This says something to how space-time is made.
That would make it instantaneous, ultimately, and no scientist in their left mind is going to agree to that!
If only one event occurs at a time, a speed limit isn't necessary.
Time, when broken down to it's fundamentals, is a chronology of events and not a rate. The rates we use are just statistical averages but not the actual events and this could easily lead to only a statistical understanding of time that gives statistical limits but that could easily be like saying you can't shoot a free throw from across a court because statistically it's impossible, yet in reality it's mostly an issue of complexity and not physical impossibility.
Time, when broken down to it's fundamentals, is a chronology of events and not a rate. The rates we use are just statistical averages but not the actual events and this could easily lead to only a statistical understanding of time that gives statistical limits but that could easily be like saying you can't shoot a free throw from across a court because statistically it's impossible, yet in reality it's mostly an issue of complexity and not physical impossibility.
QUOTE (Nick+Aug 17 2006, 09:01 PM)
This says something to how space-time is made.
Exactly. Either there is a finite speed limit, or the speed limit is infinite.
If the speed limit is infinite, then Minkowski space-time is experimentally and mathematically indistiguishble from Euclidean space-time. This is well covered in many textbooks, including section 10.8 (Relativity without c) which is online.
http://www.courses.fas.harvard.edu/~phys16/Textbook/ch10.pdf
So then you need to rely on experiments to distinguish between the two.
One experiment could distinguish between
KE = 1/2 mv^2 and KE = m V^2 ( ( 1 - (v/V)^2 )^-0.5 - 1 ) =~ 1/2 mv^2 + 3/8 m v^4/V^2 ....
and rule out V < 0.99 c or V > 1.01 c
C.M.Will calls such tests, tests of Local Lorentz Invarience, one of the foundations of the General theory of Relativity.
http://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0510072
More on this subject from July 19
I covered similar ground in response to an assertation from you before in this post from July 10, 2006
I wonder how amac is doing today?
Exactly. Either there is a finite speed limit, or the speed limit is infinite.
If the speed limit is infinite, then Minkowski space-time is experimentally and mathematically indistiguishble from Euclidean space-time. This is well covered in many textbooks, including section 10.8 (Relativity without c) which is online.
http://www.courses.fas.harvard.edu/~phys16/Textbook/ch10.pdf
So then you need to rely on experiments to distinguish between the two.
One experiment could distinguish between
KE = 1/2 mv^2 and KE = m V^2 ( ( 1 - (v/V)^2 )^-0.5 - 1 ) =~ 1/2 mv^2 + 3/8 m v^4/V^2 ....
and rule out V < 0.99 c or V > 1.01 c
C.M.Will calls such tests, tests of Local Lorentz Invarience, one of the foundations of the General theory of Relativity.
http://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0510072
More on this subject from July 19
I covered similar ground in response to an assertation from you before in this post from July 10, 2006
I wonder how amac is doing today?
Light speed could be infinite but encounter a specific "background density" of interactions while travelling through space that gives it a finite appearance relative to other paths.
Basically, if the universe is quantized into discrete units, which seems necessary in order for a discrete event to occur and be detected, then what we see in space is not a true vacuum nor is motion through it continuous but instead unit to unit hops.
We can't measure the time delay for a snigle path alone. It's physically impossible - all you see it a "blip" at one end without any way to know "how long" this trip took without comparing to some other path in the chain (ultimately it's a chain of events that makes a ring).
So we might measure 1000 units of delay through one path and 2000 units of delay through the other and so we can say the distance is double through one path or one path has half the velocity etc.
But the mistake is assuming this is infinitely divisible into fractional units. We can't measure fractional units of time - either something happens or it doesn't.
Now it ends up that it doesn't matter how fast these hops along these chains occur in "real" time for us, they could be almost infinitely slow and then we'd just be making our measurements slower too. The limit is just that each unit of time, one event happens - at minimum, you need one jump in this chain in order to detect time, but that's not really as limit at all.
I won't claim we can shrink spacial distances for certain, but it seems likely possible because at high velocities, by relativity and tests that have supposedly verified this, time appears to actually go slower while travelling at high velocities, so this seems to mean that if you attempt to view the universe as a fixed grid of connections, it's possible to skip by connections in this network without experiencing time passing locally, so for example, it doesn't necessarily take a particle 1000 units of time subjectively to travel 1000 units of distance. In the extreme you can take an entire system and trade off location for time so you could take two particles that you want to interact and move them at close to light speed until they interact and if it's possible to recycle this energy, you could keep all particles moving at high velocities and interacting between themselves at a subjective rate of velocity faster than light speed and ulimately the relativistic third person view of light travelling at fixed velocities isn't possible from a first person point of view. The first person limit is one event per unit of time and that's hardly a limit at all.
For a more realistic example of such a system, imagine an optical computer with photons being reflected inside it. If you have elements that can create a non-linear response when two photons interact, then you can use these to create events for time and then funnel these results to all observers.
So is that virtual reality or reality? Well, if it's a physical system that looks, smells, sounds, tastes and feels like the real thing, then it doesn't seem to matter what you want to call it - it's real.
Basically, if the universe is quantized into discrete units, which seems necessary in order for a discrete event to occur and be detected, then what we see in space is not a true vacuum nor is motion through it continuous but instead unit to unit hops.
We can't measure the time delay for a snigle path alone. It's physically impossible - all you see it a "blip" at one end without any way to know "how long" this trip took without comparing to some other path in the chain (ultimately it's a chain of events that makes a ring).
So we might measure 1000 units of delay through one path and 2000 units of delay through the other and so we can say the distance is double through one path or one path has half the velocity etc.
But the mistake is assuming this is infinitely divisible into fractional units. We can't measure fractional units of time - either something happens or it doesn't.
Now it ends up that it doesn't matter how fast these hops along these chains occur in "real" time for us, they could be almost infinitely slow and then we'd just be making our measurements slower too. The limit is just that each unit of time, one event happens - at minimum, you need one jump in this chain in order to detect time, but that's not really as limit at all.
I won't claim we can shrink spacial distances for certain, but it seems likely possible because at high velocities, by relativity and tests that have supposedly verified this, time appears to actually go slower while travelling at high velocities, so this seems to mean that if you attempt to view the universe as a fixed grid of connections, it's possible to skip by connections in this network without experiencing time passing locally, so for example, it doesn't necessarily take a particle 1000 units of time subjectively to travel 1000 units of distance. In the extreme you can take an entire system and trade off location for time so you could take two particles that you want to interact and move them at close to light speed until they interact and if it's possible to recycle this energy, you could keep all particles moving at high velocities and interacting between themselves at a subjective rate of velocity faster than light speed and ulimately the relativistic third person view of light travelling at fixed velocities isn't possible from a first person point of view. The first person limit is one event per unit of time and that's hardly a limit at all.
For a more realistic example of such a system, imagine an optical computer with photons being reflected inside it. If you have elements that can create a non-linear response when two photons interact, then you can use these to create events for time and then funnel these results to all observers.
So is that virtual reality or reality? Well, if it's a physical system that looks, smells, sounds, tastes and feels like the real thing, then it doesn't seem to matter what you want to call it - it's real.
Another finite constant of nature is absolute zero. We can make things really hot but only so cold. Maybe the speed of light and absolute zero are related and help define each other. For example, if we reached absolute zero, energy could not exist because it would give off temperature. At absolute zero there would be no speed of light because light could not exist at absolute zero. Motion would also have to stop. The result would be a zero reference.
When the speed of light exists, temperature needs to be above absolute zero. This allows motion again. If a partial zero reference existed, (complete at absolute zero) it might be what is placing a limit on motion at C. Something to ponder.
When the speed of light exists, temperature needs to be above absolute zero. This allows motion again. If a partial zero reference existed, (complete at absolute zero) it might be what is placing a limit on motion at C. Something to ponder.
QUOTE (MDT+Aug 17 2006, 11:55 PM)
Another finite constant of nature is absolute zero. We can make things really hot but only so cold. Maybe the speed of light and absolute zero are related and help define each other. For example, if we reached absolute zero, energy could not exist because it would give off temperature. At absolute zero there would be no speed of light because light could not exist at absolute zero. Motion would also have to stop. The result would be a zero reference.
When the speed of light exists, temperature needs to be above absolute zero. This allows motion again. If a partial zero reference existed, (complete at absolute zero) it might be what is placing a limit on motion at C. Something to ponder.
That's an interesting thought.
Consider that at low temperatures many materials become superconductors and energy can pass through them without encountering resistance.
If you look at the motion of a photon through space, this might be similar to a lossless transmission of energy through a super conductor. It's generally assumed that time is stopped for a photon. It can travel through space large distances and not spontaneously age on it's own while encountering space.
From this perspective, for light itself, there is no light speed limit. It simply goes from one interaction to the next and doesn't travel through emptiness to get there. You might trace out the sequence of events for a photon and construct what interpretation of space it might make - everything connected by a straight line of space is an immediate neighbor and suddenly the universe looks very small and detailed and it's speed limit is now determined by units of matter instead of units of space.
Yes, maybe there's a temperature in which most all masses operate transparently like space to photons instead ... I wonder what would exist at that point? Would there be anything left if the entire universe was colder than 0K?
When the speed of light exists, temperature needs to be above absolute zero. This allows motion again. If a partial zero reference existed, (complete at absolute zero) it might be what is placing a limit on motion at C. Something to ponder.
That's an interesting thought.
Consider that at low temperatures many materials become superconductors and energy can pass through them without encountering resistance.
If you look at the motion of a photon through space, this might be similar to a lossless transmission of energy through a super conductor. It's generally assumed that time is stopped for a photon. It can travel through space large distances and not spontaneously age on it's own while encountering space.
From this perspective, for light itself, there is no light speed limit. It simply goes from one interaction to the next and doesn't travel through emptiness to get there. You might trace out the sequence of events for a photon and construct what interpretation of space it might make - everything connected by a straight line of space is an immediate neighbor and suddenly the universe looks very small and detailed and it's speed limit is now determined by units of matter instead of units of space.
Yes, maybe there's a temperature in which most all masses operate transparently like space to photons instead ... I wonder what would exist at that point? Would there be anything left if the entire universe was colder than 0K?
Infinite speed will eventually become instantaneous. Nothing can go faster than 'instant', in the same way that nothing can go slower than 'zero; stopped; non-movement'. At this point they become a singularity. The same thing.
These are properties of Infinite Space. (Which is wave-structured, but becomes particle-like as it slows to form 'matter'...)
Between 'light-speed' and instant, there must exist whatever is in-between.
Interesting, that at this point of our existence we should start to have intuitions of such things as 'telepathy', or other 'psychophysical phenomena'. There is the possibility that such things exist in this 'grey' area, in the 'in-between' (speed of light and instant.)
Previously, we have had intuition of all sorts of strange things, but not the science to back them up, or deny them. Why do we have/need science at all? ...For this very reason, I suggest.
(...more if you want it! - I'll shut up, if you don't!)
k.
These are properties of Infinite Space. (Which is wave-structured, but becomes particle-like as it slows to form 'matter'...)
Between 'light-speed' and instant, there must exist whatever is in-between.
Interesting, that at this point of our existence we should start to have intuitions of such things as 'telepathy', or other 'psychophysical phenomena'. There is the possibility that such things exist in this 'grey' area, in the 'in-between' (speed of light and instant.)
Previously, we have had intuition of all sorts of strange things, but not the science to back them up, or deny them. Why do we have/need science at all? ...For this very reason, I suggest.
(...more if you want it! - I'll shut up, if you don't!)
k.
QUOTE (Knot of this world+Aug 23 2006, 10:28 AM)
Infinite speed will eventually become instantaneous. Nothing can go faster than 'instant', in the same way that nothing can go slower than 'zero; stopped; non-movement'. At this point they become a singularity. The same thing.
These are properties of Infinite Space. (Which is wave-structured, but becomes particle-like as it slows to form 'matter'...)
Between 'light-speed' and instant, there must exist whatever is in-between.
