Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login
Arrow Left Previous Page
Page / 2
Posted: 5/9/2002 8:27:25 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 5/9/2002 8:28:49 PM EDT by ColonelKlink]
Link Posted: 5/9/2002 8:33:29 PM EDT
Link Posted: 5/9/2002 8:45:34 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 5/9/2002 8:47:22 PM EDT by zonan]
I think the world will end before then. But if it doesn't.... Yes. Mankind eventually figures out a way to do everything, and I have no doubt that given enough time (and funding) we will find some kind of method of travel that will allow us to visit other stars and even galaxies. First we need to build the theory that would allow this. That's the kind of physics that excites me...but I have a lot of classes to take and books to read before I get to think about that stuff. Edited to add: By the way, special relativity doesn't prevent objects from moving at faster than light speeds through space-time...it just prevents us from ever detecting them.
Link Posted: 5/9/2002 8:48:22 PM EDT
Personally, yes, I think it is entirely possible that we will one day reach precise methods of controlling spacetime. Many variables and many unknowns........few givens. Spacetime is something that has fascinated me my entire life and personally, I beleive it is so intertwined with our "now" that we have no clue as to the role spacetime plays in our everyday lives. Think even in the most basic of terms such as seeing light from galaxies that exploded, stars that went super-nova..........any cataclysmic event that occurred eons ago which we are just now able to detect due to the distance away from the earth...................perhaps everything that ever was still is............the space is the same mind you...........all that has changed is time..........interdimensional rifts, spacetime anamolies, wormholes..............so many secrets to our universe but there is a constant, and there is a music of the spheres................. Right......Star-Trek is some serious stuff..............and as yo say, theoretically possible.
Link Posted: 5/9/2002 8:51:04 PM EDT
My only exposure to faster-than-light dynamics is through science fiction. If I understand E=MC^2 then ftl travel is impossible because an object's mass becomes infinite when it's speed equals that of light. To accellerate an object of infinite mass would require infinite energy. This is impossible on its face. Alot of science fiction writers get around this by sending the spaceship into a seperate "dimension." The new dimension is physically much smaller, but each point corresponds to a point in "real" space. So, a spacecraft travelling in this fashion doesn't actually go faster, it just has to travel a much shorter distance. Other writers talk of "folding" space. To get from point 'A' to point 'B', the geometric plane on which the points are located is "folded" so that the two points will occupy the same point. This was the method of travel in Robotech and Event Horizon (two of my favorites). I'm going to look around the internet for info on Alcubierre's Warp Thory, now. Hope to hear from you!
Link Posted: 5/9/2002 8:51:26 PM EDT
[url]http://www.grc.nasa.gov/WWW/PAO/html/warp/ideachev.htm[/url] Read this..................
Link Posted: 5/9/2002 9:08:48 PM EDT
Yes, I think we will. I can't tell you how, but I think it will happen.
Link Posted: 5/9/2002 9:32:56 PM EDT
Einstein's theory is just that. A theory. We already know of super-luminal particle(s), such as tachyons... Scott P.S. If NASA was a private venture, we would be on one or more of the orbitting bodies around Alpha Centauri...
Link Posted: 5/9/2002 9:40:13 PM EDT
Is it needed? There isn't a lot out there that we need to bring back here, as the universe is all made out of the same materials you find in the periodic table no matter where you go. FTL isn't needed to navigate the solar system which has all the resources we need. The only thing we could conceveably need from space beyond our solar system is-more space! And if we dont have a need to go and come back- or at least go and come back in a hurry- relitivistic speeds are fine. Because as far as the ship and its crew are concerned they are not aging any and they wont notice if its four or 44 years... its only if you are sitting on Earth waiting for said ship to bring something back that the need for FTL becomes acute. What I have wanted to know for a long time is what its the actual relationship between speed and time. If you are in a ship going at half the speed of light, are you aging half as fast already? Or does it work as a exponential or logarithmic function where you have to be going a larger fraction of the speed of light to have noticible dilation of time?
Link Posted: 5/9/2002 9:46:29 PM EDT
Is it possible? Read "Hyperspace" my Michio Kaku and see what you think. Dr. Kaku wrote "Hyperspace" as a layman's primer to extra-dimensional relaities - taking extradimensional space and the GUT and putting them in terms you don't need Nth-year Calculus to figure out. One of the more interesting points comes up when he is explaining Tensor Field Equations (used for plotting Universal forces) where it has been determined that space - the known Universe - MUST consist of either 10 or 26 dimensions. Where are these other dimensions? Think of Hawking's "point" black holes - microscopic singularities that are normally undetected, as the Event Horizon is so small. This can account for a great deal of mass in a small place, as the core of a singularity has a theoretical density of several hundred metric tons per cubic centimeter. How is this relevant? The other dimensions are, of course, outside the four of our experience (height, width, breadth, and duration - what we refer to as "time,") and are therefore unavailable to us. The principle of the "Space Warp" is simply generating the mechanical ability to access these other dimensions by some means. Once in the "higher" dimensions, normal laws of physics as we know them no longer need apply! As far as the Tachyons mentioned in another reply - Tachyons are unique in that they are unable to travel SLOWER than light. I think there are theories being developed to lay the groundwork for Tachyon-based communications (similar to radio,) but little can be found as of yet... FFZ
Link Posted: 5/9/2002 9:59:09 PM EDT
I forgot the Russians. The guys who missed Luna are probably close to Alpha Cent by now... Scott
Link Posted: 5/9/2002 10:01:20 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 5/9/2002 10:03:26 PM EDT by Boomholzer]
Originally Posted By ColonelKlink: Do you think mankind will ever possess this kind of technology. There are other ways around around Special relativity. If special relativity prevents and object from moving through spacetime at the speed of light, what if you could make spacetime move around the object. There are many theories, as Alcubierre's Warp Theory is just one of them. I find this subject very interesting and was wondering what you guys thought. Will we ever do it? How soon? There interesting thing about startrek is that a lot of its technology is theoritically possible.
