FTL=Faster Than Light



  • Cluso99 wrote: »
    We have a straight line A-B-C. Both ships start at point B and move in opposite directions, one towards A, the other towards C.
    They both instantaneously advance speed to 0.75c (0.75 * speed of light).
    Now, the observer at point B sees both spaceships moving away from him at 0.75c.
    However, neither spaceship will see each other move away as the light from one will never reach the other unless they stop and wait.
    No, the ships can see each other just fine. The speed of light is independent of the speed of the emitter. So in the A-B-C situation, where we take B to be "stationary", A moving to the left at 0.75c, and C moving to the right at 0.75c, light emitted by A towards C moves to the right at 1c. 1c > 0.75c, so the light will eventually reach C.

    This is contrary to our intuition, which holds that if A is moving to the left at 0.75c and emits light to the right, the light will move right at a net speed of 0.25c. But that's not the way light works, as proven by many, many experiments. The consequences of this are surprising. For example, in the case above if we take A to be the stationary point, then B is moving to the right at 0.75c and C is moving to the right at 0.96c (see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Velocity-addition_formula). Velocity is relative, and so are distance and time.

    All of this seems hopelessly contrary to our intuition, but that's because our intuition is based on space-time being flat (Euclidean) when it's actually hyperbolic. An analogy is that our geometric intuition is similarly flawed in relation to the shape of the Earth. At first glance it appears non-sensical that by sailing west and never changing direction you can come back to your starting point. But of course that is what happens, because the Earth is spherical rather than being flat.
  • rjo__ wrote: »

    If nothing travels faster than the speed of light, how does quantum entanglement work?

    If two space ships take off at the same time from roughly the same place and accelerate in roughly the same way but in opposite directions... and achieve anything over half the speed of light... with an observer staying at the point of origin... How does time on the spaceships behave relative to the point of origin and with respect to each other?

    It is all nonsense. The same is true for all expressions of energy... they are internally inconsistent. The math never adds up and no-one really seems to care.

    It would be a big joke if it weren't so damaging.

    How can any physics exist with the wrong definition of energy?

    Quite happily. A..h.les.


    In regards to warp drive - it's not the speed of light we should be concerned with - it's the speed of Space Plasma. That is the underlying backbone that even light rides upon.
  • @rjo__ , google the Michelson-Morley experiment.
  • evanh wrote: »
    Necessity is the mother of invention.
    No argument there. It's great for bringing ideas to fruition. And sometimes might even lead to new discoveries. But it won't change how the universe works - Superman will always be a fantasy.

    As for the, presumably, covid-19 pandemic and some unnamed war, I can't say I see any connection to your postings. A vaccine is the end-game for the virus. I don't know how you intend to stop wars with your proposals.

    Not sure how old you are, but the War on Terror never ended after 09/11/2001.
    It's still going on.

    So, instead of expecting responses from me - I refer you the the Bulletin of Atomic Scientists webpage for the numerous reasons why the pandemic is not the overlying problem - and a vaccine is not an overlying answer to ANY of our problems.

    As a pacifist, my warp drive solution is to find a way to make it cheap enough - to walk away from what appears to be a country in chaos - and the misinformation associated with it.
    If you think other's haven't done so, simply Google "Human Capital Flight".

    As you can see from the website - the country's problems obviously are widespread now - and go much deeper then you appear willing to admit.


    And while most people sit and complain that nothing is being done - I have actually came up with a reasonably complete design - to allow some people to walk away from it all, instead of being drawn further into a fight.

    Regardless of what the moderator thinks - I'm not convinced you are being a useful contributor (or understand the full extent of this country's problems & needed solutions) - if you continue to trivialize a warp drive proposal.

    Not everybody agrees with your limited assessment of our country. Nor do I see anybody else stepping forward with an educated attempt at ending ALL the problems (by making it cheap enough for everyone to travel away from them).

    If you wish to stay on this planet and fight - that's your concern, not mine.
  • Ah, that "war". Probably best not to say too much on that one. I don't think you'll find any answers in science or technology.

  • evanh wrote: »
    Ah, that "war". Probably best not to say too much on that one. I don't think you'll find any answers in science or technology.

    You are incorrect. Walking away from war is the pacifist answer to ending them.
    Warp Drive offers that ability.
  • So, anyway, my design assumes Plasma Cosmology, not Big Bang Cosmology.

    If it assumed that the universe is filled with Plasma - instead of Spacetime, then there appears to be a Newtonian way to circumvent the speed-of-light barrier & questions about time-travel.

    Plasma Cosmology is a valid, competing model to the Universe - and a number of articles can be found on Google Scholar in regards to this model. Because of the existence of Birkland Filaments & NASA's own "cosmic web" modelling - there are obvious reasons to consider Plasma Cosmology over Big Bang Cosmology.
  • Conscientious objector would be the realist term. There's no walking away any more.
  • If it assumed that the universe is filled with Plasma - instead of Spacetime, then there appears to be a Newtonian way to circumvent the speed-of-light barrier & questions about time-travel.
    Your enthusiasm for finding solutions is admirable, but I'm afraid you've been mislead. Claims like "the universe is made of space plasma" are hype. It's probably true that most of the matter in the universe is found in the form of plasma. But plasma's not fundamental: that plasma is in turn made up of charged particles (protons and electrons) which are excitations of various fields. Similarly, light is an excitation of a field, as described by Maxwell. Maxwell's equations correctly predicted the existence of radio waves (and other electromagnetic waves like light), but they also had the curious feature that the speed of the waves described by the equations was independent of the velocity of the emitter. Einstein explained this strange feature of light via the theory of relativity.

    Newtonian physics is only approximately correct, and that "approximately" matters a great deal. I suggest that before you venture further into this realm that you learn about relativity, in particular the relativity of simultaneity, and the experimental evidence in favor of it.

  • jonabel1971jonabel1971 Posts: 184
    edited 2020-07-23 - 15:27:27
    Thanks, I already read quantum physics - and its questionable in many respects.
    You cannot measure spacetime - nor even explain it, so why keep beating it death?

    Saying that Newtonian physics is relatively "approximate" compared to un-measurable spacetime is incorrect. You aren't able to explain spacetime mechanics - as easily as Plasma mechanics.

    Plus, nobody appreciates the use of the words "curious" & "strange" - since it confuses other readers. Your condescension is apparent and not admirable.

    As for Plasma Cosmology being hype - there have been Scholar papers written about it since the 80's.

    The only thing that Big Bang Cosmology has done - is add more and more difficult subject matter over the last 120 years to keep it alive. It is Big Big Cosmology that is more questionable.

    Since I have also done successful experiments on the matter - I'm convinced you are incorrect.
    And I didn't even need an ultra-cold Bose-Einstein Condensate to do it.

  • This thread has very little to do with Parallax products.

    This thread is closed.
This discussion has been closed.