Faster Than Light Travel

[luvhumility]

No, Google-junkie.

I suspect his/her understanding of what he/she posted is on par with my understanding of ancient greek nose hair. The vast majority of the post earlier (with the math and such) was lifted whole from another site (she posted the link, but did not make this clear). Only the first two and last paragraphs are his/hers.

The posting of equations for weight underline this viewpoint, as the dependent nature of weight is specifically why it's a bad choice for these types of equations, something that should have been taught in high-school level physics. It's only used int he paper he/she linked because they are specifically discussing a weight on a spring.

Not to mention that the paper she linked to has about as much to do with FTL travel as I have to do with running the U.N. What luvhumility is doing here is throwing up a lot of scientific-sounding things he/she doesn't understand in a desperate attempt to give his/her speculations a semblence of support. Much as one might claim their psychic powers are "like, quantum, man".

yes, I am a google junkie, and a science junkie...so? I still want to learn... sorry I am not trying to say what I have copied is novel. But then is anything we learn and expound on completely novel? I think the associations we make are important.
I never claimed to be a math or science guru... the conjecture and explanations of others perceptions seem to help me understand better. Isin't that what life is about? building on our forefathers and others knowledge and understang of the universe around us?

 

[Hellbound]

yes, I am a google junkie, and a science junkie...so? I still want to learn... sorry I am not trying to say what I have copied is novel. But then is anything we learn and expound on completely novel? I think the associations we make are important.
I never claimed to be a math or science guru... the conjecture and explanations of others perceptions seem to help me understand better. Isin't that what life is about? building on our forefathers and others knowledge and understang of the universe around us?

Learning is great, but it takes time.

What you're doing here is trying to swim the English Channel before you learn to float.

From your questions you don't understand enough of the basics, and the posting of papers you google from the internet that you obviously do not understand does not add to the discussion. It simply introduces more confusion and adds irrelevencies.

Redshift is a fairly basic phenomena in physics, again it's a high-school level concept. Not saying you should withdraw from the discussion, far from it, but you're attempting to participate far above your level of understanding, which is not doing anyone any favors, yourself included.

Plus, it makes it look as if you're trying to impress by using scientific jargon and equations, when you're applying them incorrectly in irrelevent situations.

 

[ponderingturtle]

Could one say mass "attracts" light? in some sort of way?...If bending is consider attraction then the masses "strong" force (the maxwell number) is certainly a force to affect light. (at a distance) BUt exactly how I guess is my question?

No light travels in a straight line, mass curves space causeing the line to appear to curve.

I get lost here because the inverse proportion squre e.g. magnetic flux density is inversely proportional to the square of the distance) rule (that applies to magnetic fields) seems to break down here... I do not know why...? maybe I digress again?>?

lh

brb need to cook breakfast!!!

Magnetic stuff I thought fell off faster because it was a diapole atraction and not a monopole atraction. One reason gravity waves have been hard to measure is that they are quadrapole moments and so fall off even faster.

 

[ponderingturtle]

maybe small parts of the mass (e.g. electrons that have little or no mass) at the outer radius of the mass object "slingshot" the light as it approaches and slow it as it leaves the center of the solar vector of the mass???

lh

Electrons mass in at 511keV/c^2.

What you are writeing makes no sense, you are talking about suns and electons and atoms in the same sentance.

 

[Hellbound]

ponderingturtle:

Gravity waves are also much weaker to begin with, as gravity is the weakest of the four fundamental forces. Of course, it can build up more, but...

Anyway, you're correct about quadrapole, it's tied into Einstein's reformulation of gravity.

ETA: And agreed on your next post...which is my point (if I am a bit rude and abrasive).

luvhumility, you don't know wenough to even ask the right questions, yet you're already trying to put things together that are at a much higher level than your understanding. You need to learn the basics before you go digging into relativity theory and other complex areas. You can't build a house without a foundation.

 

[DeviousB]

Well for one thing I already pointed out how the speed of light can be concidered to be the speed at which everything travels through space time. This is because if you factor an objects speed through time into its speed through space you will always get c.

I would guess you are referring to Minkowski Space.

 

[ponderingturtle]

So we come full circle to the Harvard clock tower experement and Gravitational red shift. Does the blue shift balance this out through conservation of energy concept?

http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/relativ/gratim.html>

Gravitational Red Shift

According to the principle of equivalence from general relativity, any frequency shift which can be shown to arise from acceleration of a radiating source could also be produced by the appropriate gravitational field. Thus the expected shift in radiation frequency in a gravitational field can be related to the relativistic doppler shift experienced from an accelerating light source.

