Although the rubber sheet metaphor seems to work as a way of describing relativity, the correct term at least from a mathematical standpoint is curvature. Gravity is manifested as a change in the curvature of space-time. I think I referenced a website for you to look at which would explain this if you like, if it helps you should like for the bit on the Riemann curvature tensor. You may not get what's going on right away, but at least you can pick up the terminology and see where I'm coming from.: Quote, and unquote. Jatslo says, "Okay, "Curvature" is a good compromise, but your statement about "Gravity is manifested as a change in the curvature of space-time is not right; the correct way to say this is "Gravity is manifested as a change in the curvature in space-time", and not "of", right? Since I am right about your spelling and grammar mistakes, I am also right about this deliberate or un-deliberate critical mistake.

Swampcat · Sep 9, 2005

"Since I am right about your spelling andgrammermistakes, I am also right about thisdiliberateor undeliberate critical mistake." Hmmm...two spelling mistakes in one sentence. <img src="/images/icons/shocked.gif" /><img src="/images/icons/rolleyes.gif" /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> ------------------------------------------------------------------- "I hold it that a little rebellion now and then is a good thing, and as necessary in the political world as storms in the physical. Unsuccessful rebellions, indeed, generally establish the encroachments on the rights of the people which have produced them. An observation of this truth should render honest republican governors so mild in their punishment of rebellions as not to discourage them too much. It is a medicine necessary for the sound health of government."Thomas Jefferson </div>

jatslo · Sep 9, 2005

TY, I fixed them.

jatslo · Sep 9, 2005

Jatslo said, "That is right, "Chaos" is just a fancy way of saying, "I don't have freaking clue what the hell is going on, but I'll be damned, it works!#8221;: Quote, and unquote.

mrmux · Sep 9, 2005

Check out the book, 'Chaos' by James Glick.

frobozz · Sep 10, 2005

You and I would agree on one point from your "evidence" and that is the fact that the word "random" in the context of probability can be misleading. However, I think you will find many others who work with it more often than you and I who would disagree. As for the statement that nothing is chaotic, I submit a counter example. The logistic map. x_(n+1) = a - (x_n)^2 (1) You will find a proof that this is chaotic for certain values of a in the book "Topology of Chaos" along with many many other books I imagine, what error have you found in the analysis specifically? Can you in fact produce a correct definition of Chaos so that you at least know what is it is you are claiming doesn't exist?

jatslo · Sep 10, 2005

Jatslo's response to frobozz, MrMux, and swampcat: Jatslo said, "In the following piece of evidence, the evidence states that the word "Random" should be banished; therefore, I propose that we banish chaos too, because there is no such thing as chaos or chaotic.: Quote, and unquote. Jatslo's Evidence The proportion p is treated as a uniformly distributed random variable. (Some who take an extreme Bayesian approach to applied probability insist that the word random should be banishedaltogether from probability theory, on the grounds of examples like this one. This proportion is not random, but uncertain. We assign a probability distribution to p to express our uncertainty, not to attribute randomness to p.) Let Xi be the number of "successes" on the ith trial, with probability p of success on each trial. Thus each X is 0 or 1; each X has a "Bernoulli distribution". Suppose these Xs are "conditionally independent" given p. "Bayes' theorem" says that in order to get the conditional probability distribution of p given the data Xi, i = 1, ..., n, one multiplies the "prior" (i.e., marginal) probability measure assigned to p by the "likelihood function" where s = x1 + ... + xn is the number of "successes" and n is of course the number of trials, and then normalizes, to get the "posterior" (i.e., conditional on the data) probabili

mental_avenger · Sep 11, 2005

jatslo says: It does not matter what medium is utilized; the effect is the same. Masses of matter -(m) exceed the visible-speed-of-light -(c) period. Not sure what your point is here. AFAIK, Einstein (or any other reputable person) never said nothing could exceed “c” within a given medium, only that nothing could exceed “c” in a vacuum. There is very little mystery about the behavior of “light” (or particles) within a given medium. Every medium that can transmit light effects the velocity of light, and that effect is different depending upon the color (frequency) of that light. Whether or not a given particle or photon is apparently accelerated to a velocity greater than “c” in that medium is irrelevant. Part of the explanation lies in the fact that “light” does not actually travel through a transparent medium. BTW, I was unable to translate your lengthy “teleport into a reactor” diatribe because my Gibberish-to-English translator is currently offline. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> Our Solar System must be passing through a Non Sequitur area of space. </div>

jatslo · Sep 11, 2005

Jatslo said, "It does not matter what medium is utilized; the effect is the same. Masses of matter -(m) exceed the visible-speed-of-light -(c) period: Quote, and unquote. Jatslo's Evidence and Commentary: The visible-speed-of-light in a vacuum is approximately 299,796 km/s, which also known as Albert Einstein's constant ( REFERENCE ). Jatslo said, "What this means is that the visible-speed-of-light -(c) within a vacuum is approximately 299,796 km/s, in which the vacuum acts as a conduit for visible-light from points A and B, and I just described vacuum similar to how I will now describe "Medium":: Quote, and unquote. The word medium (from Latin, in which it means, "the one in the middle") can have different meanings in different contexts. The word medium usually has something to do with either a material substance, or a form of mediation ( REFERENCE ). Medium, mediation, place in the middle, conduit, and it can have zero resistance, but it cannot have total resistance, for that is not mediation. Space is a conduit and space is a vacuum; therefore, we can conclude that: If space is conduit and vacuum, and mediation is a conduit, then a vacuum is a medium too. Mental_Avenger said, "Not sure what your point is here. AFAIK, Einstein (or any other reputable person) never said nothing could exceed “c” within a given medium, only that nothing could exceed “c” in a vacuum. There is very little mystery about the behavior of “light” (or particles) within a given medium.: Quote, and unquote. Jatslo said, "Yet once again you demo

jatslo · Sep 11, 2005

As if stevehw33 had a brain... <img src="/images/icons/rolleyes.gif" /> He is off to see the wizard, the wonderful wizard of OZ...

jatslo · Sep 11, 2005

mental_avenger · Sep 11, 2005

jatslo says: vacuum acts as a conduit for visible-light from points A and B, Conduit insinuates containment. (from conducere ‘bring together’). Space has no boundaries in any direction, and therefore does not channel, conduct, or otherwise confine light within any bounds. Space is not a “conduit”. jatslo says: Medium, mediation, place in the middle, conduit Placing four words with different meanings together does not make them either similar in meaning or necessarily relevant to the discussion. jatslo says: Space is a conduit and space is a vacuum; therefore, we can conclude that: If space is conduit and vacuum, and mediation is a conduit, then a vacuum is a medium too. Since several of your base premises are incorrect, your conclusion is faulty. Everything that follows from that faulty conclusion is also flawed. jatslo says: Anything relative to invisibility is opinion in your minion Try that again in English, my Gibberish-to-English translator is still off line. jatslo says: Charged masses of matter passed through the meduim (water) at velocities greater than the visible-speed-of-light period, and the term "Water" is irrelivant, because you can replace water with vacuum and the effect is the same Talk about an unsupported conjecture based on clearly flawed premises. Good grief!! BTW, quoting Wikipedia as scientific evidence is rather foolish. Anyone can add or edit any of those articles at any time. Hint: You might want to check those equations you linked to. You just might find that three of them no longer support your hypothesis (as if they ever did). Amazing what changing one or two terms in an equation can do. <img src="/images/icons/wink.gif" /> jatslo <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> Our Solar System must be passing through a Non Sequitur area of space. </div>

jatslo · Sep 11, 2005

An important question in the history of the study of light has been the determination of its speed and of the relationship of this speed to other physical phenomena. At one time it was thought that light travels with infinite speed—i.e., it is propagated instantaneously from its source to an observer Olaus Rømer showed that it was finite, however, and in 1675 estimated its value from differences in the time of eclipse of certain of Jupiter's satellites when observed from different points in the earth's orbit. More accurate measurements were made during the 19th cent. by A. H. L. Fizeau (1849), using a toothed wheel to interrupt the light, and by J. B. L. Foucault (1850), using a rotating mirror. The most accurate measurements of this type were made by Michelson. Modern electronic methods have improved this accuracy, yielding a value of 2.99792458 × 10 8 m (c.186,000 mi) per sec for the speed of light in a vacuum, and less for its speed in other media. The theory of relativity predicts that the speed of light in a vacuum is the limiting velocity for material particles; no particle can be accelerated from rest to the speed of light, although it may approach it very closely. Particles moving at less than the speed of light in a vacuum but greater than that of light in some other medium will emit a faint blue lightknown as Cherenkov Radiation when they pass through the other medium. This phenomenon has been used in various applications involving "Elementary Particles" ( REFERENCE ).

jatslo · Sep 12, 2005

You scewed Jatslo's evidence and quoted Jatslo wrong, not cool. Clearly you have a reputation for doing this. Most people who debate effectively provide counter evidence in a series of tactical blows. If you have better evidence, then by all means, please provide it.

