[QUOTE=Cervaise]
Wow, you really don’t have any idea what you’re talking about.
[/QUOTE]
Like, Duh…
[post=8445091]I said that back a page or so…[/post]
And he never responded to [post=8448874]that post[/post] at all, indeed, it shut him up until his latest post.
[QUOTE=David Barclay]
I did not mention time dilation or refer to it. The speed of light as we presently perceive it is based on two things, a clock and a meter rule. If you slow the clock you slow the speed of light. If you extend the length of the meter rule you slow the speed of light. If you speed the clock up you increase the speed of light and if you shorten the length of the meter rule you increase the speed of light.
If you want to preserve the speed of light in relation to a constant, in that the speed of light is the same regardless of where you are in the universe you are going to need more than time dilation to preserve the constant speed of light, because the speed of light presently corresponds to a localized condition and is confined to a linear definition.
[/QUOTE]
Right, you need a combination of time dilation and distance change to keep the speed of light constant, which is what happens.
[QUOTE=Chronos]
One could just as easily construct a reference frame which is travelling relative to us at 0.999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999 c. In such a frame, we’re the ones travelling at that ludicrous speed, but it affects us not at all.
[/QUOTE]
So the theory conflicts with popular visuals, which imply that as one approaches 1.0, the effects of moving at the speed of light start to manifest themselves. You are saying that there would be zero effect right until the moment you achieve 1.0 ?
Cartooniverse
The whole point of relativity is that everyone thinks he’s the normal one and everybody else is strange.
[QUOTE=Cartooniverse]
So the theory conflicts with popular visuals, which imply that as one approaches 1.0, the effects of moving at the speed of light start to manifest themselves. You are saying that there would be zero effect right until the moment you achieve 1.0 ?
Cartooniverse
[/QUOTE]
The “popular visuals” are from the reference frame in which we, the viewers, are going 0. That’s why the thing we are viewing, the thing that is moving so fast, looks to have effects.
Chronos was saying that relativity allows us to reverse that. The math works equally well for the one that is moving fast relative to us to think of itself at 0 and that we are the ones moving fast away from it. Nothing has changed in reality. The math works the same either way. But now we’re the ones that look distorted to it. Our speed and our appearance is relative to the viewer.
Effects are always in the eye of the viewer: they happen to others and not to oneself. If you or I were going at that ridiculous speed, we wouldn’t feel any different. Everything around us, going at the same speed, appears normal. So does time, despite the odd notions of our guest. The rest of the universe will look quite strange, though.
[QUOTE=Cartooniverse]
So the theory conflicts with popular visuals, which imply that as one approaches 1.0, the effects of moving at the speed of light start to manifest themselves. You are saying that there would be zero effect right until the moment you achieve 1.0 ?
[/QUOTE]
What Chronos was saying, I believe, is that you could construct any frame of reference such that you’re moving relative to it (and equivilently, it to you) as arbitrarily close to c as you like. A frame of reference isn’t a physical thing, understand, it’s just an origin for a coordinate system which you can put wherever and going however fast in whatever direction you like. Now a real object–say a spacecraft–in that reference frame will show Lorentz-Fitzgerald contraction effects; i.e. it will become foreshortened in the direction of travel, it will behave like it has additional mass (in terms of its momentum, again in the direction of travel), a clock inside of it will appear to be running slower, et cetera. The same will be true for an object in your reference frame from the perspective of a traveller in that craft; things in front of him will be blue, behind him read, and to the side will be shortened. (The difference in ages of the so-called Twin Paradox is a result of the fact that one of the twins has to accelerate, putting him in a non-intertial reference frame in which things become more muddled.)
You can even have a reference frame moving at c or even beyond; however, some special conditions limit what you can do with such a frame. For one, because the Lorentz factor becomes undefined at c, you can’t have any invariant (rest mass); it would be infinite. Similiarly, time dialation becomes zero, i.e. there is no movement in the time direction; this means that from the point of view of a photon, all times are now, and it exists as a single line from genesis to terminus. In a reference frame moving >c, you have even bigger problems; time moves backward, and invariant mass ends up being imaginary (in the mathematical sense). What the hell is imaginary mass? Who knows; the general consensus is that this is all nonsense and nothing “real” moves faster than c.