Interesting, that at this point of our existence we should start to have intuitions of such things as 'telepathy', or other 'psychophysical phenomena'. There is the possibility that such things exist in this 'grey' area, in the 'in-between' (speed of light and instant.)
Previously, we have had intuition of all sorts of strange things, but not the science to back them up, or deny them. Why do we have/need science at all? ...For this very reason, I suggest.
(...more if you want it! - I'll shut up, if you don't!)
k.
Go for it. This is the good stuff anyway. We already know how rocks fall and there's got to be more to science than that
These are properties of Infinite Space. (Which is wave-structured, but becomes particle-like as it slows to form 'matter'...)
Between 'light-speed' and instant, there must exist whatever is in-between.
Interesting, that at this point of our existence we should start to have intuitions of such things as 'telepathy', or other 'psychophysical phenomena'. There is the possibility that such things exist in this 'grey' area, in the 'in-between' (speed of light and instant.)
Previously, we have had intuition of all sorts of strange things, but not the science to back them up, or deny them. Why do we have/need science at all? ...For this very reason, I suggest.
(...more if you want it! - I'll shut up, if you don't!)
k.
Go for it. This is the good stuff anyway. We already know how rocks fall and there's got to be more to science than that
I propose TWO kinds of gravitational 'force'. One pulling from 'outside', being the original force of Infinite Space, and the other being the consequential effect of the first (Infinite) one. The latter is the classical 'gravity' that we have tried to measure in the past (and still debate about now!).
The overall effect of this would be to create points of equilibrium, between the two 'forces'. Another effect would be the illusion of the Universe expanding, while it was in fact being pulled from the 'outside'.
On Earth, a visual representation of this effect can be seen in 'Tornados'. Were tornados in Space, they would take on a spherical appearance, and attract matter to them with the same classical centrifugal-type gravity that forms planets.
However, because all things are subject to the Original 'forces' of the properties of Infinite Space, ultimately all things must comply with this firstly.
A sphere is the only shape possible in a 3-dimensional environment that is primarily influenced by an Infinite origin. The only shape that can be viewed from Infinite perspectives. Thus 3-dimensional Space, and Infinite Space 'prove' each other (cause and effect), as the predominantly spherical shapes that we see in the Cosmos confirm.
k.
The overall effect of this would be to create points of equilibrium, between the two 'forces'. Another effect would be the illusion of the Universe expanding, while it was in fact being pulled from the 'outside'.
On Earth, a visual representation of this effect can be seen in 'Tornados'. Were tornados in Space, they would take on a spherical appearance, and attract matter to them with the same classical centrifugal-type gravity that forms planets.
However, because all things are subject to the Original 'forces' of the properties of Infinite Space, ultimately all things must comply with this firstly.
A sphere is the only shape possible in a 3-dimensional environment that is primarily influenced by an Infinite origin. The only shape that can be viewed from Infinite perspectives. Thus 3-dimensional Space, and Infinite Space 'prove' each other (cause and effect), as the predominantly spherical shapes that we see in the Cosmos confirm.
k.
Well a force could be seen as either pushing or pulling. The physical event of a force (at least forces we can physically detect) causing an acceleration is real and we could imagine it pushing away from something or pulling it toward something else, so in many ways they are similar and interchangeable as exactly what is doing the pushing or pulling (or even why it's pushing or pulling) could be mentally altered without necessarily changing the final motion.
Something to consider is that in the end when we measure distances, we need a ruler to do it. If the ruler is subject to the same deformations then this can make it difficult to determine whether or not a distance has been changed. For example, if the universe was being pulled outward but this was a stretching evenly distributed across all space, then we wouldn't be able to measure this using a ruler, though we might experience an unexplained acceleration similar to gravity in some direction.
Something to consider is that in the end when we measure distances, we need a ruler to do it. If the ruler is subject to the same deformations then this can make it difficult to determine whether or not a distance has been changed. For example, if the universe was being pulled outward but this was a stretching evenly distributed across all space, then we wouldn't be able to measure this using a ruler, though we might experience an unexplained acceleration similar to gravity in some direction.
QUOTE (StevenA+Aug 23 2006, 10:11 PM)
Well a force could be seen as either pushing or pulling.
That's right. Or.....both!
Observed by us from 'inside' as pushing, but in Reality being pulled from outside by the greater (original) force. The 'motion' we can observe, but it is the origin of such motion that has yet to be explained sufficiently.
This is another perspective.
Thanks for taking the time,
k.
That's right. Or.....both!
Observed by us from 'inside' as pushing, but in Reality being pulled from outside by the greater (original) force. The 'motion' we can observe, but it is the origin of such motion that has yet to be explained sufficiently.
This is another perspective.
Thanks for taking the time,
k.
rM=M0/sqrt(1-V^2/C^2)
This is why speed can not be infinite. Actually it is why the speed limit is the speed of light. This is of course assuming this equation was formulated on facts. If it was formulated on speculating (speculating that nothing of mass travels faster than the speed of light ©) than it could be that the equation is wrong.
Where rM is relative mass
M0 is mass at rest
V is velocity and
C is the speed of light
The closer to the speed of light we get the more relative mass an object gets. This is just another way of saying that the object appears to have more mass because more force is required to push it faster than it is already going. So what happens at the speed of light. Lets use a 10kg object to see.
rM=10kg/sqrt(1-C^2/C^2)
rM=10kg/sqrt(1-1)
rM=10kg/sqrt(0)
rM=10kg/0
rM=Infinite.
So an object will have a relative mass of an infinite amount. How much fuel (energy) would it take to move an object of infinite mass? An infinite amount and that is just plain impossible.
Me personally I think this equation isn't complete or is inaccurate. If you use just plain old E=MC^2 than is that not the equation to find out the energy needed to move a mass at the speed of light? If so this wouldn't give an infinite amount. Only to reach an infinite speed would you need an infinite amount of energy.
Also N=kg*m/s^2
Say we accelerate that 10kg mass up to the speed of light in one second than N=kg*299 792 458 m/s^2
N=10*299 792 458 m/s^2
N=2 997 924 580
This is 673 960 255.604 lbs of thrust for one second.
Here too the only place an infinite amount of energy is required is if you try and go at an infinite speed.
So which is right and which is wrong?
This is why speed can not be infinite. Actually it is why the speed limit is the speed of light. This is of course assuming this equation was formulated on facts. If it was formulated on speculating (speculating that nothing of mass travels faster than the speed of light ©) than it could be that the equation is wrong.
Where rM is relative mass
M0 is mass at rest
V is velocity and
C is the speed of light
The closer to the speed of light we get the more relative mass an object gets. This is just another way of saying that the object appears to have more mass because more force is required to push it faster than it is already going. So what happens at the speed of light. Lets use a 10kg object to see.
rM=10kg/sqrt(1-C^2/C^2)
rM=10kg/sqrt(1-1)
rM=10kg/sqrt(0)
rM=10kg/0
rM=Infinite.
So an object will have a relative mass of an infinite amount. How much fuel (energy) would it take to move an object of infinite mass? An infinite amount and that is just plain impossible.
Me personally I think this equation isn't complete or is inaccurate. If you use just plain old E=MC^2 than is that not the equation to find out the energy needed to move a mass at the speed of light? If so this wouldn't give an infinite amount. Only to reach an infinite speed would you need an infinite amount of energy.
Also N=kg*m/s^2
Say we accelerate that 10kg mass up to the speed of light in one second than N=kg*299 792 458 m/s^2
N=10*299 792 458 m/s^2
N=2 997 924 580
This is 673 960 255.604 lbs of thrust for one second.
Here too the only place an infinite amount of energy is required is if you try and go at an infinite speed.
So which is right and which is wrong?
Precursor, I'm new and I'm looking at these posts, baffled. I'm not much of a math whiz at all, and this is quite interesting to me. Therefore, I don't know if I really fit in here, but I'll try to follow/keep up.
QUOTE (Precursor562+Aug 24 2006, 09:39 PM)
rM=M0/sqrt(1-V^2/C^2)
This is why speed can not be infinite. Actually it is why the speed limit is the speed of light. This is of course assuming this equation was formulated on facts. If it was formulated on speculating (speculating that nothing of mass travels faster than the speed of light ©) than it could be that the equation is wrong.
Where rM is relative mass
M0 is mass at rest
V is velocity and
C is the speed of light
The closer to the speed of light we get the more relative mass an object gets. This is just another way of saying that the object appears to have more mass because more force is required to push it faster than it is already going. So what happens at the speed of light. Lets use a 10kg object to see.
rM=10kg/sqrt(1-C^2/C^2)
rM=10kg/sqrt(1-1)
rM=10kg/sqrt(0)
rM=10kg/0
rM=Infinite.
So an object will have a relative mass of an infinite amount. How much fuel (energy) would it take to move an object of infinite mass? An infinite amount and that is just plain impossible.
Me personally I think this equation isn't complete or is inaccurate. If you use just plain old E=MC^2 than is that not the equation to find out the energy needed to move a mass at the speed of light? If so this wouldn't give an infinite amount. Only to reach an infinite speed would you need an infinite amount of energy.
Also N=kg*m/s^2
Say we accelerate that 10kg mass up to the speed of light in one second than N=kg*299 792 458 m/s^2
N=10*299 792 458 m/s^2
N=2 997 924 580
This is 673 960 255.604 lbs of thrust for one second.
Here too the only place an infinite amount of energy is required is if you try and go at an infinite speed.
So which is right and which is wrong?
Time is the issue. You can't separate time from velocity. The question is whose time do you want to use. If an object is moving, it's not going to use some distant "stationary" observer's reference for time (it physically couldn't in any case).
The speed limit is potentially infinite. It may be impossible from a practical standpoint, but there's nothing stopping things within the universe from perceiving faster than light speed motion.
We couldn't observe something travelling faster than light anyway, because we make measurments using light. So, practically by definition, your measurements are going to show you the speed of whatever you're using to measure speed.
If an object was moving at faster than light speed away from you, you couldn't even see it - there would be an event horizon between the two of you and relativity is familiar with event horizons.
Any object moving can only use local interactions to determine time, and these measurements are affected by time dialation. Simply because an external observer might think something is travelling at under light speed (which must be true by definition if he's using something travelling at what he imagines to be ~300 km/s, whether or not that's actually true), doesn't change the subjective velocity of the traveller.
Let's rewrite velocity to include a local perspective for velocity that included time dialation. If a stationary observer sees something travelling at 90% of light speed, then what's the actual speed of the object locally?
v = .9c/(1-(0.9c)^2/c^2)^0.5 = .9c/(1-.81)^0.5 = .9c/.436 = 2.065c
So the traveller locally is moving 2.065 times faster than the speed of light a stationary observer is using for a reference.
Now who's correct? Does the guy actually travel to a star 100 light years away in less than 50 years? Well since he's the one doing the travelling and it's his time that matters, then yes.
Of course during this time he sees time accelerated in the universe around him though, but that doesn't stop other things from coming along for the ride and verifying the trip actually does take 50 years. Heck, if you had enough energy or could recycle it, you could take everyone on Earth there in 50 years or the Earth itself and "prove" the star is only 50 years away (or less) instead of 100.
The mistake is in assuming an observers perspective and subjective interpretations can more accurately reflect events for some other observer than themself.
The ultimate limits are in time and not distances.
Now to go further, to measure a velocity you need references for times and distances. If you encounter nothing along a path to differentiate various segments of it from other segments then there's no way to different these apart.
For example, if a photon travels 10 meters but interacts with nothing along the way, it's not sitting around looking out the window at other photons (at least I assume, but this may be incorrect) and watching the scenary pass by during this time. Instead it 'flys blind' (truly, this might be incorrect ... hmmmm) until it impacts something 10 meters away.
Now if we could somehow absorb and reemit that specific photon at some point of this path, it could have an event to mark off as a secondary point of time along the way, but if we don't put that point at 5 meters distance but instead put it only 1 meter away, the photon doesn't know how far it went, instead it would see these as simply 2 separate events equally spaced in time. So the photon, from it's own perspective (and ultimately isn't all reality experienced in such subjective ways ... the various subjective realities are the objective reality). So if the photon travelling 1 unit of time and went one meter and then for the second unit of time it went 9 meters, then the speed of this light could be externally interpreted in many ways ... it went 1 meter per event, or 9 meters per event or 10 meters per 2 events etc. If you try to imagine it had a constant speed throughout the trip, you'll find this a difficult perspective to prove, though in limit circumstances it can appear close.
When we talk about light speed, it's always implicitly moving through some medium and the medium affects the velocity and it's faster the less dense it is. Most all the light we use on the Earth is travelling slower than c because there's an atmosphere to pass through or water etc.
Obviously this same process isn't solely limited to Earth but applies to space as well, though there's a question of whether or not space can exist in a less dense form or less "frictional" state. If electrons can travel in a similarly lossless fashion through superconductors, then what interactions would they experience during this travel to create references for time in this lossless state? I don't see an obvious way and they'd likely be acting very similar to photons in space. If you can extend this to a mass, like a maser, then mass could possibly also travel through space without experiencing time and then it really doesn't matter what velocity someone else wants to call it, it's infinite (or at least practically well above light speed) velocity for the objects moving.
This is why speed can not be infinite. Actually it is why the speed limit is the speed of light. This is of course assuming this equation was formulated on facts. If it was formulated on speculating (speculating that nothing of mass travels faster than the speed of light ©) than it could be that the equation is wrong.
Where rM is relative mass
M0 is mass at rest
V is velocity and
C is the speed of light
The closer to the speed of light we get the more relative mass an object gets. This is just another way of saying that the object appears to have more mass because more force is required to push it faster than it is already going. So what happens at the speed of light. Lets use a 10kg object to see.
rM=10kg/sqrt(1-C^2/C^2)
rM=10kg/sqrt(1-1)
rM=10kg/sqrt(0)
rM=10kg/0
rM=Infinite.
So an object will have a relative mass of an infinite amount. How much fuel (energy) would it take to move an object of infinite mass? An infinite amount and that is just plain impossible.
Me personally I think this equation isn't complete or is inaccurate. If you use just plain old E=MC^2 than is that not the equation to find out the energy needed to move a mass at the speed of light? If so this wouldn't give an infinite amount. Only to reach an infinite speed would you need an infinite amount of energy.
Also N=kg*m/s^2
Say we accelerate that 10kg mass up to the speed of light in one second than N=kg*299 792 458 m/s^2
N=10*299 792 458 m/s^2
N=2 997 924 580
This is 673 960 255.604 lbs of thrust for one second.
Here too the only place an infinite amount of energy is required is if you try and go at an infinite speed.
So which is right and which is wrong?
Time is the issue. You can't separate time from velocity. The question is whose time do you want to use. If an object is moving, it's not going to use some distant "stationary" observer's reference for time (it physically couldn't in any case).
The speed limit is potentially infinite. It may be impossible from a practical standpoint, but there's nothing stopping things within the universe from perceiving faster than light speed motion.
We couldn't observe something travelling faster than light anyway, because we make measurments using light. So, practically by definition, your measurements are going to show you the speed of whatever you're using to measure speed.
If an object was moving at faster than light speed away from you, you couldn't even see it - there would be an event horizon between the two of you and relativity is familiar with event horizons.
Any object moving can only use local interactions to determine time, and these measurements are affected by time dialation. Simply because an external observer might think something is travelling at under light speed (which must be true by definition if he's using something travelling at what he imagines to be ~300 km/s, whether or not that's actually true), doesn't change the subjective velocity of the traveller.
Let's rewrite velocity to include a local perspective for velocity that included time dialation. If a stationary observer sees something travelling at 90% of light speed, then what's the actual speed of the object locally?
v = .9c/(1-(0.9c)^2/c^2)^0.5 = .9c/(1-.81)^0.5 = .9c/.436 = 2.065c
So the traveller locally is moving 2.065 times faster than the speed of light a stationary observer is using for a reference.
Now who's correct? Does the guy actually travel to a star 100 light years away in less than 50 years? Well since he's the one doing the travelling and it's his time that matters, then yes.
Of course during this time he sees time accelerated in the universe around him though, but that doesn't stop other things from coming along for the ride and verifying the trip actually does take 50 years. Heck, if you had enough energy or could recycle it, you could take everyone on Earth there in 50 years or the Earth itself and "prove" the star is only 50 years away (or less) instead of 100.
The mistake is in assuming an observers perspective and subjective interpretations can more accurately reflect events for some other observer than themself.
The ultimate limits are in time and not distances.
Now to go further, to measure a velocity you need references for times and distances. If you encounter nothing along a path to differentiate various segments of it from other segments then there's no way to different these apart.
For example, if a photon travels 10 meters but interacts with nothing along the way, it's not sitting around looking out the window at other photons (at least I assume, but this may be incorrect) and watching the scenary pass by during this time. Instead it 'flys blind' (truly, this might be incorrect ... hmmmm) until it impacts something 10 meters away.
Now if we could somehow absorb and reemit that specific photon at some point of this path, it could have an event to mark off as a secondary point of time along the way, but if we don't put that point at 5 meters distance but instead put it only 1 meter away, the photon doesn't know how far it went, instead it would see these as simply 2 separate events equally spaced in time. So the photon, from it's own perspective (and ultimately isn't all reality experienced in such subjective ways ... the various subjective realities are the objective reality). So if the photon travelling 1 unit of time and went one meter and then for the second unit of time it went 9 meters, then the speed of this light could be externally interpreted in many ways ... it went 1 meter per event, or 9 meters per event or 10 meters per 2 events etc. If you try to imagine it had a constant speed throughout the trip, you'll find this a difficult perspective to prove, though in limit circumstances it can appear close.
When we talk about light speed, it's always implicitly moving through some medium and the medium affects the velocity and it's faster the less dense it is. Most all the light we use on the Earth is travelling slower than c because there's an atmosphere to pass through or water etc.
Obviously this same process isn't solely limited to Earth but applies to space as well, though there's a question of whether or not space can exist in a less dense form or less "frictional" state. If electrons can travel in a similarly lossless fashion through superconductors, then what interactions would they experience during this travel to create references for time in this lossless state? I don't see an obvious way and they'd likely be acting very similar to photons in space. If you can extend this to a mass, like a maser, then mass could possibly also travel through space without experiencing time and then it really doesn't matter what velocity someone else wants to call it, it's infinite (or at least practically well above light speed) velocity for the objects moving.
Forget 'light'. Light is just another part of the (wave) spectrum of all things that necessarily exist in this finite Universe.
Think 'speed'! It's all about movement, and why things 'move' at all.
Light was assumed to be the fastest thing there is/can be, at a time when nobody, not even Einstein, knew differently. Did Einstein ever consider the 'speed of consciousness', for example? What does the EPR experiment tell us about the way electrons communicate with each other?
- Can't get much more simple than One Thing (Infinite Space)
- Can't get much more simple than One Thing (Infinite Space)
All these fifty years of conscious brooding have brought me no nearer to the answer to the question, 'What are light quanta?' Nowadays every Tom, D'ick and Harry thinks he knows it, but he is mistaken. … I consider it quite possible that physics cannot be based on the field concept, i.e., on continuous structures. In that case, nothing remains of my entire castle in the air, gravitation theory included, [and of] the rest of modern physics. (Albert Einstein, 1954)
- You will note, this quote is from quite some time after his E=MC^2...
*
- Only one place to find that... Infinite Space
P.S. - There can be no such thing as 'right' or 'wrong' in a place where 'judgement' does not exist. There is what there is.
P.P.S. - Infinity also means 'eternity', hence no such thing as 'time' either, only as a measuring tool for Humans to make calculations, and then only relevant in a finite (measurable) environment.
k.
Time as we measure it (second, minutes, hours etc.) is just units to express one moment to another. That the only thing that exists is this very moment (the present). The future is a plan and the past a memory. This would make time a true constant which does not change from place to place.
Velocity is the distance something travels and the time it takes to travel that distance. Whether it be meters/second, miles/hour, kilometers/hour. Even a light year which is more a reference to distance than velocity. The distance light will travel in one year. We may base our time off of the planet (days, years) but that doesn't mean it can't be used universally now that we have clocks.
This brings me to my next point. The theory is that time is supposed to slow down as you approach the speed of light but is it time that is slowing or just our clocks (including our own biological clocks). Since these are our tools to base time off of then we can only assume that time slows down. I don't believe it does. I just believe that it is our clocks that slow. So if clocks are affected by extreme velocities than we would have to use a clock that is on earth. One that is actually able to keep track of time.
Time as we measure it (second, minutes, hours etc.) is just units to express one moment to another. That the only thing that exists is this very moment (the present). The future is a plan and the past a memory. This would make time a true constant which does not change from place to place.
Velocity is the distance something travels and the time it takes to travel that distance. Whether it be meters/second, miles/hour, kilometers/hour. Even a light year which is more a reference to distance than velocity. The distance light will travel in one year. We may base our time off of the planet (days, years) but that doesn't mean it can't be used universally now that we have clocks.
This brings me to my next point. The theory is that time is supposed to slow down as you approach the speed of light but is it time that is slowing or just our clocks (including our own biological clocks). Since these are our tools to base time off of then we can only assume that time slows down. I don't believe it does. I just believe that it is our clocks that slow. So if clocks are affected by extreme velocities than we would have to use a clock that is on earth. One that is actually able to keep track of time.
If an object is moving, it's not going to use some distant "stationary" observer's reference for time (it physically couldn't in any case).
Physical movement is physical movement whether it be 10mph or 1000000mph. You would use a fixed point of reference to determine your movement. Preferably a point directly in front or behind so as the gap closes/opens you can determine your speed by the rate at which the gap closes/opens. So if your traveling along at a very fast rate and there is a gap of 50 light years between you and a fixed point in front of you and that gap is getting smaller at a rate of 10 light years per second than guess what your speed is? 10 light years per second. Where a light year is the distance light will travel in a year than you are going ten times that distance in one second. Much faster than the speed of light. Because of such speed if you look out your side you would see white fade to black. Look out your back window to see nothing but back void and in front of you bright white light. Since you are going much faster than the speed of light the number of photons that would approach you from the front would be alot so white bright light. The photons trying to reach you from behind would be left in the dust and could never reach you so you would see black void. As you go from looking straight ahead to looking back light will fade from bright white to black void.
Anyone watching would not see you coming or going and you would pass so quickly that our eyes would not be able to detect the few photons that would reflect off and reach the observer. Since your going faster than light you will reach the observer before light does and because you are traveling faster than light no light could catch you to be reflected back to the observer.
Provided the universe doesn't come to an end than it is infinite space.
Um. No. Our little part of the universe will collapse upon itself. Whether or not this does anything is yet to be seen. Provided all the galaxies are getting pulled back together will they all meet at a single point at the same time? I don't believe so. Since the big bang (provide the universe was created that way) the galaxies have formed over many years. During their existence anomalies have occurred and galaxies have collided (passing through each other) changing the course of those two particular galaxies. Do this throughout the universe to say half the galaxies in existence and you no longer have the same order (or I should say disorder). So when the galaxies begin to close in on themselves (if they do) they will not meet at a center point at the same time. Whether they do or don't doesn't mean the end of the universe just the end of the universe as we know it today.
Um. No. Our little part of the universe will collapse upon itself. Whether or not this does anything is yet to be seen. Provided all the galaxies are getting pulled back together will they all meet at a single point at the same time? I don't believe so. Since the big bang (provide the universe was created that way) the galaxies have formed over many years. During their existence anomalies have occurred and galaxies have collided (passing through each other) changing the course of those two particular galaxies. Do this throughout the universe to say half the galaxies in existence and you no longer have the same order (or I should say disorder). So when the galaxies begin to close in on themselves (if they do) they will not meet at a center point at the same time. Whether they do or don't doesn't mean the end of the universe just the end of the universe as we know it today.
This area we call 'universe' is of Matter (not all 'physical') that has 'motion'. It is moving, which means that it needs at least two points of reference to move to and from, hence it is also finite. And one fine day, 'finiteness' must have its end.
Actually it only need two points of reference. Where it has been at one moment of time and where it is at a later moment of time. Where time is just a shift from one moment to another such a thing does not change. We use units to measure the even spaces between moments and we judged these gaps and gave them units base on things like the earth's orbit and rotation. Now that we have established a measurement for these gaps in moments it can be used universally. Provided no forces will stop the mass than it has no reason but to keep going on forever. So as long as it has room to do so (outer space has no end).
That is the brains function. Such a thing does exist and can be measured. It can even be graphed as seen in hospitals.
Very contradictory, Precursor562.
Suggest you re-read.
k.
in·tu·i·tion Pronunciation (nt-shn, -ty-)
n.
1.
a. The act or faculty of knowing or sensing without the use of rational processes; immediate cognition. See Synonyms at reason.
b. Knowledge gained by the use of this faculty; a perceptive insight.
2. A sense of something not evident or deducible; an impression.
An example would be a husband goes on a business trip and gets in an accident along the way. The wife at her work gets this feeling that something is wrong and that it involves her husband. She gets confirmation of this an hour later form a phone call.
In this case she had "The faculty of sensing without the use of rational processes" where rational processes would be an input through one of her senses. In this case she received the rational process of knowing by a phone call where she received info through here sense of hearing.
That is intuition. It is still an impulse within the brain. A thought one has to be true or may be true without receiving proof to be true. Where proof is info gathered through the senses.
It is also referred to as a "gut feeling".
I didn't include the mass of the fuel to the mass of the object just to show that a force applied to a mass can cause it to reach the speed of light and beyond. I also said that if the object carried its energy source (as fuel) to get the force required the fuel would add to the mass. I said this in this statement.
I didn't include the mass of the fuel to the mass of the object just to show that a force applied to a mass can cause it to reach the speed of light and beyond. I also said that if the object carried its energy source (as fuel) to get the force required the fuel would add to the mass. I said this in this statement.
The problem occurs where in order to have acceleration you need the fuel. Fuel has mass and so the more fuel you add to get the energy needed the more mass you add and so the more fuel (energy) you need. You end up with a vicious cycle that ends in the mass never reaching the speed of light.
That if the object didn't carry the fuel and the force was applied externally than the object could reach the speed of light. Two ways this could be accomplished is to place the object into a particle accelerator type scenario or in a gun scenario. If you wanted to get a space shuttle up to the speed of light you could place it in an over sized particle accelerator (linear accelerator) and gradually increase it's velocity using magnetism or you could place the shuttle in a long tube with a large quantity of explosives behind it then ignite the explosive. Good luck doing the second since you would need a nuclear explosion and the g forces would crush you. The linear accelerator is something that was (maybe still is) being researched.
Think 'speed'! It's all about movement, and why things 'move' at all.
Light was assumed to be the fastest thing there is/can be, at a time when nobody, not even Einstein, knew differently. Did Einstein ever consider the 'speed of consciousness', for example? What does the EPR experiment tell us about the way electrons communicate with each other?
QUOTE
Evolution is proceeding in the direction of increasing simplicity of the logical basis (principles). .. We must always be ready to change these notions - that is to say, the axiomatic basis of physics - in order to do justice to perceived facts in the most perfect way logically. (Albert Einstein, Physics and Reality, 1936)
- Can't get much more simple than One Thing (Infinite Space)
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Evolution is proceeding in the direction of increasing simplicity of the logical basis (principles). .. We must always be ready to change these notions - that is to say, the axiomatic basis of physics - in order to do justice to perceived facts in the most perfect way logically. (Albert Einstein, Physics and Reality, 1936) |
- Can't get much more simple than One Thing (Infinite Space)
All these fifty years of conscious brooding have brought me no nearer to the answer to the question, 'What are light quanta?' Nowadays every Tom, D'ick and Harry thinks he knows it, but he is mistaken. … I consider it quite possible that physics cannot be based on the field concept, i.e., on continuous structures. In that case, nothing remains of my entire castle in the air, gravitation theory included, [and of] the rest of modern physics. (Albert Einstein, 1954)
- You will note, this quote is from quite some time after his E=MC^2...
*
QUOTE
Only to reach an infinite speed would you need an infinite amount of energy. (Precursor562 @ Aug 24 2006, 09:39 PM)
- Only one place to find that... Infinite Space
P.S. - There can be no such thing as 'right' or 'wrong' in a place where 'judgement' does not exist. There is what there is.
P.P.S. - Infinity also means 'eternity', hence no such thing as 'time' either, only as a measuring tool for Humans to make calculations, and then only relevant in a finite (measurable) environment.
k.
Ok let's really get down to the core of all this faster-than-light debate.
What are people really interested when they talk about faster than light issue?
They want to know if there are physical absolute limits that exist.
What physical absolutes exist?
With regard to light speed and relativity, the limit for a "stationary" or unaccelerated/drifting observer measuring the round trip delay for light within some area of a vaccuum that's imagine to remain at a constant length, is that he'll experience a constant time delay for this path.
Now if we imagine light travelling at a finite velocity and we go around to various points on this path determining these distances by measuring similar delays, then obviously the path is almost guaranteed to simply be the sum of the delays between these premeasured points, no matter what the actual velocity of light is any direction. Each measurement was a round trip measurement so all of them were exposured to whatever biases light speed may have in certain directions.
If you mark off a couple points so that light delays are what you imagine to be 1 a second delay between them, and then you rapidly accelerate at what you assume should be close to light speed in order to time the path yourself, you might find the trip only took half a second instead of the second you measured light taking ... and during the entire trip light could still be imagined to be going just as much faster than you as it always did. You could repeat it and accelerate even faster, trying to 'crash into' this light speed barrier only to find that time now only took 1/10th of a second.
There are no physical limits to velocity, and as Knot of this world said, it's consciousness that we're really interested in. The physical limits for an observer are simply whatever limits they experience and if a third person observer decides to measure a motion using a specific clock and ruler in their own frame and decide to call the velocity X versus Y, that's fine. That's their subjective view and everyone can travel faster than light speed, without worrying they ever violated relativity (Because as we all know you can't go faster than light! 
And if you do, you're obviously mistaken because you aren't a disconnected observer sitting around passively watching things and assuming we all share the same clocks)
Anyway, I don't want to bludgeon the point to death. I have to agree with Knot that limits are ultimately subjective and in the limit, individual consciousnesses determine what reality is. Science is for trying to describe the common events, but some experiences may simply not be common experiences and have mutual event horizons ... you can't see 100 light years in 1 second if you're going to wait for light to bring you back a photo and if you're frustrated that the star will age by the time you get there, then accelerate the star toward you at the same time and time slows for both until they reach other and then you can actually see what the star is like now (or at least close to now ... though these of course take almost unimagineable amounts of power and are impossible in any practical sense ... for now, but who knows ... a better vacuum than space might work).
What are people really interested when they talk about faster than light issue?
They want to know if there are physical absolute limits that exist.
What physical absolutes exist?
With regard to light speed and relativity, the limit for a "stationary" or unaccelerated/drifting observer measuring the round trip delay for light within some area of a vaccuum that's imagine to remain at a constant length, is that he'll experience a constant time delay for this path.
Now if we imagine light travelling at a finite velocity and we go around to various points on this path determining these distances by measuring similar delays, then obviously the path is almost guaranteed to simply be the sum of the delays between these premeasured points, no matter what the actual velocity of light is any direction. Each measurement was a round trip measurement so all of them were exposured to whatever biases light speed may have in certain directions.
If you mark off a couple points so that light delays are what you imagine to be 1 a second delay between them, and then you rapidly accelerate at what you assume should be close to light speed in order to time the path yourself, you might find the trip only took half a second instead of the second you measured light taking ... and during the entire trip light could still be imagined to be going just as much faster than you as it always did. You could repeat it and accelerate even faster, trying to 'crash into' this light speed barrier only to find that time now only took 1/10th of a second.
There are no physical limits to velocity, and as Knot of this world said, it's consciousness that we're really interested in. The physical limits for an observer are simply whatever limits they experience and if a third person observer decides to measure a motion using a specific clock and ruler in their own frame and decide to call the velocity X versus Y, that's fine. That's their subjective view and everyone can travel faster than light speed, without worrying they ever violated relativity
(Because as we all know you can't go faster than light! And if you do, you're obviously mistaken because you aren't a disconnected observer sitting around passively watching things and assuming we all share the same clocks)Anyway, I don't want to bludgeon the point to death. I have to agree with Knot that limits are ultimately subjective and in the limit, individual consciousnesses determine what reality is. Science is for trying to describe the common events, but some experiences may simply not be common experiences and have mutual event horizons ... you can't see 100 light years in 1 second if you're going to wait for light to bring you back a photo and if you're frustrated that the star will age by the time you get there, then accelerate the star toward you at the same time and time slows for both until they reach other and then you can actually see what the star is like now (or at least close to now ... though these of course take almost unimagineable amounts of power and are impossible in any practical sense ... for now, but who knows ... a better vacuum than space might work).
QUOTE
Time is the issue. You can't separate time from velocity. The question is whose time do you want to use.
Time as we measure it (second, minutes, hours etc.) is just units to express one moment to another. That the only thing that exists is this very moment (the present). The future is a plan and the past a memory. This would make time a true constant which does not change from place to place.
Velocity is the distance something travels and the time it takes to travel that distance. Whether it be meters/second, miles/hour, kilometers/hour. Even a light year which is more a reference to distance than velocity. The distance light will travel in one year. We may base our time off of the planet (days, years) but that doesn't mean it can't be used universally now that we have clocks.
This brings me to my next point. The theory is that time is supposed to slow down as you approach the speed of light but is it time that is slowing or just our clocks (including our own biological clocks). Since these are our tools to base time off of then we can only assume that time slows down. I don't believe it does. I just believe that it is our clocks that slow. So if clocks are affected by extreme velocities than we would have to use a clock that is on earth. One that is actually able to keep track of time.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Time is the issue. You can't separate time from velocity. The question is whose time do you want to use. |
Time as we measure it (second, minutes, hours etc.) is just units to express one moment to another. That the only thing that exists is this very moment (the present). The future is a plan and the past a memory. This would make time a true constant which does not change from place to place.
Velocity is the distance something travels and the time it takes to travel that distance. Whether it be meters/second, miles/hour, kilometers/hour. Even a light year which is more a reference to distance than velocity. The distance light will travel in one year. We may base our time off of the planet (days, years) but that doesn't mean it can't be used universally now that we have clocks.
This brings me to my next point. The theory is that time is supposed to slow down as you approach the speed of light but is it time that is slowing or just our clocks (including our own biological clocks). Since these are our tools to base time off of then we can only assume that time slows down. I don't believe it does. I just believe that it is our clocks that slow. So if clocks are affected by extreme velocities than we would have to use a clock that is on earth. One that is actually able to keep track of time.
If an object is moving, it's not going to use some distant "stationary" observer's reference for time (it physically couldn't in any case).
Physical movement is physical movement whether it be 10mph or 1000000mph. You would use a fixed point of reference to determine your movement. Preferably a point directly in front or behind so as the gap closes/opens you can determine your speed by the rate at which the gap closes/opens. So if your traveling along at a very fast rate and there is a gap of 50 light years between you and a fixed point in front of you and that gap is getting smaller at a rate of 10 light years per second than guess what your speed is? 10 light years per second. Where a light year is the distance light will travel in a year than you are going ten times that distance in one second. Much faster than the speed of light. Because of such speed if you look out your side you would see white fade to black. Look out your back window to see nothing but back void and in front of you bright white light. Since you are going much faster than the speed of light the number of photons that would approach you from the front would be alot so white bright light. The photons trying to reach you from behind would be left in the dust and could never reach you so you would see black void. As you go from looking straight ahead to looking back light will fade from bright white to black void.
Anyone watching would not see you coming or going and you would pass so quickly that our eyes would not be able to detect the few photons that would reflect off and reach the observer. Since your going faster than light you will reach the observer before light does and because you are traveling faster than light no light could catch you to be reflected back to the observer.
