Faster Than Light Travel

.13. said:
Doesn't that 1g feel the same to you no matter what your speed is?
Click to expand...

You are looking at things wrong. If a thing is moving then it is going to feel things differently than you measure, just like you can accelerate at 1 g forever and never get to the speed of light. And you never view youself as moving.

As for how a reletivistic object is effected strickly by a gravity feild I am not as sure, I only really know SR and not GR. So the change in momentum that the 1g represents is not as much of a change in velocity at different speeds.
 
Huntsman said:
luv:

You aren't "beaten" for novel ideas.

You're "beaten" for presenting useless speculation as if it were some gem of wisdom.

You're "beaten" for pretending to understand physics (and denigrating those who do) while making elementary mistakes like not understanding what redshift is or mislabelling the weak nuclear force as gravity.

You're "beaten" because at this point, you've shown yourself to be a liar and have little to no intellectual honesty. You're throwing up "ideas" because you want them to be true, and then insult those of us here who have some knowledge, who have put time and effort into learning and understanding these topics, when we tell you that your "ideas" run directly contrary to experiment.

what experements?

no need to answer I'm outa here.

You're "beaten" because you're a poser, and so far have shown not only a decided refusal to learn, but also a dedication to spread your ignorance to others.
Click to expand...


ok.

I will find another blog.

lh
 
:eye-poppi

I've been trying to figure out how luvhumility has tied Czeisler's work into a discussion of FTL travel.

As far as I can make out, the fact that various photoreceptors in our eyes are sensitive to particular wavelengths of light is supposedly somehow indicative of some deep fundamental truth our our interaction with relativistic space.

Given that we evolved eyes fairly late on (life began 4 BYA, the proto-eye evolved about 600 MYA), what particular advantage is having a 'relativisitic sense' supposed to give us?

Anybody??
 
drkitten said:
Alternatively, you could stay and learn. There are some genuine physics experts on this forum, and it's much cheaper than tuition at MIT.
Click to expand...

thanks Doc!

I might stay, not sure? I know there is intel people here and i respect that greatly (thats why I am here). maybe I will just read for a while more (and limit my interjection). I know I have communication / perception difficulities at times. I also need to reimerse myself in my EIT (engineer in training) book for a while. I suppose need to become more math savy. I think?

lh
 
DeviousB said:
:eye-poppi

I've been trying to figure out how luvhumility has tied Czeisler's work into a discussion of FTL travel.

As far as I can make out, the fact that various photoreceptors in our eyes are sensitive to particular wavelengths of light is supposedly somehow indicative of some deep fundamental truth our our interaction with relativistic space.

Given that we evolved eyes fairly late on (life began 4 BYA, the proto-eye evolved about 600 MYA), what particular advantage is having a 'relativisitic sense' supposed to give us?

Anybody??
Click to expand...

Db,

I have some of the same questions myself.
I was particularly interested in the blind man with blue eyes in the study. The study "implied" he had another "sence" some of us either do not have or have not yet developed. It somehow helped him keep his bodies sleep cycles in proper rythm, while many other blind people have trouble in this area. I guess we are not sure why? I like your "relatavistic sence" question. It invokes other ideas - thoughts. I hope others can expound. maybe the blue eyes being a "recessive" trait give him a unique perception capability even though he is blind?

lh
 
ponderingturtle said:
You are looking at things wrong. If a thing is moving then it is going to feel things differently than you measure, just like you can accelerate at 1 g forever and never get to the speed of light. And you never view youself as moving.

As for how a reletivistic object is effected strickly by a gravity feild I am not as sure, I only really know SR and not GR. So the change in momentum that the 1g represents is not as much of a change in velocity at different speeds.
Click to expand...

I think you and .13. have a little bit of a disconnect going there. What I think .13. is trying to say is correct, that any given acceleration will feel the same no matter what speed you are traveling. If you are accelerating at 1g, it's going to feel like 1g, no matter if you are accelerating from 3kph or from 300,000kph. What you're thinking of is how big of a relative change there is to the velocity, which yes, as the speed gets higher, the acceleration will gradually become less significant, but it would still feel the same regardless.
 
DeviousB said:
:eye-poppi

I've been trying to figure out how luvhumility has tied Czeisler's work into a discussion of FTL travel.

As far as I can make out, the fact that various photoreceptors in our eyes are sensitive to particular wavelengths of light is supposedly somehow indicative of some deep fundamental truth our our interaction with relativistic space.

Given that we evolved eyes fairly late on (life began 4 BYA, the proto-eye evolved about 600 MYA), what particular advantage is having a 'relativisitic sense' supposed to give us?

Anybody??
Click to expand...

DeviousB said:
As far as I can make out, the fact that various photoreceptors in our eyes are sensitive to particular wavelengths of light is supposedly somehow indicative of some deep fundamental truth our our interaction with relativistic space.
Click to expand...

Db,

all

I want to thank all the great thinkers here for challenging/beating on my sometimes seemingly mindlessly outpourings of ideas. these corrections when I am in error in speech or communication are appreciated. :) (as I need sharpening)! my wild imagination of models and associations, though, will continue. It is the way I am.

I've been re-reading GR and reviewing some wikipedia/other links and the associated math theory and GR + mass + conceptual relations.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass_in_special_relativity#The_relativistic_energy-momentum_equation

etc.

I think what I may have been trying to communicate/conjecture/Guess about concerning the Harvard Blue light study as related to the FTL travel phenom possibility is similar to the perfect "Line of Sight" or "least hop" concept in radio wave propagation. The balance between what I will call "perfect mass avoidance" exact escape vector calculation(s) and Mass to energy conversion probabilities (Thus, this is why I brought up the blue light vs. Green light study). The higher freq having more probability of reaching further distances and possibly the blind man's receptors. (higher freq = shorter wavelength and more energy/greater survivability).

This wikipedia link conjectures about trapped light adding/having mass in a mirrored container.
http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/SR/light_mass.html

As we all may know: brewster's law/angle: May come into play here.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brewster's_angle

For the exacting angle of light thru or around ?? a mass to be able to have the maximum transferrance of energy and/or polarization of optimal transferrance these optimal transferrance angles must be sustained.

In correlation, there is a MUF (max useable freq) in RF (radio frequencies) (somewhat lower than light freq) for this angle based on the properties of the media (ether) light is passing through and its closest mass object(S). (this higher frequency that statistically more often avoids mass objects may enter the blind mans blue eyes) even though he can not see "visible" spectra?

In FTL travel, if it were to occur, the theory would need to find the exact angle of incidence or trajectory to be calculated so the mass object could accelerate into that exact angle/vector to avoid all significant other mass objects, then while also using them to accellerate further by nearing and missing them.? it might be possible. (the probability and trajectory calculations would be very, very.. extensive) of course!


I think that was the meaning of my original correlation of that Harvard article to FTL travel.

lh
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom