Faster Than Light Travel

Crazycowbob said:
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.
Click to expand...

It doesn't work that way though. The distance time and arival and departure are different for different reference frames. You are still getting something that to some observers arrive before it leaves. All the SciFi technobabble does nothing to remove this problem.
 
luvhumility said:
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
Click to expand...

I don't think that anyone is claiming that, the point it that the equation is simply set up wrong. You do not put an X dependant variable and hide it in a weight equation.

Sure the strong and weak forces are related the weak and electromagnetic forces have already been unified, but the unification energies must be very high as we have not observed any unification effects other than electro weak.

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!
Click to expand...
The point is that the equations and the rest that you copied from that site are simply wrong. It looks like something writen by a crank. There is lots of that on the internet, hell I can show you a guy how in convinced that kinetic energy is mv and not 1/2mv^2. There are lots of cranks on the internet.

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
Click to expand...

Ok the clock experiment was a GR concept and the different clocks and proper time are more of a SR concept. Special relativity generaly ignores how time slows down do to gravity, this is generaly acceptable as the effects are pretty minor, and you can generaly construct your thought experiment to remove it.
 
luvhumility said:
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
Click to expand...

You are sounding exactly like a health woo talking about quantum health and the like.
 
ponderingturtle said:
It doesn't work that way though. The distance time and arival and departure are different for different reference frames. You are still getting something that to some observers arrive before it leaves. All the SciFi technobabble does nothing to remove this problem.
Click to expand...

The paradox you are refering to is only relevent with objects traveling relativistic speeds though. In that situation, yes, as the object exceeds the speed of light, time is distorted depending on the observer, and gives rise to the possibility of something arriving before it left.

However, in the Alcubierre model, neither the ship, nor the earthbound observer move. It is a pocket of spacetime around the ship that moves, with space being expanded behind it, and compressed in front. As you well know, normally, if you were traveling faster than light, and a photon were emitted from your start point after you, it would eventually catch up to you. However, traveling per the Alcubierre theory, that photon would not catch up to you, as you'd be expanding space in front of it faster than it can travel. If you could see outside of the bubble, everything would look normal, not compressed, and you would appear to be traveling FTL. The speculation is that there would be none of the effects you would expect from relativistic speeds, and therefore, it would appear as though the ship was simply traveling faster than light (if it were observable that is), no time dialation, no possibility of time travel (which is necessary for the causal paradox).

Of course without a working model, there's really no way to be sure.
 
Crazycowbob said:
The paradox you are refering to is only relevent with objects traveling relativistic speeds though. In that situation, yes, as the object exceeds the speed of light, time is distorted depending on the observer, and gives rise to the possibility of something arriving before it left.
Click to expand...

So what? The point is that you need to either have a preferential reference frame, or you can go back in time.
However, in the Alcubierre model, neither the ship, nor the earthbound observer move. It is a pocket of spacetime around the ship that moves, with space being expanded behind it, and compressed in front. As you well know, normally, if you were traveling faster than light, and a photon were emitted from your start point after you, it would eventually catch up to you. However, traveling per the Alcubierre theory, that photon would not catch up to you, as you'd be expanding space in front of it faster than it can travel. If you could see outside of the bubble, everything would look normal, not compressed, and you would appear to be traveling FTL. The speculation is that there would be none of the effects you would expect from relativistic speeds, and therefore, it would appear as though the ship was simply traveling faster than light (if it were observable that is), no time dialation, no possibility of time travel (which is necessary for the causal paradox).

Of course without a working model, there's really no way to be sure.
Click to expand...

It doesn't matter who moves, it matters is that you have an arival and a departure that have a time like seperation and so there are observers who can view the events in what ever order they want.
 
Crazycowbob said:
The paradox you are refering to is only relevent with objects traveling relativistic speeds though. In that situation, yes, as the object exceeds the speed of light, time is distorted depending on the observer, and gives rise to the possibility of something arriving before it left.

However, in the Alcubierre model, neither the ship, nor the earthbound observer move. It is a pocket of spacetime around the ship that moves, with space being expanded behind it, and compressed in front.
Click to expand...

You are wrong, as already pointed out. Forget what's happening on the journey: if the departure event and the arrival event have space-like separation (which is what you're talking about), then which one comes first is only a matter of what reference frame the observer is in, which means travel backwards in time is possible. So unless there is a prefered reference frame, this process MUST allow causality violations. The mechanism of the journey is irrelevant for this, the only relevant aspect is the space-like separation of the departure and arrival events.

And if the departure and arrival events aren't space-like separated, then they're time-like separated, and you can do the journey with conventional sub-luminal travel.
 
ponderingturtle said:
You are sounding exactly like a health woo talking about quantum health and the like.
Click to expand...

well, then refute the Harvard study's data. They did the testing/study that came to that conclusion. PT I think you need to google more before you attack my questions.... I asked a question based on a study's results.

what gives??? (not your mind)!

lh
 
ponderingturtle said:
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.
Click to expand...

yes virginia sun's do have electrons and matter, and yes they all do interact!!

Thank goodness your not working on the GUT!

lh
 
luvhumility said:
yes virginia sun's do have electrons and matter, and yes they all do interact!!

Thank goodness your not working on the GUT!

lh
Click to expand...