View Quote
[b] SRT is crap. I have spent some time in the theory and will be blunt in saying that it is patched mathematics. It is too late in the evening to go into detail. You want to investigate? Basic fundimental question to SRT: Is C isotropic in the earth's reference frame? Well Homie, modern science never claimed that C is constant in all reference frames. EXPAND YOUR MIND Reference: Michelson-Gayle Hafele-Keating Sagnac Michelson-Morely I will point those who are interested to anti-Einstein publications and authors I have read: Anything by Petr Beckmann kicks ass. Beckmann is the classical physics dude. His point of view is that Einstein's theories not only evade all common sense but he debunks them by considering that gravitational fields are the cause of time dilation not SRT relativity non-sense. To generalize, C is constant to the G field NOT to the observer. Not only is he brillant but his writing style is very entertaining. Thomass Phipps has interesting reading where he adapts Maxwells equations so that there are no 1st order invariance. In this there is not need for Einstein's beloved Lorentz Transform (which if you understand the math is very "fishy"). You need to understand the difference of COvariance from INvariance. Peter Graneau: Discusses Longitudinal Ampere forces which have no room in Einstein's math (relying on the Lorentz transform). There is many experiments that prove longitudinal Ampere's forces to exsist. Periodicals: Galilean Electrodynamics Infinite Energy READ FOR YOURSELF SCIENCE, LIKE EVERYTHING IS POLLUTED BY POLITICS. [/b]
Link Posted: 5/9/2002 10:02:15 PM EDT
The what now?
Link Posted: 5/9/2002 10:10:37 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 5/9/2002 10:28:53 PM EDT by zonan]
Originally Posted By DScottHewitt: Einstein's theory is just that. A theory. We already know of super-luminal particle(s), such as tachyons... Scott P.S. If NASA was a private venture, we would be on one or more of the orbitting bodies around Alpha Centauri...
View Quote
A theory with proof. Neutrinos are good evidence. General relativity has a lot going for it too (e.g. gravitational lensing). I don't know the exact attributes of tachyons, but they are massless, right? As for NASA being privatized...sounds great. But nothing's stopping the formation of a private space program. So why has no one done so? Because there's way too much initial cost before there will be any profit.
originally by ArmdLbrl: What I have wanted to know for a long time is what its the actual relationship between speed and time. If you are in a ship going at half the speed of light, are you aging half as fast already? Or does it work as a exponential or logarithmic function where you have to be going a larger fraction of the speed of light to have noticible dilation of time?
View Quote
Just look it up. The equations are very straightforward. From the lorentz transformations: [change in time observed] = [gamma] * [change in proper time], where gamma is 1/sqrt(1 - v^2/c^2). c=speed of light=3x10^8 m/s So if the time on a ship moving at .8c changed by one hour, someone at rest observing the ship would see a time interval of 1.67 hours. If it were moving at .6c then the observer would only see a 1.25 hour interval. Length contraction is simply: [Observed length] = [proper length]/[gamma]
originally by Boomholzer: Einstein's beloved Lorentz Transform (which if you understand the math is very "fishy")
View Quote
No, the math is not fishy at all. It is extremely obvious. The only thing that can be considered odd about special relativity is one of the two underlying postulates: c is constant to all inertial reference frames. If you accept it, then the lorentz transformations are simply a necessary extension using the ideas of a physics 101 class.
Link Posted: 5/9/2002 10:15:32 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 5/9/2002 10:16:43 PM EDT by sgtar15]
That msut be some really good [red]A[/red][blue]C[/blue][green]I[/green][yellow]D[/yellow]. Sgtar15
Link Posted: 5/9/2002 10:37:39 PM EDT
Originally Posted By DScottHewitt: P.S. If NASA was a private venture, we would be on one or more of the orbitting bodies around Alpha Centauri...
View Quote
And the moon would have a great big Pepsi logo visible from Earth. [:D]
Link Posted: 5/9/2002 10:41:00 PM EDT
Originally Posted By zonan: Just look it up. The equations are very straightforward. From the lorentz transformations: [change in time observed] = [gamma] * [change in proper time], where gamma is 1/sqrt(1 - v^2/c^2). c=speed of light=3x10^8 m/s So if the time on a ship moving at .8c changed by one hour, someone at rest observing the ship would see a time interval of 1.67 hours. If it were moving at .6c then the observer would only see a 1.25 hour interval. Length contraction is simply: [Observed length] = [proper length]/[gamma]
View Quote
Someone at rest in the same reference frame. What would an observer outside of that inertial frame experience? This math has been proven and is been usefull in particle physics. I like to see how it (SRT) holds up in a universal sense. Can you provide proof that propogation through M field is not responsible for that time dilation? That field could have effects on an atomic clock or oscillators that use particles of mass. This comes down to C+/-rW with respect to a observer inside the system and (we wish)a observer outside the system. In that, which has been dilated, the clock or the wave?
