Superluminal space travel

[jatslo]

I thought you sounded like Hawking, and that is why I asked who you are.

 

[frobozz]

If you want to discuss something, it is best to know what it is your are going to discuss. I wouldn't presume to walk into whatever courses you take and tell them they are wrong about it without atleast learning what they are talking about first. Your ability to complete two college level math course does not nessarily corrospond to a knowledge of mathematics. I will for the sake of argument assume that they are not say CALC I and ALG I or thier equivalent but something that gives you enough math to understand what the equations of General Relativity say and do not say within reason.<br /><br />Ok, so the equations you got from kmarinas86 do come from the aforementioned schwartzchild solution and the lorentz equation.<br /><br />As for you imaginery friends, unless your imaginery friends are physical objects and not constructs of your own imagination, this is not relevant to the current conversation as far as I can tell.<br /><br />As for the bit about a white hole, I'll have to look it up again - it's been a while since I looked at that. I'll accept that I could be wrong on that until I've double checked it for the moment. As for the equation:<br /><br />infinity - infinity + spew = spew (1)<br /><br />This is not mathemicaly correct. Feel free to call me a text book hugger at this point, I don't particularly care, but by playing with a few divurgent series to see that you can make -infinity + infinity = anything . Their are some great books on Real Analysis that you can pick up that will help you understand why this should be and of course let you enjoy Real Analysis.<br /><br />As for me "jumping to my own conclusions" the equations given are direct consequences that you would get if time were constant as you claim it is. If you want to argue that they are wrong, you will need to learn some of the math. Specifically a short overview of Differential Geometry or better yet tensor calculus would be in order. hell if you like their and online course on the stuff, yo

 

[ordinary_guy]

mcbethcg, your point made me wonder so I went it looked it up to see if I'd been laboring under a misconception. I took your suggestion to read some more and thought the guys at the Stanford Linear Accelerator might have a working grasp of the phenomena, so I went there. Here is what I found:<br /><blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p><b>Cerenkov Radiation</b><br />A charged particle emits Cerenkov radiation (light) in a cone around its direction of travel when it travels through any medium faster than the speed of light through that medium. (Cerenkov - is the name of the scientist who first recognized the nature of this effect and its possible use for distinguishing particle types.) Although the speed of light in a vacuum is the fastest speed that any particle or light can have, in a medium of any type light travels more slowly because of its interactions with the electric fields of the atoms in the medium and so it is possible for a high energy particle to be faster than light in some material . The blue light in the pools of water you may have seen in pictures of nuclear power plants is Cerenkov radiation from particles produced in the reactor. More Information: Cerenkov Detector, Hadron Tracking: Cerenkov Detectors<p><hr /></p></p></blockquote><br />Apparently, I'll have to read further – Stanford is laboring under the same misconception that I was: that something can, in fact, exceed the speed of light in a given medium.<br /><br />If you get a min <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p style="font:normalnormalnormal12px/normalTimes;margin:0px"><strong>Mere precedent is a dangerous source of authority.</strong></p> <p style="font:normalnormalnormal12px/normalTimes;margin:0px">-Andrew Jackson (1767-1845)</p> </div>

 

[mcbethcg]

You are parsing the sentences wrong in stanfords paragraph.<br /><br />"Cerenkov Radiation <br />A charged particle emits Cerenkov radiation (light) in a cone around its direction of travel when it travels through any medium faster than the speed of light through that medium. (Cerenkov - is the name of the scientist who first recognized the nature of this effect and its possible use for distinguishing particle types.) Although the speed of light in a vacuum is the fastest speed that any particle or light can have, "<br /><br />THEN<br /><br /><<in a medium of any type light travels more slowly because of its interactions with the electric fields of the atoms in the medium />><br /><br />The above sentence is what you need to pay attention to. In some circumstances, Light has been slowed way down, in a medium- it slows down while traveling through glass or water, for example. Lets say, for fun that it is travelling at 1/10th its normal speed (c) while traveling through the medium. This is not impossible- light has actually been slowed to a virtual crawl in some mediums.<br /><br /><<"and so it is possible for a high energy particle to be faster than light in some material />><br /><br />In other words, when a particle that is travelling at .5 c strikes that piece of glass or that transparent fluid, in which light has been slowed, you get this radiation, because the partical is exceeding 1/10 "c".<br /><br />"c" is the speed of light in a vaccuum.<br /><br /><br />The blue light in the pools of water you may have seen in pictures of nuclear power plants is Cerenkov radiation from particles produced in the reactor. More Information: Cerenkov Detector, Hadron Tracking: Cerenkov Detectors"<br /><br />The point of all this, that you miss, again and again and again, is that the partical never goes faster than "c", ever. It goes faster only than the light that has been slowed to a fraction of its normal speed, in the medium.