This has to be qualified, however, in noting that by “real” we mean matter and light; spacetime itself isn’t “real” in those senses, and can be constructed to move at any speed whatsoever, allowing the expansion of spacetime to exceed c over large distances, hence why the visible universe is much further in radius than 13-odd Bly. The effect of this is that light and the objects that emit it become redshifted beyond visible and eventually beyond eveb theoretically detectable lengths, like light falling beyond the event horizon of a black hole.
Stranger
Since the author has never been at “light speed” the entire answer is a moot point.
Because other people believe it or wrote it on paper is a poor reason to believe anything, and IMHO a cop out.
What if light speed is not a constant?
Have you been to M676 to VERIFY the result?
What if space has varying densities?
What happens to theories of relativity then?
Has ALL space been verified to be have a linear, constant density?
How many satellites orbit Earth measuring the actual reflection time of varying EM wavelengths to find out?
Has relativity actually been VERIFIED over any usable distance?
-Assumption is the bane of discovery
-There is no substitute for experience
The answer also assumes that E=MC2 i.e. that mass is energy and nothing else. How stupid is that? Do I disagree with Einstein’s equations? YES, I do.
What’s the difference between mass and motion?
What is “energy”?
How can they possibly be the same thing?
The “photon” conundrum is a clear example of “magical” thinking.
Is a photon a particle or a wave?
Could it be a “temporary” presentation of a wave?
If so, what is the wave made from?
How can space be empty if waves can traverse it?
How can there be a wave if there’s “nothing” to actually wave?
It’s childish, presumptuous and just plain wrong to assume the world (context) of adults is a simple extrapolation of a child’s point of view. If that were correct we’d be able to simply calculate reality … Oh but wait, we can, even without a computer. Isn’t that called fantasy?
Does calculating an array make it real?
Does wanting something to be correct make it so?
Do you really create reality with your mind?
The theories of relativity are an unvalidated linear extrapolation based on mathematic formulas not evidence. Math is a language, not a physical reality. Realities are unique, they do not follow mathematical models. Why do so many physicists have such difficulty explaining reality except with equations?
-Math does not accurately describe any reality
If I sit at in the stands at a Drag race and measure the acceleration of a drag racer from 0 to 40 mph, is it safe to assume that the vehicle will continue to accelerate at that rate forever?
Therefore all Einsteins equations are theories, a fact the author failed to note in his math formula. It’s ridiculous to assume that because someone takes a measurement from one point on planet Earth to another that all of space everywhere will produce the exact same result.
What if space is not empty?
What if it’s just imperceptible to you because you don’t understand it?
If one continues to accept other people’s answers, how can discovery occur?
The only stupid question is the one you don’t ask, so ask…
Extra Thoughts…
If the nucleus of one atom is not in direct contact with the nucleus of another, how can they interact?
What if they ARE in contact via the same mysterious thing that propagates and generates the mysterious “photon”?
Can you say “Diagonal Chemistry”?
-Tom
In other words, siggma, you would prefer, instead of making deductions based on the best observations we can actually make, to make completely wild guesses based on nothing whatsoever, because hey, nobody knows anything. Is that an accurate summary of your position?
Dr. Gene Ray, is that you?
Stranger
Nope…
I would never present anything that didn’t make sense.
And I don’t expect someone to accept a description of gravity in lieu of a definition or an explanation either.
Spock: Captain, the Klingon warship is powering its weapons.
Chekov: Kiptin! Kiptin! Fire ze Fortan Potatoes!
Nope.
My position is to accept that “we don’t know” rather than pretending we do.
Einstein is taught as unquestioned FACT in nearly every educational institution in existence. What is not taught is that it’s a theory, not a fact. Nobody has proven his theories to be correct. They are “assumed” to be correct because they seem to make sense, at least in the beginning. Kind of like religion.
