I have a theory Part 2

[G19]

I think I may have overdone my CPU discussion in the Video Cards Forum, so I'll post a link here and post another pleonastic mental collision theory for inquisitive fish. If it's not computers enough, or too OT, then I won't cry over it's demise, you get what you're given.

Here's the first collision topic http://www.sharkyforums.com/ubb/Forum7/HTML/007501.html

Here's it's little sequal:

Time Machine

A powerfull telescope satellite is placed in deep space viewing the Earth. It's powerfull lense captures sharp images on the trophosphere at up to miniscule detail. The image is transferred by a wave source travelling faster than light to the Earth, thereby decoding and reproducing the image, that is of course older than the actual activity on Earth. By varying distances, the telescope, transmitts images from various periods in time, from Moses parting the Red Sea to the Kennedy assasination. Posssible? Loopy? What do you think?

------------------
Asus CUV4X-E mainboard
1Ghz Intel P3 815chip CPU
GeForce 2MX
V7100 Pure (32MB)
256RAM, 15G HD
Win Lucent 56K modem
DX8 Win98SE
Sound Blaster Live
SFS Flightstick/Throttle
SW FreeStlye Pro


---COL3:17

[This message has been edited by GARRIN19 (edited July 19, 2001).]

[This message has been edited by GARRIN19 (edited July 19, 2001).]

[GHz]

Even though this has absolutely nothing to do with computers, this is infact possible, it is even possible, travel far enough and and if you can transmit information fast enough to see the formation of the solar system. Remember, the speed of light is limited to 299,792,458 meters/sec, so if you could get a HIGH HIGH HIGH, you get my point, resolution telescope a couple billion light years from Earth then you could see it. You will of course have to compensate for any gravitational wells created by objects in space, i.e. planets, stars, black holes.

------------------
If you can't impress them with your intelligence, confuse them with BULL SH!T.

[Raven667]

Originally posted by GARRIN19:

Time Machine
... The image is transferred by a wave source travelling faster than light to the Earth, thereby decoding and reproducing the image, that is of course older than the actual activity on Earth...


The idea is plausable, except for one tiny detail....There is nothing that travels faster then the speed of light (3x10^8m/s). Steven Hawking has suggested that sometimes particles can travel faster than the speed of light (when they "leak" out of a black hole) but they only do this for a very short period of time (ie: the time it take to cross the even horison). Until a "faster than light" information carrier is discovered or produced then we are SOL on this hole concept.

An interesting spin on this is that if there was some one at the telescope recording what it was seeing it could prove to be an invaluable resource on ancient history on whatever planet the telescope was pointed at.....mind you, inorder for the speices on the planet to get this information, they would have to travel a long way (100's or 1000's of lightyears just to get the data. This would, of course take far too long under conventional means of space travel, thereby defeating the purpose of going in the first place.

I guess I am done ranting for now.

[idris5]

Meanwhile, I'm going to invent a machine that cures cancers, creates world peace and prosperity and simultaneously does all my work for me.

loopy?

You said it.

------------------
Peter Greenhalgh
'Argue with an idiot and he will drag you down to his level and beat you from experience.'

[This message has been edited by idris5 (edited July 20, 2001).]

[Salsa86]

While intriguing, your proposal is not very feasible, every second that passes our photon history extends itself nearly 200,000 miles (186,282 M/sec) further from us... in order to acquire the image from our past, we can use the birth of christ as a referential point... 2001 yrs... approx 31 million seconds in a year (31,536,000 seconds) so

c(63,103,536,000 seconds) <-----seconds since birth of christ..I'm rounding up to the next yr

distance photons reflected from earth in year 1 are from earth at present time:
11,755,052,893,152,000 miles

so if this very instant we could position our selves at this distance from earth it would be conceivable.... we don't necessarily need to transmit it back at tachyonic speeds, we could send it back at the standard c speed and archive it for future generations...

the issue is "catching" the light in the first place...according to contemporary theories faster than light travel is not possible by massful objects such as ourselves and our machinery.. and even theories supporting the existence or possibility of faster than light particles on claim speeds percentages faster than light.. not orders of magnitude faster than light.

[This message has been edited by Salsa86 (edited July 20, 2001).]

[Moridin]

The idea is sound, but technically it is impossible.

There are two big problems. First: although there are some theoretical particles that can travel faster then light, information cannot travel faster then light. This holds true even for some of the bizarre quantum effects we are now discovering.

Second: light does not travel in a perfect beam. This means it unfocuses as it travels and AFAIK there is no way to reverse this un-focusing. Certainly you cannot do it using optics. Even a “perfect” laser in which all the light initially starts off traveling the exact same direction, at the exact same frequency, and perfectly in phase would disperse over time.


------------------
Life is complex. It has real and imaginary parts.

[Salsa86]

"information cannot travel faster than light"
.... actually..information needs a medium..the photon pulses in a transmission do not in themselves contain "information"... but the sequence of arrival could convey info... the medium can theoretically be the faster than light particles...

so technically if tachyonic particles exist, information can travel faster than light...

[This message has been edited by Salsa86 (edited July 20, 2001).]

[IntelSux]

as someone else said here, you don't necessarily need to send the information at a faster speed than light. you could send it at the same speed, but it would take a while.. but still, wouldn't it be nice to look down at dinosaurs roaming at where your house is right now? or looking at who built the pyramids and stuff...
and yes, someone found a way to increase the speed of light using some gas or something.. there was a little chamber thingy that the light passed thru. the funny thing is that before the light passed thru the test chamber, it was already on the wall of the room past the chamber.


------------------
==================
AMD or Intel? I choose AMD. After all, something is better than nothing.

[Raven667]

Originally posted by Salsa86:
"information cannot travel faster than light"
.... actually..information needs a medium..the photon pulses in a transmission do not in themselves contain "information"... but the sequence of arrival could convey info... the medium can theoretically be the faster than light particles...

so technically if tachyonic particles exist, information can travel faster than light...

[This message has been edited by Salsa86 (edited July 20, 2001).]

The whole problem is that we do not know what a Tachyon particle is, aside from those numerous episodes of Star Trek :TNG / Voyager. Hell, if we knew what subspace was we could use that to transmit the info, but that isn't going to happen anytime soon.

Here's an interesting side note. In one of the later ST:V B'Elanna Torres orders someone to check the "inductive capacitance". Does anyone else find this very strange, since an Inductor and a Capacitor are two, very different electronic components, and their assoiated behaviour is not the same.

I'm done ranting for now.

[Moridin]

Originally posted by Salsa86:
"information cannot travel faster than light"
.... actually..information needs a medium..the photon pulses in a transmission do not in themselves contain "information"... but the sequence of arrival could convey info... the medium can theoretically be the faster than light particles...

so technically if tachyonic particles exist, information can travel faster than light...

[This message has been edited by Salsa86 (edited July 20, 2001).]

Just because you have a medium does not mean that medium is suitable for transferring information.

Don’t ask me to explain it because I simply don’t know, but it is my understanding that relativity specifically forbids information to travel faster then the speed of light even though it does still allow for particles that travel faster then light.

(For a particle to travel faster then the speed of light it must have begun it’s existence traveling faster then light and according to the equations of special Relativity it would take an infinite amount of energy to ever slow that particle down below the speed of light.)

Back to the question of a medium. There is something called Quantum entanglement. It occurs when two particles become entangled at a Quantum level (duh) in such a way that they always have the opposite spin. If you change the spin on one the spin on the other changes instantly no matter where that other particle is.

This would seem to give a medium for faster then light communications right? There is only one hitch. Heisenberg’s uncertainty principal prevents you form ever observing the spin with greater then 50% accuracy.


------------------
Life is complex. It has real and imaginary parts.

[This message has been edited by Moridin (edited July 20, 2001).]

[Salsa86]

the way described the HUP is pretty interesting... two particles with the possibility of 1 of 2 orientations... they are linked "quantumly" so the other reflects the others orientation (inversely)...but the uncertainty principle determines the maximum read accuracy cannot exceed 50%.. so according to you.. the concept of quantum entanglement is not very practical from an application stand point..

according to relativity/ the existence of faster than light particles is not ruled out.. .if during the creation of the universe they existed/ so we cannot create particles that transmit info or/ particles that even travel faster than light- according to relativity...

there are other theories that refute this relativity limitation.... but the issue is... if a particle can be created to travel faster than light/ information can be conveyed by it/

[Salsa86]

ps..

isn't it the heisenberg uncertainty principle?

[Moridin]

Damm spell checker I spelled it wrong initially and then clicked the wrong one from the dropdown http://www.sharkyforums.com/ubb/smile.gif

That was my point with quantum entanglement. Just because a medium exists that seems to be able to send information faster then light doesn’t we can interact with it in a useful way. The same applies to FTL particles. Just because they exist doesn’t mean it is possible for us to interact with them in a useful way.

The observation of the spin on the particle is more of a result of uncertainty then the HUP itself. Similar to a Schrodinger's cat situation, with the actual quantum state resolving itself when we attempt to observe it. This means that despite the fact that the two have opposite spins the spin we observe is not resolved until we actually make the observation.


------------------
Life is complex. It has real and imaginary parts.

[G19]

Woof! Now I have a list of people not to try to answer thier post quest! No, seriously, I think it is still possible, although a more altruistic application of such mind-staggering equipment would be more productive. You guys are frying my brain, so I'm going to read all this and digest the best. That means I'm going to have nightmares by the looks of it. And by the way, what travels faster than light?.......happy thoughts of playing kittens.

That high speed gas test was done with Sodium. I'd keep my eye on Potassium experiments.

Oh and another, I think the phenomenon of redirected or non-linear energy (as noted in this topic) is in a similar catagory with the theory that an infinite cosmos means night should'nt exist due to the probability of an infinite number of stars.

------------------
Asus CUV4X-E mainboard
1Ghz Intel P3 815chip CPU
GeForce 2MX
V7100 Pure (32MB)
256RAM, 15G HD
Win Lucent 56K modem
DX8 Win98SE
Sound Blaster Live
SFS Flightstick/Throttle
SW FreeStlye Pro


---COL3:17




[This message has been edited by GARRIN19 (edited August 03, 2001).]

[BoRoG]

Ummm Light travels like 37 times faster (or something like that) through Cesium gas than through a vacuum, so couldn't that send information faster than the 'speed of light'?

[al bundy]

I don't know if anyone will want another book to read - but just in case, here's a good book that is relevant to the current relativity debate:

"Mathematical Invalidity of Relativity (Both Special and General)", by Cameron Y. Rebigsol, Vantage Press, NY, 1996.

Edit: Just trying to contribute something interesting! http://www.sharkyforums.com/ubb/smile.gif

[This message has been edited by al bundy (edited August 02, 2001).]

[G19]

I love those kinds of books. "What u all lookin at?!" http://www.sharkyforums.com/ubb/eek.gif It sounds like a string theory argument.



------------------
Asus socket370 CUV4X-E mainboard
1Ghz Intel P3 815chip CPU
Asus GeForce 2MX V7100 Pure (32MB)
256RAM u.g.t.1GRAM, 15G HD
Win Lucent 56K modem
DX8 Win98SE
Sound Blaster Live
SFS Flightstick/Throttle
SW FreeStlye Pro
HP Apollo P-2250
Afga Snapscan 1212u
15inch e-View s monitor
---COL3:17

[G19]

Originally posted by BoRoG:
Ummm Light travels like 37 times faster (or something like that) through Cesium gas than through a vacuum, so couldn't that send information faster than the 'speed of light'?

Everyone listen to this man, he knows what he is talking about. All my conscern has been with a high speed transfer of info. I was assessing that it would be ideal to have it faster than light, yet convenient if it simply traveled fast. Decoding from short wave radio for example. It simply has to transfer the image. Now the optics and decoding, that's another story.

------------------
Asus socket370 CUV4X-E mainboard
1Ghz Intel P3 815chip CPU
Asus GeForce 2MX V7100 Pure (32MB)
256RAM u.g.t.1GRAM, 15G HD
Win Lucent 56K modem
DX8 Win98SE
Sound Blaster Live
SFS Flightstick/Throttle
SW FreeStlye Pro
HP Apollo P-2250
Afga Snapscan 1212u
15inch e-View s monitor
---COL3:17

[G19]

I guess the problems with the Postulates of Special Relativity and the Relativity of Simultaiety can be thrown out with this simple mod and conclude part of this ridiculous experiment. The telescope orbits earth, viewing a huge mirror object in space(deep space, people...deep), reflecting the image of the Earth. Communication problem solved. The next is a cosmic gravitational problem with the optics system. At this point, the topic is far fetched enough to do the Hollywood thing. That is unless you want to talk about spherical aberration in lenses.

Is this Q.E.D? Maybe not.
------------------
Asus socket370 CUV4X-E mainboard
1Ghz Intel P3 815chip CPU
Asus GeForce 2MX V7100 Pure (32MB)
256RAM u.g.t.1GRAM, 15G HD
Win Lucent 56K modem
DX8 Win98SE
Sound Blaster Live
SFS Flightstick/Throttle
SW FreeStlye Pro
HP Apollo P-2250
Afga Snapscan 1212u
15inch e-View s monitor
---COL3:17


[This message has been edited by GARRIN19 (edited August 03, 2001).]

[G19]

Telescope Computer Components:
http://home.earthlink.net/~briankidwell/outlinec.htm

Orbiting Telescopes:
http://www.seds.org/~spider/oaos/oaos.html
------------------
Asus socket370 CUV4X-E mainboard
1Ghz Intel P3 815chip CPU
Asus GeForce 2MX V7100 Pure (32MB)
256RAM u.g.t.1GRAM, 15G HD
Win Lucent 56K modem
DX8 Win98SE
Sound Blaster Live
SFS Flightstick/Throttle
SW FreeStlye Pro
HP Apollo P-2250
Afga Snapscan 1212u
15inch e-View s monitor
---COL3:17

[This message has been edited by GARRIN19 (edited August 03, 2001).]

[Moridin]

Originally posted by BoRoG:
Ummm Light travels like 37 times faster (or something like that) through Cesium gas than through a vacuum, so couldn't that send information faster than the 'speed of light'?


Don't ask me to explain why, but I read something when this experiment was fist in the new that explained why it could not be used to transfer information faster then light, but IIRC the bottom line is that you cannot send info faster then light with this method.


------------------
Life is complex. It has real and imaginary parts.

[BoRoG]

Actually Moridin I remember that too. I read the article about the experiment but the reason escapes my memory too. I will have to do some more research.

Edit: spelling http://www.sharkyforums.com/ubb/smile.gif


[This message has been edited by BoRoG (edited August 03, 2001).]

[BoRoG]

if this works, think of the implications. If we looked back in time and saw that Jesus didn't exist that would crush some religions. Or the Police would use it to watch you do something illegal and then use it in court. It would be like the ultra spy device. Hell right now we could be being watched from the future with one of the devices. Big Brother is watching! hehe

[G19]

In case you were all wondering, I was developing this concept out of an interesting book or screen-play idea. I simply wanted an applicable base to develop a believable technology situation. Mind you, it's all back-burner stuff. I'm a pilot first, well student anyways.


****WARNING CODE YELLOW OT ALERT****
------------------
A-Open 300W 5-bin ATX case
Asus socket370 CUV4X-E mainboard
1Ghz Intel P3 815chip CPU
Asus GeForce 2MX V7100 Pure (32MB)
256RAM u.g.t.1GRAM, 15G HD
Win Lucent 56K modem
DX8 Win98SE
Sound Blaster Live
SFS Flightstick/Throttle
SW FreeStlye Pro
HP Apollo P-2250
Afga Snapscan 1212u
15inch e-View s monitor
---COL3:17

[This message has been edited by GARRIN19 (edited August 03, 2001).]

[stoo]

Something (but not information) that travels faster than light:
Imagine a lighthouse, whose beam lights up a shore as the lamp rotates. If that shore/reflecting object moves far enough away (and we assume that the beam is powerful enough/has a low enough divergence), then the movement of the lit area of the shore will be faster than light. (But no information travels faster than light here).

------------------
Stoo

[SlartyB]

Originally posted by BoRoG:
Ummm Light travels like 37 times faster (or something like that) through Cesium gas than through a vacuum, so couldn't that send information faster than the 'speed of light'?

WHAT ?!?!

Where the hell did that come from?!? NO, it's probably more like 37 times slower.

NOTHING TRAVELS FASTER THAN LIGHT IN A VACUUM!

The whole thing about physicists detecting paritcles that travel "faster than light" is confusing. What they REALLY mean is this .... they have detected particles that move faster than the speed of light in the medium in which the particle is moving.

Here's an analogy ...

The speed of sound in water is about 3200mph, lets call this equivelant to the speed of light in a vacuum, and lets say that nothing can ever travel faster than this.

The speed of sound in air is only 740mph. Now, an object can go faster than the speed of sound *in air* and still be going slower than the ultimate speed limit (the speed of sound in water). The effect this has is that is creates a shock-wave in the air which we hear as a sonic boom. Exactly the same thing happens with light and particles. If a particle goes faster than the speed of light in that medium, it creates optical shock-waves just like a plane breaking the sound barrier.

BUT - NOTHING can go faster than the speed of light in a VACUUM!

[G19]

Does everyone see the two concepts emerging? On one hand, the Second Postulate of the Principle of Relativity states that the speed of light in a vacuum has the same value in all inertial systems. On the other side of the topic we have the information about the experiments with light through different substances. The Cesium experiment was legitamate, and from what I recall, the speed of light was "slowed down".

We have to draw our conclusion here. How does the experiment differ from the Second Postulate, if at all? In order to do that we have to figure out, the novelty of which the Cesium experiment proclaimed.