 

[cuddlyrocket]

I never said that I believed that c could be exceeded by any mass. I said that the laws of physics do not <i>prohibit</i> travel faster than c. I suspect it's highly unlikely that travelling faster than c <i>is</i> possible, but that's just a hunch on my part. That there is no superluminal velocity known is one of the facts that go into my assessment of the probabilities, but it's not <i>proof</i> that it's impossible (that's the 'Math major' part of me speaking).<br /><br />All the Lorentz transform shows is that given a mass with a velocity less than c, you cannot give it a velocity greater than c simply by increasing its kinetic energy. It doesn't rule out superluminal velocities by itself.<br /><br />It's true that the Lorentz transform implies that any entity travelling faster than c either has Imaginary mass or Imaginary energy. Do these things exist? Probably not, but they can't be ruled out. What would be the properties of such things? How would they interact with the Real world we know about? Are there forms of energy and matter in the Universe about whose existence we are aware, but about whose nature we have no clue? You betcha.

 

[mcbethcg]

Cuddly: "I said that the laws of physics do not prohibit travel faster than c"<br /><br />I think it may be impossible to prove that a thing is impossible.<br /><br />Which does not mean that the thing is not impossible.<br /><br />My opinion, backed up by all of physics, is that it is impossible to travel faster than the speed of light. No way that I can prove it. But I the vast weight of all science is behind me on this.<br /><br />Similarly, it is impossible for me to fly around like Superman, to climb walls like Spiderman, or use psychic powers to control other peoples minds. All of human science and all of ordinary observation indicates that this is so.<br /><br />Your opinion is that I am probably right.<br /><br />You just feel compelled to say that you don't see a rule that states its impossible- but that does not mean that such a rule does not exsist. The rules of nature exist whether or not we know about them.

 

[yevaud]

Oh, hey. Jatslo has a well-defined purpose here.<br /><br />Reading his "scientific" posts is funnier than an afternoon of Warner Brother's cartoons. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><em>Differential Diagnosis:  </em>"<strong><em>I am both amused and annoyed that you think I should be less stubborn than you are</em></strong>."<br /> </p> </div>

 

[mcbethcg]

It frustrates me that a forum that is dedicated to science is basically hijacked by people who have no understanding of it.<br /><br />I suppose the people on the environmental forums get frustrated at me in the same way- those are typically originated by people who have no understanding of science or economics, that just want to help the environment without regard to any other consideration, who think I have entirely missed the boat.<br /><br />I was once ejected from a forum because I thought that saving lives from malaria with pesticides was more important than the damage to the environment caused by pesticides- they said "I just didn't get it".

 

[yevaud]

Superficial scientific sophistry (say *that* 5 times fast!) is prevelant everywhere.<br /><br />There's a very self-serving attitude to them as well. A legitimate scientific discussion becomes hijacked, and then the original participants are informed, "hey this is science too. If you don't like it, leave." that's distasteful in and of itself, notwithstanding the fact that they really aren't discussing science at all. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><em>Differential Diagnosis:  </em>"<strong><em>I am both amused and annoyed that you think I should be less stubborn than you are</em></strong>."<br /> </p> </div>

 

[jatslo]

Superficial scientific sophistry; Superficial scientific sophistry; Superficial scientif splfjsefga, aw crap!

 

[ordinary_guy]

Hey, genius, did you follow the link in the post you're quoting?<br /><blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p>You are parsing the sentences wrong in stanfords paragraph.<p><hr /></p></p></blockquote><br />I didn't write it. Stanford did. It's called a "quote." You aren't correcting me, you're nitpicking the people that run high energy physics programs. Now, who am I going to believe? You or them?<br /><blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p>The point of all this, that you miss, again and again and again, is that the partical never goes faster than "c", ever. It goes faster only than the light that has been slowed to a fraction of its normal speed, in the medium.<p><hr /></p></p></blockquote><br />Clearly, your comprehension of the issue is genius... though it strikes me as odd that for all the time that you've spent studying high energy physics that you never learned how to spell particle. Well beyond parsing, <i>that,</i> to me, is a warning sign that you might not know just WTF you're talking about.<br /><br />A steve sock puppet. Just what this board needs.<br /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p style="font:normalnormalnormal12px/normalTimes;margin:0px"><strong>Mere precedent is a dangerous source of authority.</strong></p> <p style="font:normalnormalnormal12px/normalTimes;margin:0px">-Andrew Jackson (1767-1845)</p> </div>

 

[dragon04]

sock puppets are cool. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <em>"2012.. Year of the Dragon!! Get on the Dragon Wagon!".</em> </div>

 

[jatslo]

Hey frobozz - you are right about the thermals, but I think I found a way around them. I was running the numbers through my head, and I could not prevent a containment breach or I failed miserably to break the approximate 299,796 km/s visible-speed-of-light barrier. I kept revisiting mile-high, over, and over, and over; until…<br /><br />... I went and built a new medium to utilize as a heat resistant conduit, as opposed to WATER, and guess what I found. I found "METALLIC HYDROGEN".<br /><br />HAHAHAHAHAHA HA<br /><br />ABSTRACT<br /><br />Abstract 1st Argument: Dark matter consists of matter particles that cannot be detected by their emitted radiation, but whose presence can be inferred from gravitational effects on visible matter such as stars (DMW). The fact of the matter is that "Dark Matter"; whatever "Dark Matter" is; is unknown, undiscovered, and/or not understood by the scientific community. Based off new and existing evidence via multitudes of oral and written correspondences to the effect, this paper will expose multitudes of shocking and controversial ascertains to familiar and new alternatives. ABSTRACT 2nd Argument: Dark energy is a hypothetical form of energy, which permeates all of space and has strong negative pressure (DEW). The fact of the matter is that "Dark Energy" too; whatever Dark Energy is; is unknown, undiscovered, and not understood by the scientific community as well. Not only will this paper unlock the hidden secrets of "Dark Energy" and "Dark Matter", this paper will bend and tweak existing relativity models, and thwart with the laws that govern them, i.e. Speed-of-Light, Space-time, thermals, and much more. <br /><br />An Analysis of Sub-luminescence/Incandescence Link to Dark Matter, Dark Energy, Space-Time Contrary to General Relativity Models and The Laws of Physics: Investigative Hypothecation(s)<br /> <br />Thesis Statement Recommendation: Dark matter and energy are hypothetical invisible masses and non-masses that when combined wi

 

[jatslo]

It don't matter what medium it is, you still get the same effect; the problem is thermals, not whether or not masses of matter can exceed "C", because that is already a done deal. A dead horse!<br /><br />Move on!!!<br />

 

[mcbethcg]

Yet you still don't understand. It's sad.

 

[frobozz]

Wow, that's a first, I've never been compared to Hawking before. I'll take it as an extremely high compliment as I can only assume that's what you meant - Thanks. However, as you can imagine, Hawking is few orders of magnitude better than I at this sort of thing, so it's really not a justifiable comparison.<br />

 

[cuddlyrocket]

Actually, science <i>does</i> have to prove that all competing hypotheses are impossible - usually by observation, but occasionally by logical inference. The mere fact that something hasn't been observed does not mean that it does not exist. There are plenty of examples in the sciences where things were believed not to exist that then turned out to exist. In astronomy, theories of planetary formation ruled out large planets close to their parent stars - then we found some. In biology the 'code of life' was thought to use the same four bases in all living creatures, then we found a bacterium that used a fifth. Earlier theories of aeronautics ruled out the ability of a bumblebee to fly! It was only a deeper understanding that married theory to an actual observation. What the bulk of physicists believes in one generation is often discovered to be wrong by the next.<br /><br />I put forward an hypotheses: Matter with Imaginary mass exists but does not interact with Real matter other than by gravity. No observation or law of physics contradicts this hypothesis. It also accounts for Dark Matter. Is my hypothesis likely to be shown false in future? Probably, but who knows?<br /><br />It is you who claim that the laws of physics <i>proves</i> that superluminal travel is impossible. You have yet to demonstrate that. You simply repeat over and over again that the Lorentzian transformation prevents a normal mass reaching or exceeding c by giving it additional kinetic energy (with which I agree). That is a long way from proving that superluminal travel is impossible at all.

