FAQ   Search   Memberlist   Usergroups   Register   Profile   Log in to check your private messages   Log in 
faster than light travel...and time travel

 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    The Next Level Forum Index -> Tomorrow's World
  ::  Previous topic :: Next topic  
Author Message
Nat



Joined: 15 Sep 2006
Posts: 840
Location: minime-rica

PostPosted: Sat Jan 20, 2007 9:59 pm    Post subject: faster than light travel...and time travel Reply with quote

they used to say that all the people in the first train would die horribly when it got above man-running speed...they didn't.

last year i had a long spate of exchanges with a chap, very smart, on very fast travel (like what actually happens to a vehicle at around the speed of light)

this is from memory, but i'll attempt to transcribe the gist as best as i can...


we wrote:
AE wrote:
if we ever get up to light speed travel, then we'll be able to travel in time, but they're always saying you cannot go beyond the speed of light


i dunno, i think that with the precedent of faster than sound travel, we'll get something like a 'luminous boom' - the equivilent of a sonic boom, perhaps a flash of light if you're in the vicinity of the vehicle as it crosses the 'light barrier', and then it'll just proceed beyond the speed of light [and probably cease to be visible]

i don't believe that the speed of light is a brick wall that cannot be broken through, it's like the American x-planes in the 40's and 50's (and the diving p-38's/me-262's/spits/comets and mustangs etc and DeHavilland Swallow after the war), they had major control loss from compressibility, but more than a few of them broke the sound barrier or at least got damn close, if all you had was your nerve to judge the likelihood of success by, you'd want to back off the throttle before breaking through, but that's the paradox, sometimes peril is something you need to push on through to the other side of, and all is calm...i think that's how it will be with superluminous travel (assuming other physics limits do not make it impossible)

AE wrote:
yeah, but won't that mean that whoever's in the vehicle will be able to move through time, backwards and forwards ?


i think it's far more likely that you might if you travelled fast/far enough, be out of time sync with the rest of the planet/system/whatever, but not by much, my hunch is that it might result in a few minutes or some hours difference at most

AE wrote:
but if you travel faster than light doesn't that mean you travel faster than time itself, and isn't the speed of light an absolute maximum ?


i just think that yes, you might get ahead of the light, but not really the time - so, much like how you don't hear a supersonic object reaching you, a 'superluminous object' would arrive before you saw it Shocked ...either that, or a 'luminous boom' or 'luminous shockwave' might travel in front of the vehicle, so the first thing thing you'd know such a craft had passed you by would be a flash of light, and that's all you'd see [and it might rattle yer teacup a tad]

AE wrote:
you'd need some serious radar or something to navigate round stuff though wouldn't you ?


lol, good point, maybe the luminous shockwave would clear smaller micrometeoroids n' such out of the way, but yeah, bigger stuff you'd probably need to know the whole route was clear before you began, plus side is that you'd never be in one spot for particularly long !

and never know, physics might provide some lucky fluke whereby once you get up to those sorts of speeds you kinda cease to be a normal solid, or you and your surroundings no longer interact in the same way, or perhaps it becomes possible to see farther somehow. but that is reaching a bit


there might be all sorts of strange effects from faster than light travel, for instance you might see external things out of time sync with the time it actually is, or even light might break down so that a faster than light vehicle might be completely blind to the external, or even blinded by an inundation of light particles...who knows, i've never had a chance to check it out :roll: ...perhaps there'd be a bright hemisphere of front view, fading somewhat chaotically to a pitch dark view behind (from within such a vehicle)...whatever you'd be able to see or not, or indeed steer around or not, it sounds flipping dangerous to me, like trying to fly supersonic through Manhatten three foot off the ground Shocked

the sound barrier precedent and the total inability of scientists (to my knowledge) to apply the same thinking to this 'light barrier' they mostly or all seem to believe in, makes me think that much of 'science' is an arse

of course there's the acceleration and deceleration to cope with, i think what there'd be is an exponential acceleration that simply keeps on building until travelling faster than light (if that's possible), and the reverse would be true for slowing back down again, so the journey might appear to be simply speed up/slow down and that's just about it, not much in between, when in fact the bit you didn't notice was the greater distance travelled

only killer i can think of would be some fundamantal physics type limitation to do with the wave structure of matter oar summin', but they used to be scared of the sound barrier too..."the world will cease to exist"

just theorising, not like i can prove it Shocked

any thoughts, people ?


Last edited by Nat on Wed Mar 24, 2010 9:37 am; edited 1 time in total
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
obeylittle



Joined: 10 Sep 2006
Posts: 442
Location: Middle o' Mitten, Michigan Corp. division of United States of America Corp. division of Global Corp.

PostPosted: Sun Jan 21, 2007 12:55 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Yeah, one thought... This has to do with the need to think relatively. This challenges science because scientists (Einstein et al) frequently forget that everything is moving in our universe and there is constant change due to constant cycling of opposing forces. Forces that become dominant then weak then dominant again, in the perpetual motion flowing energy machine that is the Universe.

For an object to reach a speed that is faster than observed light, that object only requires a different object to be speeding toward it, while it also speeds toward the other, at cumulative net speeds that sum greater than the speed of light waves in a vacuum. Further, these two speeding objects would not be traveling in straight paths toward each other, but moving in elliptical converging paths, or arcs, since space is also moving (or flowing as I see it) in expansion/dissipation/contraction/implosion cycles.

From the human eye view we see only the results of things viewable and one physical view of things caused by our cultural expectations. We can fit the view to our beliefs and we can fit our beliefs to the view. Its a mind trap though... because there are many objects in flowing space moving toward one another well beyond the speed of light as we observe it.

Some may cry that summing the cumulative speeds of two moving objects are not playing fair... that the Earth or other "stationary" object must be used as a point of reference to measure speeds... but doing so is nonsense because everything is in motion, including "space" itself!

And space is time.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Nat



Joined: 15 Sep 2006
Posts: 840
Location: minime-rica

PostPosted: Sun Jan 21, 2007 4:33 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

ah yes, Obeylittle, well done Wink

you spotted the deliberate omissions

quite so, anything travelling and emitting light could be said to be generating light that is travelling faster than light Shocked and what things aren't travelling anyways ?

i just wondered what people thought of this (to my mind unlikely) 'light barrier'...i doubt there's any such thing

Quote:
Some may cry that summing the cumulative speeds of two moving objects are not playing fair

...yes, but they're just silly Laughing
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
obeylittle



Joined: 10 Sep 2006
Posts: 442
Location: Middle o' Mitten, Michigan Corp. division of United States of America Corp. division of Global Corp.

PostPosted: Sun Jan 21, 2007 4:37 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

In rereading my post above I realized that my points were not explained well. I may not succeed but I'll try again. The thought process is the key.

The most profound error in human thinking is the habit of visualizing in "moments" or "instants". We tend to break all things down before we analyze...

When we measure things we always must freeze the instant like a shutter in a camera tries to do with light. While we are observing phenomena in Nature we similarly extract "moments" of time so that we can better understand processes in motion. This is statically thinking with the wacko assumption that time contains physical quantities.

We tend to break energy, waves and motion down into static time slices and that is where simple things can get lost and crazy. Because time is not static, there is no such thing as a moment in time. Motion is never static and so matter is not static. We have not discovered anything yet that is truly static. Everything is in motion with no beginning, no instants, or no end...

Thats how we get nonsense from otherwise bright scientists. Thats how some come to believe that light and time and gravity are in reactive or causative relationships, because they think that each must have measurable physical quantities, even supply us with nonsense math to support their claims.

Slices. Instants. Moments. = Nonsense dead ends from flawed human reasoning, screwing up simple cyclic principles of energy states in transform/motion.

By now you may have noticed that I also find the "big bang" hypothesis's started by Einstein and his worshipers to be silly as hell too. Happy to argue with anyone over that silly nonsense...
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Nat



Joined: 15 Sep 2006
Posts: 840
Location: minime-rica

PostPosted: Sun Jan 21, 2007 4:55 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

obeylittle wrote:
In rereading my post above I realized that my points were not explained well. I may not succeed but I'll try again. The thought process is the key.