Consider the possibility that perhaps space has substance and therefore it’s density is variable. It’s a “theory” that makes much more sense than an equation and it’s an observation that seems more accurate than the magical vacuum idea.
Consider that I have never met you and unless I actually do, any thoughts I have about you are based solely on my perceptions.
What if space (the apparent area between objects) has substance?
What if that “substance” is what creates the appearance of atomic matter?
What if there are things inside atoms that cannot be detected?
What might the effects be upon chemistry as a science?
Is time really a structure, having substance or is it a perceptual differential between a “person” and the environment in which that person exists?
Is there really such a thing as “spacetime” or is the very concept an irresponsible extrapolation based on unquestioned facts taught to unsuspecting children in schools that themselves don’t stop to ponder a better conceptual approach to discovery?
I have some ideas that I’ll be happy to present that do begin to explain the universe around us. But they are not mathematical models. They are based on honest observations of reality without the projected extrapolation of an all encompassing “creator”, or the deliberately confusing theoretical constructs based on unproved, unvalidated primary theories that themselves are based on fundamental assumptions like E=MC2.
The most glaring and misleading assumption is that reality is a linear, uniform construct. That it can be explored with equations rather than experience. It feels like people looking for a short cut.
Example
If A=B and B=C then A=C
NO! That’s an assumption.
What if B changed after it was assigned the value of A.
I’m very new here and I don’t want to upset people so this may not be the appropriate thread or even the appropriate place for such a discussion, assuming you or others are interested in questioning the status quo. But if any of you are interested, I’m sure we can find an appropriate venue.
-Tom
bonzer said:
One might charitably interpret GR as that statement. In effect, gravity is a pseudoforce that is indistinguishable from acceleration, and is in fact an acceleration. That acceleration is not caused by some energy/field/string pulling matter together, but curvature of spacetime.
Stranger On A Train said:
I have some problems with that. First, you have just stated that we are moving at c. If we (physical matter with rest mass) are able to move at c in the time axis, why are we not able to move at c in the other coordinate axes?
Second, you speak of “movement”, but I think what you mean is acceleration, as movement includes velocity, but steady velocity is indistinguishable from sitting still. Just depends upon the vantage point of the viewer.
siggma said:
It does explain certain features of Mercury’s orbit around the Sun, though I’m not sure if that meets your definition of “usable distance”.
But what is mass? It is simply a measure of response to acceleration. The fact that it correlates to how much “stuff” is there is an interesting and useful correlation, but it does not illuminate the link between mass and matter. Nor does Einstein’s equation explain how one gets from matter to energy.
Is that a riddle, like “Why is a raven like a writing desk?”
Mass is a measure of matter’s response to acceleration, often used to tell how much matter is there. Motion is the result of acceleration.
Because reality does really strange things that words are inadequate (so far) to explain. Math is a tool for measuring what reality is doing. It is a tool for understanding how reality behaves, but it doesn’t constrain reality. Most physicists don’t think it does constrain reality. They just rely on math to describe reality because words are inadequate.
siggma said:
No it’s not, it’s a definition. That’s why there’s an if.
Then B is no longer equal to A, the if is no longer valid, and the syllogism is moot.
If you can get past what might appear to be stark arrogance and actually read this, I’d like to begin a discussion. Either here if it’s appropriate or in some other pubic venue. I have my own web site if this is an inappropriate place.
I’ll explain the “we” reference later.
