Printable View
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! https://www.sharkyforums.com/images/.../2005/06/5.gif
[This message has been edited by al bundy (edited August 02, 2001).]
I love those kinds of books. "What u all lookin at?!" https://www.sharkyforums.com/images/...2002/02/11.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
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.Quote:
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'?
------------------
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
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).]
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).]
Quote:
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.
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 https://www.sharkyforums.com/images/.../2005/06/5.gif
[This message has been edited by BoRoG (edited August 03, 2001).]
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
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).]
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
WHAT ?!?!Quote:
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'?
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!
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/0...d.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).]
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."Quote:
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/0...d.of.light.ap/
I would agree with that statement.
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
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!