The most profound error in human thinking is the habit of visualizing in "moments" or "instants". We tend to break all things down before we analyze...

When we measure things we always must freeze the instant like a shutter in a camera tries to do with light. While we are observing phenomena in Nature we similarly extract "moments" of time so that we can better understand processes in motion. This is statically thinking with the wacko assumption that time contains physical quantities.

We tend to break energy, waves and motion down into static time slices and that is where simple things can get lost and crazy. Because time is not static, there is no such thing as a moment in time. Motion is never static and so matter is not static. We have not discovered anything yet that is truly static. Everything is in motion with no beginning, no instants, or no end...

Thats how we get nonsense from otherwise bright scientists. Thats how some come to believe that light and time and gravity are in reactive or causative relationships, because they think that each must have measurable physical quantities, even supply us with nonsense math to support their claims.

Slices. Instants. Moments. = Nonsense dead ends from flawed human reasoning, screwing up simple cyclic principles of energy states in transform/motion.

By now you may have noticed that I also find the "big bang" hypothesis's started by Einstein and his worshipers to be silly as hell too. Happy to argue with anyone over that silly nonsense...

i just like every word of this so much i thought it should be posted twice...2=1 right ? Wink

i need a lie down
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
obeylittle



Joined: 10 Sep 2006
Posts: 442
Location: Middle o' Mitten, Michigan Corp. division of United States of America Corp. division of Global Corp.

PostPosted: Sun Jan 21, 2007 6:57 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Fun stuff Matt! Thanks for bringing it. Now gotta find a place for a good Vortex article I found... probably unload it in the Free Electricity From Tiny Streams thread where vortexes were introduced here, thanks to you. Cool
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
puffdaddy



Joined: 06 Feb 2006
Posts: 506
Location: Northern California

PostPosted: Tue Jan 15, 2008 2:06 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

This is pretty cool!

http://www.divinecosmos.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=325&Itemid=30
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Fernando_the_First



Joined: 08 Mar 2008
Posts: 86

PostPosted: Sat Apr 05, 2008 11:48 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Actually, it's not the speed of light that can't be exceeded-- it's "C" -- which is , by definition, the theoretical absolute speed limit in the universe. This sounds like "mere semantics" but it's not. If you read the original Einstein paper on The Electrodynamics of Moving Bodies you find that C is this "absolute speed limit" and the speed of an electromagnetic field is ASSUMED to be, in fact, the same as "C."

C is a philosophical idea. The speed of light is something we can measure. The Einstein idea was that, in fact, electromagnetic energy travels "as fast as is possible for a thing to travel." That's an important part of the theory.

The idea, basically, is that energy can't move faster than itself. Furthermore, The Theory of Relativity rest on absolutely unassailable logical ground for this reason-- if Commander Buck Cody of the Star Brigade were able to reach a speed of Warp 2 (twice lightspeed) that would not "invalidate" Einstein. It would just reset "C" to a new value and all the previous calculations would remain the same.

You can't exceed C, my friend. Whatever speed you reach, no matter how fast, just becomes the new "C" and you're still stuck. No speed, no matter how high, can "get around" the effect of relativity-- even infinite speed. Infinite speed would be to move from one place to another in "no time." But moving at lightspeed meets this requirement. Time stops at lightspeed which is C which is the same as infinite because you move from one place to another with NO time passing (in your reference frame).

The biggest obstacle to undertanding Relativity is that most people have great difficulty accepting that The Special Theory is based on the the existence of C and stopping of time at that velocity. The General Theory is completely dependent on time dilation.

Unfortunately, a lot of professors don't like time dilation, either, so they confuse the hell out of their students. The change in the rate of time passage is essential to Relativity. It's impossible to understand it any other way.