Link Posted: 5/9/2002 10:57:43 PM EDT
Originally Posted By Boomholzer: Can you provide proof that propogation through M field is not responsible for that time dilation? That field could have effects on an atomic clock or oscillators that use particles of mass. This comes down to C+/-rW with respect to a observer inside the system and (we wish)a observer outside the system. In that, which has been dilated, the clock or the wave?
View Quote
No I can't, I'm just a beginner. I do intend on looking into the information you mentioned, as I had never heard that there was anyone arguing against the TSR. My point was, if one accepts the two postulates of SR, then the lorentz transformations are the logical result through very straightforward math. Of course if one doesn't accept the underlying postulates, then the lorentz results mean nothing. I really am intrigued that there are other theories regarding time dilation and intend on getting more info. I must ask, why would the physicists hold onto TSR for political reasons? Do the other theories involve ugly implications? Do any of the other theories involve differences in the mass energy relationship?
Link Posted: 5/9/2002 11:02:11 PM EDT
Originally Posted By The_Macallan:
Originally Posted By DScottHewitt: P.S. If NASA was a private venture, we would be on one or more of the orbitting bodies around Alpha Centauri...
View Quote
And the moon would have a great big Pepsi logo visible from Earth. [:D]
View Quote
What would I care? I'd be living in a Island 3 colony orbiting L5 so I wouldnt be able to see it...
Link Posted: 5/9/2002 11:09:02 PM EDT
You Guys are GREAT!!!! Really, where else can you read about R12 vs. R134A and about super-luminal propulsion, and the theory of relativity on one web site. AR15.com is with out a doubt my favorite place to visit. Boomholzer I have to agree with zonan, it's been a long time since college, but I remember that Einstein's math was fairly simple compared with other mathmatical proofs. Although I had a tough time with his Lorenz Transforms, and much like Fourier Transforms the proofs seemed goofy to me!!!! Although after second semester calculus I never thought math classes got harder, just wierder!!! Yet Fourier transforms are very practical and have many uses we all are familiar with (Ultra sound). So no matter how fishy the math the proof is in the application. Yes no one has ever REALLY applied the theory of relativity. Now for the answer to the question, is mankind ever going to develop a super-luminal form of power? Lets face it, until the present power structure on this planet changes, we will be burning oil. My degree is in Geophysics, and I'm all to familiar with the Oil companies and their influence, they are lying murdering scum whom would analiate entire populations to keep our present energy source the same so they can make their greedy little dollars. At the turn of the century Tesla had power sources that produced electricity out of the earth's field. Where is it? They teach in school that Edison is the father of modern Electricity, and the schools never even mention Tesla, or that he built the first Power Plant. Why? Is it that they don't want any children growing up understanding that we might have had a different power source, and that we only pay for power because a bunch of greedy wealthy people will murder any one that demonstrates differently!!!!! You tell me?
Link Posted: 5/9/2002 11:17:49 PM EDT
Youz guys's sho is smawt...as long as foos like me leaf da tinkin to you, I tink iz pozible...
Link Posted: 5/9/2002 11:20:11 PM EDT
Originally Posted By ArmdLbrl: There isn't a lot out there that we need to bring back here, as the universe is all made out of the same materials you find in the periodic table no matter where you go. FTL isn't needed to navigate the solar system which has all the resources we need. The only thing we could conceveably need from space beyond our solar system is-more space!
View Quote
Considering that our star, if it proceeds along the predicted path, will turn into a red giant in a few years -- thereby vaporizing the rock on which we reside -- yes, we need it. Any number of other calamities could sterilize our planet, our solar system, or even our entire local group of stellar systems (e.g., a nearby supernova). We need Lebensraum if our species is to survive.
And if we dont have a need to go and come back- or at least go and come back in a hurry- relitivistic speeds are fine. Because as far as the ship and its crew are concerned they are not aging any and they wont notice if its four or 44 years... its only if you are sitting on Earth waiting for said ship to bring something back that the need for FTL becomes acute.
View Quote
Nonsense. Even if it only takes four years, relativistically speaking, that means having to pack along four years worth of air, water, and food. The "generation ship" concept, while a cute read, isn't practical.
What I have wanted to know for a long time is what its the actual relationship between speed and time. If you are in a ship going at half the speed of light, are you aging half as fast already? Or does it work as a exponential or logarithmic function where you have to be going a larger fraction of the speed of light to have noticible dilation of time?
View Quote
dilation = 1/sqrt(1-((s/c)^2)). Basic first-year physics.
Link Posted: 5/9/2002 11:21:01 PM EDT
Worm holes theoretically "cut" through the fabric of space-time, thus providing the mechanism for virtual (though not actual) faster-than-light space travel. If it is possible to access them, the benefits of light speed could be realized, if not completely controlled.