The Inverse is the base material from which all other structures in our environment are apparently made. The inverse is made of an unvalidated material that acts mostly like a liquid. It’s polymerized into the various structures we know as atoms by a mechanism called Polymerises. Essentially polymerises means to “Change State”. It works like this:
Inverse transference:
The area within the Universe is made of a liquid. A liquid we call the inverse. This liquid is permeated with what we call Primary Particles. Primary particles make up a layer of reality we call the lattisphere or the layer of reality made up of minute crystal particles with a lattice matrix structure. These teeny tiny crystals are energy carriers. Being so small they don’t lend themselves to easy observation, they remain somewhat mysterious. What we do know is that they have a somewhat elastic quality that allows them to store motion for a short time. As motion traverses the primary particle it causes the particle to change shape slightly. As the primary particle changes shape it pushes directly upon the liquid of the Universe itself. Repeated, predictable, minute shape change in an object is generally called “resonance”. As these tiny particles resonate they transfer their shape change directly to the inverse liquid causing waves within it. This universal liquid, presumably made of even smaller, possibly ground-up primary particles, tends to clump and bind as the waves traverse it. The result is a process we call polymeric stratification, an adjunct to polymerises. This polymeric stratification is what we see in the inverse as it’s various layered structures, the structures we know as atoms, protons, neutrons, molecules, compounds, vapors, liquids, gasses, solids, metals and even void areas. It’s the “ringing” of all those tiny little primary particles in constant motion, constantly transferring motion between each other that generates the actual structures we know as atoms and the larger molecular compounds we study as reality.
Sub Structures: inside the atom:
At the core of each atom is at least one primary particle. The only known singular structure is the Helium Isotope, probably the most studied structure there is. All other known structures contain more than one primary particle or primary molecule. From the outside looking in, an atom contains an exterior electron field surface made up of liquid plasma and containing openings we refer to as electrons and positrons. Within this field surface wrapper are the familiar structures we already know about; protons and neutrons plus two others, annions and uunions. As atoms form atomic molecules, so do subatomic particles form subatomic molecules. Therefore the interior structure of an atom could be factors greater than anyone has even dared to postulate. It can also be very, very simple. Helium is the neutral PH structure, not Hydrogen because its the only known singular isotope. Our Sun is a helium fusion cascade reactor. It converts helium isotopes into hydrogen releasing radiant energy in the process.
More on primary clusters and radiant converters later as it deals more with cosmology which is a diversion from this concept.
Dependent Isotope Structures:
Annions and Uunions are dependent subatomic structures that will only exist within the larger structure of the atom (they have no primary cohesion). As such they are temporal. They are considered dependent structures because they require the support of the atom as a whole to exist as stable entities. In other words, if you take an atom apart, it’s protons and neutrons will probably survive intact and will try to bond with other atomic structures, changing them accordingly. But it’s annions and uunions won’t. Being dependent entities, they are released into the inverse proper as radiant energy, If an atom is destroyed, we see the resulting wave propagation traveling through the inverse itself. It’s this release of waves we call radiation.
The wave propagation we known as radiation is know in other circles as Radiant Energy Exchange. Radiant Energy Exchange can cause temporary or permanent chemical changes in other atomic structures they interact with, assuming those structures are unstable enough to be altered by passing radiation. Radiant Energy Exchange is a more descriptive term than just radiation.
Inverse Radiation:
Radiation is generally classified by it’s wavelength. We know and recognize such radiations as sound, light and other “Electromagnetic” Radiation. But there is an infinitely greater complexity to the propagation of radiation through the inverse than just electromagnetic radiation.
*-EM accounts only for those radiation effects that cause changes in the electron surfaces they impact.
*
However, waves that propagate at shorter than gamma, such as delta waves (called tetric radiation), are not generally electrically active waves. They appear to pass through atomic materials without altering them, for the most part. Appearances are sometimes deceiving and there are forms of delta radiation that will, and do produce electromagnetic effects.
All radiations propagate through the inverse as pressure gradients i.e. simple pressure changes. Even sound propagates through the inverse. The difference is that sound does not and cannot cause changes in the structures through which it propagates because it’s a compound pressure structured wave, whereas EM and Voidal Propagation can, and does change the chemistry of the structures through which it passes, even if only for an instant. Simply put, sound moves molecules, EM moves entire atoms and tetric radiation moves nuclei.
There are three primary types of radiant energy exchange. They are roughly associated with Sound, EM (the Electromagnetic spectrum) and Voidal expressions.