Here is the CNN story(and it's about computers too):

http://www.cnn.com/2000/TECH/space/07/20/speed.of.light.ap/
------------------
A-Open 300W 5-bin ATX case
Asus socket370 CUV4X-E mainboard
1Ghz Intel P3 815chip CPU
Asus GeForce 2MX V7100 Pure (32MB)
256RAM u.g.t.1GRAM, 15G HD
Win Lucent 56K modem
DX8 Win98SE
Sound Blaster Live
SFS Flightstick/Throttle
SW FreeStlye Pro
HP Apollo P-2250
Afga Snapscan 1212u
15inch e-View s monitor
---COL3:17



[This message has been edited by GARRIN19 (edited August 03, 2001).]

[SlartyB]

Originally posted by GARRIN19:
Does everyone see the two concepts emerging? On one hand, the Second Postulate of the Principle of Relativity states that the speed of light in a vacuum has the same value in all inertial systems. On the other side of the topic we have the information about the experiments with light through different substances. The Cesium experiment was legitamate, and from what I recall, the speed of light was "slowed down".

We have to draw our conclusion here. How does the experiment differ from the Second Postulate, if at all? In order to do that we have to figure out, the novelty of which the Cesium experiment proclaimed.

Here is the CNN story(and it's about computers too):

http://www.cnn.com/2000/TECH/space/07/20/speed.of.light.ap/

Hmmmm, that's a very interesting read. However, I think when the final analysis is in (ie. lots of other people have tried the experiment and verified it) it will be a case that the phase velocity of the light is going faster than light, not the light itself. As the article states "Aephraim Steinberg, a physicist at the University of Toronto, said the light particles coming out of the cesium chamber may not have been the same ones that entered, so he questions whether the speed of light was broken."

I would agree with that statement.

[Predator2]

I had a very interesting discution with my teacher a long time ago.

I asked him the following.
What if I'm a galatic post man and I stand on my space ship going at the speed of light.
I have nothing to do so I through a boll in the direction I'm going.
Normal math states current speed + added speed (boll) = total speed for boll.
looking from a stand still position.

The boll would be traveling faster then the speed of light right.
NO was the asnwear I got. He said that the boll would NOT leave my hand because nothing can go faster then the speed of light.

I tried to show him wrong by countering his statments.

Statement one.
At the speed of light the weight becomes infinit. There for not possible

Me. but if the speed of light is not possible and seeing that light has weight (Light has been proven to bend when entering jupiters gravity= MUST HAVE WEIGHT) then why aren't we ground beef?

His answear. an exception to the rule.

ME. OK.

But what about the stuff that is created at the top of our atmosphere and only lives long enough to travel about 100-200 meters, how do you explain that they have been seen at sea level.

Him. They are also an exception to the rule because the are not limited by time.

All this sound to me like bad exuses to me, just IMO.

For me NOTHING can escape time but lets say that it is possible then in theory we can travel faster then light because we aren't limited by time.

So in any case we can travel faster then the speed of light but I don't believe the time thing so the only thing left is that the speed of light is possible to break but it will take a great machine to do it with.

If light isn't limited by weight then why should we?

------------------
Pentium Overdrive 200@200 Dhry/Whet-stone 427Mips/228 MFlops
Asus P55-T2P4
64MB EDO Int/Float 86/114 MB/s
Matrox Millenium II
Voodoo 2 3DMark2000 474
Creativ 32 pnp

[johnsonfromwisconsin]

As far as information not being able to travel faster than light, what about Quantumn Computing? Doesn't that work off the principal of being able to coax an electron into being in more than one place at the same time; hence, travelling faster than light?

------------------
Remember, there can be only One!

[SkullE]

open up a worm hole near the telescope and transmit the info thru it to the other worm hole near earth. No faster than light technology needed. now about that so called telescope.......

[Moridin]

Originally posted by Predator2:
I had a very interesting discution with my teacher a long time ago.

I asked him the following.
What if I'm a galatic post man and I stand on my space ship going at the speed of light.
I have nothing to do so I through a boll in the direction I'm going.
Normal math states current speed + added speed (boll) = total speed for boll.
looking from a stand still position.

The boll would be traveling faster then the speed of light right.
NO was the asnwear I got. He said that the boll would NOT leave my hand because nothing can go faster then the speed of light.

I tried to show him wrong by countering his statments.

Statement one.
At the speed of light the weight becomes infinit. There for not possible

Me. but if the speed of light is not possible and seeing that light has weight (Light has been proven to bend when entering jupiters gravity= MUST HAVE WEIGHT) then why aren't we ground beef?

His answear. an exception to the rule.

ME. OK.

But what about the stuff that is created at the top of our atmosphere and only lives long enough to travel about 100-200 meters, how do you explain that they have been seen at sea level.

Him. They are also an exception to the rule because the are not limited by time.

All this sound to me like bad exuses to me, just IMO.

For me NOTHING can escape time but lets say that it is possible then in theory we can travel faster then light because we aren't limited by time.

So in any case we can travel faster then the speed of light but I don't believe the time thing so the only thing left is that the speed of light is possible to break but it will take a great machine to do it with.

If light isn't limited by weight then why should we?




It sounds like your teacher may have had a few gaps in his knowledge. Three things happen as an object approaches the speed of light. It’s mass approaches infinity, time slows down, and distances shrink. These effects are relative to the inertial frame of reference in question.

For example, if you are traveling at the speed of light and throw a ball forward its speed relative to you is identical to what it would be if you threw the ball on earth. You would notice NO DIFFERENCE.

To the observer, watching from a stationary position on a nearby planet, things look very different. If you are traveling at the speed of light you are effectively frozen in time to that observer. As a result you and the ball continue to travel at the same speed, in fact you never even get to throw the ball.

A slightly better example would be if the ship traveled at .75C (75% of the speed of light)(Is it C or c ???) and you threw the ball at .5C. Here using classical physics the ball should be traveling 1.25C but since that is not possible the following happens.

To you traveling on the ship, the ball is still traveling away from you at .5C. To the observer you are traveling at .75C but the ball is still traveling below the speed of light.

This is due to the “warping” of time and space as objects approach the speed of light. Velocity is distance divided by time, but as you approach the speed of light distance and time as you experience them are no longer the same as the way a stationary observer would experience them. As a result you would both get different results for the calculation of the speed of the ball.

The particles you referred to are actually considered one of the proofs of relativity. Their lifespan and velocity are known. Normally they would not be able to go more then a few hundred feet before ceasing to exist. The problem is that when they are traveling at near the speed of light time slows down for those particles. Their lifespan remains the same but when observed by a stationary observer it will be much longer since time runs slower in the particles frame of reference. This gives the particle time to reach the surface of the earth.

The part about light being affected by gravity is a different story completely. Light is indeed has no mass and therefore has no weight by definition. (Weight is the effect of gravity on Mass.)

This does not mean that light is immune to the effects of gravity. It is important to realize that Weight does not “pull” an object down; it is an effect of gravity trying to pull a mass through a barrier (like a floor).

Light is affected by gravity even though it has no Mass. This is because gravity doesn’t affect the object directly; it warps the space around the object. (According to relativity, Quantum Mechanics uses a different definition of gravity). You can think of it this way; Put a penny on a sheet of paper. The paper represents space and the penny is an object. Gravity doesn’t pull the penny across the paper it pulls the paper itself. This should make it a little clearer how gravity can effect light even though it is Mass less.



------------------
Life is complex. It has real and imaginary parts.

[jester22c]

God travels faster than light. He is omnipresent. http://www.sharkyforums.com/ubb/smile.gif

------------------
--Proud member of the OT Forum - May it rest in peace.
--My software doesn't have bugs, it just develops random features.
--Error: Keyboard not attached. Press F1 to continue.

[G19]

Good one Jester. Well as far as the project goes we have the experiment and now some extra theory.

------------------
A-Open 300W 5-bin ATX case
Asus socket370 CUV4X-E mainboard
1Ghz Intel P3 815chip CPU
Asus GeForce 2MX V7100 Pure (32MB)
256RAM u.g.t.1GRAM, 15G HD
Win Lucent 56K modem
DX8 Win98SE
Sound Blaster Live
SFS Flightstick/Throttle
SW FreeStlye Pro
HP Apollo P-2250
Afga Snapscan 1212u
15inch e-View s monitor
---COL3:17

[This message has been edited by GARRIN19 (edited August 04, 2001).]

[Moridin]

Originally posted by jester22c:
God travels faster than light. He is omnipresent. http://www.sharkyforums.com/ubb/smile.gif



Technically that would mean God doesn’t have to travel at all since he is already everywhere. http://www.sharkyforums.com/ubb/wink.gif

------------------
Life is complex. It has real and imaginary parts.

[Snare]

What I draw from this discussion is that light, because of it's near zero mass can be used as an indication of the maximum possible velocity obtainable through a given medium - and could be surpassed in velocity but by a fractional amount and only by something with even lesser mass than light. In essence, in order to attain speeds greater than that of light through a vacuum, we would need to find a medium to travel through - if it exists - that would have a much higher velocity limit than that of space (and that light too would travel through much more quickly). Did I come to the right conclusions here?

[This message has been edited by Snare (edited August 06, 2001).]

