Superluminal space travel

Saiph · Sep 1, 2005

except then it doesn't apply to E=mc^2 or any relativity theorem. <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

Forget that crap. They are theories for a reason. Let me tell you why: ...Because infinity keeps cropping up. ...take everything you know about E = MC ², then slap a dark side to it, add the light and dark, subtract it from its opposite, and if the answer is "IT" then your right. Of course you can still define things to work out a localized event like The Earth's Moon, Sun, etc., whereas the dark side might be zeroed out, but both Newton and Einstein were both right and wrong. It is too bad that they did not get a chance to debate the masses.

ordinary_guy · Sep 1, 2005

Oh, really? <blockquote>In reply to:<hr />"Quote me and we'll talk about it."<hr /></blockquote> That's a good start, Steve, but quoting the "quote me" part doesn't count. If you're going to make an argument, you have to argue against facts and you can't do that. <img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" /> Instead, you rely on ad hominem circumstantial attack, attempting to weasel in "guilt by association" arguments instead of actually presenting evidence. In fact, it would appear that you're intentionally mischaracterizing my posts in a deceptive and malicious manner. <blockquote>In reply to:<hr />I know exactly what's going on. As I wrote before, I've seen the types around here for 20 years.<hr /></blockquote> I noted you mentioned your depth of experience, but that was over in SETI. MrMux addresses your claim over there (and does it very well), but since you bring up that claim over here, it's appropriate to quote him: <blockquote>In reply to:<hr />MrMux; 09/01/05 10:21 AM; RE: Steve: "I've been on these websites now for over 20 years." Oh dear, oh dear, oh dear. ARPAnet only switched to TCP/IP in 1983, with the 'internet' branching from MILNET the same year. Primitive BBS and modems. 20 years ago websites did not exist. You are demonstrably error-prone.<hr /></blockquote> His closing comment is a NASA-grade understatement. It is further evidence that you regularly distort and exaggerate in your posts. Not that you'll recognize the truth of the matter, I simply submit the observation for the record. "I know exactly <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> Mere precedent is a dangerous source of authority. -Andrew Jackson (1767-1845) </div>

Saiph · Sep 1, 2005

forget it? Why, it does a remarkable job in predicting many of the things we use (nuclear power for example). <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

Of course it does, but I need to step out of the box and look at the big picture from time to time, because the information that I depend on is fragmented and incomplete 99.99% of the time. Listen, I am a risk taker, and a heart breaker. Science is a hobby of mine; it has been ever since I first picked up a compass. As far back as I can remember, I have always observed from two different points, and those points are internal and/or external points or from the outside looking in and/or the inside looking out. No schooling in the art or anything, all of what I am saying is materializing as pure concept, and I am certain that I am right.

Saiph · Sep 1, 2005

except you don't make much sense, and it doesn't mess with observations. <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

It makes perfect sense. Define observation, then define prediction, compare and contrast, and then tell me why I cannot predict the unknown with dead on precision. Why are forecasts so beneficial in terms of hurricanes?

siarad · Sep 2, 2005

'Sense' Relativity has no sense. Until we jump to a new way of thinking we'll never see it's sense. One apparent non-sense: why does it take the same amount of energy to accelerate a miniscule electron to C as it does an entire Galaxy. Further are we not mixing up two things. Light-speed can never be exceeded 'cos it's always measured the same so are we attempting to move from place to place faster than a beam of light setting out at the same time. Surely light has no 'time' making this impossible & perhaps this is where the new thinking is necessary. Now doesn't Relativity, if I understand Einsteins 'thought experiment' which started it all, say that the external beam will still travel at C, although I'm at a total loss as to it's measurement as light, em, is invisible. Did that 'experiment' mean he could catch up this external beam as opposed to the measurement of an internal beam always being C.

jatslo · Sep 2, 2005

Relativity has no sense. Until we jump to a new way of thinking we'll never see it's sense "UNIFICATION"? Infinity will make sure we never make sense of it all, but we don't need to know everything to make accurate predictions. If the Speed of light is approximately 299,796 Km/s, then why the heck is everyone stating that it takes infinite energy to reach it? For the love of GOD, this is so wrong! Do the math.

siarad · Sep 2, 2005

Not quite sure what you mean but em radiation has no mass & can only travel at C which is determined by the product of electric & magnetic properties of Space. Therefore I don't understand why this applies to mass. e/m = C^2 is a rest formula derived from moving formula with speed at 0. So if I was going at C, therefore appearing at rest, e/m = 1 = C^2, if we can divide infinity into infinity, which curiously happens to be a previous topic of mine for entirely different reasons.

vidar · Sep 2, 2005

Science and belief seems to go hand in hand. What used to be believes, has become facts. What used to be facts has become believes. The theory of the superluminal barrier (c) seems to me to be the main scientific belief of this century. It is by no mean proven and it does not even have to be to be scientific. The postulate stands as long as no-one can prove otherwise. Is that really the scientific foundation? I thought it was the foundation of religious belief. In the same way I can hereby proclaim that tachyons (superluminal objects) exist. This is my postulate, and it is based on Albert Einstein's theory of relativity. The postulate stands until anyone proves otherwise. Now, does that make me intelligent or wise? Does such a statement deserve any scientific support and protection at all? Quite frankly, I think only fools would believe I am particular intelligent or wise to make such a postulate. However, such a postulate is the foundation of the speed limit c.

