The motivated Assupmtion

[MRC_Hans]

Bruno

I think we're dealing with whether or not you're willing to believe with what's being claimed on the site.

You can say that again. I for one am not willing to believe whats being claimed on the site you linked to. Why? Because it is full of pseudoscience and nonsense.

A few examples:

While you may challenge my claims lack evidence, you can not deny the plausibility of my arguments on the basis of the science that I use to describe ET

Translation: I have no evidence, but my fiction is logically built. -- Well, thats great. For fiction.

Forget everything you've ever heard about UFOs and ETs, the real truth is much more frightening.

Uhh, what real truth? He just admitted he had no evidence.

As you can see this vehicle is not from earth. Interestingly enough the vessel is not capable of interstellar or interplanetary flight. It is strictly used for terrestrial purposes, why it's called a Surveyor. It can reach speeds up to 7000 mph and accelerate at over 75 Gs within 10 seconds!

Caption below a number of evidently artifical pictures. The pictures show an oval object in a number of different settings. In some of the pictures, a rough estimate of the size of the object can be deduced, and it varies greatly. The vehicly is certainly not from Earth. In fact it is not at all.

Then comes a "technical explanation" on another page. It is almost completely balooney. Not even good fiction, because it postulates all sorts of funny things. Like that the "empty spaces" in nanostructures provide lift; even solid steel is mostly empty space, but the lift is not very apparent .

It also claims that by heating one end of the cigar (or saucer), air will be pushed away from it, creating propulsion. Rather strange that this simple system should have eluded the aerospace industry for over a century!

And it is said to be able to accelerate at 75G. I hope they bolted the instruments inside down really well!

Well, I stopped there. No, I don't want to believe what the site says. I see no reason to.

Hans

 

[RichardR]

A one or zero.

Bruno

OK, suppose I want to send a “one”. How do I do that?

 

[DrChinese]

The site does not correlate the two. How you managed to come to that conclusion is suspicious.

Bruno

Nothing suspicious here. The reference site puts forth the theory that ET has been to earth via pea-sized spacecraft containing advanced nano-technology. According to the theory posited, this was necessary because ET used Drake's equation to determine this was the only way to communicate with other civilizations.

Hey, I'm not the one making this up!

Anyway, I am certainly will to consider a theory which has been "thought up". I call such a theory an ad hoc theory because it was designed to fit the facts. Technically, there is nothing wrong with this.

However, this particular theory falls apart immediately. First and foremost, it has absolutely no utility. I.e. solves no known problems, generates no testable predictions, etc. Second, and typical of many ad hoc theories (but not all), it assumes facts which are contested. Specifically, I deny that there is any evidence that ET has been to earth.

So I don't think the purpose of this thread is to debate the actual validity of the referenced site's material. I think the question is: what is theory, and what is faith? Is there a difference?

I certainly agree that theory cannot be derived from logic, i.e. is not provable. It shares that with faith-based assumptions. But how are they different?

 

[FutileJester]

I think we're dealing with whether or not you're willing to believe with what's being claimed on the site.

Absolutely. Tell me why I should be willing to believe it? I can find literally thousands of sites which make completely different claims about the same subject matter. You obviously feel that this one site is correct, while all or most of those others are wrong. How is this determination made? Why do you choose this explanation over others?

 

[Martin]

And no relativity does not state that FTL realizes in backward time travel, that is your misunderstanding. Once more, time dilation is due to the increased distance between any two points due to "curved space" or motion. In FTL the distance between two points would only get larger than it already could be at the speed of light. So time just drops to zero, FTL doesn't make time go backward. It's simple trigonometry, I don’t see why so many people have such a hard time understanding time dilation!

I was wondering the same thing myself. From the principle of relativity and the postulate that the speed of light in vacuo is the same in all inertial frames of reference, one can derive the Lorentz transformations. From the Lorentz transformations follows the invariance of a quantity imaginatively named the invariant interval. From the invariance of this interval follows the relation between FTL and causality. This is simple stuff - I can take you through it step by step, if you like.

So, which do you have a problem with - the principle of relativity? Or the invariance of lightspeed in inertial frames?

 

[BillyJoe]

...I can find literally thousands of sites which make completely different claims about the same subject matter. You obviously feel that this one site is correct, while all or most of those others are wrong....Why do you choose this explanation over others?

Excellent question.

Forget discussing physics with Bruno, he obviously doesn't have a clue.
He just answers sensible questions about his nonsense with more nonsense.

So, Bruno, why is this one particular site correct and the thousands of other sites false?

 

[RichardR]

OK, suppose I want to send a “one”. How do I do that?

The answer to this question is clearly arriving at less than the speed of light.

 

[BrunosStar]

OK, suppose I want to send a “one”. How do I do that?

You perform a qubit operation on the particle at station A, which then would be reflected by entangled particle at station B. The two particles always measure as opposites. Remember that both particles are stored and when measured are not destroyed or lost.


Bruno

 

[RichardR]

You perform a qubit operation on the particle at station A, which then would be reflected by entangled particle at station B. The two particles always measure as opposites. Remember that both particles are stored and when measured are not destroyed or lost.

Yes, but how do you send a "one"?

To explain. I realize that whatever the measurement at station A, the measurement at station B will always be the opposite. Suppose I want to send a faster than light signal. I have a code agreed with the recipient. If I send a “one”, it means (for arguments sake), Attack – kill the death star (or something). If I want them to retreat I will send a “zero”.

I want them to attack. How do I send a “one”?

 

[BrunosStar]

Then comes a "technical explanation" on another page. It is almost completely balooney. Not even good fiction, because it postulates all sorts of funny things. Like that the "empty spaces" in nanostructures provide lift; even solid steel is mostly empty space, but the lift is not very apparent

What part of buoyancy don't you understand? The site specifically states that the carbon silicone composite material is formed into hollow spheres; the spheres are then used to form a sierpinski gasket. This construction makes for a very efficient use of mass, dropping the density of matter used by 90%. Do you get it now?

It also claims that by heating one end of the cigar (or saucer), air will be pushed away from it, creating propulsion. Rather strange that this simple system should have eluded the aerospace industry for over a century!

Did you understand anything about the energy source and why our designs of any type of low speed jet engine requires a turbo fan? Most of the thrust of a jet engine comes from the fan. The power plant of the saucer is explained on the site, it's basically electrical. We could only derive the energy needed chemically from an explosive reaction, which then turns the turbine that rotates a fan. The fan is also used to supply the chemical reaction with oxygen, without the fan sucking air the chemical reaction would suffocate, why ram jets don't work at low speeds.If you can produce a power source that can move air, whether it is fan or a heat source it will propel it. In the case of the saucer the heated source is accelerating air off the edge of its surface, where the oval shape acts as an inverted nozzle. NASA is planning on using inverted nozzle technology, but the energy source, sadly, will still be a chemical explosion.


Bruno

 

[BrunosStar]

Yes, but how do you send a "one"?

Wow...where have you been, do you understand how a binary computer works? You can simply set up a code that depicts one spin state as 1 and another as 0.


Bruno

 

[BrunosStar]

So, which do you have a problem with - the principle of relativity? Or the invariance of lightspeed in inertial frames?

Please go through your explanation, so I see where you're thinking is wrong. There's no backward time travel, period, even with FTL.


Bruno

 

[RichardR]

Wow...where have you been, do you understand how a binary computer works? You can simply set up a code that depicts one spin state as 1 and another as 0.

I’ll try and make the question easier for you to understand, then.

I decide I want to send a “one”. However, the spin state of the electron at station A is unknown until it is measured. I measure it, and it can be either up or down – I don’t know which until I have measured it, but as soon as I do, the electron at station B will show spin in the opposite direction.

How do I send a “one”?

 

[BrunosStar]

How do I send a “one”?

Do you understand anything about quantum computing? If you did you'd know that you can work the probabilites of quantum states to get whatever state you need.


Bruno

 

[RichardR]

Do you understand anything about quantum computing? If you did you'd know that you can work the probabilites of quantum states to get whatever state you need.

Are you saying that you can determine the spin of the electron before you measure it?

To be clear – I measure the spin of the electron. It has a 50% probability of being up spin, a 50% probability of being down spin. But I don’t know which, until I measure it. So are you saying that you can know whether it is an up or a down before you measure it?

How is this possible if the electron is in a supposition of states before it is measured?

And how would you do this?

 

[BrunosStar]

Are you saying that you can determine the spin of the electron before you measure it?

To be clear – I measure the spin of the electron. It has a 50% probability of being up spin, a 50% probability of being down spin. But I don’t know which, until I measure it. So are you saying that you can know whether it is an up or a down before you measure it?

How is this possible if the electron is in a supposition of states before it is measured?

And how would you do this?

Almost, it's more like knowing what an outcome will be when you've set up a scenario that will have interactions with other particles. You see you can polarize spin states and therefore produce a yield of particles with up spin or down spin. These particles or particle can then be combined with our entangled particle that can force an outcome of spin up or down, depending on how we prepared the environment. Below is a link that explains quantum dots and quantum computing in more detail.


http://www.unibas.ch/diss/2001/DabsB_5668.pdf

Bruno

 

[BrunosStar]

Are you saying that you can determine the spin of the electron before you measure it?

To be clear – I measure the spin of the electron. It has a 50% probability of being up spin, a 50% probability of being down spin. But I don’t know which, until I measure it. So are you saying that you can know whether it is an up or a down before you measure it?

How is this possible if the electron is in a supposition of states before it is measured?

And how would you do this?

Almost, it's more like knowing what an outcome will be when you've set up a scenario that will have interactions with other particles. You see you can polarize spin states and therefore produce a yield of particles with up spin or down spin. These particles or particle can then be combined with our entangled particle that can force an outcome of spin up or down, depending on how we prepared the environment. Below is a link that explains quantum dots and quantum computing in more detail.


http://www.unibas.ch/diss/2001/DabsB_5668.pdf

Bruno

 

[BrunosStar]

Are you saying that you can determine the spin of the electron before you measure it?