QUOTE
Only one place to find that... Infinite Space
Provided the universe doesn't come to an end than it is infinite space.
So sorry, but this universe WILL end one day. This area we call 'universe' is of Matter (not all 'physical') that has 'motion'. It is moving, which means that it needs at least two points of reference to move to and from, hence it is also finite. And one fine day, 'finiteness' must have its end.
No such thing as 'time' when describing the infinite (also 'eternal'). 'Time' will always be a method of Human measurement only. 'Light years'? Who's 'years'? Humans' (Earth's) 'years'. Nothing more. Relative (relevant) to us, and nothing more.
'Time' moves relative to the thing that is moving. This is because they are the same thing. 'Time' = finite existence.
StevenA, the universe is not just physical. Great mistake among 'equationists' to 'believe' so! The very reason why we are still searching, questioning and doubting.
Can we deny that 'intuition' exists? Without 'ideas', science would have nothing to follow, or prove. Therefore, it does exist, but how do we measure it, just to be sure?
Beyond those 'physical absolutes'? ...The non-physical One. Infinite Space.
Is it 1-dimensional? I think it must be. (Note: This would also explain our intuitions regarding 'other' dimensions. '1' and '2' are all around us, all the while.)
Is Light 2-dimensional? Given the evidence of wave/particle 'duality', surely we could say that. That would make it the 'middle-ground' between Infinite Space (1-D) and the rest of the 'physical' universe (3-D). Might this be the 'place' where 'time' would appear to take on strange properties (slowing down), as it prepares to change its wave-structure to exist in a 'lesser' dimension?
Logically, we could not exist in 3-dimensions without also being a part of the other 'two'..
Remember, the thought always comes before the action. Why is that?
Edit to add: As physical beings, we cannot 'go' faster than our physical limits will carry us, but as beings of intuition, we can 'go' in our minds, as fast as our minds can also 'go'. Intuitively, we have a link to our infinite Selves, because that is where our origins lay... 'Evolution' is thus a return to its Infinite Self.
k.
No such thing as 'time' when describing the infinite (also 'eternal'). 'Time' will always be a method of Human measurement only. 'Light years'? Who's 'years'? Humans' (Earth's) 'years'. Nothing more. Relative (relevant) to us, and nothing more.
'Time' moves relative to the thing that is moving. This is because they are the same thing. 'Time' = finite existence.
StevenA, the universe is not just physical. Great mistake among 'equationists' to 'believe' so! The very reason why we are still searching, questioning and doubting.
Can we deny that 'intuition' exists? Without 'ideas', science would have nothing to follow, or prove. Therefore, it does exist, but how do we measure it, just to be sure?
Beyond those 'physical absolutes'? ...The non-physical One. Infinite Space.
Is it 1-dimensional? I think it must be. (Note: This would also explain our intuitions regarding 'other' dimensions. '1' and '2' are all around us, all the while.)
Is Light 2-dimensional? Given the evidence of wave/particle 'duality', surely we could say that. That would make it the 'middle-ground' between Infinite Space (1-D) and the rest of the 'physical' universe (3-D). Might this be the 'place' where 'time' would appear to take on strange properties (slowing down), as it prepares to change its wave-structure to exist in a 'lesser' dimension?
Logically, we could not exist in 3-dimensions without also being a part of the other 'two'..
Remember, the thought always comes before the action. Why is that?
Edit to add: As physical beings, we cannot 'go' faster than our physical limits will carry us, but as beings of intuition, we can 'go' in our minds, as fast as our minds can also 'go'. Intuitively, we have a link to our infinite Selves, because that is where our origins lay... 'Evolution' is thus a return to its Infinite Self.
k.
QUOTE
So sorry, but this universe WILL end one day
Um. No. Our little part of the universe will collapse upon itself. Whether or not this does anything is yet to be seen. Provided all the galaxies are getting pulled back together will they all meet at a single point at the same time? I don't believe so. Since the big bang (provide the universe was created that way) the galaxies have formed over many years. During their existence anomalies have occurred and galaxies have collided (passing through each other) changing the course of those two particular galaxies. Do this throughout the universe to say half the galaxies in existence and you no longer have the same order (or I should say disorder). So when the galaxies begin to close in on themselves (if they do) they will not meet at a center point at the same time. Whether they do or don't doesn't mean the end of the universe just the end of the universe as we know it today.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| So sorry, but this universe WILL end one day |
Um. No. Our little part of the universe will collapse upon itself. Whether or not this does anything is yet to be seen. Provided all the galaxies are getting pulled back together will they all meet at a single point at the same time? I don't believe so. Since the big bang (provide the universe was created that way) the galaxies have formed over many years. During their existence anomalies have occurred and galaxies have collided (passing through each other) changing the course of those two particular galaxies. Do this throughout the universe to say half the galaxies in existence and you no longer have the same order (or I should say disorder). So when the galaxies begin to close in on themselves (if they do) they will not meet at a center point at the same time. Whether they do or don't doesn't mean the end of the universe just the end of the universe as we know it today.
This area we call 'universe' is of Matter (not all 'physical') that has 'motion'. It is moving, which means that it needs at least two points of reference to move to and from, hence it is also finite. And one fine day, 'finiteness' must have its end.
Actually it only need two points of reference. Where it has been at one moment of time and where it is at a later moment of time. Where time is just a shift from one moment to another such a thing does not change. We use units to measure the even spaces between moments and we judged these gaps and gave them units base on things like the earth's orbit and rotation. Now that we have established a measurement for these gaps in moments it can be used universally. Provided no forces will stop the mass than it has no reason but to keep going on forever. So as long as it has room to do so (outer space has no end).
QUOTE
Can we deny that 'intuition' exists? Without 'ideas'
That is the brains function. Such a thing does exist and can be measured. It can even be graphed as seen in hospitals.
Very contradictory, Precursor562.
Suggest you re-read.
k.
Yet you fail to point out the contradictions.
Well, that was for your benefit.
Nevermind. I was näive to expect anything else.
Nevermind. I was näive to expect anything else.
Guys,Guys,Guys
Relitivity says you are all wrong. The speed of light is a real limit for any matter in the universe. The speed of light is the same for all observers, which means the faster you go, the slower your experience of time becomes, the more your mass becomes and the more energy it takes to continue the same acceleration. These effects approach infinity as you approach the SoL. Times slows to a crawl(for you), your mass increases toward infinity, and the energy to maintain acceleration approaches the energy contained in the entire universe. FASTER THAN LIGHTSPEED TRAVEL IS THEREFORE NOT POSSIBLE for matter in the universe.
Particle colliders have proven these effects. Particles of known lifetimes travel much further than that life would normally allow due to their speed(close to lightspeed)causing their experience of time to slow, thus they cover more distance than we expect from our perspective(normal time). These are real effects!!! Our observations of the universe also confirm no super luminal events.
Grumpy
Relitivity says you are all wrong. The speed of light is a real limit for any matter in the universe. The speed of light is the same for all observers, which means the faster you go, the slower your experience of time becomes, the more your mass becomes and the more energy it takes to continue the same acceleration. These effects approach infinity as you approach the SoL. Times slows to a crawl(for you), your mass increases toward infinity, and the energy to maintain acceleration approaches the energy contained in the entire universe. FASTER THAN LIGHTSPEED TRAVEL IS THEREFORE NOT POSSIBLE for matter in the universe.
Particle colliders have proven these effects. Particles of known lifetimes travel much further than that life would normally allow due to their speed(close to lightspeed)causing their experience of time to slow, thus they cover more distance than we expect from our perspective(normal time). These are real effects!!! Our observations of the universe also confirm no super luminal events.
Grumpy
Hi Grumpy,
I have no problem with speed of light, or that matter has such a 'speed' limit. Light and Matter, were not the discussion. Neither am I talking about 'travelling'.
If 'speed' has a lower limit of ...'stopped', why should it have an upper limit of 'light'?
It is the possibilities of 'speed' itself which are in question. The physics of the interior of this Universe were not the consideration, but the reasons why the things are the way they are, have to be because of their original source, I do believe.
I observe an Infinite Space. I want to know more about it. What does 'Infinite' mean?
Would you say that intuition could be classed as 'matter'? If so, how? And at what 'speed' does it 'travel'?
"Nature is not constrained by your lack of imagination." - Grumpy?
(DISCLAIMER No.2.. I am in no way attempting to relate these ideas with anything 'religious'. It's just another model, something that occured to me, independently, when I started to think seriously about what 'infinity' must necessarily mean.)
All the best,
k.
I have no problem with speed of light, or that matter has such a 'speed' limit. Light and Matter, were not the discussion. Neither am I talking about 'travelling'.
If 'speed' has a lower limit of ...'stopped', why should it have an upper limit of 'light'?
It is the possibilities of 'speed' itself which are in question. The physics of the interior of this Universe were not the consideration, but the reasons why the things are the way they are, have to be because of their original source, I do believe.
I observe an Infinite Space. I want to know more about it. What does 'Infinite' mean?
Would you say that intuition could be classed as 'matter'? If so, how? And at what 'speed' does it 'travel'?
"Nature is not constrained by your lack of imagination." - Grumpy?
(DISCLAIMER No.2.. I am in no way attempting to relate these ideas with anything 'religious'. It's just another model, something that occured to me, independently, when I started to think seriously about what 'infinity' must necessarily mean.)
All the best,
k.
QUOTE (Grumpy+Aug 26 2006, 07:58 PM)
Guys,Guys,Guys
Relitivity says you are all wrong. The speed of light is a real limit for any matter in the universe. The speed of light is the same for all observers, which means the faster you go, the slower your experience of time becomes, the more your mass becomes and the more energy it takes to continue the same acceleration. These effects approach infinity as you approach the SoL. Times slows to a crawl(for you), your mass increases toward infinity, and the energy to maintain acceleration approaches the energy contained in the entire universe. FASTER THAN LIGHTSPEED TRAVEL IS THEREFORE NOT POSSIBLE for matter in the universe.
Particle colliders have proven these effects. Particles of known lifetimes travel much further than that life would normally allow due to their speed(close to lightspeed)causing their experience of time to slow, thus they cover more distance than we expect from our perspective(normal time). These are real effects!!! Our observations of the universe also confirm no super luminal events.
Grumpy
Ok, if two masses are 100 light years away from each other and they begin to accelerate toward each other, time slows for them and they reach each in subjectively less than 100 years, so if objects very far apart in space can potentially travel to each other in a short period of time, what's the real limitation?
Now consider also that light speed isn't a fixed limit but a statistical one. You have phase components to light as well. So if light speed isn't exactly a fixed value and statistical violations can occur.
Also consider that to measure a velocity you need to know the distance and the time. Time is tied to physical events and not a velocity.If you have no physical objects in a space, how can you have time, distances or measure a velocity in it? If a photon was travelling through this space you could imagine it moving at any velocity you wanted.
If light speed was a constant then we couldn't slow down to the point where you can walk faster than it. With space not appearing to be a vacuum it's likely light can travel faster.
A long time ago people claimed you couldn't break the sound barrier ... if you attempted to a wall of compressed air in front of you would form and stop you from accelerating further. Well this barrier "broke".
Even under relativity the speed of light doesn't say things can experience velocities that would appear faster than light speed (though light could still be imagined as faster).
In quantum mechanics you can even have events where the speed appears to go backwards. Well if motion through space is equated to motion through time, then you can go backwards in time while moving forward in space and use a negative velocity to get somewhere before you even left (no violation of light speed though because the light speed cones don't intersect).
And on top of that, most people don't really care what the specific speed of a photon is, they're simply interested in whether or not it would be ever possible to travel around the universe at warp 10 and in many ways you could theoretically get close to such a scenario already without needed any new physical insights. The primary issue is how difference your sense of time becomes compared to other things in the universe.