Link Posted: 5/9/2002 11:36:14 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 5/9/2002 11:50:26 PM EDT by 71-Hour_Achmed]
Originally Posted By zonan: A theory with proof. Neutrinos are good evidence. General relativity has a lot going for it too (e.g. gravitational lensing). I don't know the exact attributes of tachyons, but they are massless, right?
View Quote
Bzzzzt. Go to the back of the class. Look at the basic definition of what a "theory" is: something that approximates what is KNOWN. Einstein's theories fit 99% of what we know. They don't encompass everything, otherwise Stephen Hawking wouldn't be bashing his head against his desk trying to figure out a Grand Unified Theory.
Originally Posted By zonan:
Originally Posted By DScottHewitt: P.S. If NASA was a private venture, we would be on one or more of the orbitting bodies around Alpha Centauri...
View Quote
As for NASA being privatized...sounds great. But nothing's stopping the formation of a private space program. So why has no one done so? Because there's way too much initial cost before there will be any profit.
View Quote
Uh . . . I take it, then, that you don't know about the U.N. treaties, which the U.S. signed, regarding space exploration? Private companies aren't allowed to do so without governmental permission. And no government allows it -- especially not the U.S. government.
originally by ArmdLbrl: What would I care? I'd be living in a Island 3 colony orbiting L5 so I wouldnt be able to see it..
View Quote
[url=http://map.gsfc.nasa.gov/m_mm/ob_techorbit1.html]Explanation of what a Lagrange Point is[/url]
Link Posted: 5/9/2002 11:39:06 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 5/9/2002 11:41:25 PM EDT by 71-Hour_Achmed]
[url=http://www.baen.com/library/067172052X/067172052X.htm]Fallen Angels[/url] by Larry Niven, Jerry Pournelle, and MichaelFlynn, published by Baen Books [i]"Wanted fan in Luna City, wanted fan on Dune and Down, Wanted fan at Ophiuchus, wanted fan in Dydee-town. All across the sky they want me, am I flattered? [b]Yes I am![/b] If I could just reach orbit, then I'd be a wanted fan. "Wanted fan for mining coal and wanted fan for drilling oil, I went very fast through Portland, hunted hard like Gully Foyle. Built reactors in Seattle against every man's advice, Couldn't do that in Alaska, Fonda says it isn't nice. "Wanted fan for plain sedition, like the singing of this tune. [b]If NASA hadn't failed us we'd have cities on the moon. If it weren't for fucking NASA we'd at least have walked on Mars.[/b] And if I can't make orbit, then I'll never reach the stars. "Nader's Raiders want my freedom, OSHA wants my scalp and hair, If I'm wanted in Wisconsin, be damned sure I won't be there! If the E.P.A. still wants me, I'll avoid them if I can. They're tearing down the cities, so I'll be a wanted fan! "Wanted fan on Chthon and Sparta and the Hub's ten million stars, Wanted fan for singing silly in a thousand spaceport bars. If it's what we really want, we'll build a starship when we can; If I could just make orbit then I'd be a wanted fan. "Wanted fan for building spacecraft, wanted fan for dipping air, Sending microwave transmissions, building habitats up there. Oh the glacier got us last time, next time we'll try to land! And when the Ice is conquered, it'll be by wanted fans. And when the stars are conquered, it'll be by wanted fans!"[/i]
Link Posted: 5/10/2002 12:27:03 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 5/10/2002 12:29:16 AM EDT by ArmdLbrl]
Originally Posted By 71-Hour_Achmed:
Originally Posted By ArmdLbrl: There isn't a lot out there that we need to bring back here, as the universe is all made out of the same materials you find in the periodic table no matter where you go. FTL isn't needed to navigate the solar system which has all the resources we need. The only thing we could conceveably need from space beyond our solar system is-more space!
View Quote
Considering that our star, if it proceeds along the predicted path, will turn into a red giant in a few years -- thereby vaporizing the rock on which we reside -- yes, we need it. Any number of other calamities could sterilize our planet, our solar system, or even our entire local group of stellar systems (e.g., a nearby supernova). We need Lebensraum if our species is to survive.
View Quote
Why did you just repeat what I already said? The only thing valuable about other space is- its other space, unoccupied.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- And if we dont have a need to go and come back- or at least go and come back in a hurry- relitivistic speeds are fine. Because as far as the ship and its crew are concerned they are not aging any and they wont notice if its four or 44 years... its only if you are sitting on Earth waiting for said ship to bring something back that the need for FTL becomes acute. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Nonsense. Even if it only takes four years, relativistically speaking, that means having to pack along four years worth of air, water, and food. The "generation ship" concept, while a cute read, isn't practical.
View Quote
You seem to have misunderstood AGAIN, 4 to 44 years EARTH time not SHIP time. However since you brought it up a 4 year unresupplied trip is possible, its on the edge, but doable. Hell, the Mars Lobby gleefuly talks about 2 year long missions right now... but the point was that that thanks to time dilation it is possible to get a ship and crew to another star without FTL. Its just not practical for them to return to their point of origin, and the only kind of mission profile that fits is perminent colonization cause you have nothing to come back to... And while I don't like the idea of Generation ships much myself- the idea has the extreme advantage of being totally supported by science as we know it... all the various theories regarding FTL require either finding a loophole through, a way around, or outright disproving physics as we know it... I prefer FTL myself but lets be honest, as things stand NOW there is no way to know it will work everything is just theory... Oh, thanks for the equation, but after I posted I found this nice webpage with TABLES, [url]http://www.fourmilab.ch/cship/timedial.html[/url] much easier for me to use. Higher math and me never got along...
Link Posted: 5/10/2002 1:27:21 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 5/10/2002 1:44:46 AM EDT by prk]
A couple of years back, I read "Was Einstein Right?" by Cliford Will. While it was very interesting, in describing many experiments that have been done, I did get an uneasy feeling that some of the experimental work done to "prove" aspects of relativity embodies assumptions and adjustments to the data that themselves seem to be based in the theory being tested. So I went away from the book less confident in experimental physics and physicists, and frustrated that I was not well-enough grounded in the science to actually articulate the arguments againt these experimental findings that I had doubts about. Sorry to say, it was a borrowed copy, so I had to return it before long. Anyone else had this impression that some of these experiments are 'full of it'? For some reason one that stands out in my mind involved an attempt to measure, from the ground, the speed of light transmitted from a rocket. Edited to add: BH is right on about the pollution of science with politics, and I would only add that it's both internal and external politics.
Link Posted: 5/10/2002 1:39:40 AM EDT
To answer the question, I think some of the limitations science accepts, on speed for example, are artifacts of defective reasoning. Unfortunately, I can't prove it. As I think someone here said, it may be possible to exceed the currently accepted speed of light and yet be unable to observe it.
Link Posted: 5/10/2002 5:38:35 AM EDT
Link Posted: 5/10/2002 7:25:53 AM EDT
Originally Posted By zonan:
Originally Posted By Boomholzer: Can you provide proof that propogation through M field is not responsible for that time dilation? That field could have effects on an atomic clock or oscillators that use particles of mass. This comes down to C+/-rW with respect to a observer inside the system and (we wish)a observer outside the system. In that, which has been dilated, the clock or the wave?
View Quote
No I can't, I'm just a beginner. I do intend on looking into the information you mentioned, as I had never heard that there was anyone arguing against the TSR. My point was, if one accepts the two postulates of SR, then the lorentz transformations are the logical result through very straightforward math. Of course if one doesn't accept the underlying postulates, then the lorentz results mean nothing. I really am intrigued that there are other theories regarding time dilation and intend on getting more info. I must ask, why would the physicists hold onto TSR for political reasons?
View Quote
Read The Farce of Physics By B. Wallace. I find it funny how the world embraced Einstein. Just his physical appearance did alot to propagate this theories. Hollywood built him up. In college, students are hardly never offered alternatives to SRT. If you devoted your entire life and career working on proofs, postulates, and experiments based on certain fundimentals (SRT), how prone would you be to throw them away and start over? The mainstream science community actually holds together to ostracize and discredit those who work to provide alternatives to SRT.
Do the other theories involve ugly implications?
View Quote
Depends on what part of physical science you are applying the math to.
Do any of the other theories involve differences in the mass energy relationship?
View Quote
No, that is a generally a accepted fundimental. There is more information on the publications I mentioned: Einstein Plus Two (Beckmann) HERETICAL VERITIES: Mathematical Themes in Physical Descriptions (Phipps) Newtonion Electrodynamics (Graneau) Causality, Electromagnetic Induction and Gravitation (Jefimenko) Electromagnetic Retardation and Theory of Relativity (Jefimenko): Provides examples where moving charges are used as clocks.....They do not obey the 1/(SQRT(1-v^2/c^2))time dilation rule.
Link Posted: 5/10/2002 9:04:46 AM EDT
Originally Posted By 71-Hour_Achmed: Uh . . . I take it, then, that you don't know about the U.N. treaties, which the U.S. signed, regarding space exploration? Private companies aren't allowed to do so without governmental permission. And no government allows it -- especially not the U.S. government.
View Quote
No, I had not heard of it. Do you have any links to the specifics?
Link Posted: 5/10/2002 9:22:07 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 5/10/2002 9:22:59 AM EDT by zonan]
Originally Posted By Boomholzer: Read The Farce of Physics By B. Wallace. I find it funny how the world embraced Einstein. Just his physical appearance did alot to propagate this theories. Hollywood built him up. In college, students are hardly never offered alternatives to SRT.
View Quote
You're right, it is taught as fact. I wonder if part of the reason SRT is embraced is because of Einstein's other works. Specifically the photoelectric effect and now this business with the expansion term of the universe (cosmological constant) which was ignored for 80 years until just within the last decade...and now the astrophysicists are telling us it is probably a real phenomenon. Regardless of the accuracy of SRT, Einstein was important in other ways so maybe there is a syndrome of "if he's right about that other wierd stuff, he's probably right about this." But I'm no history of science major. Thanks for the list of books. A few more to add to the queue.