_________________
"All major crime is an inside job."

Livestock detective Henry Beige (Slim Pickens) in the movie "Rancho Deluxe."
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
aAzzAa



Joined: 03 Sep 2007
Posts: 1140

PostPosted: Sat Apr 05, 2008 9:40 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

puffdaddy wrote:
This is pretty cool!

http://www.divinecosmos.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=325&Itemid=30



Just to highlight a small, bit of this groovy article:

Quote:
WHY DOES ANY OF THIS ‘MATTER’ TO ME?

The reason why this matters, ultimately, is that there is a hidden ‘background’ energy in the Universe that our mainstream scientists are still not openly acknowledging — and our own mind is totally tied in with it!


It is at about three quarters of the way down the page, and there is an image there to accompany it, and that image is the Merkaba. That's why Grumpy loves calling me the Merkaba Boy, becuase he is a poor mainstream scientist who is trying desperately to hold onto his idea that we can only be zombies and have no conciousness. Laughing

Anyway, joking aside, the overal energy field is held withing the geometric form of a Merkaba, and it simply means that nature has a marriage point of the contrary cycles of light. It is the same point Carl Jung highlighted, being the marriage of masculine/feminine within. Walter Russell expresse sit as the still neutral centre. As nature nears its point of perfect symmetry within the cycles, it comes to the invisible axis point , 4.5, and the merger is experienced within itself. Music and number cycles, as well as the Mayan calendar, I-Ching Hexagrams, Fibonacci number cycles, Phi and Enneagram, all speak of this phenomena in their own way.
We are spiritual beings, consciousness residing through a seemingly physical expression. No amount of cussing and disbelief will ever change it. Party hard, coz we can't go any where else, or be left out. Razz
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Ozregeneration



Joined: 23 Jan 2006
Posts: 485
Location: Big Island Down Under

PostPosted: Tue Jun 03, 2008 6:58 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

aAzzAa wrote:


Quote:
WHY DOES ANY OF THIS ‘MATTER’ TO ME?

The reason why this matters, ultimately, is that there is a hidden ‘background’ energy in the Universe that our mainstream scientists are still not openly acknowledging — and our own mind is totally tied in with it!


Quote:
Theory of Explainability

The following is a brief explanation on my new formula that demonstrate the relation of Universal Matter with Perception and Choice. The formula is expressed in the following manner Um=PC.

The term Universal Matter was chosen to define the resultant of Perception and Choice as it is the building blocks of our universe, it' s matter at its simplest form. Universal Matter can manifest itself in the form of energy, time, physical matter, waveform, frequency, gravity, movement, light, dark matter and many other unknown forms. The formula can explain all aspects of the universe but it is limited by the perception and choices of the observer. Universal Matter is the constant in this formula.

The function of Perception in this formula is to demonstrate the relationship between Universal Matter and the perception of the observer(s). The perception of the observer is formed by a multitude of factors. Judgment, measurement, past experience, preconceived ideas, psychology, personal filters and assumption are examples of perception.In reality there's an infinite combination of these factors that form all the different types of perception, although it's an assumption and a perception to say that every observer has his/her own unique
perception, it's probably accurate.

The function of choice in this formula is to establish the manifestation of Universal Matter defined by the observer. If the observer chooses gravity it will manifest itself in Universal Matter governed by the perception of the observer. If the observer chooses time, it will manifest itself in Universal Matter governed by the perception of the observer. In both examples, the observer's perception alter Universal Matter, in gravity(being the choice) the observer's perception gives it intensity or strength of attraction and in time(being the choice) the observer gives it linearity, duration, forward or even backward motion. There's a limitless amount of choices that can be applied to Universal Matter but again it is limited by the observer.

In conclusion, this formula can be used to explain all aspects of reality, but there must be a shift in humanity's thinking as most components in this formula are currently impossible to measure and to try to do so would impose limits and perceptions on the formula itself.

Yours truly, Marc Lamadeleine.

_________________
Choices For Your Soul
http://www.choicesforyoursoul.com/
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    The Next Level Forum Index -> Tomorrow's World All times are GMT - 5 Hours
Page 1 of 1

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum


Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group

Theme xand created by spleen.