But imagine this scenario. If there was a way to recycle most the energy in travelling to another planet, if people regularly commuted around the solar system at close to light speed, they could subjectively do this in very little time (potentially minutes or less). Now imagine doing this between a few star systems. If you commuted back and forth between a few star systems on a regular basis, you could spend your life spread living out in many areas of space. Now if others did this at a similar rate, you wouldn't even necessarily lose much time between people. You and your family could go vacation on some planet and then you could travel back for a week of work elsewhere and then you could go back to that planet later and rejoin them, assuming they decided to spend a little time elsewhere and the subjective timelines were kept in sync. Imagine a trillion people travelling around space at close to light speed (or even "cheating" in a sense using something like 'suspended animation' to reduce the subjective travel time), of which only maybe 50 billion at a time are living on various planets while 95% are travelling through space with time slowed.
Imagine beaming a message to another to meet someone for lunch and then heading off toward the star behind the message. The person you intend to meet doesn't even have to be at the planet by the time the message gets there, they could be travelling toward you or simply in some cone of the transmission (you could beam it simultaneously to multiple star systems in the area and have relays transmit them on all paths between them). So even if you "miss" them on that planet, you know where they were headed and you follow the relayed signal toward them. They receive it later and turn back to meet up for lunch and potentially this doesn't need to take much subjective time at all.
Of course for conscious observers you could even go more extreme by skipping much of the reality and inserting a bit of virtual reality to fill in the delays.
Then of course we might find out how to 'roll the dice' well on statistical light speeds and avoid many limitations.
Sounds travels approximately MACH 1 at sea level.
Oh wait, it's faster through steel. Ok, so we make MACH 1 be the speed of sound through steel, and now sound truly can't go any faster ... oh wait, if we compress the steel it goes faster. Hmmm... ok we'll simply call the speed of sound the speed of sound then and skip giving it a specific speed ... we'll just say it's exactly such and such and if you measure something faster then you don't know how to measure time or distances. But obviously nothing could go any faster than this. Why? Well if you listen to objects you're hearing a sound and sounds by definition can't go faster than the speed of sound! Problem resolved ... well, we'll see.
Relitivity says you are all wrong. The speed of light is a real limit for any matter in the universe. The speed of light is the same for all observers, which means the faster you go, the slower your experience of time becomes, the more your mass becomes and the more energy it takes to continue the same acceleration. These effects approach infinity as you approach the SoL. Times slows to a crawl(for you), your mass increases toward infinity, and the energy to maintain acceleration approaches the energy contained in the entire universe. FASTER THAN LIGHTSPEED TRAVEL IS THEREFORE NOT POSSIBLE for matter in the universe.
Particle colliders have proven these effects. Particles of known lifetimes travel much further than that life would normally allow due to their speed(close to lightspeed)causing their experience of time to slow, thus they cover more distance than we expect from our perspective(normal time). These are real effects!!! Our observations of the universe also confirm no super luminal events.
Grumpy
Ok, if two masses are 100 light years away from each other and they begin to accelerate toward each other, time slows for them and they reach each in subjectively less than 100 years, so if objects very far apart in space can potentially travel to each other in a short period of time, what's the real limitation?
Now consider also that light speed isn't a fixed limit but a statistical one. You have phase components to light as well. So if light speed isn't exactly a fixed value and statistical violations can occur.
Also consider that to measure a velocity you need to know the distance and the time. Time is tied to physical events and not a velocity.If you have no physical objects in a space, how can you have time, distances or measure a velocity in it? If a photon was travelling through this space you could imagine it moving at any velocity you wanted.
If light speed was a constant then we couldn't slow down to the point where you can walk faster than it. With space not appearing to be a vacuum it's likely light can travel faster.
A long time ago people claimed you couldn't break the sound barrier ... if you attempted to a wall of compressed air in front of you would form and stop you from accelerating further. Well this barrier "broke".
Even under relativity the speed of light doesn't say things can experience velocities that would appear faster than light speed (though light could still be imagined as faster).
In quantum mechanics you can even have events where the speed appears to go backwards. Well if motion through space is equated to motion through time, then you can go backwards in time while moving forward in space and use a negative velocity to get somewhere before you even left (no violation of light speed though because the light speed cones don't intersect).
And on top of that, most people don't really care what the specific speed of a photon is, they're simply interested in whether or not it would be ever possible to travel around the universe at warp 10 and in many ways you could theoretically get close to such a scenario already without needed any new physical insights. The primary issue is how difference your sense of time becomes compared to other things in the universe.
But imagine this scenario. If there was a way to recycle most the energy in travelling to another planet, if people regularly commuted around the solar system at close to light speed, they could subjectively do this in very little time (potentially minutes or less). Now imagine doing this between a few star systems. If you commuted back and forth between a few star systems on a regular basis, you could spend your life spread living out in many areas of space. Now if others did this at a similar rate, you wouldn't even necessarily lose much time between people. You and your family could go vacation on some planet and then you could travel back for a week of work elsewhere and then you could go back to that planet later and rejoin them, assuming they decided to spend a little time elsewhere and the subjective timelines were kept in sync. Imagine a trillion people travelling around space at close to light speed (or even "cheating" in a sense using something like 'suspended animation' to reduce the subjective travel time), of which only maybe 50 billion at a time are living on various planets while 95% are travelling through space with time slowed.
Imagine beaming a message to another to meet someone for lunch and then heading off toward the star behind the message. The person you intend to meet doesn't even have to be at the planet by the time the message gets there, they could be travelling toward you or simply in some cone of the transmission (you could beam it simultaneously to multiple star systems in the area and have relays transmit them on all paths between them). So even if you "miss" them on that planet, you know where they were headed and you follow the relayed signal toward them. They receive it later and turn back to meet up for lunch and potentially this doesn't need to take much subjective time at all.
Of course for conscious observers you could even go more extreme by skipping much of the reality and inserting a bit of virtual reality to fill in the delays.
Then of course we might find out how to 'roll the dice' well on statistical light speeds and avoid many limitations.
QUOTE
Our observations of the universe also confirm no super luminal events.
Sounds travels approximately MACH 1 at sea level.
Oh wait, it's faster through steel. Ok, so we make MACH 1 be the speed of sound through steel, and now sound truly can't go any faster ... oh wait, if we compress the steel it goes faster. Hmmm... ok we'll simply call the speed of sound the speed of sound then and skip giving it a specific speed ... we'll just say it's exactly such and such and if you measure something faster then you don't know how to measure time or distances. But obviously nothing could go any faster than this. Why? Well if you listen to objects you're hearing a sound and sounds by definition can't go faster than the speed of sound! Problem resolved ... well, we'll see.
The thing with particle accelerators and particles lasting longer than they should has nothing to do with their speed in the accelerator. It has to do with the survivable environment found inside.
Thoughts are electrical impulses found in the brain. It is matter and can be measured.
Hows this for a thought. You are in a lab that can produce man made elements. These elements are highly unstable and have a very short life. If this lab were to travel at the speed of light would that mean the man made element could be created and would stay? That it would be stable? Of course not. It would decay just as it normally would. If the lab had no windows and was moving at the constant velocity of light you would be oblivious of your speed without some indicator to tell you. This is, of course, assuming gravity remains as normal.
QUOTE
Would you say that intuition could be classed as 'matter'? If so, how? And at what 'speed' does it 'travel'?
Thoughts are electrical impulses found in the brain. It is matter and can be measured.
Hows this for a thought. You are in a lab that can produce man made elements. These elements are highly unstable and have a very short life. If this lab were to travel at the speed of light would that mean the man made element could be created and would stay? That it would be stable? Of course not. It would decay just as it normally would. If the lab had no windows and was moving at the constant velocity of light you would be oblivious of your speed without some indicator to tell you. This is, of course, assuming gravity remains as normal.
Please, no if's, but's, maybe's, or assumptions. Tell me how you describe intuition as 'matter', and how you measure it? Give me an equation for the 'speed of intuition'!
The world desperately needs to know this, so you have unique information that could benefit all Humanity, and possibly save the planet from destruction through (self)pollution. Very selfish to keep it all to yourself!
When light slows down, it is because it hits something. It becomes the colour of whatever it hits by interacting with the necessary components of the thing it comes into contact with. It ceases to be 'light' at this point, assimilates itself into the afforementioned object, merges with it, becomes another part of it. It is now 'colour'.
If this is true for the 'slowing' of light, what does that say about the 'accelerating' process?
I say, that at a certain speed, ('light speed'), movement of energy ceases to be 'light' at all, but does in fact become something else, moves on to the next transformation on its way back to its infinite (necessarily 'instantaneous') origin. My postulate is that beyond such a speed is where we will find the answers to such questions as 'What is intuition?'
The reverse happens when light enters our eyes. It is re-converted back into intuition, as a necessary function of the Universe evolving an organism with which it can experience, and therefore better know, itself... (Which we represent, as a tiny fraction, by the way...)
Where is Mr. Mong when you need him?!!
k.
The world desperately needs to know this, so you have unique information that could benefit all Humanity, and possibly save the planet from destruction through (self)pollution. Very selfish to keep it all to yourself!
When light slows down, it is because it hits something. It becomes the colour of whatever it hits by interacting with the necessary components of the thing it comes into contact with. It ceases to be 'light' at this point, assimilates itself into the afforementioned object, merges with it, becomes another part of it. It is now 'colour'.
If this is true for the 'slowing' of light, what does that say about the 'accelerating' process?
I say, that at a certain speed, ('light speed'), movement of energy ceases to be 'light' at all, but does in fact become something else, moves on to the next transformation on its way back to its infinite (necessarily 'instantaneous') origin. My postulate is that beyond such a speed is where we will find the answers to such questions as 'What is intuition?'
The reverse happens when light enters our eyes. It is re-converted back into intuition, as a necessary function of the Universe evolving an organism with which it can experience, and therefore better know, itself... (Which we represent, as a tiny fraction, by the way...)
Where is Mr. Mong when you need him?!!
k.
Intuition is thought. Thought is an electrical impulse in the brain or I should say multiple impulses. The hospital has machines that can graph such activity.
http://nobelprize.org/educational_games/me...apse/intro.html
Where the site discusses communication between the body and the brain, thought is communication within the brain. However this can become mixed up and the brain may communicate mistakenly with the body instead of with itself and there you have an hallucination. Where you thought you smelled, tasted, saw, felt and/or heard something but in reality you didn't.
So although no two people think at the same speed there may be a limit to how fast one can think.
So how would I describe it as matter?
The neuron is a cell made up of matter.
The Synapse is a chemical bridge between neurons. Once again made up of matter.
Neurotransmitters are little particles comprised of matter.
The impulse that travels through the neuron is actually an offset of ionization within the cell which is accompanied with an offset outside the cell (from what I remember from biology class). Ions are matter as well.
Though I don't know the equation I do know that intuition, thought, feelings and the such are all electrical impulses within the body and brain that is comprised of matter and therefore can not travel faster than the speed of light (supposedly). Personally I believe this speed to be less than an electric current through a wire.
Here is another site that may have some insight as to the speed at which neurons relay information.
http://www.medicinenet.com/nerve_conductio...est/article.htm
So really you would have to break it down to find the velocity.
The Action Potential (ion disruption) has a specific velocity depending on variables.
The development, release, travel, receive and redevelopment of neurotransmitters between cells takes time and so adds to the over all velocity. They too depend on variables.
To come up with a solid equation one would have to know all the variables and we do not yet know them all. We haven't even identified all the different kinds of neurotransmitters yet.
Well I believe energy to be motion and nothing more. That what is moving is matter and sub matter where matter is comprised of sub matter. The photon is sub matter and has energy (its motion). I also believe that the speed of light is not a limit and that matter/sub matter can go faster. Energy (joules) is J=kg*m/s^2*m
If we accelerate 10kg to the speed of light in one second than.
J=10kg*299 792 458m/s^2*149 896 229m
Where "149 896 229m" is the distance the object will have traveled in that one second.