[G19]

That medium could be created by the velocity itself. Metaphysical alchemy. Question is, can warp drives, worm holes, and tachyons be valuable enough methods to produce the desired effect.

(Heeeee. All this from a comment on Win98.)

------------------

A-Open 300W 5-bin ATX case
Asus socket370 CUV4X-E mainboard
1Ghz Intel P3 815chip CPU
Asus GeForce 2MX V7100 Pure (32MB)
256RAM u.g.t.1GRAM, 15G HD
Win Lucent 56K modem
DX8 Win98SE
Sound Blaster Live
SFS Flightstick/Throttle
SW FreeStlye Pro
HP Apollo P-2250
Afga Snapscan 1212u
15inch e-View s monitor
---COL3:17

[This message has been edited by GARRIN19 (edited August 06, 2001).]

[Predator2]

Originally posted by Moridin:

It sounds like your teacher may have had a few gaps in his knowledge. Three things happen as an object approaches the speed of light. It’s mass approaches infinity, time slows down, and distances shrink. These effects are relative to the inertial frame of reference in question.

I remember the formula that when you near or get to the speed of light the mass becomes infinit. But how do we really know that the speed of light is the fastest we can go?
I just think that there is a scary resemblence to the speed of sound fiasco.
So I'll keep my mind open that there is a possibility that in the future we can travel faster then light.

And how can distance shrink?
If you run faster then you'll get to your destination faster but the distance is the same. I just can't see that something as distance can shrink shrink.

And how can time slow down?
For me one second is one second where ever you are. You can feel time differently (fast or slow) but one second is 1 second.


For example, if you are traveling at the speed of light and throw a ball forward its speed relative to you is identical to what it would be if you threw the ball on earth. You would notice NO DIFFERENCE.

To the observer, watching from a stationary position on a nearby planet, things look very different. If you are traveling at the speed of light you are effectively frozen in time to that observer. As a result you and the ball continue to travel at the same speed, in fact you never even get to throw the ball.


Me and the ball would pass very quickly and possible appear as frozen but if you increase the distance to the planet while still being able to follow me while throwing the ball you would be able to see me throw it. Or something is wrong with my logic thinking. Becasue at a very large distance even somebody traveling at the speed of light would seem slow going. Or?


A slightly better example would be if the ship traveled at .75C (75% of the speed of light)(Is it C or c ???) and you threw the ball at .5C. Here using classical physics the ball should be traveling 1.25C but since that is not possible the following happens.

To you traveling on the ship, the ball is still traveling away from you at .5C. To the observer you are traveling at .75C but the ball is still traveling below the speed of light.

I'm sorry but I can't believe this,it sounds funny to me it's like when you travel at the speed of light you freez for others but how will you get to you destination?
And if there is 2 sides to what happens then we're talking another dimension?



This is due to the “warping” of time and space as objects approach the speed of light. Velocity is distance divided by time, but as you approach the speed of light distance and time as you experience them are no longer the same as the way a stationary observer would experience them. As a result you would both get different results for the calculation of the speed of the ball.


It seem more like what you experiance then what it is, but again I might be wrong but it just doesn't fit (for me), it feels like there is a big puzzel piece missing.


The particles you referred to are actually considered one of the proofs of relativity. Their lifespan and velocity are known. Normally they would not be able to go more then a few hundred feet before ceasing to exist. The problem is that when they are traveling at near the speed of light time slows down for those particles. Their lifespan remains the same but when observed by a stationary observer it will be much longer since time runs slower in the particles frame of reference. This gives the particle time to reach the surface of the earth.


For me it sound like just because you (not you you) believe that the speed of light is the max you start finding other stuff to make it possible and come up with time (not you you). But again I could be wrong but it's that puzzel again.



The part about light being affected by gravity is a different story completely. Light is indeed has no mass and therefore has no weight by definition. (Weight is the effect of gravity on Mass.)

This does not mean that light is immune to the effects of gravity. It is important to realize that Weight does not “pull” an object down; it is an effect of gravity trying to pull a mass through a barrier (like a floor).

Light is affected by gravity even though it has no Mass. This is because gravity doesn’t affect the object directly; it warps the space around the object. (According to relativity, Quantum Mechanics uses a different definition of gravity). You can think of it this way; Put a penny on a sheet of paper. The paper represents space and the penny is an object. Gravity doesn’t pull the penny across the paper it pulls the paper itself. This should make it a little clearer how gravity can effect light even though it is Mass less.


This was a very good explination.
And I can see it happening but again if Light doesn't have mass and space is vacum who can it pull something that doesn't exist (no particals in space)?

And if above is true then when we look at the start why don't they move around abit while we look at them considering how many planets, stars and black hole there are on the way and they all move around at the same time and with great speeds?

Sorry for questioning you but I like to understand why something is and why as to understand and implement and change it in a correct way.

it's like math for me, When I went to math I was one of the few that wanted to know why this became that and so on, lets just say when our math teatcher had a test and he changed a math problem every one that didn't know how this became that FAILED that question badly while me and the few how knew why passed (except for the accational slip).

------------------
Pentium Overdrive 200@200 Dhry/Whet-stone 427Mips/228 MFlops
Asus P55-T2P4
64MB EDO Int/Float 86/114 MB/s
Matrox Millenium II
Voodoo 2 3DMark2000 474
Creativ 32 pnp

[Moridin]

I remember the formula that when you near or get to the speed of light the mass becomes infinit. But how do we really know that the speed of light is the fastest we can go?
I just think that there is a scary resemblence to the speed of sound fiasco.
So I'll keep my mind open that there is a possibility that in the future we can travel faster then light.


This is quite different from the speculation that the speed of sound could not be broken. In that case people didn’t know what would happen as you approached the speed of sound. This caused some people to speculate that travel at that speed was impossible without any real reason to back it up. In truth, it was clear that something would happen but nobody really knew what. It turned out that all that happened was a sonic boom occurred.

The speed of light is somewhat different. We know what happens to an object as it approaches the speed of light. Its Mass climbs to infinity, time slows down to a stop and distance shrinks to zero. Any one of these would be enough to prevent accelerating an object to the speed of light, but lets concentrate on mass since that is simplest.

F=Force
M=Mass
A=Acceleration

F=M*A therefore A=F/M

Look at what happens to this equation as Mass in creases. The greater the mass the greater the force required to accelerate it. If the Mass climbs to infinity (As it does when you approach the speed of light) you need and infinite Force to cause any acceleration. If you have no acceleration you go no faster. As you get infinitely close to the speed of light further acceleration becomes impossible since that would require infantine force.

You can also perform other calculations that prove that that it would take infinite energy to accelerate a particle with mass to the speed of light. (Particles can travel at the speed of light provided they have no Mass.) An interesting side note is that this only covers particles that start their existence moving slower then the speed of light. Particles that began their existence moving faster then the speed of light would never be able to go below the speed of light.



And how can distance shrink?
If you run faster then you'll get to your destination faster but the distance is the same. I just can't see that something as distance can shrink shrink.

And how can time slow down?
For me one second is one second where ever you are. You can feel time differently (fast or slow) but one second is 1 second.


To understand Modern physics you have to throw away many things you think make sense and look only at the evidence. The fact is you can prove experimentally that these things really do happen. One second is always one second to you, but if you are traveling at high speed that same second passes differently. This has been proven with super accurate atomic clocks that will differ by less then a fraction of a second in millions of years. One was placed in a spacecraft to orbit the earth while the other was left here on the earth. When the clock in orbit was returned it measurably behind the clock left on the earth. The only way this could have occurred was for time to have passed more slowly for the clock in orbit. Not only that, the difference was exactly what was predicted based on Einstein’s equations.


Me and the ball would pass very quickly and possible appear as frozen but if you increase the distance to the planet while still being able to follow me while throwing the ball you would be able to see me throw it. Or something is wrong with my logic thinking. Becasue at a very large distance even somebody traveling at the speed of light would seem slow going.


Distance has nothing to do with it. Time simply behaves differently for you traveling on the space ship then it does for the person watching from a “stationary” position.


I'm sorry but I can't believe this,it sounds funny to me it's like when you travel at the speed of light you freez for others but how will you get to you destination?


That is the point http://www.sharkyforums.com/ubb/biggrin.gif this is in fact more proof that travel at the speed of light is impossible. If you were to travel at a velocity very close to the speed of light you would reach you destination (and it would seem to you that you reached it very quickly) but when you got there you would find a very long period of time had elapsed since you began you journey. In fact if you traveled close enough to the speed of light you destination, or even the Galaxy it was in had long ago ceased to exist.


And I can see it happening but again if Light doesn't have mass and space is vacum who can it pull something that doesn't exist (no particals in space)?


You are missing part of the point. It isn’t the things in space that are being affected by gravity; it is space itself that is being affected.

Scientist’s once believed that space was filled with something called the aether. The logic was that since light is a wave, it must be traveling in a medium. A water wave travels in water, a sound wave travels in air, it was thought that a light wave must travel in something as and they called this the aether. Two men, Mickelson and Morley set out to measure this aether, they failed, but there experiment was so thorough that its failure could only mean that the aether did not exist at all. This laid the groundwork for relativity and all the things we are discussing here, you may want to do a search and read about it.

