Superluminal space travel

frobozz · Aug 24, 2005

>Einstein's theory is NOT a postulate, it's a proven fact. >But it's common for those without much scientific >education not be able to tell the difference. As I'd >stated before, and you can't seem to see. Odd, did you go in and check every possible frame of reference in some way? Could you design an experiment which checks those statements directly? If so, please provide the paper where this is referenced. What you really have a is postulate that explains the real world. This is what science is. If you have a postulate that does not explain the real world, you throw it way. If it explains the real world in a way that is more complicated then a better simplier explanation, you throw it away. However, in the specific case of things going faster then light, do we have an obervable consequence (other then watching something go faster then light) of which no evidence can be found in the real world?

vidar · Aug 25, 2005

A palontologist’s frustration in creationists’ discussions, is a good example on challenging the mathematical prohibition of travelling at the light of speed. The atheists’ assumption that there is absolutely nothing in the whole universe more intelligent than themselves, only proves own ignorance and arrogance. There is really no difference between the scientist and the priest, when it comes to believes. Nowadays there is a strong belief that it is impossible to travel at the speed of light, just as it used to be a strong belief that it is not possible to travel at the speed of sound. (Note, Einstein did not get any Nobel prize for the theory of special relativity, but photoelectric effect.)

frobozz · Aug 25, 2005

No offense intended , but I have yet to see you post anything which could be considered a mathematical challenge on the speed of light. If you want to change the Einstien Postulates (see my previous posts on Postulates) you need to not just make the change, you need to look at the mathematics and find the mathematical consequences. Furthermore, since you are dealing with the real world, you need to find mathematics that will give you observable consenquences that are ->new<- predictions so that your theory can be checked against reality. Do you have this posted in a paper some where that we can read?

vidar · Aug 25, 2005

Yes I have posted mathematical challenges. It is the good old v=sqr(2E/m), derived from E=1/2*mc^2. It says that an object can travel at c and faster. I do not claim to have made a formula that contradicts Einstein’s. I claim that classic science might still be valid for superluminal space travel. There has not yet been any proof that object cannot travel at c. (The tests with electrons in the accelerator is no proof against superluminal speed of objects.) No offence, but I know it is unpopular to reveal facts that do not support officially accepted What Einstein basically did, was to cut and past Newton’ classical theories of mechanics and the Lorentz transformation. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lorentz_transformation He never got any got any Nobel prize for that. It is just the common misunderstanding.

mcbethcg · Aug 27, 2005

Is there a way for an object to travel at one velocity at one moment, and then another velocity at another moment, without, at some point traveling at an in-between velocity? No.

vogon13 · Aug 27, 2005

Would that CBR finding (sorry can't recall too many specifices) (had something to do with a lack of observable interference effects of 13 billion year old light) help define the 'quanta' of differential motion? IIRC, time is continuous (not discrete) down to 10^-40 seconds so motion changes would follow? (sorry I don't remember more of that) <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> TPTB went to Dallas and all I got was Plucked !!So many people, so few recipes !!Let's clean up this stinkhole !! </div>

vidar · Aug 27, 2005

I find it a little hard to understand the meaning of that posting. But I will guess and try to explain. Einstein pasted the Lorentz transformation into the Newton’ classical theories. That had some strange consequences. As posted previously, the problem is explained as: ‘The mathematical problem states that; x/0=Ø. This means that it is impossible for any number to be divided with zero. The reason is that any number multiplied with zero, makes zero (x*0=0). The former violates this fact, and that violation is put into the STR, in form of; x/(c-v).‘ Consequently, it is mathematically impossible to travel at exactly the speed c. However, it is mathematical possible to travel at any other speed. If travelling faster than c, the math cause some funny sensations like travelling in ‘imaginary dimentions’ because the formula says that its sqr(-x). This is called imaginary number. However, this is math. I focus on reality. There is no evidence that this theory is true. Hopefully, the established science will act to that in the future.

