Superluminal space travel

jatslo · Aug 31, 2005

I could prove that faster than "C" is possible, if I had access to an observatory or particle accelerator. The evidence would involve a release of energy in the form of a pulse or emission different than what would occur during fusion and fission. The problem with computers is heat or the medium is insufficient at conducting sufficient current that will allow information to travel beyond "C". If traveling past “C” is possible, then sending information back in time becomes a real possibility. With respect to particle accelerators, how would someone program an atom or teach an atom to swim? For instance, atoms have energy; lots of energy; how can we tap into that energy and use it as propulsion? I am thinking that the particle could provide its own internal propulsion as opposed to us scientists providing external propulsion. What are your thoughts on the subject?

siarad · Aug 31, 2005

<blockquote>In reply to:<hr />Its impossibile to travel faster than the speed of light. <hr /></blockquote> With two almost identical topics this is just getting boring. <blockquote>In reply to:<hr />Relativity completely alludes me & it seems I'll die without understanding. However I'm not arguing against it just that all the proofs I've seem are from externally applied force. Yes I've oft posted over having to use e/m = C^2 in design to gain the right result from an externally applied magnetic force. Isn't this topic about people wishing to travel above C which is from an internally applied force. Further light-speed of C is limited by the product of magnetic & electric properties of Space, an em phenomena. Surely matter, not being em, is governed by the Gravitational properties of Space-Time. I don't understand space-time & why it has to be used w.r.t. gravity either My real objection to such fantasies of />C travel is practical. At such speed, apparently, the Universe becomes a dot of light ahead. So no matter how you zig & zag you have no concept of direction or ability to find your desired destination. <hr /></blockquote> My post from the other topic

jatslo · Aug 31, 2005

At such speed, apparently, the Universe becomes a dot of light ahead. So no matter how you zig & zag you have no concept of direction or ability to find your desired destination. Nobody knows what will happen, I for one believe that the universe will begin to change, i.e. things will disappear, and things will appear, as if, from nowhere.

jatslo · Aug 31, 2005

Okay, lets see if I can stir up some controversy! Astronomers Find Star-less Galaxy: REFERENCE The invisible galaxy could only be "seen" using radio waves Astronomers have discovered an object that appears to be an invisible galaxy made almost entirely of dark matter. However, there are other perceptions on this phenomenon, which are REAL arguments. For instance, this galaxy could be exceeding “C”. The time dilation effect is commonly thought of as time slowing down for the subject, and this is a false analogy. Time always passes at the same rate, regardless of velocity, because time is constant. Time dilation is when two objects first synchronize their watches, then travel at different velocities for some predetermined amount of time, then stop, shake hands, and synchronize their watches again. At this point in space-time where the subjects shook hands, time will have homogeneously evolved at different rates. This is time dilation FACT. If time is constant, because it is a proven fact, then space too is constant, whereas space is “X”, “Y”, “Z”, and “Time” or “Space-time”. This is a valid argument that contains premise and conclusion. Length contraction is the decrease in length experienced by the subject traveling at “C”. The length contraction phenomenon is derivative of the direction in which the subject is traveling. For instance, if we discharged a laser into a receiver for four-seconds, the receiver would register four-seconds worth of beam, and if this is a true statement. Then a 4-second pulse traveling at “C + C”, is in fact, encountering length contraction, so the receiver would receive only 2-seconds worth of pulse, because the overall length of the subject is contracted. However, the contracted subject now has further distance to travel in terms of an observer who looking from the outside i

Saiph · Aug 31, 2005

well, there's a couple problems with that jatslo. First, a person traveling ~C will see a shorter distance, not a longer one. that explains how they can get to their destination, despite having taken less time (for them). The observer seems them go further, but over a longer time interval. I.e. We see them take 8 years to get to alpha centauri, 4 light years away. The travelers measure it at 6 years (time dilation), but say alpha centauri was only, say, 3 light years away. Second, if that galaxy was receeding at />C, we wouldn't even see radio waves from it, far to redshifted for that. Now, it may be very highly relativistic (close to C) but not greater than. <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 31, 2005

Second, if that galaxy was receding at >C, we wouldn't even see radio waves from it, far to red shifted for that. Now, it may be very highly relativistic (close to C) but not greater than. Yeah, I am thinking that too. First, a person traveling ~C will see a shorter distance, not a longer one. that explains how they can get to their destination, despite having taken less time (for them). The observer seems them go further, but over a longer time interval. I.e. we see them take 8 years to get to Alpha Centauri, 4 light years away. The travelers measure it at 6 years (time dilation), but say Alpha Centauri was only, say, 3 light years away. Right, I thought that is what I said. Here I will throw another one at you. The quickest way to traverse A and B for the subject would be to accelerate; however, that is bad for Earth, because we have to wait so long. So if Earth wanted a more immediate response at the expense of the traveler, then we would have to slow the traveler down. We can't very well do that on Earth, because the Earth is tugging our Traveler along; Therefore, our travel must be in space. So logic states that we need to lob the traveler in space. Now our solar system is in orbit around the center of our Milky Way, and we are traveling at a particular speed already, so if Earth wanted their subject to get to the nearest star, Earth could do one of two things: Earth could speed the subject up, or slow the subject down and wait for the star to come to him or her. Now waiting for the star to come to him or her is good for Earth and bad for him or her, because he or she will age and Earth will not.

Saiph · Aug 31, 2005

it's relative velocity. "speed up" vs "slow down" really doesn't change a thing. You can "slow down" so you are stationary with respect to earth. But then you don't go anywhere (you just follow earth around, but from a different spot). If you head anywhere, you must have a speed, relative to earth, and then the time dilation effects kick in. They don't care which direction you're going. <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 31, 2005

You missed the Concept. The Earth is moving already, our solar system is moving already, our galaxy is moving already the whole universe is moving already. STOP! WAIT! The Earth will fly by, our solar system will fly by, our galaxy will fly by, and if we are not careful, the universe will fly by. When thrust is applied to escape gravitational tug two things could be happening simultaneously depending on the direction, the Earth is headed in one direction and you’re headed in the other direction, and if the velocity is equal, then there is no time dilation. What is the significance of this analogy with respect to launch windows? 1. How many miles-per-hour is the Earth traveling? 2. How many miles-per-hour is our solar system traveling? 3. How many miles-per-hour is our galaxy traveling? 4. How many miles-per-hour is our universe traveling? 5. What is the nearest star that is on the same path as our star, and how fast is that star traveling? If time dilation is to become a factor in any analysis, the subject must move forward, so applying enough thrust to escape the gravitation forces of something in motion is not necessarily forward progress, it could be deceleration, whereas the Earth, solar system, galaxy and universe is moving away, but the subject is stationary. The subject who was left behind to meet the star will age more, unless are velocities were equal.

Saiph · Aug 31, 2005

No I didn't miss the concept. I answered it, saying speed is relative to something. It is relative speed that matters in time dilation. If you move .5c with respect to me, I'll measure a certain time dilation. But say another observer is heading the same way at .3c. You'll be going ~.2c with respect to him, and he'll measure a different time dilation for you, and he'll even measure one for me (because he can just as easily say he is not moving, I am heading at .2c in the opposite direction). so: 1. How many miles-per-hour is the Earth traveling? relative to what 2. How many miles-per-hour is our solar system traveling? relative to what 3. How many miles-per-hour is our galaxy traveling? relative to what 4. How many miles-per-hour is our universe traveling? relative to what 5. What is the nearest star that is on the same path as our star, and how fast is that star traveling? relative to what <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 31, 2005

Relative to Earth time. For instance, the moon is 2000 mph relative to Earth time

Saiph · Aug 31, 2005

okay, so the earth is traveling 0mph w.r.t (with respect to) earth, the solar system is traveling...that's a tough one. W.R.T. earth, the various sections are going in circles centered on the sun at various speeds. The sun would be going ~35 km/s w.r.t. earth though. But if you take your speed w.r.t. earth, you can't "slow down" any further than 0 m/s. Any less, and all you do is go in the other direction (-5 m/s is just going 5 m/s in the other direction). And relativity doesn't care about direction, just the speed. <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 31, 2005

Your going to make me do the math too? How fast is the Earth's orbit relative to the Sun? I am hoping that you know this by heart.

Saiph · Aug 31, 2005

as I said, I recall it being 35 km/s. If you wish to move something about the solar system, you could very well imagine slowing a craft down from earth (with respect to the sun), and see it fall in towards the sun. Lets say you want to "slow" the craft down to 25 km/s, wrt the sun. Okay, no problem. But earth views itself as stationary (do you think you're whizzing about right now). And will see the craft go flying off back along earths orbit at 10 km/s. This 10 km/s is the value that relativity cares about, when the people on earth measure it. that's why it's relative motion. The same craft is going a different speed compared to jupiter, or the sun. If someone wanted to know how time dilation and such affected the craft, as far as the sun noticed (i.e. wrt to the sun), they'd see the craft going 25 km/s, and use that value. <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 31, 2005

The Earth’s orbit relative to the Earth’s Sun: 35 kilometers per second = 126,000 kilometers per hour = 78,292.75 miles per hour “C” is 670,616,640 miles per hour My calculator SUCKS. What fraction of “C” is the Earth moving relative to the Earth’s sun? The Earth’s orbit relative to the Earth’s Sun is 0.011674740131709228 “C”, which is a little over 1/100 “C”, right? I had an extra zero in there before, but I think it is right now.

ordinary_guy · Sep 1, 2005

/* ad hominems deleted */ <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> Mere precedent is a dangerous source of authority. -Andrew Jackson (1767-1845) </div>

jatslo · Sep 1, 2005

Seems more like an evil agenda to me.