Here is one interesting quote I found


The results of the various experiments discussed above seem to leave us really stuck. Apparently light is not like sound, with a definite speed relative to some underlying medium. However, it is also not like bullets, with a definite speed relative to the source of the light. Yet when we measure its speed we always get the same result



And if above is true then when we look at the start why don't they move around abit while we look at them considering how many planets, stars and black hole there are on the way and they all move around at the same time and with great speeds?

I’m not sure I understand what you are getting at here. Relatively speaking space is nearly empty and the light from distant objects is only deflected a small amount. This is something we can only find if we are specifically looking for it.

------------------
Life is complex. It has real and imaginary parts.

[Adisharr]

Just for the hell of it..

If a particle were created ALREADY going faster than the speed of light what then?

We hit that brick wall on the way up from zero velocity to 186,000M/sec but what about after that wall..

It would seem if you can jump that wall then you could keep accelerating and watch your mass get smaller and smaller..

------------------
- You can milk anything with nipples -

[Snare]

In space, stars and other bodies aside, there are no forces to slow an object down. Through continuous acceleration, would an object not reach speeds that approached the speed of light? Would the matter the object was composed of be affected by any other forces because of it's speed or would it be able to continue to accelerate at a steadily decreasing rate all the way up to the speed of light? Because of the slowed down time, would it actually be possible for an individual on that object to explore outer regions of the universe in his lifetime - or even a few seconds or minutes without needing to break the speed of light?

------------------
Athlon 1GHz
256MB PC133 CAS2 Memory
MSI KT7 Turbo RAID
Gainward GeForce 2 Ultra
30GB Deskstar 75GXP
16x Pioneer DVD
17" Samsung 770TFT 17" 1280x1024 TFT Monitor
(cost almost as much as the rest of the system at the time)

[G19]

If you guys keep carpet-bombing this thread by the minute, I'll never get it syncronized enough to do an evaluation.

[Moridin]

Originally posted by Adisharr:
Just for the hell of it..

If a particle were created ALREADY going faster than the speed of light what then?

We hit that brick wall on the way up from zero velocity to 186,000M/sec but what about after that wall..

It would seem if you can jump that wall then you could keep accelerating and watch your mass get smaller and smaller..



I think I mentioned that, but there would be two problems as I see it. First we don’t know much about the nature of FTL particles. Would matter as we know it even (and therefore us) exist if we did this? Second how do you go about “jumping over the barrier”?


In space, stars and other bodies aside, there are no forces to slow an object down. Through continuous acceleration, would an object not reach speeds that approached the speed of light? Would the matter the object was composed of be affected by any other forces because of it's speed or would it be able to continue to accelerate at a steadily decreasing rate all the way up to the speed of light? Because of the slowed down time, would it actually be possible for an individual on that object to explore outer regions of the universe in his lifetime - or even a few seconds or minutes without needing to break the speed of light?



It should be, as long as you didn’t want to come home again. Everything you left behind would be long gone if you ever did. http://www.sharkyforums.com/ubb/smile.gif


------------------
Life is complex. It has real and imaginary parts.

[Adisharr]

Originally posted by Adisharr:

Just for the hell of it..
If a particle were created ALREADY going faster than the speed of light what then?

We hit that brick wall on the way up from zero velocity to 186,000M/sec but what about after that wall..

It would seem if you can jump that wall then you could keep accelerating and watch your mass get smaller and smaller..

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I think I mentioned that, but there would be two problems as I see it. First we don’t know much about the nature of FTL particles. Would matter as we know it even (and therefore us) exist if we did this? Second how do you go about “jumping over the barrier”?

#1. I dunno
#2. I have a technique I've had success with for some time now.. it's available in my book 'How to bet the unbeatable barrier' for $ 29.95

Seriously I believe I read somewhere a while back in a science mag that there may be (are?) particles that are 'born' at a greater than light speed..



------------------
- You can milk anything with nipples -

[Moridin]

#1. I dunno
#2. I have a technique I've had success with for some time now.. it's available in my book 'How to bet the unbeatable barrier' for $ 29.95


http://www.sharkyforums.com/ubb/rolleyes.gif http://www.sharkyforums.com/ubb/biggrin.gif



------------------
Life is complex. It has real and imaginary parts.

[Adisharr]

Originally posted by Moridin:
http://www.sharkyforums.com/ubb/rolleyes.gif http://www.sharkyforums.com/ubb/biggrin.gif



Doh! I didn't even catch my typo http://www.sharkyforums.com/ubb/smile.gif (beat)

------------------
- You can milk anything with nipples -

[DeerHunter]

The original hypothesis of this thread was proposed by L Ron Hubbard in his book Battlefield Earth.

------------------
Bang! There is venison on the grill!
800 TBird @ 987(7.0X141)
FOP 32-1
KT7A-RAID
Leadtek GeForce2 GTS 32MB
(245/365)
256MB Generic PC133
IBM 30GB Deskstar
InWin Q500 Full tower
SiSoft Sandra Benchmarks
Memory
Int RAM 645MB/s
FPU RAM 583MB/s
3DMark2001 Default Test
3549

[G19]

I have never read that book, although I have heard of it. I guess it was a subconscious thing?, no, when I devised it, I was thinking purely from scratch. Weird. Not impossible though, since the concept isn't entirely amazing in terms of it's creativity. Anyone could think it.

B.T.W.: I did not just flame L Ron Hubbard. I merely pointed out the fact this was a purely individual hypothesis not based on a ficticious or theory based source, other than pure science(and computers). Thanks for the info though Deer Hunter, that is not uninteresting at all.

------------------

A-Open 300W 5-bin ATX case
Asus socket370 CUV4X-E mainboard
1Ghz Intel P3 815chip CPU
Asus GeForce 2MX V7100 Pure (32MB)
256RAM u.g.t.1GRAM, 15G HD
Win Lucent 56K modem
DX8 Win98SE
Sound Blaster Live
SFS Flightstick/Throttle
SW FreeStlye Pro
HP Apollo P-2250
Afga Snapscan 1212u
15inch e-View s monitor
---COL3:17



[This message has been edited by GARRIN19 (edited August 07, 2001).]

[Predator2]

Originally posted by Moridin:
I’m not sure I understand what you are getting at here. Relatively speaking space is nearly empty and the light from distant objects is only deflected a small amount. This is something we can only find if we are specifically looking for it.



Like you said that gravity pools on space making the light bend.

And there are ALOT of stars and planets and even asteroids witch all have gravity that would make the gravity of the planet jumpiter a joke.

And even if that much gravity from all over the place only bends it a smal bit, by the time it comes here it should be VERY visible that the light from these stars are moving.

If we can measure the light being bent at jupiter we SHOULD see it being bent from stars that are LIGHT YEARS AWAY.

Just an example.
If I could bend the light by 1 -10(1000) (near the source) degrees that would be enough to MISS the whole solar system we call home.

then why don't I see the stars move around when looking at them seeing as all these planets, stars and asteorids move around all the time and at speeds that would make one scared stiff (not me I love speed http://www.sharkyforums.com/ubb/biggrin.gif)

Or am I space walking?



------------------
Pentium Overdrive 200@200 Dhry/Whet-stone 427Mips/228 MFlops
Asus P55-T2P4
64MB EDO Int/Float 86/114 MB/s
Matrox Millenium II
Voodoo 2 3DMark2000 474
Creativ 32 pnp

[geeking]

On the subject of faster than light communication:

F = G * m[1] * m[2] / r^2

Therefore, if I could measure the specific gravitational force on mass 1 exerted on it by mass 2 then I could instanteously know the distance between the two masses. Thus, by looking at the force I would know that mass 2 had moved closer (logic 1) or farther away (logic 0).

The data communicated this way would be instant (well there is the issue of lag time as our relatively slow brains figure out what is going on). This would be substantially faster than light for very large distances.

I just don't think this would help us that much for viewing history. The problem would be moving our telescope farther away from earth at a speed faster than light. Maybe we could find someone else with our gravity communicator on the far side of the universe...

------------------
With searching comes loss
And the presence of absence:
"My Novel" not found.

[SlartyB]

Originally posted by geeking:
On the subject of faster than light communication:

F = G * m[1] * m[2] / r^2

Therefore, if I could measure the specific gravitational force on mass 1 exerted on it by mass 2 then I could instanteously know the distance between the two masses. Thus, by looking at the force I would know that mass 2 had moved closer (logic 1) or farther away (logic 0).

The data communicated this way would be instant (well there is the issue of lag time as our relatively slow brains figure out what is going on). This would be substantially faster than light for very large distances.

I just don't think this would help us that much for viewing history. The problem would be moving our telescope farther away from earth at a speed faster than light. Maybe we could find someone else with our gravity communicator on the far side of the universe...



Sorry. Gravity is *NOT* instantaneous. It is just another type of field like electric or magnetic fields and travels at the same speed as light.