jatslo · Sep 2, 2005

Visible speed limit from the outside looking in, so anything outside this framework is relatively dark; therefore, tachyon's are dark, so tachyon's are either dark energy or anti-energy in my opinion. What else could a tachyon be, in terms of what we already know about relativity?

jatslo · Sep 2, 2005

Mass-less, matter-less, charge-less... This scenario does not require much energy at all. For example, a “light bulb” that utilizes 25-watts to radiate at “C”. Add a mass of matter, strip the charge, plug it into E = MC ² to calculate energy requirements, whereas MC ² = E; solve for E. Clearly, if we have matter in our hand, the matter is not energy, but we can still utilize E = MC ² or something like it to solve energy mathematically without converting matter to energy in the process.

mcbethcg · Sep 2, 2005

A lot of true believers here with no scientific foundation. I wish you guys would go to the scifi boards. Superluminal travel is impossible. Any sane and intelligent person with a scientific background knows it.

yevaud · Sep 3, 2005

I was in the Army, worked with, and at one point, shared an apartment with this guy in the late 70's: http://www.etext.org/CuD/Papers/len.rose Oh yes. Remember Arpanet as well. Dial up to a PDP-10 in 1975... <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> Differential Diagnosis: "I am both amused and annoyed that you think I should be less stubborn than you are." </div>

yevaud · Sep 3, 2005

But of course. For the sake of argument, I have an old, stand-alone, 300-baud Modem kicking around somewhere. And If I *never* have to use a Teletype - ugly grey - with the big, clunky, round keys, the rolls of yellowish paper, and paper tape again... <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> Differential Diagnosis: "I am both amused and annoyed that you think I should be less stubborn than you are." </div>

yevaud · Sep 3, 2005

I absolutely agree. I recollect the original "Pong," which was displayed on a gigantic Magnavox tv in a nearby Bloomingdale's department store. *Bloop* - long pause - *Blip* I once programmed in Dartmouth Basic on a PDP-8 my High School shared time on. My joke (I still refer to it today) is that it was when Time-Sharing meant, "I get up from the terminal, and you get to sit down at it." It to this day amazes me that we went to the Moon on technology that wasn't even that capable. They were Gods in their day. And when my HS obtained it's own PDP-11/40, and I got to learn RSTS-E Basic, I was in hog-heaven. Oh, my God, all of 8 of us on the same machine?!!! Btw - call it typical teenaged precociousness - I used to hack into Arpanet, and other dialup mainframes. It was easy, as there was no real concept of "security" in those days. I once hacked into the main DEC Marketing computer, in Maynard Mass. It was easy - they left the Guest account active, and didn't alter the permission for the unencrypted (encryption? What's that?) account file. I stole the 1,1 (if you remember this) account info., and then created myself a "privileged" account, then wiped the reference in the same file. They never figured it out. Those were the days. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> Differential Diagnosis: "I am both amused and annoyed that you think I should be less stubborn than you are." </div>

yevaud · Sep 3, 2005

Ha! An Wang's former HQ is about a mile from where I work. The building is (IIRC) now part of New England Medical/Tuft's. I agree. It'd be a real "flashback" for us oldsters. When technology could be repaired with a hammer, and Dinosaur's roamed the Earth... <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> Differential Diagnosis: "I am both amused and annoyed that you think I should be less stubborn than you are." </div>

jatslo · Sep 3, 2005

Superluminal travel is impossible Seems to me that you bare the burden of presenting evidence to support your remarks, because the evidence is mounting in favor of supraliminal travel, and if you were scientific in any regard, you would know this to be fact. So go back to school or put on your critical thinking cap and catch up with the times old man ;o)

mcbethcg · Sep 3, 2005

"Seems to me that you bare the burden of presenting evidence to support your remarks, because the evidence is mounting in favor of supraliminal travel" No there isnt. I wish there were, really. But there isn't.

siarad · Sep 3, 2005

Seems you don't know modern history; it's been done here before <img src="/images/icons/wink.gif" /> I remember using JANET, linking Universities in the 1970's with a feed from here, UK, to Holland I think & then to USA.

jatslo · Sep 3, 2005

No there isn't. I wish there were, really. But there isn't. Have you ever considered the fact that the reason there “isn’t” evidence, with respect to your perceptual processes; not mine; is because you are blind to the evidence? Sub-luminescence, whereas sub-luminescence is a new word I had to make up to describe a particular effect of supraliminal travel. The term “Sub” is often utilized to describe under, below, secret, etc., whereas luminescence is a release of energy that is an effect of a chemical reaction like fission, but that is not the point. “Sub” is my argument. Sub “C” PERIOD: Tachyon, dark energy, anti-energy, and/or anything I left out. The evidence is “Effect”, and in the case of sub “C”, the effect, is a release of energy. Now, there is evidence! However, the evidence involves mass-less charge-less particles/photons. How ironic.