J=10kg*44 937 758 936 840 882m^2/s^2
J=449 377 589 368 408 820 which rounds off to 449 petajoules (PJ)
Now since rocket fuel is liquid hydrogen and oxygen you can find out how much you would need by knowing the energy per unit volume of the two. That volume would have to be consumed in one second to cause the mass to accelerate at the speed of light per second. The problem occurs where in order to have acceleration you need the fuel. Fuel has mass and so the more fuel you add to get the energy needed the more mass you add and so the more fuel (energy) you need. You end up with a vicious cycle that ends in the mass never reaching the speed of light. What you would need to go the speed of light and ultimately faster than the speed of light is an energy source (fuel source) that doesn't have any mass.
http://nobelprize.org/educational_games/me...apse/intro.html
Where the site discusses communication between the body and the brain, thought is communication within the brain. However this can become mixed up and the brain may communicate mistakenly with the body instead of with itself and there you have an hallucination. Where you thought you smelled, tasted, saw, felt and/or heard something but in reality you didn't.
So although no two people think at the same speed there may be a limit to how fast one can think.
So how would I describe it as matter?
The neuron is a cell made up of matter.
The Synapse is a chemical bridge between neurons. Once again made up of matter.
Neurotransmitters are little particles comprised of matter.
The impulse that travels through the neuron is actually an offset of ionization within the cell which is accompanied with an offset outside the cell (from what I remember from biology class). Ions are matter as well.
Though I don't know the equation I do know that intuition, thought, feelings and the such are all electrical impulses within the body and brain that is comprised of matter and therefore can not travel faster than the speed of light (supposedly). Personally I believe this speed to be less than an electric current through a wire.
Here is another site that may have some insight as to the speed at which neurons relay information.
http://www.medicinenet.com/nerve_conductio...est/article.htm
So really you would have to break it down to find the velocity.
The Action Potential (ion disruption) has a specific velocity depending on variables.
The development, release, travel, receive and redevelopment of neurotransmitters between cells takes time and so adds to the over all velocity. They too depend on variables.
To come up with a solid equation one would have to know all the variables and we do not yet know them all. We haven't even identified all the different kinds of neurotransmitters yet.
QUOTE
I say, that at a certain speed, ('light speed'), movement of energy ceases to be 'light' at all, but does in fact become something else, moves on to the next transformation on its way back to its infinite (necessarily 'instantaneous') origin. My postulate is that beyond such a speed is where we will find the answers to such questions as 'What is intuition?'
Well I believe energy to be motion and nothing more. That what is moving is matter and sub matter where matter is comprised of sub matter. The photon is sub matter and has energy (its motion). I also believe that the speed of light is not a limit and that matter/sub matter can go faster. Energy (joules) is J=kg*m/s^2*m
If we accelerate 10kg to the speed of light in one second than.
J=10kg*299 792 458m/s^2*149 896 229m
Where "149 896 229m" is the distance the object will have traveled in that one second.
J=10kg*44 937 758 936 840 882m^2/s^2
J=449 377 589 368 408 820 which rounds off to 449 petajoules (PJ)
Now since rocket fuel is liquid hydrogen and oxygen you can find out how much you would need by knowing the energy per unit volume of the two. That volume would have to be consumed in one second to cause the mass to accelerate at the speed of light per second. The problem occurs where in order to have acceleration you need the fuel. Fuel has mass and so the more fuel you add to get the energy needed the more mass you add and so the more fuel (energy) you need. You end up with a vicious cycle that ends in the mass never reaching the speed of light. What you would need to go the speed of light and ultimately faster than the speed of light is an energy source (fuel source) that doesn't have any mass.
QUOTE (Precursor562+Aug 27 2006, 03:22 PM)
Well I believe energy to be motion and nothing more. That what is moving is matter and sub matter where matter is comprised of sub matter. The photon is sub matter and has energy (its motion). I also believe that the speed of light is not a limit and that matter/sub matter can go faster. Energy (joules) is J=kg*m/s^2*m
Absolutely. In deed, there is no such a limit at all; pure SR/GR blunder.
Space itself (its wave dynamics is "mass"), and it has to be the possible and only way to reach other star systems VERY SOON and VERY FAST (out of n-dimensional string worm-holes fairy-tails).
Absolutely. In deed, there is no such a limit at all; pure SR/GR blunder.
QUOTE
What you would need to go the speed of light and ultimately faster than the speed of light is an energy source (fuel source) that doesn't have any mass.
Space itself (its wave dynamics is "mass"), and it has to be the possible and only way to reach other star systems VERY SOON and VERY FAST (out of n-dimensional string worm-holes fairy-tails).
Intuition is not 'thought'. Thought is the mechanical process adopted by the individual, which includes memory function, and what we know of consciousness.
What brings the unconscious into conscious awareness is a process of intuition. Intuition makes something previously unknown, now known. So, intuition comes before consciousness.
It is a creative process.
I agree, it could still be considered 'matter', and this becomes more obvious when we understand that everything has a wave-function, and not the classical 'particle' as previously understood. See...
http://www.spaceandmotion.com/Wolff-Wave-S...ture-Matter.htm
In fact, you actually say the same as I had already done, just in a different way! (I say 'movement of energy', and you say 'motion'. I extended the phrase to make the point that light is just another form of energy that 'moves' at a finite speed.)
Not really what I was trying to discuss, but thanks for taking the time and providing the links. (Is that the machine that goes 'ping'? )
NOTE: My personal postulates regarding 'intuition', 'instantaneousness' or 'infinite speed' theories are not currently endorsed by spaceandmotion.com, but are, however, based upon the WaveStructure ofMatter as the One True Reality.
k.
What brings the unconscious into conscious awareness is a process of intuition. Intuition makes something previously unknown, now known. So, intuition comes before consciousness.
It is a creative process.
I agree, it could still be considered 'matter', and this becomes more obvious when we understand that everything has a wave-function, and not the classical 'particle' as previously understood. See...
http://www.spaceandmotion.com/Wolff-Wave-S...ture-Matter.htm
In fact, you actually say the same as I had already done, just in a different way! (I say 'movement of energy', and you say 'motion'. I extended the phrase to make the point that light is just another form of energy that 'moves' at a finite speed.)
Not really what I was trying to discuss, but thanks for taking the time and providing the links. (Is that the machine that goes 'ping'?
)NOTE: My personal postulates regarding 'intuition', 'instantaneousness' or 'infinite speed' theories are not currently endorsed by spaceandmotion.com, but are, however, based upon the WaveStructure ofMatter as the One True Reality.
k.
Precursor562,
Exactly.
How can you accelerate "something" or a rocket, with fuel, only weighing 10kg?
Thats a nonentity, as the fuel needed even in your own scenario (as I think you mentioned but only included 10kg in the equation which is bereft of the actual weights used and fuel), nPJ will weight MUCH much more than 10kg you've worked this "energy" out for.
So the energy actually required is TOO great to be feasible and infinite by this correlation.
The only way I can see something to possibily reach and even break the speed of light, is to go NANO i.e. much smaller, than a photon, with as much or more energy.
I mean, why cant we isolate, and accelerate a quark to this speed and beyond?
There must be something faster, maybe the speed at which a blackhole pulls light and matter in, is much faster?
And if we do not know of the human body in complete, I mean the speeds of transfer of everything in it, with the fastest processes (i.e. diffusion across synapses) not even covered yet sufficiently, then by no means can we rule out anything, nor guess on beliefs, but only investigate, by predicting towards our inclinations (though they be devoid of proof yet).
Comparison against gasoline:
Liquid hydrogen has a density of 0.07 g/cm^3. LH2 takes a lot more space than other fuels to store the same amount of energy. 9.5 kg of LH2 is equivalent to 25kg of gasoline ( Peschka 1987). Storage of 9.5 kg of LH2 requires a tank with a mass of 55kg, (Peschka 1987).
1 liter of hydrogen weighs 0.07 kg.
Just taking it to be LH2 for now:
So 300kg in weight will equal 4285.71 litres of LH2
And it will require a tank mass of 1736.84kg
Thats a total of 2037kg (rounded) just for the LH2 fuel already
Make that 2500kg with all additions inclusive, for convenience
Using your method and your input figures for 60seconds:
J=2500kg*299 792 458m/s^2*8 993 773 740m
Joules = 6.740663841^21 i.e. zeta (sextillion) joules
That is pretty impossible!
Erm...Speed isn't infinite, JUST what we believe and think yet is.
Limitations and mankind... what a history of correlations, just like speed and energy!
Exactly.
How can you accelerate "something" or a rocket, with fuel, only weighing 10kg?
Thats a nonentity, as the fuel needed even in your own scenario (as I think you mentioned but only included 10kg in the equation which is bereft of the actual weights used and fuel), nPJ will weight MUCH much more than 10kg you've worked this "energy" out for.
So the energy actually required is TOO great to be feasible and infinite by this correlation.
The only way I can see something to possibily reach and even break the speed of light, is to go NANO i.e. much smaller, than a photon, with as much or more energy.
I mean, why cant we isolate, and accelerate a quark to this speed and beyond?
There must be something faster, maybe the speed at which a blackhole pulls light and matter in, is much faster?
And if we do not know of the human body in complete, I mean the speeds of transfer of everything in it, with the fastest processes (i.e. diffusion across synapses) not even covered yet sufficiently, then by no means can we rule out anything, nor guess on beliefs, but only investigate, by predicting towards our inclinations (though they be devoid of proof yet).
Comparison against gasoline:
Liquid hydrogen has a density of 0.07 g/cm^3. LH2 takes a lot more space than other fuels to store the same amount of energy. 9.5 kg of LH2 is equivalent to 25kg of gasoline ( Peschka 1987). Storage of 9.5 kg of LH2 requires a tank with a mass of 55kg, (Peschka 1987).
1 liter of hydrogen weighs 0.07 kg.
Just taking it to be LH2 for now:
So 300kg in weight will equal 4285.71 litres of LH2
And it will require a tank mass of 1736.84kg
Thats a total of 2037kg (rounded) just for the LH2 fuel already
Make that 2500kg with all additions inclusive, for convenience
Using your method and your input figures for 60seconds:
J=2500kg*299 792 458m/s^2*8 993 773 740m
Joules = 6.740663841^21 i.e. zeta (sextillion) joules
That is pretty impossible!
Erm...Speed isn't infinite, JUST what we believe and think yet is.
Limitations and mankind... what a history of correlations, just like speed and energy!
A few things that would help would be to move the objects closer and find a way to recycle a lot of the energy.
For example, if it took approximately a 1 to 1 ratio of fuel to mass to subjectively approach light speed, then for "warp 10" you'd need something like a 10 to 1 ratio.
If you had an orbitting ring of black holes around a system, you could use these to deflect a path for routing to pass by different destinations, by altering slightly your course or velocity you could create a larger future divergence. It may seem like reversing direction using a black hole would cause extreme acceleration, but recognize you're actually 'free falling' around this and the acceleration is rather uniform except for tidal forces, but I don't think tidal forces are a problem beyond the event horizon for any moderately sized black hole.
Now how to recycle the energy?
If you had a small black hole, the tidal forces would be much larger but you transfer momentum to the back hole by using it to slow. So for example, imagine two rather small black holes orbitting near each other. If they were outside the event horizon of the other, you could swing near one and accelerate, while slowly the orbital velocities slightly. Someone coming the other direction could later swing past to slow themselves down while imparting the angular velocity back into the back hole. You might be able to stagger multiple stages of these so that the nearest ones are orbitting slowest and they progressively get faster and faster. Whereas someone making the return experiences them in the opposite direction. This would be directional though, unless you had these orbitting in a ring that could sweep past destinations, though some minor control could be possible outside this plane, it would be better to have something that would allow more of an ability to move outside this plane, but then again if you passed this plane through the field of a few nearby stars, you could use relays (as long as the traffic both directions was relatively balanced) and hop from system to system with faster connections for long distances, just like a hub on the net.
For example, if it took approximately a 1 to 1 ratio of fuel to mass to subjectively approach light speed, then for "warp 10" you'd need something like a 10 to 1 ratio.