Wow, and here I thought that individual electrons never mattered on solar scales, but your briliant insight has changed my understanding. It all makes sense now, you have utterly no idea what you are talking about in any regard here.

The point is that the statement makes no sense, it is not a coherent idea in any expression.
 
luvhumility said:
well, then refute the Harvard study's data. They did the testing/study that came to that conclusion. PT I think you need to google more before you attack my questions.... I asked a question based on a study's results.

what gives??? (not your mind)!

lh
Click to expand...

Fine what study, who was involved and was it in their feild of expertiese. On the whole it seems like you should just watch What the F@%( Do We Know?, and stop trying to play around in real science.
 
luvhumility said:
well, then refute the Harvard study's data. They did the testing/study that came to that conclusion. PT I think you need to google more before you attack my questions.... I asked a question based on a study's results.

what gives??? (not your mind)!

lh
Click to expand...

I suspect there is no need to refute the Harvard study's data.

I suspect you are misrepresenting the Harvard study's data, simply because you have a less-than-zero understanding level of physics (in other words, not only do you not understand, you believe you understand but are wrong).

IN other words, I now revise my earlier opinion of you as an interested, although naive and ignorant, person...and into a willfully ignorant (i.e.-stupid) person with a vastly over-infalted sense of your own understanding.

I'm still waiting for any of your posts to contain a sensical statement. So far, none have.
 
luvhumility said:
yes virginia sun's do have electrons and matter, and yes they all do interact!!

Thank goodness your not working on the GUT!

lh
Click to expand...

Interesting.

Do you know what a GUT is? Are you familiar with what it really means?

I'd like to see your answer. The question "What is a GUT?" can be answered in 8 words, 11 if you want a complete sentence, and 13 if you avoid acronyms.

From your comment above, I can confidently deduce the answer is "no".
 
.13. said:
Doesn't 9.8 m/s^2 feel and measure the same in all reference frames?
Click to expand...

Not to sure about that, my point is that it is very minor as it is so small an effect relative to the total.

As for how an acceleration of one object is viewed by other reference frames, not sure. With relativistic length contractions, time dilations and velocity addition, I really don't know.

Actualy I am sure it does not, you can accelerate at 1 g for ever, and no one will ever see you reach the speed of light, so it can not work that way. with F being dp/dt it is reletivistic momentum that is the key here.
 
Huntsman said:
I suspect there is no need to refute the Harvard study's data.

I suspect you are misrepresenting the Harvard study's data, simply because you have a less-than-zero understanding level of physics (in other words, not only do you not understand, you believe you understand but are wrong).

>>>About what?, this is a personal attack, and I CERTAINLY have more understanding than you about some subjects of science. I assure you of that!

>>about what<<?? again tell me what I do not understand... and what you are sure you do understand!!! I would like to see this white paper!!

also, being "wrong" implies a moral connotation, I think you meant to say incorrect?

IN other words, I now revise my earlier opinion of you as an interested, although naive and ignorant, (yes we are all ignorant about some/many things) <<<person...and into a willfully ignorant (i.e.-stupid) person with a vastly over-infalted sense of your own understanding.?

stupid? hmmm, you seem to be angry at someone or somthing...you barely know me!

I'm still waiting for any of your posts to contain a sensical statement. So far, none have.
Click to expand...

I am probably thinking way above where you are at….that's all...

I've worked on plenty of science and physics in real life, worked with many a Phd, (chem, thermo, electrodynamicists, etc) and such... and made correlations where some thought none existed... I need not qualify myself.
my resume is extensive.

I was trying to get one and all to "think outside the box" But due to the level of personalization and attacking going on here (due to new ideas and thinking on my part) I suspect this may not happen.

Exchange of new Idea's and change of belief systems does not typically occur in this type environment. If one thinks he knows it all...because he /she read it in a science book> well then we must have it all figured out then... right? WE ALL KNOW SOO LITTLE! WE ARE ALL IGNORANT!
That I am willing to admit…are you?
there is still much to learn and attacking me because you do not know or understand me or my perceptions is not a very good start. Besides for all you know I have family memebers who teach at Harvard...? Or maybe I do too?

I will find the study article and put it in the next post…

I hope we all "cool off" a little.

lh
 
this is a good quote from the article> "If the man couldn't see, something else must be keeping his body clock running smoothly. "It was a 'eureka moment' for me," Czeisler remembers. "It changed my worldview of how light resets the human clock." http://www.hno.harvard.edu/gazette/2003/09.25/01-light.html

It is my intent to encourage new thinking in this area of what our perception of time is, how our bodies perceive it and the mechanisms that our bodies use to determine “time”.

That was my original intent. Does this blue light study spur any new thinking or Ideas in anyone?
 
I think again we should define "time" and how we percieve it before we go into frames of time and discussions of such...again I ask the group what IS time? How do we define time in our human perception?? Is it just a series of events? something more? The slower events compared to the faster events?

lh
 
luvhumility said:
I think again we should define "time" and how we percieve it before we go into frames of time and discussions of such...again I ask the group what IS time? How do we define time in our human perception?? Is it just a series of events? something more? The slower events compared to the faster events?

lh
Click to expand...

Time is what prevents everything from happening at once.

Time is just a way of seperating events, asking what time is, is kind of like asking what depth is.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom