Superluminal space travel

ordinary_guy · Aug 28, 2005

<blockquote>In reply to:<hr />Semantic games and mistaken notions of what the word 'postulate' means and how theories in fact mean facts.<hr /></blockquote> So... it's okay for you attack somebody on semantics, but you're beyond reproach? Then you try to support your argument with a non sequitur? Well, it's a good thing you studied biology, Steve. You'll know what it means next time your brain surgeon says you'll have to visit a proctologist first. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> Mere precedent is a dangerous source of authority. -Andrew Jackson (1767-1845) </div>

jatslo · Aug 28, 2005

Well, it's a good thing you studied biology, Steve. You'll know what it means next time your brain surgeon says you'll have to visit a proctologist first. That was funny and worth repeating.

Saiph · Aug 28, 2005

the problem is, if everybody sees the speed of light to be ~3x10^8 m/s (hereby called "C") regardless of their own velocity relative to eachother, we have a problem with standard newtonian mechanics. In newtonian mechanics, when you throw something from a moving reference frame (like a moving truck), you add the velocities in a straightforward fashion. If a roadside observer says the truck is going 30mph, and you throw the ball at 30 mph forward, from the back of that truck, the roadside observer will see the ball going 60 mph (you in the truck see it going at 30 mph, and the observer go 30 mph in the other direction, you can consider yourself stationary). Now, lets use a laser. In the truck you fire the laser, and see the light receed at C. No problems so far, same as above (throw the ball 30 mph, see the ball go 30 mph). But experiments show that the observer on the roadside will also see the laser travel at "C". It's not C + 30 mph, as with the ball. To reconcile this, take C as a constant, light always travels at that speed in a vacuum (this is observed and basically not up for debate), no matter who watches it, and how they're moving. Then to understand how two frames moving at different speeds can see the same speed for light, one must treat time and distance as alterable. They are no longer absolute. What I say is a meter, and is a second, will be different from yours, if we move relative to eachother. I can take your meter stick, and begin moving. I'll say it's a meter, and you measure it from your stationary lab...and it won't be the same size. We can do the same with clocks. In order for C to be constant for everyone, the length of a second and a meter must change accordingly for the people moving. Taking this change in time and distance, you end up with some interesting consequences (time dilation and length contraction for one). Such as increased inertia with speed, an <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>

MBA_UIU · Aug 28, 2005

Archimedes said that with a long enough lever and a solid enough place to stand, he could move the world. Does Einstein’s theory allow for a mechanical advantage? If I remember correctly in theory an ion drive, when given enough time, should make it to .8 C. If so then what would happen if those ions were mechanical propelled to 1.5C? Would the craft falter at just below C? <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <img id="268587ce-7170-4b41-a87b-8cd443f9351a" src="http://sitelife.space.com/ver1.0/Content/images/store/6/8/268587ce-7170-4b41-a87b-8cd443f9351a.Large.jpg" alt="blog post photo" /> </div>

frobozz · Aug 28, 2005

You would not be able to propell the ions to 1.5 C since it would take more then an infinite amount of energy to get the ion's to a speed of C never mind surpassing it.

Saiph · Aug 28, 2005

Can't get anything to 1.5 C. The fuel and the craft would falter at under C. <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>

jatslo · Aug 28, 2005

What experiment that involves light emissions from a moving vehicle are you referring to? What type of environment are we talking about? Is there a medium, like atmosphere involved? Adding 30-miles-per-hour to “C”, just don’t cut the mustard with me. Remember that old experiment when scientists synchronized two atomic clocks; placed one on a jet along with a shaggy dog named Einstein for some specified speed over some period of time, and left the other clock on stationary Earth? Those clocks were like 00:02:01:32:95:43:05:32 and tweaked to the quintillionth of second or something to that effect. You are, after all, trying to observe two objects, or are you? If the two objects were linked through inertia and force, then that would constitute a single event that is bound to “C”, right? Therefore, from the outside looking an observer’s perspective, he or she would not be able to distinguish a chain of events, in terms of individual velocities that exceed “C”, because the single event is subject to the laws governing the speed-of light, right? However, an outside observer could see a barrier breach of a single event, if there was some kind of release of energy, like in a sonic boom.

MBA_UIU · Aug 29, 2005

I thouht I read somewhere where they have already pushed ion particles beyond C, in a particle accelerator, while under vacuum. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <img id="268587ce-7170-4b41-a87b-8cd443f9351a" src="http://sitelife.space.com/ver1.0/Content/images/store/6/8/268587ce-7170-4b41-a87b-8cd443f9351a.Large.jpg" alt="blog post photo" /> </div>

frobozz · Aug 29, 2005

The only experiments that I personally have read about in this regard do not actually acellerate the particle itself beyond C, but get away with saying it's faster then C on a mathematical technicality. However, I cannot claim omnipotence (yet - working on that) so if you can give me a reference paper or something I'd like to take a look.

jatslo · Aug 29, 2005

Cern is 22/km, and the United States built a bigger particle accelerator, or is still building it, I am not sure. The only particle that I am aware, that traveled at "C" is not a particle at all, but a light beam. From what I understand, the lengths of these accelerators were designed for speed, but I am not sure I understand what is traveling how fast. I thought they were using hydrogen atoms stripped of electrons, or something to that effect. Yes, I am going off memory, so please forgive me, if I misinterpreted something.

vidar · Aug 29, 2005

No one educated reads any of his posts without a great deal of laughing & side to side head movements. There are some who fit into the unwholesome category of 'untrainable'. --------- I know exactly what you mean. That ‘young man (that) had apparently irritated most of his professors’ had to mess up the well established Newton theories. Now, the scientific fundaments have become a mess of variables, just like some spell was thrown at it. Couldn’t Einstein simply let Newton be?

jatslo · Aug 29, 2005

That young man who dropped out of high school to later attend college, and was denied military access, because of (that) young man’s large flat feet? I am glad I don't have large flat feet, because that would be a drag on my first attempt at breaking the speed-of-light barrier, whereas large flat would not be very aerodynamic, with respect to subliminal speeds, right? I am glad society did not suppress Einstein's mind, and I often wonder what the world would be like today, if arrogant people succeeded in suppressing him. In addition, I hope and prey that society will not suppress the next young man or woman who, through infinite wisdoms, leads humanity homogeneously to a successful and prosperous destiny for all eternity, and beyond.

ordinary_guy · Aug 29, 2005

Hi Steve, glad you took the time to read the post but you've once again proven the wide gulf between "reading" and "comprehending." <blockquote>In reply to:<hr />If you think your medical innuendos have ANY relevance to the facts & logic in this discussion...<hr /></blockquote> Medical innuendos...? If you're talking about my reference to your rectal-cranial inversion, they call it "humor" on my planet, not intended to be a part of the discussion, just an aside. Your inability to grasp the contextual cues... does not surprise me. Kind of a kick that you rose to the bait, though. Really, we've got to stop meeting like this. <blockquote>In reply to:<hr />Using false meanings given to 'postulate' and 'theory' can give whatever meanings you want it to, without and despite the facts. I pointed out the semantic errors you were making. You responded with yet another ad hominem series.<hr /></blockquote> Ohh, can't let this one go, can you? The funny thing is that you've missed the point of the post – it tickles me pink to do to you what you do to everybody else. It's simply my way of illustrating not only your tenuous grasp of logic but your mastery of hypocrisy. Really, you make yourself an easy target. I'll admit it takes time away from constructive posting, but heaven forgive me, I enjoy it too much. It's like my little chance to balance the karmic scale of the universe. Thanks for giving me that opportunity, Steve. You're the best! <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> Mere precedent is a dangerous source of authority. -Andrew Jackson (1767-1845) </div>

vidar · Aug 30, 2005

You’ve got it.

siarad · Aug 30, 2005

<blockquote>In reply to:<hr />In order for C to be constant for everyone, the length of a second and a meter must change accordingly for the people moving. <hr /></blockquote> So the people living on the outer visible limit of our Universe will have much less distance to travel to us due to their high speed. Getting out of bed will be almost impossible though due to their immense mass <img src="/images/icons/laugh.gif" /> Now how is this apparent mass discovered by them or applied to them, especially since their actual mass conforms to the Universal constant of gravity. Atomic clocks are used to prove time dilation meaning atomic action reduces with speed so why do we assume those distant stars burn at the same rate as our sun. The cyclotron experiments showing a limit to below our C are for externally applied forces & externally viewed. Nothing is gained about the internal view nor it's C or for an internally applied force. Now I don't necessarily agree with any of that but it seems to stem from what I read here.

jatslo · Aug 30, 2005

Getting out of bed will be almost impossible though due to their immense mass 1. The subject should not feel the effects of speed unless there is an external factor like Earth's gravity involved, is this what you mean? 2. If Earth were not creating stress, then the speeding subject would proportionally be healthy and prosperous, right?

jatslo · Aug 30, 2005

Hello! That is not the point. Your constant crying is counterproductive, surpressive, and down right rude; don't you think?

siarad · Aug 30, 2005

<blockquote>In reply to:<hr />1. The subject should not feel the effects of speed unless there is an external factor like Earth's gravity involved, is this what you mean? <hr /></blockquote> No. I mean as the edge of the Universe is nearly at C then adding extra speed by just attempting to get out of bed would take more energy than available. Now I don't believe that but it seems what is being said here by the seeming asymptotic nature of approaching C. However as their C is still just as far away the formula holds. It's only to an outside observer their speed is noticed. As you said earlier how do things in space know this. Now by what means is this embedded or communicated, as soon as any action is attempted, in their matter which is the same as ours.