If you had an orbitting ring of black holes around a system, you could use these to deflect a path for routing to pass by different destinations, by altering slightly your course or velocity you could create a larger future divergence. It may seem like reversing direction using a black hole would cause extreme acceleration, but recognize you're actually 'free falling' around this and the acceleration is rather uniform except for tidal forces, but I don't think tidal forces are a problem beyond the event horizon for any moderately sized black hole.
Now how to recycle the energy?
If you had a small black hole, the tidal forces would be much larger but you transfer momentum to the back hole by using it to slow. So for example, imagine two rather small black holes orbitting near each other. If they were outside the event horizon of the other, you could swing near one and accelerate, while slowly the orbital velocities slightly. Someone coming the other direction could later swing past to slow themselves down while imparting the angular velocity back into the back hole. You might be able to stagger multiple stages of these so that the nearest ones are orbitting slowest and they progressively get faster and faster. Whereas someone making the return experiences them in the opposite direction. This would be directional though, unless you had these orbitting in a ring that could sweep past destinations, though some minor control could be possible outside this plane, it would be better to have something that would allow more of an ability to move outside this plane, but then again if you passed this plane through the field of a few nearby stars, you could use relays (as long as the traffic both directions was relatively balanced) and hop from system to system with faster connections for long distances, just like a hub on the net.
Just a question by a youngster yet not having started physics at Hghschool 
At what speeds do comets (Halleys), asteroids, planets, stars move (in the latter orbit)?
Can we not learn, replicate the same mechanisms that provide them speed?
Like making something covered with ice/dust? (altho it sounds hypothetically exaggerated), encapsuling the actual spaceshuttle.
Me and this girl, in our new class (starting soon) were talking, and she was imagining or suggesting, maybe we can situate/contsruct some mechanism, which can act as a "catapult" by converting light/thermal energy of the sun (presumably near it), with some form of pushing action, with this amount of energy, once contained (i.e. the SoL amount), triggers and pushes a body, rocket, or spaceshuttle to velocities equal or past the SoL.. for at least a second....
Maybe she has a point, not too far distant in the future, but I like the way Solar energy and power is utilised in her imaginatory proposals, as we know its a massive and consistent supply of energies at our disposal to play with.
Any help or comments welcome ( to an under 14 year old who wants everyone to think he's 14)
At what speeds do comets (Halleys), asteroids, planets, stars move (in the latter orbit)?
Can we not learn, replicate the same mechanisms that provide them speed?
Like making something covered with ice/dust? (altho it sounds hypothetically exaggerated), encapsuling the actual spaceshuttle.
Me and this girl, in our new class (starting soon) were talking, and she was imagining or suggesting, maybe we can situate/contsruct some mechanism, which can act as a "catapult" by converting light/thermal energy of the sun (presumably near it), with some form of pushing action, with this amount of energy, once contained (i.e. the SoL amount), triggers and pushes a body, rocket, or spaceshuttle to velocities equal or past the SoL.. for at least a second....
Maybe she has a point, not too far distant in the future, but I like the way Solar energy and power is utilised in her imaginatory proposals, as we know its a massive and consistent supply of energies at our disposal to play with.
Any help or comments welcome ( to an under 14 year old who wants everyone to think he's 14)
QUOTE (Art+Aug 27 2006, 08:56 PM)
Just a question by a youngster yet not having started physics at Hghschool
At what speeds do comets (Halleys), asteroids, planets, stars move (in the latter orbit)?
Can we not learn, replicate the same mechanisms that provide them speed?
Like making something covered with ice/dust? (altho it sounds hypothetically exaggerated), encapsuling the actual spaceshuttle.
Me and this girl, in our new class (starting soon) were talking, and she was imagining or suggesting, maybe we can situate/contsruct some mechanism, which can act as a "catapult" by converting light/thermal energy of the sun (presumably near it), with some form of pushing action, with this amount of energy, once contained (i.e. the SoL amount), triggers and pushes a body, rocket, or spaceshuttle to velocities equal or past the SoL.. for at least a second....
Maybe she has a point, not too far distant in the future, but I like the way Solar energy and power is utilised in her imaginatory proposals, as we know its a massive and consistent supply of energies at our disposal to play with.
Any help or comments welcome ( to an under 14 year old who wants everyone to think he's 14)
Well there have been ideas about using a solar sail to reflect light and provide a slight force in moving around the solar system, but I don't think the idea will actually end up working as intended.
When light is absorbed it provides a force and this does provide a force away from the Sun, but I don't believe you can actually use a reflection to try to control which way the force pushes on you, though you might be able to cancel this force with a mirror.
You can do a search on 'Solar Sails' and get information on the idea, but the effect might not end up being very useful ... though if it was, there would be many uses for it and likely not only for sailing around the solar system.
At what speeds do comets (Halleys), asteroids, planets, stars move (in the latter orbit)?
Can we not learn, replicate the same mechanisms that provide them speed?
Like making something covered with ice/dust? (altho it sounds hypothetically exaggerated), encapsuling the actual spaceshuttle.
Me and this girl, in our new class (starting soon) were talking, and she was imagining or suggesting, maybe we can situate/contsruct some mechanism, which can act as a "catapult" by converting light/thermal energy of the sun (presumably near it), with some form of pushing action, with this amount of energy, once contained (i.e. the SoL amount), triggers and pushes a body, rocket, or spaceshuttle to velocities equal or past the SoL.. for at least a second....
Maybe she has a point, not too far distant in the future, but I like the way Solar energy and power is utilised in her imaginatory proposals, as we know its a massive and consistent supply of energies at our disposal to play with.
Any help or comments welcome ( to an under 14 year old who wants everyone to think he's 14)
Well there have been ideas about using a solar sail to reflect light and provide a slight force in moving around the solar system, but I don't think the idea will actually end up working as intended.
When light is absorbed it provides a force and this does provide a force away from the Sun, but I don't believe you can actually use a reflection to try to control which way the force pushes on you, though you might be able to cancel this force with a mirror.
You can do a search on 'Solar Sails' and get information on the idea, but the effect might not end up being very useful ... though if it was, there would be many uses for it and likely not only for sailing around the solar system.
Well, I am the reincarnation of Nostradamus, but I won't be born for another 40 years... 
Apparently the Russians have tried a solar sail recently but supposedly had rocket problems and it hasn't been found.
http://spaceflightnow.com/news/n0506/21solarsailupdate/
The primary issue is that unless there's a way to get free energy, then you have a conflict. If for example, you shine a light on a mirror and get it to exert a force, then if you recycle the energy from the reflection, like reflecting it back again, you can drive the mirror away for free.
In order for this energy to be delivered to the mirror, some of the energy should be lost in the light. The claims are that light pressure is double when reflected, so whatever force it delivers is seen as double when reflected but in this case you still have the light you transmitted, so you haven't lost any energy in the process (for example, the light energy from a reflection doesn't decrease for an ideal mirror). Though there are plenty of large companies and institutions working on the idea, so I can't claim to know exactly what effect they're using.
Now there are various streams of energy from the Sun and I believe comets actually have something like 4 tails due to various forces, though not all of them are as obvious as the wake of it.
You could deflect some of the high energy particles from the solar wind and gain some force from those, though I don't know how much of an effect they'd have in comparison to solar radiation.
Here's an article I found that talks about this same issue:
Solar Sailing Breaks Laws Of Physics
http://www.spacedaily.com/news/rocketscience-03zg.html
Here's another guy talking about the same issue on a different forum:
http://science.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid...tid=134&tid=160
Also I found out there were some Japanese prototypes of the idea that appeared to have never gone anywhere either.
I personally think photons don't even truly 'bounce', in a physical sense off a mirror, but that the mirror affects the associated wavefunction in determining where a photon ends up, but the photon doesn't necessarily physically travel there. That's just my interpretation of what's going on.
http://spaceflightnow.com/news/n0506/21solarsailupdate/
The primary issue is that unless there's a way to get free energy, then you have a conflict. If for example, you shine a light on a mirror and get it to exert a force, then if you recycle the energy from the reflection, like reflecting it back again, you can drive the mirror away for free.
In order for this energy to be delivered to the mirror, some of the energy should be lost in the light. The claims are that light pressure is double when reflected, so whatever force it delivers is seen as double when reflected but in this case you still have the light you transmitted, so you haven't lost any energy in the process (for example, the light energy from a reflection doesn't decrease for an ideal mirror). Though there are plenty of large companies and institutions working on the idea, so I can't claim to know exactly what effect they're using.
Now there are various streams of energy from the Sun and I believe comets actually have something like 4 tails due to various forces, though not all of them are as obvious as the wake of it.
You could deflect some of the high energy particles from the solar wind and gain some force from those, though I don't know how much of an effect they'd have in comparison to solar radiation.
Here's an article I found that talks about this same issue:
Solar Sailing Breaks Laws Of Physics
http://www.spacedaily.com/news/rocketscience-03zg.html
Here's another guy talking about the same issue on a different forum:
http://science.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid...tid=134&tid=160
Also I found out there were some Japanese prototypes of the idea that appeared to have never gone anywhere either.
I personally think photons don't even truly 'bounce', in a physical sense off a mirror, but that the mirror affects the associated wavefunction in determining where a photon ends up, but the photon doesn't necessarily physically travel there. That's just my interpretation of what's going on.
QUOTE
Intuition is not 'thought'. Thought is the mechanical process adopted by the individual, which includes memory function, and what we know of consciousness.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Intuition is not 'thought'. Thought is the mechanical process adopted by the individual, which includes memory function, and what we know of consciousness. |
in·tu·i·tion Pronunciation (nt-shn, -ty-)
n.
1.
a. The act or faculty of knowing or sensing without the use of rational processes; immediate cognition. See Synonyms at reason.
b. Knowledge gained by the use of this faculty; a perceptive insight.
2. A sense of something not evident or deducible; an impression.
An example would be a husband goes on a business trip and gets in an accident along the way. The wife at her work gets this feeling that something is wrong and that it involves her husband. She gets confirmation of this an hour later form a phone call.
In this case she had "The faculty of sensing without the use of rational processes" where rational processes would be an input through one of her senses. In this case she received the rational process of knowing by a phone call where she received info through here sense of hearing.
That is intuition. It is still an impulse within the brain. A thought one has to be true or may be true without receiving proof to be true. Where proof is info gathered through the senses.
It is also referred to as a "gut feeling".
QUOTE
How can you accelerate "something" or a rocket, with fuel, only weighing 10kg?
I didn't include the mass of the fuel to the mass of the object just to show that a force applied to a mass can cause it to reach the speed of light and beyond. I also said that if the object carried its energy source (as fuel) to get the force required the fuel would add to the mass. I said this in this statement.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| How can you accelerate "something" or a rocket, with fuel, only weighing 10kg? |
I didn't include the mass of the fuel to the mass of the object just to show that a force applied to a mass can cause it to reach the speed of light and beyond. I also said that if the object carried its energy source (as fuel) to get the force required the fuel would add to the mass. I said this in this statement.
The problem occurs where in order to have acceleration you need the fuel. Fuel has mass and so the more fuel you add to get the energy needed the more mass you add and so the more fuel (energy) you need. You end up with a vicious cycle that ends in the mass never reaching the speed of light.
That if the object didn't carry the fuel and the force was applied externally than the object could reach the speed of light. Two ways this could be accomplished is to place the object into a particle accelerator type scenario or in a gun scenario. If you wanted to get a space shuttle up to the speed of light you could place it in an over sized particle accelerator (linear accelerator) and gradually increase it's velocity using magnetism or you could place the shuttle in a long tube with a large quantity of explosives behind it then ignite the explosive. Good luck doing the second since you would need a nuclear explosion and the g forces would crush you. The linear accelerator is something that was (maybe still is) being researched.
PhysOrg scientific forums are totally dedicated to science, physics, and technology. Besides topical forums such as nanotechnology, quantum physics, silicon and III-V technology, applied physics, materials, space and others, you can also join our news and publications discussions. We also provide an off-topic forum category. If you need specific help on a scientific problem or have a question related to physics or technology, visit the PhysOrg Forums. Here you’ll find experts from various fields online every day.
To quit out of "lo-fi" mode and return to the regular forums, please click here.