Link Posted: 5/10/2002 9:37:58 AM EDT
Originally Posted By blackmanta: My only exposure to faster-than-light dynamics is through science fiction. If I understand E=MC^2 then ftl travel is impossible because an object's mass becomes infinite when it's speed equals that of light. To accellerate an object of infinite mass would require infinite energy. This is impossible on its face. Alot of science fiction writers get around this by sending the spaceship into a seperate "dimension." The new dimension is physically much smaller, but each point corresponds to a point in "real" space. So, a spacecraft travelling in this fashion doesn't actually go faster, it just has to travel a much shorter distance. Other writers talk of "folding" space. To get from point 'A' to point 'B', the geometric plane on which the points are located is "folded" so that the two points will occupy the same point. This was the method of travel in Robotech and Event Horizon (two of my favorites). I'm going to look around the internet for info on Alcubierre's Warp Thory, now. Hope to hear from you!
View Quote
Startreks Warp Drive "Warps" or Folds space. they dont use a blackhole like EH did (errie movie btw, good but errie) thou the Romulans do use a artifical blackhole. Feddies, Klings, and most other races use matter/antimatter and the very destructive energies of those to combined to cheat FTL laws. Transporters are the only thing that i dont think is possible. projected energy fields/shields should be. energy weapons, we have them just to big and to weak. and only one setting, incinerate.
Link Posted: 5/10/2002 9:40:01 AM EDT
Are you understanding this Colonel Klink? It's WAYY over my head. [peep] Hey Murdock!! What habout the carousel theory of time travel? Does it involve flyin' I hate flyin' and I ain't gonna eat that burger wid da sleepin' pills in it FOOL!
Link Posted: 5/10/2002 9:53:19 AM EDT
Yes. All the "Laws" end up getting broken. Sound barrier, 4 minute mile, teleportation (it's been done). I can't believe we live in a Universe (or even Galaxy) this large w/out the ability to travel w/in it.
Link Posted: 5/10/2002 10:02:05 AM EDT
Originally Posted By NOVA5: Transporters are the only thing that i dont think is possible. .
View Quote
BZZZZ, WRONG. We have transporters working in the labs right now. They are actually more like photocopiers, where they destroy a photon and recreate it elsewhere, but the technology is working today. [url=http://www.research.ibm.com/quantuminfo/teleportation/index.html]Quantum Information and Information Physics at IBM Research Yorktown[/url]
Link Posted: 5/10/2002 10:10:41 AM EDT
If we can get over the DUMBING DOWN OF AMERIKA; I mean if we teach science and math in a way that 2+2=5 (AIN'T GOING TO HAPPEN) If we can survive 2 more World Wars. (Science and Tech quantum leaps every world war by 7 to 12 times in the way of tech advancements) If we can make the dollar strong again and put Americans to work. (THIS TECHNOLOGY WILL BE VERY EXPENSIVE AND CAN NOT BE PAID FOR BY FIAT (sp) MONEY) And if someone cares enough. (THERE NEEDS TO BE AN IMPORTANT REASON TO DO SO)
Link Posted: 5/10/2002 10:13:12 AM EDT
Science pioneer-ism has become so commercialized. Example Supersonic transport, affordable space travel etc etc.. Development has come to almost stand still. Until people putting up the big money won't sign the check until their investor know if it¡¦s a worth while investment. And if they don¡¦t fund the project no advancement will be made.
Link Posted: 5/10/2002 10:24:55 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 5/10/2002 10:25:35 AM EDT by BostonTeaParty]
Originally Posted By Boomholzer: I find it funny how the world embraced Einstein. Just his physical appearance did alot to propagate this theories. Hollywood built him up.
View Quote
As somebody mentioned before, he explained the photoelectric effect. That gave him a huge amount of stature in the scientific community, and rightly so. His theories explained things no one else had been able to explain up to that time.
In college, students are hardly never offered alternatives to SRT.
View Quote
Probably because there aren't any good ones out there. (Good=explains the observed evidence, can be demonstrated with repeatable experiments, not good=sounds good, makes a good thought experiment but can't be observed experimentally, or raises interesting questions with established theories)
If you devoted your entire life and career working on proofs, postulates, and experiments based on certain fundimentals (SRT), how prone would you be to throw them away and start over? The mainstream science community actually holds together to ostracize and discredit those who work to provide alternatives to SRT.
View Quote
That's baloney. Science is one of the least politically driven communities out there. If you have evidence and can demonstrate it, you will eventually win the day. It's true that you will almost always be met with skepticism, but that, too, is healthy. Most theories aren't true. Those that are true can stand the test of time and experiment and peer review. If science always changed to quickly adapt the newest untried fad theory, it wouldn't have any meaning left.
Link Posted: 5/10/2002 10:57:24 AM EDT
Originally Posted By fight4yourrights:
Originally Posted By NOVA5: Transporters are the only thing that i dont think is possible. .
View Quote
BZZZZ, WRONG. We have transporters working in the labs right now. They are actually more like photocopiers, where they destroy a photon and recreate it elsewhere, but the technology is working today. [url=http://www.research.ibm.com/quantuminfo/teleportation/index.html]Quantum Information and Information Physics at IBM Research Yorktown[/url]
View Quote
im talking for human use. the data space needed to do it would be insane. for foodstuffs, ect more likley. because its basic structures with no advanced systems.