Sound, along with other pressure wave transfers, is not really a primary radiation. A sound wave traverses a physical material without causing chemical changes in it’s underlying structure. It’s like a domino effect, hit one and the energy from that one is spread outwards wherever opportunity presents. It’s essentially a pressure change in the environment. Sound can propagate through all known types of matter, including space. But because it does not change the chemical structure of the materials through which is moves, it’s considered a separate type of radiation.
Electromagnetic and higher wavelength radiation causes temporal (temporary) changes in the underlying structure of atomic and subatomic materials such that it CAN but doesn’t always cause permanent chemical changes as it traverses them. All inverse radiant energy exchanges propagate via temporal chemical reactions i.e. they change the structure and therefore the chemistry of the inverse structures through which they propagate. And, contrary to popular theories and beliefs, shorter than light waves can and do propagate faster than light, unless you are only measuring part of the radiation, the very reason we have a new supercollider at CERN.
Inverse Propagation:
Propagation rate depends not just on wavelength (and consequently the specific cosmic or atomic layer through which propagation occurs) but also on spacial density. Spacial being the correct spelling as it refers to space as a variable density phenomena. As with sound waves, the more tightly packed the individual pieces of a structure, the more efficient and therefore the faster the energy transfer occurs. This explains why sound transfer is different in varying gasses at differing temperatures (temperature alters density). However, because our culture is only able to use atomic materials for direct measurements (we can’t build with subatomics, yet) and because the Einstein Equations are so well accepted and believed, we are unable to directly observe waves that are shorter than the diameter of the anterior surface of the atomic structures we study, known as the electron field surface.
Referring back to basic geometry, a plane has one surface and one dimension. A circle, or sphere, has two. An exterior and an interior. A circle with an object within it uses different naming conventions to reference it’s surfaces. Exterior refers to the outside, anterior to the inside of the exterior surface, and enterior refers to the inside of the secondary object’s surface and there are still other prefixes and combinations. Propagation through the interior of atomic structures is referred to as Utilitarian Propagation and the surfaces upon which such radiations travel are called Utilities or Utility Dimensions. Unlike “time”, they qualify as a dimension because they have a surface.
**
Anterior sub-domain (utilitarian) propagation:**
At this point, if you’ve had any training in chemistry or physics you would probably be asking how can a surface (nucleus etc.) on the inside of one atom transfer energy to or from the inside surface of another atom when they aren’t in direct contact?
A question that’s been pondered by many. The answer is a very simple, single word: inverse field effect. Reality is what it is, regardless of our understanding. The fact is that the various strata of the inverse are actually in direct contact, it’s our atomic point of view compounded by a dependence on math and other people’s theories that messes us up by limiting our point of view, preventing us from seeing and therefore validating or mentally exploring it. The inverse is essentially an ocean that contacts all primary surfaces simultaneously.
So, might it be possible to use chemistry to propagate faster than light waves for communications?
Has anyone heard of P.E.T.E.?
Think if it this way, you have a copper wire and you transmit an FM carrier wave at 496.767 Mhz on the wire. If I also modulate an AM broadcast on the same wire at 112Khz, will the AM broadcast effect the carrier wave directly?
How can two little wires attached to my phone line transmit both web pages and my voice at the same time?
How do waves of differing length effect each other in a copper wire?
How about an aluminum wire?
What about in space?
In a nutshell, the inverse wavelengths that effect the electron field surface are longer than the waves that effect it’s anterior (inside of the outside) surface, therefore the interior waves are “carried” past the exterior waves the same way we transmit multiple waves on a twisted pair of copper wires, linking similar anterior and even interior atomic surfaces directly.
Without any concept of the inverse itself there is no concept of an inverse field effect and the study of physics becomes hopelessly mired in magical vacuum theories yet to be verified or validated. If no such concept can be conceived, no effort can be applied to its further discovery.