mental_avenger · Sep 12, 2005

You scewed Jatslo's evidence Really? Show me where I did that. and quoted Jatslo wrong Not true. Quotes from your posting, which are in yellow were copy/paste and are therefore exact. Clearly you have a reputation for doing this False. I could hardly have a reputation for something I have not done. When I quote another poster, I always copy the selection (misspelling and all) and then paste it, eliminating any possibility of misquoting. Most people who debate effectively provide counter evidence in a series of tactical blows. This isn’t a war. If you have better evidence, then by all means, please provide it. Since your premise was faulty, there is no point in attempting to debate it within the confines you artificially set. And, once again, my comment regarding light “acutally traveling through a medium” is correct according to the latest understanding. Try the hint I provided. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> Our Solar System must be passing through a Non Sequitur area of space. </div>

jatslo · Sep 13, 2005

Jatslo said, " Alright, my BS detector went off again, but my response will not happen until tomorrow. I see a few things that I am going to tag you with."

mental_avenger · Sep 13, 2005

He also seems to feel the need to shout. Whatever. I’m not sure what his point is supposed to be with all his postings and links, it is all so disjointed. However, there are a few possibilities. First, he seems to be trying to use the dictionary definitions of words to create a scientific association, which of course is (in that case) invalid. Second, it appears that he thinks he is proving that particles are being accelerated to faster than ‘c’. He keeps quoting this thing about particles traveling faster than the “visible-speed-of-light”. In any case, I don’t see what any of this has to do with “Superluminal Space Travel”. It will be interesting to see what he posts next (assuming he returns), but I doubt it will make much sense or shed any light on what he is trying to say. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> Our Solar System must be passing through a Non Sequitur area of space. </div>

mental_avenger · Sep 14, 2005

Posting meaningful text here requires significant formal scientific training, I disagree. There are many people here who post very meaningful posts without (apparently) any scientific training at all. Attention to detail and thorough research seem to be the most important elements in making relevant posts. Logic and reason are not restricted to “significant formal scientific training”. IMO, jatslo has a vague idea about a concept that he doesn’t quite understand. At this point he is struggling to make some kind of connection between his idea and the accepted scientific theories. He (apparently) misunderstood some difficult concepts and based his hypothesis on that. Give him some time to integrate substantiated scientific information into his idea and he might surprise you. Then again he might not. Too soon to tell. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> Our Solar System must be passing through a Non Sequitur area of space. </div>

jatslo · Sep 14, 2005

jatslo · Sep 14, 2005

Mental_Avenger said, "Conduit insinuates containment. (from conducere ‘bring together’). Space has no boundaries in any direction, and therefore does not channel, conduct, or otherwise confine light within any bounds. Space is not a “Conduit”. Jatslo said, "You, Sir, are confusing "Conduit" with "Conductor", "Conductometric Titration", "Conductivity", "Conductive", "Conduction", "Conductimetry", "Conductance", or "Conduct"." Conduit: The evidence said, "A pipe or channel for conveying fluids, such as water; a tube or duct for enclosing electric wires or cable; a means by which something is transmitted: an arms dealer who served as a Conduit for intelligence data ( REF#2984981987 )." Jatslo said, "A point in space-time that serves as a Conduit for space exploration to the Earth's Moon, and then ultimately to Mars. Space-time is Conduit, and anything relevant to the contrary is your opinion in your minion, Sir. However, your assertion of “Enclose” is correct, but incomplete. Conduit is the means by which something can traverse between points A and B, and enclosure is not required. A vacuum is a Conduit, and so is space-time. Will you concede?" Conductor: The evidence said, "One who conducts, especially: One who is in charge of a railroad train, bus, or streetcar; one who directs an orchestra or other such group; a substance or Medium that conducts heat, light, sound, or especially an electric charge; a lightning rod, as on a house or barn ( REF#1591494189

larper · Sep 14, 2005

This has to be one of the funniest threads of late. Just to try to help out here.... It is not "greater than the speed of light in the medium". it is "greater than the speed of light in the medium" Hope that helps. Keep up the comedy though. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> Vote Libertarian </div>

mental_avenger · Sep 14, 2005

We’ll have to talk to the Mods about that. I think a Comedy Forum would nicely round out the selections of Forums here on SDC Uplink. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> Our Solar System must be passing through a Non Sequitur area of space. </div>

Superluminal space travel

jatslo

Guest

raghara2

Guest

jatslo

Guest

jatslo

Guest

Swampcat

Guest

jatslo

Guest

jatslo

Guest

mrmux

Guest

frobozz

Guest

jatslo

Guest

mental_avenger

Guest

jatslo

Guest

jatslo

Guest

jatslo

Guest

mental_avenger

Guest

jatslo

Guest

jatslo

Guest

mental_avenger

Guest

jatslo

Guest

mental_avenger

Guest

mental_avenger

Guest

jatslo

Guest

jatslo

Guest

larper

Guest

mental_avenger

Guest

Similar threads

TRENDING THREADS

Latest posts

Share this page