To be clear – I measure the spin of the electron. It has a 50% probability of being up spin, a 50% probability of being down spin. But I don’t know which, until I measure it. So are you saying that you can know whether it is an up or a down before you measure it?

How is this possible if the electron is in a supposition of states before it is measured?

And how would you do this?

Almost, it's more like knowing what an outcome will be when you've set up a scenario that will have interactions with other particles. You see you can polarize spin states and therefore produce a yield of particles with up spin or down spin. These particles or particle can then be combined with our entangled particle that can force an outcome of spin up or down, depending on how we prepared the environment. Below is a link that explains quantum dots and quantum computing in more detail.


http://www.unibas.ch/diss/2001/DabsB_5668.pdf

Bruno

 

[Martin]

Please go through your explanation, so I see where you're thinking is wrong. There's no backward time travel, period, even with FTL

Postulate 1 - the speed of light in vacuo takes the same value in all inertial reference frames

Postulate 2 - All inertial frames are totally equivalent for the performance of all physical experiments

We shall work in units where c = 1

Consider two frames of reference, A and B. In A, time is labelled by t and position in space by x, y and z. In B, the labels are t', x', y' and z'. Let B travel with constant velocity v with respect to A in the positive x-direction. Let the origins and axes of A and B coincide at a time taken to be t = t' = 0. Then y = y' and z = z' for all t, t'.

Now, the x-coordinate of the origin of B is given by

x = vt

By postulate 2 (think about it)

t = gt'

for some constant g.

Then, on the path of the origin of B, we have

t + x = g(1 + v)(t' + x')        (1)
t - x = g(1 - v)(t' - x')        (2)

So far, these relations hold only for the case x = vt. Clearly they hold for any point where this is true, regardless of the values of y or z.

Now, suppose we ride along with the origin of B, currently at location x = X and time t = T = vX. We want to signal an observer sitting at a location x = X', where X' > X. And we want that signal to arrive at a particular time t = T' where T' > T. Recalling that c = 1, we see that this is possible iff

(X' - X) = (T' - T) = (T' - vX)

Given values for X' and T' this has a unique solution for X (and therefore T = vX). Thus for an arbitrary point X', T' there is precisely one point on the path of B's origin from which we may send our signal. Along the path of this signal, we know that

dx/dt = 1

which implies

dx = dt

Thus at any arbitrary point in space and at any arbitrary time equation (1) holds. Repeating the above analysis for an arbitrary point X' < X, arbitrary time T' > T, shows that (2) holds for any point in space and time.

The roles of the two frames may be reversed by substituting t' <-> t, x' <-> x and v -> -v. (1) then becomes

t' + x' = g(1 - v)(t + x)

which again holds at any point in space and time. Substituting this back into (1) yields g = (1 - v^2)^(-1/2)
Adding and subtracting (1) and (2) gives (in differential form)

dt = g(dt' + vdx')
dx = g(vdt' + dx')
dy = dy'
dz = dz'


These are the Lorentz transformations - the basis of special relativity. They can be inverted to give

dt' = g(dt - vdx)
dx' = g(-vdt + dx)
dy' = dy
dz' = dz

Now, let us define a quantity as measured in one inertial reference frame by

ds^2 = dt^2 - dx^2 - dy^2 - dz^2

and apply the Lorentz transformations to find the value of this quantity in some arbitrary inertial reference frame -

ds^2 = [g(dt' + vdx')]^2 - [g(vdt' + dx')]^2 - dy^2 - dz^2

= g^2(dt'^2 + v^2dx'^2 + 2vdt'dx' - v^2dt'^2 - dx'^2 - 2vdt'dx') - dy^2 - dz^2

= dt'^2 - dx'^2 - dy'^2 - dz'^2

= ds'^2

So this quantity is the same in all inertial reference frames - it is invariant. Because of this, we may use this quantity to classify the interval separating two points in space and time. If ds > 0, the interval is said to be timelike. If ds < 0, the interval is said to be spacelike. If ds = 0, the interval is said to be null.

Let's simplify and consider the 1D case. Then for null intervals, we have

dt^2 = dx^2

-> &#124 dx/dt &#124 = 1

So two points separated by a null interval may only be connected by a light signal. Similarly, for timelike intervals

&#124 dx/dt &#124 < 1

and for spacelike intervals

&#124 dx/dt &#124 > 1

So two points separated by a spacelike interval may only be connected by an FTL signal.

Now, let's go back to the inverse Lorentz transformation -

dt' = g(dt - vdx)

= gdt(1 - v dx/dt)

= gdt(1 - v/u)

where &#124 u &#124 = &#124 dt/dx &#124 < 1 for spacelike separations
Thus for 1 > &#124 v &#124 > &#124 u &#124 , the sign of dt' will be opposite that of dt, and the ordering of the two events will be reversed. Observers in inertial frames moving at velocities greater than &#124 u &#124 with respect to each other will disagree on which event occured first, and so on whether an FTL signal sent from one to the other propagated forwards or backwards in time.

QED

 

[Denise]

Yeah! What Martin said! Ok, I actually have no idea what Martin said. But hey, I'm here to learn!