Void Waves and their consequences:
A Voidal exchange (no energy transfer) is the third type of radiation that can propagate through the inverse. A Void wave is similar to a pressure wave radiation but it’s generated by an initial pulling or low pressure force rather than an outwards greater pressure initial force. Reduced pressure wave initiation causes a temporary lowering of the density in the inverse as it propagates and the inverse acts differently to such waves, which is partly why it’s called “the inverse”. Voidal waves combined with pressure wave radiations can have dramatic effects in apparently empty space. It’s a very useful technology for generating temporary atomic or even molecular objects and would appear as if it were magic to those who don’t understand such things. Imagine a field effect with substance, like a force field from Star Trek, or a pseudo temporal object appearing out of “thin air”, and you get the general idea.
The inverse is sometimes referred to as the Primary Liquid and it’s this primary liquid within which we exist. (Note the reference to us as separate entities.) Actually I believe it’s the inverse itself that is polymerized into the atomic (elemental) and super atomic (chemical) structures we know as matter so what we see as water, air, rocks, metals, vapors, gasses, people, bugs, fire, light, dark, clouds, colors, cars, even people’s biology, is essentially all made from the same kind of stuff.
Except that each primary particle is unique, as are each of the individual entities that make up the inverse itself.
A Final Word on energy and motion:
What is the difference between energy and motion?
And a trick question in case you have heard this before.
What is the common dimension linking width, depth, dipth and wedth?
So, my answer to the original question is, yes, the bullet will travel faster than light.
-Tom
I could write the sentence “No, it isn’t” after every assertion - every single one unsupported by anything outside your head - you make in that post, and be very near a perfectly correct description of how the universe actually works. I actually started to do this, but the marginal benefit was too small.
Not mine so I’ll not comment.
Einstein’s presentation of gravity or our general experience of gravity?
I agree.
Your quote of me is not in the editor so this is in response to “what is the difference between mass and motion?”
The difference between mass and motion is that mass is a structure, motion is not. Energy is motion at work, i.e. moving something.
How can such a concept be verified?
Is it safe to assume that if a well educated man cannot explain it, it cannot be explained in words?
I can explain it in words and unless I get a “cease and desist” from the moderator, I’ll attempt to do so. But such exploration requires questions.
I think it goes further than that. Think of the term “theoretical physics”. I.E. Dudes with extra letters on their names sitting in rooms with huge computers trying to “think” their way through the discovery of realty.
Can you assume you know Brad Pitt from watching his movies or reading magazines about him?
How are they different than the popparatzi?
Why study a theoretical reality when we exist in a REAL one?
Ever heard a rumor?
I saw an article a while back titled “New formula allows for faster than light travel” that clearly illustrates the issue.
-Tom
So could I. …
Perhaps this discussion is not for you.
But thanks for saying “no, it isn’t” anyway.
-Tom
Lemme guess…you think AGW is crock too?
To which AGW are you referring?
AGW Anthropogenic Global Warming
AGW Anti-Global Warming
AGW Access Gateway
AGW Art Gallery of Windsor (Ontario, Canada)
AGW All Going Well
AGW Atmospheric Gravity Waves
AGW Accelerated Global Warming
If it’s Global warming, I think it is an issue. There is no way we can remove as much bacterial processed plant material from inside the earth, especially after it’s absorbed so many different minerals, without global consequences. Is it as dire as the extrapolated predictions? I don’t think so but only time will tell.
What I’m presenting can help alleviate such things as global energy. Understanding how things work can have an enormous impact on producing energy. For example, there are ways to convert heat directly to electric current using something similar to Peltier Junction Cooling device on steroids (it’s called a hyde copper junction). Placed in the exhaust of a city bus it could produce a sizable mileage increase.
There are very efficient ways to convert radiation from one wavelength to another, just like white paint does when the sun shines upon it. or when cosmic inverse radiation contacts the primary core of a star. The primary core is excited to resonance by the waves, converting them to it’s primary resonant band. In essence it’s a cosmic radiation converter. It might even be descried as a “hole in space” relative to it’s “inflow” radiation range. Maybe that inflow is what drags very specific cosmic gasses moves toward the center, compressing them to a liquid or even to a solid. Such a theory also implies such a cosmic thing has an “outflow” as well. Maybe that’s where all that sunlight comes from and why it lasts so long…
If it’s Atmospheric Gravity Waves, I have no comment.
-Tom