raghara2 · Sep 1, 2005

"How many miles-per-hour is the Earth traveling?" "relative to what " Obviously relative to the global frame of reference, or to preffered frame of reference neccessary for solving Lorentz equations. Alas we can just aproximate it, and it would be unimportant if you'd like to calculate local position of planets. BTW jaslo stop converting things into mile per hour. If you need to use naval miles then correct term is knot. You were off by factor of hundred because of bad conversion. Summary of this thread. Faster than light (means you'd arive at destination faster than could hyphotetical light move in vacuum,) is possible, but scientists don't know how. stevehw and Ordinary guy need chill out. Because the other thread is moving towards discusion about possible detection of FTL things, and about properties of an imaginary mass, I'd suggest to continue discusion in way of Lorentz relativity, or somewhere away from discusion that uses medical terms, that I don't understand, or don't like to understand. I remmember on discusion in Czech parlament when one representative explained in medical terms words like idiot...

jatslo · Sep 1, 2005

I was trying to point out that traveling to star headed in our relative general direction makes more since, with respect to time dilation, because the subject and the observer could remain on equal times and get there quicker to boot. However, the subject will be sacrificed as a result, so unmanned would be best.

jatslo · Sep 1, 2005

Furthermore and firstly, I do not recall stating "Receding" in anything that I wrote. Secondly, what was once an improbability with respect to exceeding “C” is now a statistical high-probability, if in fact, the invisible galaxy is indeed traveling “near”, “at”, or “beyond C”. Finally, from what I understand about galaxies, galaxies are made of masses of matter, just to name something, in which masses of matter are not supposed to be able to exceed “C”. 1. What else is invisible? 2. Is anything being gobbled up by invisibility? 3. Are there any unexplained anomalies and phenomena’s that can be attributed to light booms, because seriously, something is lighting up at or around the time light barrier breach? 4. Is the invisibility effect relative to velocity in excess of “C” limited to objects of equal size to the red-shifted invisible galaxy, because I think not? 5. Etc.? Furthermore, you would think that we would be far more concerned about a blue shifted invisible object, because that means what? The means that there is a statistical high-probability we could get blind sided, but how would the object effect our reality, would it pass right through like dark matter is supposed to frequently do? So maybe there is no such thing as dark matter, maybe dark matter is regular matter traveling beyond “C”, and we can feel its gravitational tug, but can’t see it. I would be far more concerned with detecting cloaked matter or invisibile matter, because exceeding the speed-of-light is a proven fact!

jatslo · Sep 1, 2005

TY I do not believe that the speed-of-light is constant at aprox 299,796 Km/s; however, I think the visible-speed-of-light is. I think the speed-of light’s constant is infinity, and that is why it takes infinite energy to reach it. Whereas E = MC ² E = is in fact infinite energy M = is in fact infinite mass C ² = is in fact infinite speed PERIOD What do you think of that Einstein? It is too bad your not here debate the masses, so bring on Hawking. I don’t care, just bring it on. “IT” is now time to set the record straight. -infinity + infinity = "IT", and "IT" is the center of my universe.

Saiph · Sep 1, 2005

<blockquote>In reply to:<hr />I do not believe that the speed-of-light is constant at aprox 299,796 Km/s; however, I think the visible-speed-of-light is. I think the speed-of light’s constant is infinity<hr /></blockquote> That, however, directly contradicts observations. And you can't directly contrdict actual observations and still be correct. <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 · Sep 1, 2005

That, however, directly contradicts observations. And you can't directly contradict actual observations and still be correct. I can, if I have an imaginary friend ;o) Besides, the visible-speed-of-light and the speed-of-light are completely two different animals.

Saiph · Sep 1, 2005

I don't see how they're different... It is light, the fun electromagnetic wave. If you're dealing with something else, it isn't light. <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 · Sep 1, 2005

Let's give it a name then, um.... How does "DARK ENERGY" sound?

jatslo · Sep 1, 2005

That, however, directly contradicts observations. And you can't directly contradict actual observations and still be correct. I can, if I have an imaginary friend ;o) Besides, the visible-speed-of-light and the speed-of-light are completely two different animals. Meaning that the two different animals, which are technically the same animal, are different in terms of velocity. One is moving faster than the other, and then along came the tachyon. The tachyon in my opinion is just another name "Anti-Energy", which is unobservable, because of paradox. I think what they are observing in the lab, is in fact, "Dark Energy". In hindsight, we need to engineer a new medium, because, as we all know, heat is real problem. These un-invented superconductors or super-mediums are more efficient at detecting light booms or releases of energy at or near the time of light barrier breach.

Superluminal space travel

jatslo

Guest

siarad

Guest

jatslo

Guest

jatslo

Guest

Saiph

Guest

jatslo

Guest

Saiph

Guest

jatslo

Guest

Saiph

Guest

jatslo

Guest

Saiph

Guest

jatslo

Guest

Saiph

Guest

jatslo

Guest

ordinary_guy

Guest

jatslo

Guest

raghara2

Guest

jatslo

Guest

jatslo

Guest

jatslo

Guest

Saiph

Guest

jatslo

Guest

Saiph

Guest

jatslo

Guest

jatslo

Guest

Similar threads

TRENDING THREADS

Latest posts

Share this page