Superluminal space travel

jatslo · Sep 4, 2005

I am talking about Invisible light, other than UV or IR, i.e. dark light, dark energy, tachyon, anti-energy... I am talking about invisible matter, other than an undiscovered asteroid. I think that galaxy has stars, just like any other galaxy, and the reason we cannot see them is because that galaxy is traveling "at", "near", or "beyond C". More evidence: or Cerenkov radiation [for P. A. Cherenkov], light emitted by a transparent medium when charged particles pass through it at a speed greater than the speed of light in the medium. The effect, discovered by Cherenkov in 1934 while he was studying the effects of gamma rays on liquids and explained in 1937 by I. E. Tamm and I. M. Frank, is analogous to the creation of a sonic boom when an object exceeds the speed of sound in a medium. The light is emitted only in directions inclined at a certain angle to the direction of the particles’ motion dependent upon the particles’ momentum. Thus, by simply measuring the angle between the radiation and the path of the particles, the particles’ speed may be determined. The effect is used in the Cherenkov counter, a device for detecting fast particles and determining their speeds or distinguishing between particles of different speeds. REFERENCE/safety_wrapper>

cuddlyrocket · Sep 4, 2005

Dark Matter is non-baryonic, so would exclude your asteroid (which is made up of baryons). Astronomers have added up all the matter that can be seen or inferred - stars, gas, planets, rocks, dust etc, etc - all the kinds of mass that we know about) and it still is a fraction of the mass that is known to be present. That something else has been named 'Dark matter'. It's something else, but we don't know what. The laws of physics as presently understood do not prohibit faster than c travel. They do prohibit you from accelerating an object with mass to c, let alone beyond it. Apparently an object without mass travels at c. Why? We have no idea. Possibilties that would permit travel faster than c, are that objects with imaginary mass exist. We haven't observed them. However, if they only interacted with normal matter via gravity, we could only observe its gravitational effects (perhaps it's the Dark Matter?). Another possibility is that you can travel faster than c, providing you simultaneoulsy travel backwards in time. Time travel itself, is also not prohibited by the laws of physics, though never observed (exact perhaps as part of entanglement).

jatslo · Sep 4, 2005

Dark Matter is non-baryonic, so would exclude your asteroid (which is made up of baryons). his seems to be where we are breaking down communicatively; meaning that definitions/defamations and incarnations are dissimilar, so maybe we should limit are discussion to “Dark” or “Invisible”. Astronomers have added up all the matter that can be seen or inferred - stars, gas, planets, rocks, dust etc, etc - all the kinds of mass that we know about) and it still is a fraction of the mass that is known to be present. That something else has been named 'Dark matter'. It's something else, but we don't know what. his appears that you are inferring to something undiscovered, which may or may not be the case. What are your thoughts on Metal Hydrogen? Could, in fact, metal hydrogen account for the attractive force I suspect you are referencing? The laws of physics as presently understood do not prohibit faster than c travel. They do prohibit you from accelerating an object with mass to c, let alone beyond it. Apparently an object without mass travels at c. Why? We have no idea. aws are made to be broken. Visible-speed-of-light is constant at approximately 299,796 Km/s; we can all pretty much agree on that, but to definitively state something as fact, when in fact, that something is not, is a dilemma that will plague these threads for a very long time indeed. Possibilties that would permit travel faster than c, are that objects with imaginary mass exist. We haven't observed them. However, if they only interacted with normal matter via gravity, we could only observe its gravitational effects (perhaps it's the Dark Matter?). he term “Possibilties” is in fact spelled like “Possibilities”. The problem with traveling faster than “C” is relative to cause and effe

mcbethcg · Sep 4, 2005

"I am talking about Invisible light, other than UV or IR, i.e. dark light, dark energy, tachyon, anti-energy... " Those things don't exist, except in your mind. Maybe in a scifi script. Otherwise, nope. You have no evidence of it. "I am talking about invisible matter, other than an undiscovered asteroid. I think that galaxy has stars, just like any other galaxy, and the reason we cannot see them is because that galaxy is traveling "at", "near", or "beyond C". " The "Invisible Galaxy" was no such thing. Read the whole article next time. It isnt traveling at any bizare speed. Its simply made of matter like neutrinos. Re: Cerennkov radiation: Read what you posted. Read what you posted again. Pay close attention to the following three words "IN THE MEDIUM" The speed of light in a medium is not "C". "C" is the speed of light in a vacuum, not in a medium. Light slows down in a medium, but that does not change "C". Take some basic science classes. Learn something.