Link Posted: 5/10/2002 11:25:19 AM EDT
Originally Posted By BostonTeaParty: That's baloney. Science is one of the least politically driven communities out there. If you have evidence and can demonstrate it, you will eventually win the day. It's true that you will almost always be met with skepticism, but that, too, is healthy. Most theories aren't true. Those that are true can stand the test of time and experiment and peer review. If science always changed to quickly adapt the newest untried fad theory, it wouldn't have any meaning left.
View Quote
I disagree in your comment that the science community does not promote peer pressure on itself. What makes you think we are any more evolved or any less arrogant then the science of our forefathers? We try to make sense of out surroundings by using what tools we have available. When the tool (mathematics) does not quite do the job correctly, it is still accepted as truth and a patch is added to model what is seen experimentally. That is not good science. I agree that the person with the proof will eventually win the day. HOWEVER, when the accepted theory is based on observations relevant to the observer and inertial frames, you have the freedom to manipulate variables that were always accepted to be fixed. Given the freedom to mess with physical constants like time, distance & mass; I can prove to you that pigs fly. Take some time to reflect on the history of science, it is full of examples where accepted FACT was eventually proved to be a fallacy. Scientists are human and prone to the downfalls everyone else has. The science community has never been and never will be free of bias. The references I have given do quote experimental data. I will not attest to its entire validity but I am open minded enough not to swallow everything that is fed to me.
Link Posted: 5/10/2002 11:28:09 AM EDT
Yes....no doubt about it... It can be done. Its just a matter of time and energy
Link Posted: 5/10/2002 11:33:41 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 5/10/2002 11:36:09 AM EDT by fight4yourrights]
Originally Posted By NOVA5: Transporters ..... im talking for human use. the data space needed to do it would be insane. for foodstuffs, ect more likley. because its basic structures with no advanced systems.
View Quote
I still disagree. Remember when IBM predicted a market of less than a dozen computers worldwide, and predicted they would be the size of a small house? Like any technology, it's a matter of scaling it up. 3D memory will provide exponential growth in memory capacity, nano & quantum -technology could provide huge boosts in processing capability, so who knows how much we can scale this up? Sure, a human would be a tremendous amount of bandwidth, but we could even use lossy compression. Maybe you forward you pattern on a 3D datacube, and the transporter just "updates" your image when you are teleported. Far less bandwidth just transmitting the changes. Much of the "data" for your body is repeatative and could be compressed. Who knows? Think outside the box! (be the box!)
Link Posted: 5/10/2002 11:36:22 AM EDT
Originally Posted By BostonTeaParty: "The only place outside heaven...perfectly safe from all the dangers...of love is hell." -C.S. Lewis
View Quote
Do you know where it was he said this? I'm just curious, as I have read a lot of Lewis and don't remember where that one's from.
Link Posted: 5/10/2002 11:39:00 AM EDT
Originally Posted By NOVA5: im talking for human use. the data space needed to do it would be insane. for foodstuffs, ect more likley. because its basic structures with no advanced systems.
View Quote
That's right. I don't remember where I read it, but the amount of space required to encode the quantum states of something with the mass of a human is absurd. Quantum "teleportation" is very limited from what I've read, but I'm sure we'll come up with an effective way of transport if given enough time.
Link Posted: 5/10/2002 12:28:01 PM EDT
Originally Posted By zonan:
Originally Posted By BostonTeaParty: "The only place outside heaven...perfectly safe from all the dangers...of love is hell." -C.S. Lewis
View Quote
Do you know where it was he said this? I'm just curious, as I have read a lot of Lewis and don't remember where that one's from.
View Quote
It's from [i]The Four Loves[/i]. The actual quote is "The only place outside of Heaven where you can be perfectly safe from all the dangers and perturbations of love is Hell," but that doesn't fit within the 100-character limit of the signature, so I had to paraphrase a bit.
Link Posted: 5/10/2002 12:45:39 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 5/10/2002 12:47:38 PM EDT by BostonTeaParty]
Originally Posted By Boomholzer: I disagree in your comment that the science community does not promote peer pressure on itself.
View Quote
I didn't say that. The scientific community does have peer pressure. But overall it is a healthy kind of peer pressure. If you are going to disagree with the establishment, you'd better have good evidence. You'd better get used to having people disagree with you and make you prove yourself, your theory, and your data over and over. If you can do that, eventually you will be accepted, but not until then. That is how we know that we can generally trust science. If they just accepted any theory that came along without criticizing it and subjecting it to intense pressure and scrutiny, we wouldn't know which theories were trustworthy and which weren't. Note that this is much different than the peer pressure in other disciplines that don't have an objective means of testing right and wrong.
What makes you think we are any more evolved or any less arrogant then the science of our forefathers?
View Quote
We're not. Scientists are humans and prone to mistakes, pride, defensiveness, slanting the data, and all sorts of other problems, just like everyone else. That's why having the peer review (or peer pressure, if you want to put it that way) is such a good idea. When things can be objectively verified as they can in science, peer review is a great system.
We try to make sense of out surroundings by using what tools we have available. When the tool (mathematics) does not quite do the job correctly, it is still accepted as truth and a patch is added to model what is seen experimentally. That is not good science.
View Quote
All our science and understanding is a "model" of what is seen experimentally. The quantum mechanical mathematical model is no less "real" than the things you perceive with your five senses. To describe an electron as a wave function is no less descriptive or accurate or real than to describe a plant as green. It's all a "model" of reality.