I get a little lost here: PonderingTurtle can you expound for me?

lh

No the whole point of this is that it is a frequency shift not dependant on reletive velocities of the observers. That is why it is gravitational redshift.

If you are serious about this take some classes, or get some good books on the subject. Admittedly the books might make more sense, as it takes several years in college to get to the courses that deal with these things.

 

[luvhumility]

No, Google-junkie.

I suspect his/her understanding of what he/she posted is on par with my understanding of ancient greek nose hair. (personal attack)! The vast majority of the post earlier (with the math and such) was lifted whole from another site (she posted the link, but did not make this clear). (TRUE)!! Only the first two and last paragraphs are his/hers.

true! sry i missed the ref but anyone who knows math knows these are older physics formulas (I qualified this I think)!

The posting of equations for weight underline this viewpoint, as the dependent nature of weight is specifically why it's a bad choice for these types of equations, something that should have been taught in high-school level physics. It's only used int he paper he/she linked because they are specifically discussing a weight on a spring.

why are variables "bad" and constants "not bad"? is it because lazy people like constants?

lh

Not to mention that the paper she linked to has about as much to do with FTL travel as I have to do with running the U.N. What luvhumility is doing here is throwing up a lot of scientific-sounding things he/she doesn't understand (wrong)!!! in a desperate attempt to give his/her speculations a semblence of support. (I dont want support, just new ideas and concepts to be born COLLECTIVELY) Much as one might claim their psychic powers are "like, quantum, man". <

<I do not understand this statement...

WTF over!

wrong! Everything is related to everything else in the universe! Just because you or "We" do not understand the relation does not mean it does not exist! physics 101 again!

lh

 

[ponderingturtle]

I would guess you are referring to Minkowski Space.

Sort of, you do not need to go that far with the full details and such of (-ct,X,Y,Z) as a coordinate system and that, but you do need the factor of c in there.

What you do is concider deltaT'/deltaT as the speed through time, and add it as a vector to the deltaX/deltaT(for convience sake it is moving only in the X dirrection, or rather we are defining the X dirrection as the dirrection of motion), and you find that c=squareroot((cdeltaT'/deltaT)^2+(deltaX/deltaT)^2).

It is related to minkowski space in concept, but you don't really need to go that indepth to get to this result. And adding in things like the proper time and other invarient quantities will not help

 

[Crazycowbob]

I'm surpised Alcubierre hasn't come up here yet...

A theoretical (though as far as modern science can determine, unrealizable) method to move from one location to another at a speed appearantly faster than light is to, instead of trying to give an object imaginary mass, place it in a bubble of negative energy. A search on Alcubierre will give you the calculations (my calculus isn't that good just yet!) but in essence he describes creating a "wave" in space that the object in question could ride, without experiencing time dialation, increase in mass, or any other ill effects of relativistic speeds.


Another thing that just kind of popped into my head while reading this discussion, and how technically a mass could go faster than light if it was created already moving faster than the c barrier. Pure speculation on my part here, but such an object would be unlikely to interact with <c objects wouldn't it? But still maintain some form of mass/gravity? If that's true, doesn't it sound a whoooole lot like dark matter, which was recently proven to exist?

 

[ponderingturtle]

why are variables "bad" and constants "not bad"? is it because lazy people like constants?

Because you are putting variables that depend on other variables in the same equation. You are hiding a whole equation in the W factor, and it is one that depends on the differentials listed. So when you see Wdx^2/d^2t, and W is likely to be X dependant, this is very very wrong with how you present an equation.

Also the quote linked weight to innertia, and they are not related at all. Weight is the normal force you feel that prevents gravity from accelerating you, and innertia is dirrectly related to mass. They have different units and are not all that closely related.

Also weight can change by say getting in an elevator and such

 

[luvhumility]

Ok, I will just mostly read and try understanding more before I post or ask questions.

lh

 

[ponderingturtle]

I'm surpised Alcubierre hasn't come up here yet...

A theoretical (though as far as modern science can determine, unrealizable) method to move from one location to another at a speed appearantly faster than light is to, instead of trying to give an object imaginary mass, place it in a bubble of negative energy. A search on Alcubierre will give you the calculations (my calculus isn't that good just yet!) but in essence he describes creating a "wave" in space that the object in question could ride, without experiencing time dialation, increase in mass, or any other ill effects of relativistic speeds.