mrmux · Sep 4, 2005

You have never heard of the Fidonets and other websites, which back in 1985 were called bulletin boards. Those were the direct precursors to the websites which became the internet. Most kids these days have not, believing that before the internet, there was NO net. What breath-taking chuztpah! YOU WERE THE KID WHO CLAIMED OTHERWISE IN THE SETI THREAD AND I CORRECTED YOU. You know what? You're dim. All you have is wikipedia and a superiority complex. You talk about everything and understand none of it. You just hope your 'opponent' knows less than you - and when they don't you are shot down in flames. Then a week later you pretend you knew it all along! Well, you don't. Your fabulous slating of 'CuddlyRocket' in the 'faster than c?' thread sums you up. (Remember? When you told him to get a basic physics education, then discovered he's a Physics and Maths graduate and you were left with both feet firmly in your massive mouth?) Still think I'm 'Max the RCH minion'? You're nuts, mate. Paranoid. You put the psycho into psychiatry.

jatslo · Sep 4, 2005

Hear, hear; that is a great analogy!

jatslo · Sep 4, 2005

Yet once again you demonstrate an uncanny inability to step out of your textbook hugging box. “charged particles pass through it at a speed greater than the speed of lightin the medium#8221; QUOTE, and unquote. EVIDENCE Anything relative to invisibility is opinion in your minion, Mr..

mrmux · Sep 4, 2005

It's, 'hear, hear...' before you-know-who corrects you with customary glee. Anyway, dude, you have to be more well-researched as well. I'm on nobody's side here, but I will point out howlers when I see them. From where I'm stood there are only a handful of people on this forum who I cannot call for elementary mistakes and/or contradicting themselves (myself included). Saiph and JonClarke are two, as are the moderators. Even Yev has admitted the odd one. Steve never has, but nor have many of his opponents. I notice plenty of, 'You're not prepared to consider the alternative' from both sides. It's true. I notice precious little humility and hardly anyone acknowledges their mistakes. It's not a point-scoring contest. Remember that, historically, most of mainstream science is correct most of the time. Even if occasionally ill-mannered.

jatslo · Sep 4, 2005

TY I fixed the "here, here"... I do not speak British very well. I do not take sides either, and I most definitely do not follow the majority opinion. I liked the Face-on-Mars trick of light, and I truly wanted to believe.

mrmux · Sep 4, 2005

I liked the Face-on-Mars trick of light, and I truly wanted to believe. Me too, if only to finally shut the fundamentalsts up once and for all. That's why I'm so pissed off at RCH.

jatslo · Sep 4, 2005

Well, fundamental bombardment is a trademark of teaching and learning; our perceptual processes evolve from these methodologies; however, fundamental bombardment is a tool of inspiration, with respect to perceptual processes, and not dictatorial in nature. Good teachers do not dictate perceptions to students.

cuddlyrocket · Sep 5, 2005

'Dark Matter' is the term given by the scientific community for whatever it is that creates a detected gravitational influence in the Universe and which is not any of the forms of matter we have come across to date. I was using it in that sense. You are, of course, at liberty to define it how you wish, but you should make that clear. Metal hydrogen is simply solid hydrogen, which is a metal. Given present observations an upper limit can be calculated as to how much there may be in the Universe. This has been done and included in the calculation I referred to earlier. It is not the Dark Matter. It is always possible that a deeper knowledge of physics may enable us to do things that many of today's physicists think impossible. I agree too many people quote scientific theory as fact. (However, what those theories say are themselves facts.) The argument that causality prohibits faster than c travel is bogus, as the definition of simultaneity (and therefore before or after) used is based on an assumption that nothing can travel faster than c, and therefore is a circular argument. Imagination is important in science, but it has to be insight, not fantasy. It may be that there are types of matter that can be accelerated to faster than c. If you can demonstrate same, you'll no doubt get to shake the hand of the King of Norway. But nobody is going to take seriously any wild speculations based on unspecified mechanisms. Time travel is not prohibited by the laws of physics as presently understood. If you can travel backwards in time whilst simultaneously moving through space at less than c, you can appear to an outside observer to have travelled at greater than c. For example, if I set off to Proxima Centauri at 99% of c, it would normally take just over 4.6 years to get there. But if I simultaneously travel backwards in time 3.6 years, I will appear to people on Earth to have got there in just over a year. And thanks

cuddlyrocket · Sep 5, 2005

If you're going to imply I'm a liar, at least have the decency to do so directly. I'm willing to bet you $10,000 dollars that I have the degrees stated. I'm willing to do whatever it takes, including legal disclosures etc, to prove our identities first. I'll put the money up in cash with a suitable third party lawyer (you don't have to do so). The difference between me and you is that you merely learned what you were taught or read, and can parrot it, but I understand it. In particular, I understand what they don't say. If you can find a flaw in my arguments, then address them. I've challenged you to do so, and you simply ignore it.