ordinary_guy · Aug 30, 2005

Man, you make it easy. <blockquote>In reply to:<hr />It's called an ad hominem by anyone with any intellectual training at all.<hr /></blockquote> Technically, Steve, it's only an ad homenim if I resort to attacking you as a part of a logical argument. In your case, when your blather is wrong (and it often is), it doesn't take ad hominems to refute. Anyone with any intellectual training at all knows the difference between an ad hominem and an insult. It's the context, of course, and once again you prove you can't tell the difference between yourself and a hole in the ground. <blockquote>In reply to:<hr />As I've written before. There is NO FTL travel or observation, anywhere known, where mass can be accelerated to light speed, or FTL. And all the persiflage and ad hominems, or other euphemistic 'humors' you create are totally irrelevant to & will not undo that simple, clear fact.<hr /></blockquote> Good way to get back on topic, Steve. Well done. Really. As for mass being accelerated to "c" (or beyond), I don't think I've gone so far as to advocate that it has. If you can find where I say different, post it and we'll figure out the context of the comment. Heck, I could be wrong. I'm certainly not willing to dismiss the possibility superluminal phenomena, though. It doesn't look promising at the moment, but there are enough tantalizing hints out there that it keeps legitimate interest alive. I'm not going to do your homework for you but you can see that NASA has the same point of view. But you're smarter than them anyway, right? <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> Mere precedent is a dangerous source of authority. -Andrew Jackson (1767-1845) </div>

Saiph · Aug 30, 2005

the increased mass is, IIRC, a misnomer, it's actually an increased inertia (which we normally consider linearly proportional to mass) for the same amount of mass. As for an internal view of relativity, we don't have nearly as detailed a picture. But we do have one. Take muon decay from cosmic rays. Muons don't live very long, and are created in the upper atmosphere due to cosmic rays. A simple calculation of their speed, and an observation of their half-life shows they shouldn't reach the ground in any significant numbers, they don't live long enough to complete the trip (usually, it is a half-life). But...they do, we can observe them all the time. To us, they are suffering sever time dilation. So they live long enough to impact the ground (time passes slower for them, than us). But how's that work for them? They notice time to pass at the "normal" rate, and their meter stick would be a meter. The catch is...they don't think the distance from the upper atmosphere to the ground is nearly as large as we do. So they can cross the distance in time. <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>

jatslo · Aug 30, 2005

Oh, I see. Since the universe is already expanding at or near "C", your arguing that getting out of bed would be difficult?

jatslo · Aug 30, 2005

Oh? I thought we were having an discussion.

mcbethcg · Aug 30, 2005

Its impossibile to travel faster than the speed of light. Scientific data proves it. All the people who think otherwise have absolutely no way of proving otherwise.

ordinary_guy · Aug 30, 2005

Steve, you bring a smile to my face. Class is now in session. <img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" /> <blockquote>In reply to:<hr />Again, you make another illogical false distinction. There is no real difference, most of the time...<hr /></blockquote> What you've just deftly illustrated by example is: <ul type="square"><li>The fallacy of a False Analogy. While the tools of "ad hominem" and "insult" are similar, they are not the same.<li>Your ignorance of the rules of logic by making said False Analogy.<li>Your inability to account for context.<li>Your hypocrisy. You lept all over vidar for exchanging "postulate" for "hypothesis," but you're more than ready to exchange "ad hominem" for "insult".<li>...BTW, the EtOH'ic was a smooth and evocative association. A subtle intimation I would've thought beyond you. I'll give you points, but it falls short of genius – I suspect a few may miss what you just said. </li></li></li></li></li></ul> <blockquote>In reply to:<hr />The point in ANY scientific forum, is HAS it been Shown to be possible?<hr /></blockquote> A comment of substance? From you? I'll actually give you a moment of credit for this one. But that doesn't mean you're correct... Somebody has to show that "it" – whatever "it" is – could be possible in the first place. That's the job of science. There has to be a hypothesis before it can be validated into a theory. Your approach ignores the process of hypothesizing, seeking only to confirm and operate within what is already known. It's a circular method that would quickly stagnate progress. Look at history: Einstein proposed the theory of relativity in 1905 but it didn't instantly supercede Newtonian physics. In fact, it was purely theoretical until 1911, when he figured out he might be able to back it up using astronomical observations. It wasn't until 1913 that evidence started to trickle in by correctly predicting Mercury's <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> Mere precedent is a dangerous source of authority. -Andrew Jackson (1767-1845) </div>

jatslo · Aug 31, 2005

"it" – whatever "it" is -infinity + infinity = "IT" --- Sorry, I couldn't resist ;o)

Superluminal space travel

ordinary_guy

Guest

jatslo

Guest

Saiph

Guest

MBA_UIU

Guest

frobozz

Guest

Saiph

Guest

jatslo

Guest

MBA_UIU

Guest

frobozz

Guest

jatslo

Guest

vidar

Guest

jatslo

Guest

ordinary_guy

Guest

vidar

Guest

siarad

Guest

jatslo

Guest

jatslo

Guest

siarad

Guest

ordinary_guy

Guest

Saiph

Guest

jatslo

Guest

jatslo

Guest

mcbethcg

Guest

ordinary_guy

Guest

jatslo

Guest

Similar threads

TRENDING THREADS

Latest posts

Moderators online

Share this page