And as I have said which of these two concepts does this remove from physics,

1. That there is no perfered reference frame
2. That effects can not preceede causes

It is not the speed that is the only problem with FTL travel, but how the events are seperated.

 

[Crazycowbob]

"And as I have said which of these two concepts does this remove from physics,

1. That there is no perfered reference frame
2. That effects can not preceede causes

It is not the speed that is the only problem with FTL travel, but how the events are seperated."
​

As there is no time dialation, it does not remove either from physics

 

[ponderingturtle]

"And as I have said which of these two concepts does this remove from physics,

1. That there is no perfered reference frame
2. That effects can not preceede causes

It is not the speed that is the only problem with FTL travel, but how the events are seperated."
​

As there is no time dialation, it does not remove either from physics

How do you get around relativity of simultaneity?

This does not stem from time dilation of the FTL object, as has been stated in this thread repeatedly, any object that travels faster than light in some reference frame, there are other reference frames where it arives at the same time it left, and reference frames where it arives before it left.

That has nothing to do with the way time is experianced on the FTL object, it has to do with how different reference frames see two events.

 

[Crazycowbob]

How do you get around relativity of simultaneity?

This does not stem from time dilation of the FTL object, as has been stated in this thread repeatedly, any object that travels faster than light in some reference frame, there are other reference frames where it arives at the same time it left, and reference frames where it arives before it left.

That has nothing to do with the way time is experianced on the FTL object, it has to do with how different reference frames see two events.

In theory, the space in the "bubble" is in the same reference as that as an observer outside of it. An observer on earth would observe the ship to leave at time x, and return at expected time y, calculated for whatever velocity the ship was traveling.

 

[luvhumility]

Because you are putting variables that depend on other variables in the same equation. You are hiding a whole equation in the W factor, and it is one that depends on the differentials listed. So when you see Wdx^2/d^2t, and W is likely to be X dependant, this is very very wrong with how you present an equation.

Also the quote linked weight to innertia, and they are not related at all. Weight is the normal force you feel that prevents gravity from accelerating you, and innertia is dirrectly related to mass. They have different units and are not all that closely related.

I think we will soon find our previous assumptions in this area to be incorrect...they are far more closely related than we may know. We just do not see it yet. If we did see it we could overcome gravity! the weak and strong forces are far more closely related than we know! IMHO!

lh

Also weight can change by say getting in an elevator and such

PT,


yes, I agree with the last statement... I thought I qualified that weights can be different due to G force's (acceleration rate and density) acting on a Mass (yes I know its (mass) is supposed to be a constant). But I think I am trying to reveal a new concept. I need to understand the math better. Or Rewrite it... some of the old math eq's have some problems in relation. I just know it!

so I gusee I want to undersand: this...http://scienceworld.wolfram.com/physics/ProperTime.html

how does mass, inertia, acceleration from centroid of gravity affect these clock equations? how is the Harvard clock experment fully explained at the micro and macro levels? again please correct my errors here!
do I need a new thread?

tnx,

lh

 

[luvhumility]

so who thinks they can give me a detailed reason why this happens to us when exposed to blue light? and why is "green light" (from reflections of white light off of floura/trees plants etc..) good for us? I think some clues to the answers in the FTL conjecture are here, we need to dig and find them!!

these patterns and associations seem to intrigue me~!

lh

 

[luvhumility]

In theory, the space in the "bubble" is in the same reference as that as an observer outside of it. An observer on earth would observe the ship to leave at time x, and return at expected time y, calculated for whatever velocity the ship was traveling.

I like CC's and PT's conjecture here... maybe we are on to somthing? maybe not? I am not sure I know enough to comment... I will continue reading and trying to understand these concepts better.

lh

 

[luvhumility]

Learning is great, but it takes time.

What you're doing here is trying to swim the English Channel before you learn to float.

From your questions you don't understand enough of the basics, and the posting of papers you google from the internet that you obviously do not understand does not add to the discussion. It simply introduces more confusion and adds irrelevencies.

Redshift is a fairly basic phenomena in physics, again it's a high-school level concept. Not saying you should withdraw from the discussion, far from it, but you're attempting to participate far above your level of understanding, which is not doing anyone any favors, yourself included.

Plus, it makes it look as if you're trying to impress by using scientific jargon and equations, when you're applying them incorrectly in irrelevent situations.

Huntsman,

Ok...I stand corrected. I will just sit back and read...

lh