 

[frobozz]

I think I alread pointed out a possible problem with this idea, but correct me if I have misunderstood you. You have imaginery matter that does not interact with so called real matter, well I can't prove you wrong their let's accept it exists. Nifty. Now, you claim this would also account for dark matter. Hmm, well we wouldn't be able to see this dark matter right, so that's cool, we can't see dark matter in the real world either. Nice. Now, this dark matter kindly effects the curvature of space time. Not so cool I think. This means (as pointed out earlier) as I understand it, you would have to extend current to the complex numbers. I have explained previous to J why I believe this to be a problem - i.e. the problem with the white hole. Was I wrong about the white hole I described? Do you see a way around this maybe? <br /><br />

 

[jatslo]

CuddlyRocket wrote: <font color="yellow">Actually, science does have to prove that all competing hypotheses are impossible - usually by observation, but occasionally by logical inference.<br /><br /></font>ell, That most definitely is the awful truth. What is the difference between hypothesis, theory, and fact? From what I understand about hypothesis; hypothesis is basically just an idea that is missing a foundation that confirms the consequences of an imaginary friend, whereas when that imaginary friend in theory turns out to be real after all, then, and only then, is that friend a fact. Did I word that right?<font color="yellow"><br /><br />The mere fact that something hasn't been observed does not mean that it does not exist. There are plenty of examples in the sciences where things were believed not to exist that then turned out to exist.<br /><br /></font>es, challenge the majority; step our of your textbook hugging box, and utilize your imagination, for the human brain works in mysterious ways.<font color="yellow"><br /><br />In astronomy, theories of planetary formation ruled out large planets close to their parent stars - then we found some.<br /><br /></font>his is a good example, but I am curious, if there are any examples that substantiate sub-luminance and sub-Incandescence electromagnetic waves that are above and below ultraviolet and infrared wavelengths that are invisible to the naked eye. For instance, I am arguing that: If Ultraviolet and Infrared wavelengths are invisible, then sub-luminance and sub-Incandescence wavelengths are also invisible. If velocity is a factor in one; then velocity is most assertively a factor in the other.<font color="yellow"><br /><br />In biology the 'code of life' was thought to use the same four bases in all living creatures, then we found a bacterium that used a fifth.<br /><br /></font>his reminds me: I thought of sub-luminance and sub-Incandescence relative to velocity (v),

 

[jatslo]

frobozz wrote: <font color="yellow">I think I alread pointed out a possible problem with this idea, but correct me if I have misunderstood you.<br /><br /></font>#8221;alread” is spelled like “already”. Is English second language to you?<font color="yellow"><br /><br />You have imaginery matter that does not interact with so called real matter, well I can't prove you wrong their let's accept it exists.<br /><br /></font>#8221;imaginery” is spelled like “imaginary” and “their” is spelled like “there”, as in over there. Some imaginary unseen repulsive dark matter is far fetched, in terms of “fallacy”; this is my opinion based on current models; however, we cannot rule out the possibility of repulsive forces within this universe.<font color="yellow"><br /><br />Nifty. Now, you claim this would also account for dark matter. Hmm, well we wouldn't be able to see this dark matter right, so that's cool, we can't see dark matter in the real world either. Nice. Now, this dark matter kindly effects the curvature of space time.<br /><br /></font>he fabric in space-time: You stand corrected.<font color="yellow"><br /><br />Not so cool I think. This means (as pointed out earlier) as I understand it, you would have to extend current to the complex numbers. I have explained previous to J why I believe this to be a problem - i.e. the problem with the white hole. Was I wrong about the white hole I described? Do you see a way around this maybe?</font><br /><br />Yes, YES, the thermals, THE THERMALS!!! Frobozz – white holes are colder than a witch’s tit. ANTI-WITCH’S TIT, I mean! HAHAHAHAHAHA HA<br /><br />If, in fact, there is a white hole in this universe, I can only think of one place to look, and the evidence is beyond the scope in terms to our relative position within the order of infinity. Follow the thermals, as you approach a white hole, the temperature will drop and the pressure will increase, so be sure to take your antigravity field generator and a g

 

[jatslo]