mcbethcg · Sep 3, 2005

"Have you ever considered the fact that the reason there “isn’t” evidence, with respect to your perceptual processes; not mine; is because you are blind to the evidence? Sub-luminescence, whereas sub-luminescence is a new word I had to make up to describe a particular effect of supraliminal travel. " Ok, here goes. 1) Making up a word off the top of your head for something that does not exist does not make it real. 2) You consistently misuse scientific words that do exist to mean things that they don't mean. Dark matter is an example of this. "Dark Matter" is any matter in the universe that is not observed directly or indirectly by humans, that contributes to the overall mass of the universe. An unobserved asteroid is technically "Dark Matter". 3) Scientific concepts that you consider evidence that are relevant here, such as "tachyon" have never been shown to exist. Even the theorists who came up with the concept do not necessarily believe they exist- they just came up with the word as a term to describe a hypothical thing. Similarly, people who use word "Unicorn" are typically describing a thing that they themselves do not believe exist. You have zero real evidence for anything you say. Einstein came up with the theory of Relativity 80 years ago. His theory is, and was, the only likely explanation for things that were observed already by that time by astronomers, even with the incredibly primitive apparatus that existed at the time. Men have spent 80 years trying to overturn it, and have yet failed. There have been countless experiments done that bear it out. There have been countless observations that bear it out.

jatslo · Sep 3, 2005

mcbethcg wrote: Ok, here goes. 1) Making up a word off the top of your head for something that does not exist does not make it real. hat is a fact, because something that does not exist is imaginary, and in the case of “Sub C”, I have lots of imaginary friends. 2) You consistently misuse scientific words that do exist to mean things that they don't mean. t is clear to me that nobody knows, and that numerous individual’s account for real phenomena based on something other than what we already know, i.e. Dark Matter, Dark Energy, Tachyon, etc., and I am not one of them. However, I question the validity of these individualistic definitions/defamations and incarnations. Furthermore, the clear difference between you and me is this: I am the concept man, and you are the means by which my thought patterns become reality or fantasy. This is because you demonstrate an uncanny inability to step out of the box and see the big picture with respect to UNIFICATION theorems. For someone who vehemently defends Einstein’s theory of relativity, you would think defending unification would come with the package. Dark matter is an example of this. es, Dark Matter is great subliminal subject, because it is dark. "Dark Matter" is any matter in the universe that is not observed directly or indirectly by humans, that contributes to the overall mass of the universe. agree wholeheartedly, and I am pleased that you do not deny Dark Matter’s existence in the universe as we know it. An unobserved asteroid is technically "Dark Matter". es, an unobserved asteroid is technically Dark Matter. How many unobserved asteroids are in an invisible galaxy? http:</safety_wrapper

mcbethcg · Sep 3, 2005

Your posts indicate that you do not have even the vaguest idea how relativity works. "Well, I gave you the invisible galaxy above. Your turn! You cannot prove that there is anything but my imagination can you?" If we seem to agree about what dark matter is, why do you think it has anything at all to do with superluminal travel? Why is it in this discussion? "(Einsteins) theory is, and was, the only likely explanation for things that were observed already by that time by astronomers, even with the incredibly primitive apparatus that existed at the time. Hello? What happened to Newton?" Newtons theories do not explain, at all, the observations that led to relativity- that the speed of light from distant stars was measured as being exactly the same, no matter how the earth was moving in relation to that star. The Earth travels around the sun at quite a high speed- some 15 miles pers second. It was observed, even back then, that the speed of the light from a star does not vary in our measurment even if the earth is traveling towards or away from that star. Newton predicts that the merasured velocity would change, and was flawed in that way. Newtons predictions were irrefutably incorrect, even in 1918. Newton predicts that a thing that travels past us be measured to be going a different speed, depending on whether or not we are travelling towards or away from that thing. For example- if a bullet were traveling from that star, we would percieve the bullet as travelling fast as we headed for towards that star, and slowly if the we were travelling away from that star. The same observations would occur if light were a wave in a medium- it would appear to travel faster as we headed towards the source, and slowly as we traveled away. Note that these measurments were in the form of (distance) per (time period) as in miles per hour or meters per second. Einsteins sol

Superluminal space travel

Saiph

Guest

jatslo

Guest

ordinary_guy

Guest

Saiph

Guest

jatslo

Guest

Saiph

Guest

jatslo

Guest

siarad

Guest

jatslo

Guest

siarad

Guest

vidar

Guest

jatslo

Guest

jatslo

Guest

mcbethcg

Guest

yevaud

Guest

yevaud

Guest

yevaud

Guest

yevaud

Guest

jatslo

Guest

mcbethcg

Guest

siarad

Guest

jatslo

Guest

mcbethcg

Guest

jatslo

Guest

mcbethcg

Guest

Similar threads

TRENDING THREADS

Latest posts

Moderators online

Share this page