jatslo · Sep 5, 2005

'Dark Matter' is the term given by the scientific community for whatever "it"is that creates a detected gravitational influence in the Universe and which is not any of the forms of matter we have come across to date. I was using it in that sense. You are, of course, at liberty to define it how you wish, but you should make that clear. he fact of the matter is that "IT"; whatever "IT" is; is unknown, undiscovered, not understood PERIOD. Your quote: "and which is not any of the forms of matter we have come across to date.is in fact your opinion and not fact. Based off the last few correspondences we can ascertain that the following alternatives exist: I. "IT" is undiscovered masses of regular matter, i.e. Cheese, etc.. II. "IT" is undiscovered new matter by which we do not know what "IT" is. III. "IT" is masses of regular matter that are traveling at "sub-C" velocities; VELOCITES that are above and below the visible-speed-of-light threshold of approximately 299,796 Km/s. IIII. "IT" is a newly discovered matter that "We" do not fully understand, i.e. Metal hydrogen, oxygen, methane, etc. IV. What other alternatives am I leaving out? You, SIR, are following what you think is "Majority Opinion", in which history clearly states that the majority opinion definitively does not mean that the majority is right. On another note: Good teachers do not force their perceptions on there students, as you are clearly guilty of in this case. Metal hydrogen is simply solid hydrogen, which is a metal. Given present observations an upper limit can be calculated as to how much there may be in the Universe. This has been done and included in the calculation I referred to earl

mrmux · Sep 5, 2005

Harvard now? Yeah, right! I'm calling RCH's bluff and now I'm calling yours, swell-head. List all your fabulous qualifications right now. Dare you.

jatslo · Sep 5, 2005

Irrelevant argument, take action, be decisive, for Steve has made multiple tactical mistakes that you, the educated, should capitalize on. In fact, I am tempted to myself.

mrmux · Sep 5, 2005

Understood. Have been doing just that for some time.

ordinary_guy · Sep 5, 2005

MrMux, in the process of appealing to himself as an authority, stevehw33 rattled off an impressive list over in SETI: <blockquote>In reply to:<hr />There is such a thing a properly educated person in the sciences. There are such persons as properly constituted authorities in the fields of the sciences. I have a doctorate, which took 8 full years of university work to obtain, & 4 years post doctorate training, including 40 years of experience in the biological and physical sciences. And that is far, far more than any mere PhD. in the sciences, either.<hr /></blockquote> I already asked him a few questions about it -- but so far, he's declined to answer. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> Mere precedent is a dangerous source of authority. -Andrew Jackson (1767-1845) </div>

jatslo · Sep 5, 2005

Ordinary_Guy and MrMux - Steve is a proclaimed or self-proclaimed archeologist, and this fact is demonstratively illustrated throughout these UBB threads, so do not underestimate him. This is especially true in terms of "Archeology". Fallacy is Steve’s signature.

mcbethcg · Sep 5, 2005

Please read a lot more about Cerennkov radiation. You are completely parsing the sentences wrong- it really freaks me out. The speed of light IN A MEDIUM is slower than C. Nothing ever exceeds C. Nothing. Ever. The conventional definition of Cerennkov radiation was flawed- it is not Jatslo proof. We can all relly on Jatslo to parse it exactly incorrectly. Two ways to parse it? Jatslo will parse it the way that allows something to go faster than c. You read "faster than light in a medium", as "faster than light, in a medium" . LOL. Light slows down in a medium. (a medium is a substance) Still, nothing travels faster than light in a vacuum. Nothing ever will. It's the law.

jatslo · Sep 5, 2005

HAHAHAHAHA, admit it, your wrong. These are facts: Velocity Time Dilation = 1 / sqrt(1-v²/c²) Gravitational Time Dilation = 1 / sqrt(1-2GM/(c²r)) Understanding them is difficult; makes my head hurt even. For starters, a medium is anything that acts as conduit from point “A” to “B” including, but not limited to, a pure vacuum. Even Gravity is a medium. From vantage point “T”, “A” and “B” equal “Y”, in which “Y” is bound to laws governing “T” in space-time, whereas space-time is 4 dimensions X, Y, Z, and Time. Time ticks and tocks, as in tick; tock; tick; tock … Constant A is headed towards B @ approximately 599,592 Km/s or visible-speed-of-light times two relative to the Milky Way galaxy, and B is at rest relative to Earth. The total package from vantage point “T”, or as far as “T” is concerned, is bound to the laws governing the visible-speed-of-light limit; however, “A” by itself is traveling “Sub-C”; “C”*2 relative to Milk Way galaxy. In fact, “A” is invisible, but because “A” is made of masses of matter, “A” projects gravity. You do the math. MOVE ON DUDE, YOU ARE WRONG!!!

frobozz · Sep 6, 2005

I rather dislike suggesting this, but perhaps you should learn the mathematics behind this yourself. First, beyond the first equation, your post is devoid of mathematical content. So let's go over relativity again, you'll be happy to correct any mistakes as I'm going off memory and I do math not physics (hence the only reason I learned relativity was because I thought tensors were neat <img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" /> ) Now, assuming I remember correctly, you got that second equation from the Schwartzchild solution did you not? The first comes from the now very much abused Lorentz transformation (unless I am mistaken). Let's start with the first. If a mass (regardless of how it got thier) managed to get past C (never mind reaching C) we'd be in the imaginery numbers (this has been explained before). This is bad for two reasons (1) Physics of relativity happens on a real riemannian manifold, not a complex one. (2) Suppose we extended the manifold to allow the use of imaginery numbers (ignoring physics for the moment - it's ok mathematicians are allowed to ignore physicists so long as we don't claim to say things about the boring old real world, even us mediocre ones can do it.) . If we accept the imagineries, we are going to have the accept solutions to the Schwartzchild (and the Einstien field equations) which include imagineries. Now, assuming I recall correctly, one get's a form of "White Hole" from an imaginery solution to the Shcwarzchild (feel free to refute this with an actual reference, or better yet add to it) this white hole would spew out matter from no where. A violation of the laws of thermodynamics. You may consider this my present objection to your use of equation (1) - Velocity Time Dilation. As for for equation (2) Gravitational Time Dilation. Exactly how does this show that time is constant? If time were constant, then would require that the metric be of the form (with respect to the schwartzchild s

jatslo · Sep 6, 2005

Who are you? What is your function? Your function is math. I will respond soon, I have a case study and presentation to prepare for college.

frobozz · Sep 6, 2005

An alien from planet Jupiter? You know swimming in all that extra gravity is loads of fun for the locals <img src="/images/icons/wink.gif" /> Really I fail to see the relvancy of this question, I gave you several mathematical reasons, either point out why I'm utterly wrong mathematically in this (you know attack what I said). I undestand of course that a mere honours degree in math from a not so well known canadian university isn't worth much compared to others here, and doesn't make me a physicist, but at least I can still do the math. What I'm asking is how you intend to get around the math, or have you actually learned it.

jatslo · Sep 6, 2005

frobozz wrote: I rather dislike suggesting this, but perhaps you should learn the mathematics behind this yourself. First, beyond the first equation, your post is devoid of mathematical content. am the concept man, and I fail to see why I need to learn the math; however, if it is any concern to you, I have completed two college math courses. Seems to me that you bare the responsibility for proving or disproving my imagination. You are the means by which my dreams become reality or fantasy. So let's go over relativity again, you'll be happy to correct any mistakes as I'm going off memory and I do math not physics (hence the only reason I learned relativity was because I thought tensors were neat ) et us get with it then. Now, assuming I remember correctly, you got that second equation from the Schwartzchild solution did you not? o, I snagged those two equations from ( kmarinas86 ). The first comes from the now very much abused Lorentz transformation (unless I am mistaken). kay. Let's start with the first. If a mass (regardless of how it got thier) managed to get past C (never mind reaching C) we'd be in the imaginery numbers (this has been explained before). es, I have lots of imaginary friends.. This is bad for two reasons (1) Physics of relativity happens on a real riemannian manifold, not a complex one. kay, were messing with the textbook huggers, so I am in.

Superluminal space travel

jatslo

Guest

cuddlyrocket

Guest

jatslo

Guest

mcbethcg

Guest

mrmux

Guest

jatslo

Guest

jatslo

Guest

mrmux

Guest

jatslo

Guest

mrmux

Guest

jatslo

Guest

cuddlyrocket

Guest

cuddlyrocket

Guest

jatslo

Guest

mrmux

Guest

jatslo

Guest

mrmux

Guest

ordinary_guy

Guest

jatslo

Guest

mcbethcg

Guest

jatslo

Guest

frobozz

Guest

jatslo

Guest

frobozz

Guest

jatslo

Guest

Similar threads

TRENDING THREADS

Latest posts

Moderators online

Share this page