Tigerbiten wrote: <font color="yellow">Relativity says you can travel at the speed of light. <br /><br />BUT it takes more energy than contained in the entire universe to get there.</font><br /><br />In terms of velocity -(v), it is a correct assertion that it takes infinite energy -(e) to reach the speed-of-light -(c). However, the problem that plagues this thread is this: What is -(c)? Some individuals are stating that -(c) travels at precisely 299,792,458 meters per second, and other individuals, myself included, are stating that what in fact is not in fact true, and it is because of this, that we argue.<br /><br />The fact of the matter is this: the fact that light travels at precisely 299,792,458 meters per second does not mean that we can definitively ascertain that -(c) requires infinite energy to reach it, because -(c) is the visible-speed-of-light. That is why I propose that we change -(c) to visible-speed-of-light, as in E = MC ². This would allow for a new formula to evolve from -(c), whereas, if there is definitive proof that there is in fact invisible sub-luminescence and sub-incandescence wavelengths that exceed -(c), we can easily assign the appropriate variables and plug them into our equations. I would imagine that these new variables would define infinity -(…) within our present models.<br /><br /><font color="yellow">This has been proven many times in particle accelerators.</font><br /><br />Sir – The above quote is a far-fetched assertion: When a particular mass-of-matter -(m) breaks down at a specific gravity -(g), it shows us that -(m) does not have the chemical bound that can withstand -(g), and it does not ascertain that it is impossible for -(m) to break the -(c) speed record. However, it most definitely is evidence.<br /><br />I am practicing my use of mathematical nomenclature when I write, so please correct me, if you can.

 

[jatslo]

grok said: <font color="yellow">Why is the speed of light important?<br /><br /></font> would like to think that the speed-of-light -(c) is important to our survival for quite a lot of reasons. The first obvious reason is energy -(e); if we can harness the power of sub-luminescence effects of velocity -(v), then we could hypothetically solve this planets energy issues within the confines of one football stadium, for example.<br /><br />grok, can you think of another reason why?<font color="yellow"><br /><br />If we could travel at 25% the speed of light, we could still go to some pretty neat places. Granted, it might take awhile, but the end result would be nifty.</font><br /><br />Where should we go grok, in terms of space-time?<br />

 

[jatslo]

vidar said: <font color="yellow">It is mathematically impossible for a spaceship to travel at the speed of light (c), states the relative theory. It also states that it is not mathematically impossible to travel half or twice the speed of light.<br /><br /></font>ir - I think, this is a probable assertion that you are making; however, I can draw multitudes of assertions that contradict your conclusion. Therefore, I would like to ask you to provide evidence that substantiates your opinion. Do you have the time?<font color="yellow"> <br /><br />The belief in that barrier stands mainly because it does not have to be scientific proven. It stands basically because it has not been disapproved; because we have not yet managed to travel at the speed c .<br /><br /></font>or starters, you were obviously in a rush when you wrote this, because it sounds kind of loopy, so please consider rephrasing it. Visible-speed-of-light -(c) is a barrier period; that is a fact. In terms of "Barrier"; barrier is a boundary or limit that separates or holds apart movable masses of matter or non-masses of energy before and after the start of a race ( dictionary ). I guess the argument involves "impenetrate" versus "penetrate", but the barrier is fact nevertheless.<font color="yellow"> <br /><br />It is a mental barrier for science.<br /><br /></font>ir, that is a far-fetched fallacy. This is not a mental barrier at all, the speed-of-light -(c) is a fact; the argument is whether or not the -(c) barrier is penetrable or impenetrable, and whether or not all masses of matter -(m) are subject this law or some masses of matter -(m) are subject to this law.<font color="yellow"><br /><br />Ideas of superluminal space travel are down prioritised, due to that.<br /><br /></font> prioritised" is in fact spelled "prioritized" and "superluminal" is not a word. Can you think of

 

[siarad]

Isn't relativity based on several Differential equations.<br />There could indeed be imaginary something, I mean mathematically as in i or j for electronics types. <br />Further this takes no account of chaos which until it happens is unknown.<br />Go to a car breakers yard & see how long the crane jibs are, not for long reach but short reach.<br />The chaotic action wasn't found until disastrous damage was done by short jibs.<br />To the best of our current knowledge C can't be attained but that's all it is our <i><b>best</b></i> not <i><b>absolutely</b></i> a law.<br />Education is a fine thing, which I lack but it also narrows the mind as seems to be with those <i>vehemently</i> saying it's a law.

 

[jatslo]

There is no such thing as chaos; everything, and I do mean everything, has an agenda. Scientists utilize the term chaos to describe something that is not understood. Like philosophically is to state chaos for something scientifically not understood, and in math they just slap a big old infinity symbol like -(…) then go home and kick the dog, because they cannot solve it.