[Klion]

There would be two problems:
1) You would have to be travelling like 1000000's of times faster than the speed of light to "catch up" to the light emitted from (as per one example) when jesus was born. That'd be one fast moving telescope :P

2) I dont see how it would work cuz as someone pointed out the light diverges. I believe the example used was even particles in a laser travelling almost totally parrallel will eventually diverge an extreme amount. If this is the case with particles travelling almost totally parallel, think how much they'd diverge over 2000 years when they weren't parallel to begin with. I cannot see any feasible way in which you could find the particles (which would probably be light years away from each other), and then "assemble" them into an "image".

On a slightly different topic, that CNN thing said that information COULD travel _faster_ than the speed of light, it just couldnt travel back in time.

BTW, in the theoretical sense how is time travel possible? I can see how you could (theoretically, not feasibly) "see" back in time, but how could you actually "go" back in time? I was always curious if when people said it was theoretically possible to do that it was just ignorant people who meant it was theoretically possible to see back in time, or if it could actually be possible to physicall go back in time.

Lastly, slartyB (or anyone), if the force of gravity is only aloud to be up to the speed of light or accelerate things to the speed of light or whatever it is you meant above this post, then how come light can't escape from black holes?



[This message has been edited by Klion (edited August 08, 2001).]

[SlartyB]

Originally posted by Klion:
Lastly, slartyB (or anyone), if the force of gravity is only aloud to be up to the speed of light or accelerate things to the speed of light or whatever it is you meant above this post, then how come light can't escape from black holes?

[This message has been edited by Klion (edited August 08, 2001).]

You are confusing the accelerative properties of gravity with field strength. It is the gravitational field strength around a black hole that prevents light from escaping. This has nothing to do with how quickly gravity waves travel or. My point above was that you can not send messages using gravity any faster than you can with light. For example, if the Sun were to just disapear "poof" - as if by magic - then it's gravity would still cause the Earth to travel around in it's orbit for another 8 minutes or so before the gravity wave hit us and the planet started moving in a straight line off in to space.

Have you ever sent a coin down one of those cone shaped things they have at museums? Imagine that you can actually make the coin accelerate up to a certain speed (lets call it "the speed of light" http://www.sharkyforums.com/ubb/wink.gif ). Then on the flatter part of the cone (well, it's more of an inverted horn shape, but you know what I mean) - then you can make the coin go fast enough to actually spiral OUTWARD and away from the hole. However, down towards the hole, you won't be able to make the coin go fast enough to escape and it will spiral downward into the hole. Gravity actually distorts space analogous to the way the cone is distorted. It is not that the light is really being accelerated by the gravity, it is that the very fabric of space is so distorted that the light can not escape.

[G19]

Whaaaaaaahh! 17 Pages printed and all I know is that taffy tastes deliscious.

Or do I?...

[This message has been edited by GARRIN19 (edited August 08, 2001).]

[Klion]

Ahh cool. Nod, I wasnt arguing with you I was just curious how a black hole worked :P
*Whistle*

[Gogita]

God damn, 4 pages of very loooong posts!

After reading all this I got a migraine and went to bed. This morning I realised that there was no point trying to make sense of all the rambling.

I understand what Moridin is saying, the analogies given are accurate. Some other posters are on the ball too.

I have one question though, how the hell does one break the light barrier if no particles are allowed to exceed c?

What if we obtained a power source that allowed incredible yields in power allowing us to theoretically to accelerate almost infinitely. Would the craft just turn into rice crisppies after approching the speed of light.

I know there are the questions of structural integrity and perhaps no object can exist at those speeds or at least none known to man.

Anyway just curious.

------------------
"I am neither Goku nor Vegita, I am the instrument of your destruction!" --Gogita

[Gogita]

Just rambling here but don't cockroaches travel faster than the speed of light http://www.sharkyforums.com/ubb/smile.gif

I mean haven't you guys noticed how quickly they scurry away the moment you turn on the kitchen light. So fast in fact you miss them completely most of the time.

Someone should build a cockroach powered vessel and then we would break the light barrier in no time.

------------------
"I am neither Goku nor Vegita, I am the instrument of your destruction!" --Gogita

[Klion]

I believe the way it works is if you had an infinite power source you could accelerate an infinite mass (which is any mass when travelling that speed) up to the speed of light, but could not accelerate past that point.

[Moridin]

Originally posted by Klion:
I believe the way it works is if you had an infinite power source you could accelerate an infinite mass (which is any mass when travelling that speed) up to the speed of light, but could not accelerate past that point.

I think that once you reach the speed of light exceeding it is not a problem. Once you start to go faster then light mass begins to drop from infinity back to "normal" levels. The problem here would be that during that instant you were traveling at light speed the universe would age and die around you, and you would be at the very end of time itself.



------------------
Life is complex. It has real and imaginary parts.

[elimc]

You guys are all wrong. A 1986 Ford Taurus is the fastest thing in a vacuum. And, as we all know, they are they are very expensive (around 300$). Coincidentally, I own one. It runs on "happy gas". If you think "happy thoughts" you can go mach 57 million. The only problem is that the air conditioning doesn't work. Also, according to some strange laws of physics, cops are sometimes able to break this impassable speed barrier for brief periods of time http://www.sharkyforums.com/ubb/frown.gif . Their cars run on gas from Conoco.

------------------
Lets make a run for it, B!

[geeking]

I dispute SlartyB's claim that gravity acts at the same rate as light. I claim that gravity (as modeled by our current equations) is a simple scalar potential field. That is the force of gravity on a particular mass is exclusively a function of the reciprocal of the square of the distances between those masses. If the distance is altered, the gravitational force between the two objects changes instantaneously. It is not like an electric field where to change the force we move charged particles through the field. At least that is my understanding.

------------------
With searching comes loss
And the presence of absence:
"My Novel" not found.

[SlartyB]

Originally posted by geeking:
I dispute SlartyB's claim that gravity acts at the same rate as light. I claim that gravity (as modeled by our current equations) is a simple scalar potential field. That is the force of gravity on a particular mass is exclusively a function of the reciprocal of the square of the distances between those masses. If the distance is altered, the gravitational force between the two objects changes instantaneously. It is not like an electric field where to change the force we move charged particles through the field. At least that is my understanding.



Dispute all you like - I know who's right http://www.sharkyforums.com/ubb/wink.gif

If you *REALLY* think gravity acts instantaneously, then I would get down to the Patent Office and register your idea before someone beats you to it. Go on, off you go ....

[elimc]

Hey Slaty B, so you mean that the gravity waves travel at the speed of light? This is pretty interesting. I actually live nearby one of the LIGO detectors to find these gravity waves. I wonder what makes up gravity waves? Probably some unknown subatomic particles or cosmic string. Hmmm, this might be a dumb question, but how would these particles bend space? I could do all kinds of cool things if I knew how to bend space! An artificial form of antigravity would be my first priority!

------------------
Lets make a run for it, B!

[CaTaLyST]

hmm.. im going to move this to the Gizmos and gadgets forum... maybe we will let it pass because it involves telescopes and whatnot.. otherwise i'd have to close it, which i will do if this gets outa hand =P

Seems to be okay for now tho.

------------------
chosos@nmu.edu
ICQ: 2852628

[G19]

Nice home to fill in G and G. Accessed this by clicking Catalysts post name. Good.



------------------

A-Open 300W 5-bin ATX case
Asus socket370 CUV4X-E mainboard
1Ghz Intel P3 815chip CPU
Asus GeForce 2MX V7100 Pure (32MB)
256RAM u.g.t.1GRAM, 15G HD
Win Lucent 56K modem
DX8 Win98SE
Sound Blaster Live
SFS Flightstick/Throttle
SW FreeStlye Pro
HP Apollo P-2250
Afga Snapscan 1212u
15inch e-View s monitor
---COL3:17

[al bundy]

Uh-oh... a full day went by without a new post on this thread!

I guess I'll bump it for ya Garrin...

[G19]

I don't mind if it goes below the "interest equator". I can always dig it up when I add something. Thanks for the help. I'll be back on it sometime...

[Simpson, Homer]

Slarty Bartfast (I hope I got the reference right), I want to congratulate you on being one of the sole bearers of logic in this thread!

Relativity is not a "fringe" science or a topic you can discuss without education. It's not a paradox unless you do not understand it right.

It's very simple. If you're travelling in a spaceship travelling at 0.99 c (i.e. 99% of the speed of light), and you shine a flashlight out your front window, you WILL see the light travel forward at 3.0x10^8 m/s like normal. A guy sitting on the side of the road will also measure the light at 3.0e8 m/s, and will measure you at 99% of that speed. Now, a better example: if you throw a ball forward at 0.9c while travelling at 0.9c, you will see the ball go forward at 0.9c. HOWEVER, a "stationary" observer will see the ball go forward at (v1 + v2)/(1+v1*v2), which is 1.8/1.81 or 0.994 c.