Saiph · Aug 27, 2005

Actually, there is plenty of evidence to support it, as that equation correctly describes the observed energy usage when accelerating particles to near light speeds. It fits it, very, very, very well. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> --------------------SaiphMOD@gmail.com -------------------"This is my Timey Wimey Detector. Goes "bing" when there's stuff. It also fries eggs at 30 paces, wether you want it to or not actually. I've learned to stay away from hens: It's not pretty when they blow" -- The Tenth Doctor, "Blink" </div>

frobozz · Aug 27, 2005

Hmm. Said math could be checked if you will. Simply expand Einstien's equations to a complex manifold instead of the real one where they now reside, it shouldn't be overly difficult and I imagine some bored mathematicians done it already anyway. Extrapolate from this something that is not already predicted by relativity or some contradiction and bingo theory given some small amount more credibility then it started with or completely bunk. Mind you, you'd have to figure out how to travel at 90 degree to reality but that should only be a minor difficulty. Speaking of which, has anyone done that yet? (The math part, not the 90 degrees to reality part)

frobozz · Aug 27, 2005

I would like to add that short of some strange loop hole which would change the rules in ways I cannot claim to predict or know of, presently it is mathematically impossible according to relativity to travel faster then C. One of the assumption on Relativity was that Real numbers where in use, so in a relativistic universe universe as described by Einstien the imaginery direction is tacitly assumed not to exist.

jatslo · Aug 27, 2005

If it is true that velocity slows the passage of time, skews masses, and makes matter lighter, and a person traveling within a spacecraft at “c” or 299,792,458 miles per second would not be aware of the passage of time, then it is also true the this same person would not be aware of skewed mass, and lighter mass. Therefore, unless there is some kind of external environmental inertia creating tension, i.e. Gravity, Atmosphere, Dust, etc., then I see no reason why someone couldn’t utilize a constant velocity to reach 299,792,458 miles per second. However, I sure would not like to be the one that has to space-walk and clean the bugs off the windshields at those speeds.

labguy · Aug 27, 2005

<blockquote>In reply to:<hr />If it is true that velocity slows the passage of time, skews masses, and makes matter lighter, and a person traveling within a spacecraft at “c” or 299,792,458 miles per second would not be aware of the passage of time, then it is also true the this same person would not be aware of skewed mass, and lighter mass. Therefore, unless there is some kind of external environmental inertia creating tension, i.e. Gravity, Atmosphere, Dust, etc., then I see no reason why someone couldn’t utilize a constant velocity to reach 299,792,458 miles per second.<hr /></blockquote> That number isn't correct. c is approximately 186,282.4 miles per second.

cuddlyrocket · Aug 28, 2005

"The postulate of Einstein that the speed of light is constant in all reference frames has been proven to be true, time and again, by careful observations." Oooh, that is bad science. Science does not proceed by proving things to be true, it proceeds by showing that every alternative is false. What you should have said is that Einstein's postulate has never been shown to be false, despite numerous and varied careful observations. The postulate of the constant velocity of light does not of itself show that faster than light travel is impossible.

Saiph · Aug 28, 2005

well, jatslo did give the correct number IIRC for the speed in meters per second. Anyway, jatslo, did you really think about what you said: if we can use a constant velocity, we can reach C. Umm...that velocity is constant, as such that means you won't change speed (or even direction). So you can't reacha different speed. Inertia increases with speed, not decreases (I.e. the mass increases). <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> --------------------SaiphMOD@gmail.com -------------------"This is my Timey Wimey Detector. Goes "bing" when there's stuff. It also fries eggs at 30 paces, wether you want it to or not actually. I've learned to stay away from hens: It's not pretty when they blow" -- The Tenth Doctor, "Blink" </div>

ordinary_guy · Aug 28, 2005

Good Lord! <blockquote>In reply to:<hr />Math has nothing to do wth it. It's a law of the universe, and clearly can be stated verbally, and completely.<hr /></blockquote> I'm sorry, I don't think I heard you right. Did you just say math has nothing to do with effects of the Theory of Relativity?! Say the theory, Steve. Say it out loud. Verbally. Your way. "Energy equals mass times the speed of light squared." You know what that is? It's an equation. What's an equation...? Wait for it... You guessed it: it's math! Then you've got the 'nads to say this: <blockquote>In reply to:<hr />You have no idea of how the sciences work, do YOU? Suggest a physics course.<hr /></blockquote> What planet are you from? PS: My apologies if this has already been addressed, I'm just getting started in this thread. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> Mere precedent is a dangerous source of authority. -Andrew Jackson (1767-1845) </div>

ordinary_guy · Aug 28, 2005

<blockquote>In reply to:<hr />The postulate of Einstein that the speed of light is constant in all reference frames has been proven to be true, time and again, by careful observations. That you don't know it, is not Einstein's or relativity's flaws. It's yours.<hr /></blockquote> Steve, Einstein didn't create a postulate, he created a hypothesis. To quote, well, you: it seems you're confusing logical postulates with scientific theories.* <blockquote>In reply to:<hr />Einstein's theory is NOT a postulate, it's a proven fact.<hr /></blockquote> I'm sorry, when did they change the title of "the theory of relativity" to "the fact of relativity"? Oh, wait, it's called a "theory" for a reason, isn't it? But I guess I should let it go. After all, it's common for those without much scientific education not [to] be able to tell the difference.* <blockquote>In reply to:<hr />...come back to the real world. <img src="/images/icons/laugh.gif" /><hr /></blockquote> Steve, there isn't enough medication on the planet for any of us to reach your world. <img src="/images/icons/crazy.gif" /> *stevehw33; 08/24/05 03:55 PM <img src="/images/icons/blush.gif" /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> Mere precedent is a dangerous source of authority. -Andrew Jackson (1767-1845) </div>

jatslo · Aug 28, 2005

Your right, I used constant velocity when I should of said constant force, or inertia, and the 299,792,458 velocity is meters, not miles. This just goes to show that your mind is clearly trained in these sciences, in which I have a great deal respect. However, what I was trying to hypothecate was this: Traveling at even one tenth the speed-of-light is plausible, because the laws of inertia allow for it. For instance, the first craft that comes to mind when I think of a constant force propelling it is in fact, a solar-sail spacecraft. We can all agree that gravity alone will contribute to annihilation of the craft, if, through thrust, the craft takes off or slows down too quickly. However, there is nothing in the laws that state that a craft will not incrementally achieve these speeds, or slow down from these speeds for that matter, right? Therefore, I think humanity could safely break 299,792,458 meters per second, and start thwarting with time-barriers, as opposed to light-barriers. This brings an interesting question to mind. Would crossing the light-barrier cause a light-boom similar in the way to when pilots cross the sound barrier, a sonic boom is heard by the observer only? For instance, that article I used in the tachyon thread to recap implosion and explosion also referred to electro magnetic pulses, and if I remember correctly it was two distinct pulses in a two-step model. Now, I'm thinking out loud here, so bare with me for a second. Could the pulse be a byproduct of something breaking the light-barrier or time-barrier, and if this is true, then if we successfully ran a experiment in a lab, then we should be able to measure the effects of light barrier breech as an observer, right? The article, for those that are not familiar with it, states that supernova was measured my to distinct pulses, one that was caused by implosion, the other cause by explosion when matter crashed into matter or

labguy · Aug 28, 2005

<blockquote>In reply to:<hr />However, what I was trying to hypothecate was this: Traveling at even one tenth the speed-of-light is plausible, because the laws of inertia allow for it. For instance, the first craft that comes to mind when I think of a constant force propelling it is in fact, a solar-sail spacecraft. <hr /></blockquote> When you say "constant force" and "inertia", don't you really mean acceleration? Also, "Laws of inertia" mean nothing without a specific mass and velocity. Any object with mass would take an infinite amount of energy to reach c, and only massless particles (photons) can travel at c. In fact, a photon leaving any particular reaction does accelerate up to c, it is emitted instantly at c. The lightest particle now known, the 3 neutrinos, have a very tiny mass and do not travel at c. They are close, but not quite c. Also, a solar-sail spacecraft could never approach a velocity near c. Because: 1. The "solar winds" (add cosmic rays) are particles and nowhere c. They are mostly electrons and helium nuclei. 2. There is also a fair amount of em radiation (photons) that do travel at c, but for even the slight force of some em radiation, you would have to have ALL stars behind you with no stars at all ahead where their solar effects would be pushing back on your sail, opposing your acceleration. The closer you got towards a new star(s), the more they would "push you back. There is no direction where there are no Galaxies or stars ahead.

jatslo · Aug 28, 2005

There is a distinct difference between "REST" to "C", and "REST" to "150-meters-per-second" to "300-meters-per-second" incrementally to "C", right? The rate of acceleration, and the amount of time at which a particular acceleration must maintain to achieve or surpass "C" is dictated by the inertia that the subject can survive to traverse two-points safely, right? For instance, a nuclear powered machine burns a thrust for 24-hours to achieve 25,000-miles-per-hour, and then rests at 25,000-miles-per-hour for 24-hours; the new rest is 25,000-miles-per-hour. Now repeat the process again, and the machine is now traveling 50,000-miles-per-hour, in which 50,000-miles-per-hour is the new rest. In space, the subject would not know space-time is dilated, but someone on Earth would. In fact, the subject wouldn’t even know that he or she was traveling at subliminal-speeds; all they know is that they applied thrust for a specific amount of time to achieve some desired result within four dimensions, right? At rest the subject is weightless, at acceleration there is a certain degree of artificial gravity induced “G” forces involved, right? There is a big unknown, with respect to what happens when the speed-of-light threshold is breached, and I am thinking that someone on Earth would detect an electro magnetic impulse like a sonic boom. Will that impulse destroy the subject? I believe the subject can travel until his time-barrier is breached, in which there is huge risk of traveling backwards in time; however, I believe a photon can travel backwards in time, similarly to our memories. Can we send future information backwards in time to accelerate our developmental evolution, and I think the answer is yes.

dragon04 · Aug 28, 2005

For a manned craft, the rest period isn't as important as how much the vehicle accelerates during its thrust period. I think the point would be to just accelerate at a constant 1g instead of accelerating at 3g for 24 hours, "resting" and then accelerating at 3g again. Unless I'm mistaken, travellers would still be subjected to G forces while accelerating. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> "2012.. Year of the Dragon!! Get on the Dragon Wagon!". </div>

jatslo · Aug 28, 2005

Right, I am thinking constant is good artificial gravity, but you have to rest, to turn, decelerate, etc. Seems safer to rest and formulate assessments, before proceeding.

Saiph · Aug 28, 2005

First, relativity explicitly states that a constant force will not allow you to achieve C. This is because at higher speeds, the same force does not produce the same acceleration, as the inertia of the craft (the percieved mass), increases with velocity. as for the light-barrier vs sound barrier relationship...it's completely erroneous, there is no similarity between the two. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> --------------------SaiphMOD@gmail.com -------------------"This is my Timey Wimey Detector. Goes "bing" when there's stuff. It also fries eggs at 30 paces, wether you want it to or not actually. I've learned to stay away from hens: It's not pretty when they blow" -- The Tenth Doctor, "Blink" </div>

siarad · Aug 28, 2005

<blockquote>In reply to:<hr />In space, the subject would not know space-time is dilated<hr /></blockquote> That's like my posting on the similar topic. C is constant so there's no way to measure your speed w.r.t. it. At C you still have a reflection in a mirror, no need for a stake through the heart <img src="/images/icons/wink.gif" />

jatslo · Aug 28, 2005

You agree?

jatslo · Aug 28, 2005

Your right, the subject does not ever reach "C" because "C" is constant at whatever velocity the subject is traveling. That part is obvious; however, an earth observatory would see the subject until the subject surpassed "C". I am suggesting that when the subject blinks out, or surpasses "C", that a release of energy might be observable; some EMI sort of event that might be proved or disproved within a lab or observatory. Further evidence, might also involve invisible galaxies. Maybe, these galaxies are unobservable because they are traveling beyond "C", but for some reason we can see the gravitational anomalies that accompany them. I don't know, I am just thinking out loud again.

Superluminal space travel

frobozz

Guest

vidar

Guest

frobozz

Guest

vidar

Guest

mcbethcg

Guest

vogon13

Guest

vidar

Guest

Saiph

Guest

frobozz

Guest

frobozz

Guest

jatslo

Guest

labguy

Guest

cuddlyrocket

Guest

Saiph

Guest

ordinary_guy

Guest

ordinary_guy

Guest

jatslo

Guest

labguy

Guest

jatslo

Guest

dragon04

Guest

jatslo

Guest

Saiph

Guest

siarad

Guest

jatslo

Guest

jatslo

Guest

Similar threads

TRENDING THREADS

Latest posts

Share this page