I agree that the person with the proof will eventually win the day. HOWEVER, when the accepted theory is based on observations relevant to the observer and inertial frames, you have the freedom to manipulate variables that were always accepted to be fixed. Given the freedom to mess with physical constants like time, distance & mass; I can prove to you that pigs fly.
View Quote
No you can't, not scientifically. Your theory wouldn't match reality. And that's how scientific theories are checked, including the special theory of relativity.
Take some time to reflect on the history of science, it is full of examples where accepted FACT was eventually proved to be a fallacy.
View Quote
And that's exactly why science works. Theories that are false will eventually be shown to be so. Once the proof has been shown, science will accept that and move on. There's no long-term political bias by science as a whole. There is no theory that science has continued to hold on to well after it has been clearly demonstrated to be false. It just doesn't work that way. Sure, individual scientists or groups of scientists are going to have their pet theories that they continue to cling to well after they have been discredited. But science as a whole doesn't operate that way.
Link Posted: 5/10/2002 1:10:32 PM EDT
Most modern theoretical physicists are starting to embrace string theory, which neatly provides a TOE (Theory Of Everything). Of particular importance is the so-called Lucas Equation: [img]www.dimensional.com/~mwluse/lucas.jpg[/img]
Link Posted: 5/10/2002 1:17:28 PM EDT
Boston...I think you give the scientific community too much credit....I am currently reading another book on Tesla.....and he was screwed flat foooted repeatedly......and the man was never ONCE proven wrong.
Link Posted: 5/10/2002 1:49:59 PM EDT
Originally Posted By hound: Boston...I think you give the scientific community too much credit....I am currently reading another book on Tesla.....and he was screwed flat foooted repeatedly......and the man was never ONCE proven wrong.
View Quote
I'm not saying the scientific community is perfect or never makes a mistake. And I'm certainly not saying that it won't try to screw you, because it will. But if you are right and you have the data to back it up and you can demonstrate that, you will beat the scientific community into submission. Science, unlike other disciplines, cannot survive over time in the face of contrary evidence. You say the scientific community didn't accept some of Tesla's theories even though he was never proved wrong. That may be true. It's not the duty of science to disprove everyone's theories. It is the duty of the scientist to prove his theories to everyone else. There is a world of difference between the two. In science you are guilty until proven innocent, and that is in fact the way we want it to be.
Link Posted: 5/10/2002 2:25:59 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 5/10/2002 2:32:55 PM EDT by Boomholzer]
Originally Posted By BostonTeaParty: I didn't say that. The scientific community does have peer pressure. But overall it is a healthy kind of peer pressure. If you are going to disagree with the establishment, you'd better have good evidence. You'd better get used to having people disagree with you and make you prove yourself, your theory, and your data over and over. If you can do that, eventually you will be accepted, but not until then. That is how we know that we can generally trust science. If they just accepted any theory that came along without criticizing it and subjecting it to intense pressure and scrutiny, we wouldn't know which theories were trustworthy and which weren't. Note that this is much different than the peer pressure in other disciplines that don't have an objective means of testing right and wrong.
View Quote
[url]http://surf.de.uu.net/bookland/sci/farce/farce_toc.html[/url]
No you can't, not scientifically. Your theory wouldn't match reality. And that's how scientific theories are checked, including the special theory of relativity.
View Quote
Boston, This is where I am frustrated in where our conversation is heading. While I do agree within some of your points we have somewhat got lost in the politics of science. The point I wanted to convey is my own belief that SRT is flawed logic. In order to uphold C, you allow d and t to become variables? Does not make sense. Not to this engineer. BTW: Quantum physics and SRT do not sleep together. You cannot have both. Alot of predictions of SRT theory do match reality. Alot of them do not. To rebut your comment on models, theories, and their reinforcement in reality though experiment; I as you to “consider the following": (Bill Nye rules!): Do you really think that the E-field around a electron changes shape dependant on the velocity of the observer? That is complete bullshit. Many of these theories are close to impossible to prove. "GEEK: [i]The SRT model did not predict this abberation but that is because we were in the same inertial frame. If we had been on the moon, we would have got the correct answer.[/i] Dude, that is alot of test cable!! SRT is so far away from reality that is why it so hard to conceptualize. Although is provides ALL the romantic notions of time travel (not in the >C sense), and other spacial abberations that everyone loves.
And that's exactly why science works. Theories that are false will eventually be shown to be so. Once the proof has been shown, science will accept that and move on. There's no long-term political bias by science as a whole. There is no theory that science has continued to hold on to well after it has been clearly demonstrated to be false. It just doesn't work that way. Sure, individual scientists or groups of scientists are going to have their pet theories that they continue to cling to well after they have been discredited. But science as a whole doesn't operate that way.
View Quote
Science does not always work. It has better odds of working outside of SRT and the malipulation of physical constants. The theory insures itself because it has a excuse for when the results do not match the predictions. When SRT fails, Physics who promote the theory state that you must use RT, when the opposide happens; SRT comes into play. We need to go back and review Maxwell's equations for the are missing a view variables. The lorentz transform is not the answer.
Arrow Left Previous Page
Page / 2
Top Top