Never use the word weight if you can help it, especially in relativistic situations. Photons do NOT have mass, but they DO have momentum. Because of this remarkable principle, Energy = Momentum (Since m^2 = e^2 - p^2, with m = mass, p = momentum, and e = energy. the m term drops out, and e^2 = p^2). Therefore, photons feel the effect of gravity but they do not have REST mass (i.e. mass when v = 0, because by Maxwell's equations they cannot travel at any speed other than the speed of light--3.0e8 m/s).

Light does not travel any slower through a medium. It PROPOGATES slower. All photons still travel at 3.0e8 m/s, but every fraction of a second they keep getting absorbed and re-emitted by the electrons in particles of the medium. Thus, they travel at the full speed of light, but there are pit stops where the electron ceases to exist and is re-created (i.e. absorption and emission), creating the illusion of "slowed light".

Also, gravity IS limited by the speed of light. It's very simple. If the sun decided to start moving reaaaally fast (say, the speed of light) in a particular direction, the earth would orbit JUST AS IT ALWAYS HAS for the next 8.5 minutes, at which point it would slowly start being attracted to the "path" the sun took (i.e. after 8.5 minutes, its force vector would start following the path of the sun in its new movement). ALL FIELDS (gravitational, electromagnetic, whatever) are propogated at the speed of light. So the planet jupiter is constantly "propagating" an "updated" field out from itself. When light passes a few thousand miles away from jupiter, it passes by the field which propogated out a fraction of a second ago. Thus it feels a gravitational attraction to a 0.001 sec old Jupiter (it's hard to express this in words... *sigh*).

Oh well, that's enough for now.

[This message has been edited by Simpson, Homer (edited August 16, 2001).]

[elimc]

Alright Homer, since you know so much about quantum physics then maybe you can help me? How does gravity bend space at the quantum level? Or does anyone know?

------------------
Lets make a run for it, B!

[Simpson, Homer]

Whoa http://www.sharkyforums.com/ubb/smile.gif Never said I knew much about quantum physics.

The bending of space-time (general relativity) in quantum mechanics has yet to be figured out satisfactorily. String theory has some insights, but unfortunately, to experiment on the theory requires incredibly high energies and incredibly short periods of time (i.e. nearly immeasurable quantities of time).

Originally posted by elimc:
Alright Homer, since you know so much about quantum physics then maybe you can help me? How does gravity bend space at the quantum level? Or does anyone know?

[G19]

Courtesy of Moridin:
http://archive.nytimes.com/2001/08/15/science/15PHYS.html

[al bundy]

Originally posted by al bundy:

I don't know if anyone will want another book to read - but just in case, here's a good book that is relevant to the current relativity debate:

"Mathematical Invalidity of Relativity (Both Special and General)", by Cameron Y. Rebigsol, Vantage Press, NY, 1996.

Edit: Just trying to contribute something interesting! http://www.sharkyforums.com/ubb/smile.gif

Originally posted by GARRIN19:

I love those kinds of books. "What u all lookin at?!" http://www.sharkyforums.com/ubb/eek.gif It sounds like a string theory argument.

Hey GARRIN19, it's actually not a string theory argument... The above title exposes, in a very definite way, that the mathematics of relativity inevitably leads to several unacceptable operational and physical inconsistencies. Some of these include 1) direct mathematical fallacies at the equation level; 2) measurement unit inconsistencies; 3) a clear demonstration that relativity leads to a mathematical confirmation of Newton's third law, which relativity is actually supposed to be replacing rather than confirming.

The conclusion the author makes is that relativity theory, mathematically speaking, in fact has no ground to stand on - and that the scientific world desperately needs a new theory for these matters.

Edit: It's actually a very good read, I hope many here will have a chance to look at it - especially given the really interesting points being expressed in this thread! http://www.sharkyforums.com/ubb/cool.gif

[This message has been edited by al bundy (edited August 18, 2001).]

[G19]

It reminds me of the concepts of limits, how an object deccelerating at a certain average is technically(physically) supposed to stop, yet there is mathematical indication of continous motion. This and all of the Zeno's Paradoxes.

[al bundy]

Originally posted by GARRIN19:
It reminds me of the concepts of limits, how an object deccelerating at a certain average is technically(physically) supposed to stop, yet there is mathematical indication of continous motion. This and all of the Zeno's Paradoxes.



BTW, wouldn't "Zeno's Paradoxes" make for some good thread discussions, GARRIN19? Just a suggestion... http://www.sharkyforums.com/ubb/wink.gif

[G19]

They should change Gadgets and Gizmos to a Popular Mechanics forum. Thay way we could talk about all new technology, throw in some academic theory debates and keep it on topic.

[Predator2]

Originally posted by Simpson, Homer:
Slarty Bartfast (I hope I got the reference right), I want to congratulate you on being one of the sole bearers of logic in this thread!



Why thank you, I feel so touched by your prejudice statement.



Also, gravity IS limited by the speed of light. It's very simple. If the sun decided to start moving reaaaally fast (say, the speed of light) in a particular direction, the earth would orbit JUST AS IT ALWAYS HAS for the next 8.5 minutes, at which point it would slowly start being attracted to the "path" the sun took (i.e. after 8.5 minutes, its force vector would start following the path of the sun in its new movement). ALL FIELDS (gravitational, electromagnetic, whatever) are propogated at the speed of light. So the planet jupiter is constantly "propagating" an "updated" field out from itself. When light passes a few thousand miles away from jupiter, it passes by the field which propogated out a fraction of a second ago. Thus it feels a gravitational attraction to a 0.001 sec old Jupiter (it's hard to express this in words... *sigh*).

Oh well, that's enough for now.

[This message has been edited by Simpson, Homer (edited August 16, 2001).]

Correct me if I'm wrong but if you move the sun away from our solar system at the speed of light I seriously don't think that the gravity pull that the sun emits would be enough to drag earth along. I think it will become less and less and finally just get thrown out of orbit completely.

Just a Note.
If ppl don't think in the line you do don't mean they are stupid.
Check history and you see that EVERY MAN/WOMAN that was a GENIUS was looked upon as being dumb or just stupid...

------------------
Pentium Overdrive 200@200 Dhry/Whet-stone 427Mips/228 MFlops
Asus P55-T2P4
64MB EDO Int/Float 86/114 MB/s
Matrox Millenium II
Voodoo 2 3DMark2000 474
Creativ 32 pnp

[kenny48]

mind boggling.. really!

------------------
epox 8k7a
amd 1000mhz
radeon le

[al bundy]

Just another bump for ya GARRIN19, I hope peeps don't lose interest in this thread! It's been a rather good one so far, IMHO... http://www.sharkyforums.com/ubb/cool.gif

[G19]

Thanks Al.

The information transfer technology is going to take a back seat here for a moment...

That lense system is going to have to be using the capture of images and light in order to get the lag effect needed to extraploate the time line chosen. Currently, in terms of computers, there must be some kind of filtering programs for translating distorted images into crisp, clear ones, for starters. Obviously a giant lense sounds pretty retarded but then again this project is about possibilities not style. Style later.(hic)



------------------
A-Open 300W ATX case
Asus socket370 CUV4X-E mainboard
1Ghz Intel P3 CPU
Asus GeForce 2MX V7100 Pure (32MB)
256RAM u.g.t.1GRAM, 15G HD
Win Lucent 56K modem
DX8 Win98SE
Sound Blaster Live
SFS Flightstick/Throttle
SW FreeStlye Pro
HP Apollo P-2250
Afga Snapscan 1212u
15inch e-View s monitor

--COL3:17

[al bundy]

Originally posted by Simpson, Homer:
Light does not travel any slower through a medium. It PROPOGATES slower. All photons still travel at 3.0e8 m/s, but every fraction of a second they keep getting absorbed and re-emitted by the electrons in particles of the medium. Thus, they travel at the full speed of light, but there are pit stops where the electron ceases to exist and is re-created (i.e. absorption and emission), creating the illusion of "slowed light".


It appears that light can not only just be just "slowed down", it can apparently even be utterly stopped!

Here's a link regarding the work of two groups of Harvard University scientists showing how they were able to slow the speed of light down to absolute zero. Look here: http://www.sciam.com/news/011901/1.html

How about that? http://www.sharkyforums.com/ubb/wink.gif

Edit: Here's a link following up on the first, giving some more details. Particularly interesting are the potential applications of slowed light to the developing field of quantum computers - read on: http://www.sciam.com/2001/0701issue/0701hau.html

http://www.sharkyforums.com/ubb/cool.gif

[This message has been edited by al bundy (edited August 26, 2001).]

[Predator2]

Very interesting.

So if we can slow down light we should be able to speed up light as well witch kind of breaks the "nothing can travel faster then light theory".

no?

------------------
Pentium Overdrive 200@200 Dhry/Whet-stone 427Mips/228 MFlops
Asus P55-T2P4
64MB EDO Int/Float 86/114 MB/s
Matrox Millenium II
Voodoo 2 3DMark2000 474
Creativ 32 pnp

[al bundy]

A couple of interesting links relevant to superluminal motion, information transmission, etc. are here:
http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/FTL.html
http://lal.cs.byu.edu/ketav/issue_3.2/Lumin/lumin.html

http://www.sharkyforums.com/ubb/cool.gif

[This message has been edited by al bundy (edited August 27, 2001).]

[web_hed]

OK, I have a question;
If the mass of an object is said to reach "infinate" proportions as it approaches the speed of light, then wouldn't the thrust of any vehicle approaching such a speed also increase at the same rate, therefore NOT limiting the craft to speeds under that of light speed?
I also have a problem with any one using the term "infinate" when reffering to any type of physics. Immeasurable I can handle, Infinate? I dunno, I have a problem with that. Even "space" as we know it is not thought to be truly "infinate." You guys ever hear the theory of the oscilating universe? I am no quantum physicist, but some of what you people are saying does not make a lot of sense to me. And not just the jargin, the theories behind a lot of what you are saying does not seem sound based on ANYTHING I have ever heard before. Again, I am no expert, but some of you seem a little off your rocker, so to speak. (I will refrain from mentioning anyone specifically, but I am sure a lot of you out there know exactly who I am speaking of).

------------------
Spider-sense...tingling! DANGER!!

[G19]

I also have a problem with any one using the term "infinate" when reffering to any type of physics. Immeasurable I can handle, Infinate? I dunno, I have a problem with that.
_____________________________________________

Someone else notices this. Good. I was wondering if people saw the difference between teleologics and immesurable subject. But I think the term is being used as to what is technologically containable measurement. A feasable agreement between physics and theory of physics.

[al bundy]

Originally posted by web_hed:
OK, I have a question;
If the mass of an object is said to reach "infinate" proportions as it approaches the speed of light, then wouldn't the thrust of any vehicle approaching such a speed also increase at the same rate, therefore NOT limiting the craft to speeds under that of light speed?


Hey web_hed, I'll try to answer that as best as I can (as I'm not an expert in physics). I believe that your question may actually contain its own answer. That is, imagine the mass of an object increasing toward infinity as light speed approaches. An increasing force will obviously be required to maintain the object's acceleration, since the object's mass is growing. This force would thus need to approach infinite magnitude, as the mass of the object also increases toward infinity, in order to maintain the object's acceleration toward light speed. It is precisely this barrier, i.e. the impossibility of providing a force that can grow to infinite magnitude, that disallows the actual realization of light speed (at least in theory). Isn't that right everyone? Or maybe I'm missing something here...

[web_hed]

Okie dokie, I see what you are saying, but what I am saying here, is that theory seems to imply that just about everything distorts as an object approaches light speed. It seems that all forces are going whacky in these hypotheticals why would it be unreasonable to think that thrust produced from an engine would be any different? Personnaly, I have issues with several aspects of Einstien's theory, and mathematicians are starting to have issues too. But, that is not for me to decide, being as I am just an artist.

------------------
Spider-sense...tingling! DANGER!!

[VirusDub]

web_hed, approaching the speed of light would have no effect on the thrust produced by a rocket. The combustion of propellant is contained within the moving body, so in keeping with relativistic concepts, it behaves just as it would if the craft were travelling at 60m/h. As was stated earlier, as an object's velocity increases, so does its mass. So to keep accelerating, it takes more and more force, while the rocket still produces the same amount of force as it always did.

I was also wondering. In all the explanations I've heard of relativity, mass travels through space and time, never exceeding the speed of light in either direction (through space or through time). That means that light, travelling at c through space, does not experience time. So if it were theoretically possible to exceed c, would that mean negative time?

------------------
1.33GHz Athlon @ 1.45
Asus A7M266 Mobo
256MB PC2100 DDR
IBM 75GXP 60GB HDD
Fujitsu 10GB HDD
Toshiba 16x DVD
Plextor 16x/10x/40x CD-RW
VisionTek GeForce3 Video
Hercules Game Theater XP Sound with Klipsch Promedia 4.2 Speakers (yes, dual subwoofers)
Envision 19" Monitor
Dual Netgear FA310TX NICs

[way2funni]

According to the users guide that shipped with my FLUX CAPACITOR.......

Rutrow, it says that feature is available only with the purchase of a BORG transwarp drive.

SOL.


------------------
You can put any jerk in a shirt and call him a Manager

[al bundy]

Originally posted by way2funni:

According to the users guide that shipped with my FLUX CAPACITOR.......

Rutrow, it says that feature is available only with the purchase of a BORG transwarp drive.

SOL.




Gotta bump that one! http://www.sharkyforums.com/ubb/biggrin.gif

[web_hed]

Why does it take more and more force to accelerate an object in space? There is no gravity, and it is a vacuum, therfore no friction to act upon the object, so ANY force acted upon a spacecraft should influence it. Let's say that a craft DOES increase in mass, then it should only take a lot longer to reach lightspeed, but it should be able to happen. I dunno, people tell me it is impossible, and it very well may be, but a lot of this doesn't seem right. Perhaps I am being given the wrong information and/or remembering the wrong facts.

------------------
Spider-sense...tingling! DANGER!!

[G19]

Someone bring out the projector. We are going to watch a space movie about "warp drives and worm holes". You may bring a snack or a juicebox if you like.

http://www.space.com/php/multimedia/spacetv/archive.php?category=Information

[This message has been edited by GARRIN19 (edited September 05, 2001).]

[al bundy]

Originally posted by web_hed:
Why does it take more and more force to accelerate an object in space? There is no gravity, and it is a vacuum, therfore no friction to act upon the object, so ANY force acted upon a spacecraft should influence it. Let's say that a craft DOES increase in mass, then it should only take a lot longer to reach lightspeed, but it should be able to happen. I dunno, people tell me it is impossible, and it very well may be, but a lot of this doesn't seem right. Perhaps I am being given the wrong information and/or remembering the wrong facts.



Your quite right that if an object in space, accelerating under a constant force, were to have its mass increased up to a fixed mass value, then it would just take longer for that object to reach light speed - but it would still eventually hit that speed.

However, since Acceleration = (Force / Mass), you see that when the object's mass increases without bound (as its velocity increases toward light speed), then its acceleration actually diminishes to zero... thus preventing the object's velocity from ever actually achieving the light speed max.

All this at least in theory... somebody please correct me if any of this is incorrect?...

Edited for typo...

[This message has been edited by al bundy (edited September 14, 2001).]

[quartz]

what a lot of msgs!...maybe already said, but i had a friend who did astrophysics at uni. I was told if a space ship 2 miles long is travelling at half the speed of light, it's size shrinks by half. It can then be stored for a fraction of a second in a room 1 mile long.

wee-yuurd ;-)

[FeLicKz]

Originally posted by way2funni:

According to the users guide that shipped with my FLUX CAPACITOR.......

Rutrow, it says that feature is available only with the purchase of a BORG transwarp drive.

SOL.





hey if i every get 15 grand i can buy me a dalorian... one for sale 30 miles from me.. how phat would that be riding downt he street in the backtothe future car with 20's and hydrolics!!!!


------------------
P4 1.7Ghz
64MB DDR NVIDIA GeForce3 4X AGP
256 pc800 RDRAM
40 GB ULTRA ATA/100
Samsung DvD rom
8x/4x/32x CD-RW Drive
Integrated 3Com® EtherLink® 10/100 Ethernet Controller
Turtle Beach Santa Cruz -DSP Sound
Altec Lansing 4.1 THX Certified ADA885 Dolby Digital Speakers w/Sub
Dual Booting ME & 2000
640k DsL connection run to my pc through my Linksys 4port router

[Snoop Dogg]

Umm actually I find your topics very enjoyable and quite amuzing http://www.sharkyforums.com/ubb/smile.gif. I do however think this is VERY possible indeed but not of our time as of present. I have seen it happen in movies of course (key word MOVIES) and seems like a very futuristic thing that could very well happen if we keep advancing like we are now. Space is still very much unknown and for thousands and maybe millions of years let alone forever always will remain that way. I dont think anyone can fully understand the true powers of the universe.

[dudephil]

I hate to revive a dead thread but I read through and found this one particularly interesting. It sounds possible in theory but when you try to apply it, it can't be done(kind of like Communism). I do believe we will be able to travel at the speed of light (not in the near future), but will never be able to travel backwards in time.

[Declan Mulqueen]

Originally posted by Predator2
I had a very interesting discution with my teacher a long time ago...

I asked him the following.
What if I'm a galatic post man and I stand on my space ship going at the speed of light.
I have nothing to do so I through a boll in the direction I'm going.
Normal math states current speed + added speed (boll) = total speed for boll.
looking from a stand still position.

The boll would be traveling faster then the speed of light right.
NO was the asnwear I got. He said that the boll would NOT leave my hand because nothing can go faster then the speed of light.


Actually, going by this theory, how would you even be able to move your arm forward to throw the ball, or how would your heart pump blood towards the direction your traveling? I admit that I'm quite ignorant when it comes to...well, pretty much anything, but wouldnt your arm or whatever other object be held to the same rules as the ball?

[G19]

Originally posted by dudephil
I hate to revive a dead thread but I read through and found this one particularly interesting.

By all means do. I have it immortalized on CD now anyways(I do that). Do with her as you wish boys, she's all yours. Thanks for the interest. :)