light travel as time travel

[mr d]

hello

 

question? could you use faster than light travel as a crude form of a time machine.

reasoning. a star we observe here on earth that is a million light years from earth, we are observing that star as it was a million years ago (the light we see now was given off by that star a million years ago). the star presently could have gone nova, or collasped in to a black hole, but we won't know for certain for a million years.

therefore if i have my proposed faster than light vehicle i travel a 100,000 light years toward that star (taking into account the need to calculate where that star would be in 100,000 years), we are now viewing that star as it existed 900,000 years ago. so as we travel towards the star we move closer to it in time till we are under a light year in distance and see that star as it is now, well close to it anyway.

but now the reverse has happened, for as i turn to look back at the earth, it is the earth as it was a million years ago. if the idea is sound, big if, could i go to a star 65 million light years away and given proper instruments record the event of the meteor that struck the yucatan pennisula?

could i also go to various time-points in space and record the signals humans were broadcasting at that specific space-time? the old idea that all electric signals such as radio and tv eminate out from the earth into space. so if there was an old tv show from say fourty years ago on wendsday the 24th of august at 7pm gmt, if i calculate out the distance (and direction as postion of transmitter would matter as portions of signal blocked by earth) and park my collection devise there at what would be 24th at 6:58 gmt i could the gather in those signals and record the program. hell of an expensive vcr.

 

strange thoughts

 

mr d

[5614]

could you use faster than light travel as a crude form of a time machine

Err, maybe, but you cannot go faster than light so it kinda makes it irrelevant.

 

As you are travelling at Less than the speed of light when you turn back to look at Earth you will see nothing but events which occured After you have left. For your method to work you would have to go faster than light and in effect overtake it then you turn around and see it come to you, the light of the past, but going faster than light is impossible, so the point is mute.

[Dark Photon]

hmmm, i skipped from 65 million light years until vcr but the main point is that "F A S T E R T H A N L I G H T" is impossible because:

to achieve celeritas you must have:

0 mass

infinite mass

 

you cannot have infinite mass, and at 0 mass you would travel at celeritas, you have run out of options

[mr d]

hello

 

yes i know no know quantifable mass can travel beyond the speed of light. though some studies suggest light was traveling at a speed faster than current at the beginning of the universe, so light speed may not be a constant, but merely the limit of speed achievable at any given instant in time.

so we'll try it this way if you want. i accelerate my vehicle towards light speed , as i hit lightspeed my mass is converted to energy (e=mc2) as only energy can travel at the speed of light. my energy bubble momentarily warps the fabric of space crating an worm hole between two sections of space. i travel through and use the gravitational field of a star to decelerate by doppler effect on light\energy. therefore covering a distance that would be greater than what light can cover in the same amount of time. and by using this system hop may way to this distant place i'm looking for.

since what i just wrote would be conjecture, as a sizable mass has not been accereated by humans to the speed of light and no proof exists as to what exactly would occur under given condictions. replys as to whether such a system could work in like manor, would only hypothesis i return to my original question. which is not can we travel beyond the speed of light, but if (perhaps only imaginary) we could travel beyond the speed of light do you consider the difference in current observed earth time, and actual time from any given distant point in space time travel.

 

mr d

[timo]

^^ Let´s hope that post (#4) is the same as the one in the thread that got deleted, as I replied on that one.

 

so we'll try it this way if you want.

Not really, but anyways:

i accelerate my vehicle towards light speed , as i hit lightspeed ...

Which of course is not possible

... my mass is converted to energy (e=mc2) ...

Basides that E=mc² seems inappropriate here, it´s validity is not limited to velocities near/at lightspeed (to some degree one could even say it´s only valid at zero velocity but that depends on what E=mc² is acutally supposed to mean). So if you say your mass becomes a form of energy, why wasn´t it before?

... as only energy can travel at the speed of light.

Energy is a property of a particle. So that statement is equivalent to saying "only volume can travel at the speed of light".

my energy bubble momentarily warps the fabric of space crating an worm hole between two sections of space.

Below lightspeed I see little reason for that. At lightspeed ... well, you just can´t reach it . But wormholes are highly speculationary, anyways. They´re a blessing for science fiction, at least.

I travel through [the wormhole] and use the gravitational field of a star to decelerate by doppler effect on light\energy.

I can´t comment here. I don´t understand it.

therefore covering a distance that would be greater than what light can cover in the same amount of time.

You could have had this easier: Send a beam of light to the moon and reflect it back to your bathroom. If you´re quick and your sister/girlfriend/wife/daughter isn´t in, you have a good chance of being there faster than the light.

 

since what i just wrote would be conjecture, as a sizable mass has not been accereated by humans to the speed of light and no proof exists as to what exactly would occur under given condictions.

But at least we have good reasons to believe it´s not possible.

 

replys as to whether such a system could work in like manor, would only hypothesis i return to my original question. which is not can we travel beyond the speed of light, but if (perhaps only imaginary) we could travel beyond the speed of light do you consider the difference in current observed earth time, and actual time from any given distant point in space time travel.

Sorry, but my english skills are not sufficient to decipher this. I suspect you´re asking if what you proposed makes sense? Physically: No, it doesn´t.

 

 

I´d like to add that while those "perhaps we can break the lightspeed barrier by this or that exotic method"-ideas might be some fun, they´re not very likely to lead to any success. There´s been millions (rather hundreds of millions) of people having tried it. And not all of these millions were much less intelligent or well educated than you (where "you" does not nessecarily refer to mr. d but to anyone thinking "if only a smart guy like me approaches the problem, every known limit in physics will break down" - me, for example ).

[5614]

Send a beam of light to the moon and reflect it back to your bathroom. If you´re quick and your sister/girlfriend/wife/daughter isn´t in, you have a good chance of being there faster than the light.

Assuming your bathroom is 10m away you'd have to get there in about 1.3 seconds... which a really good athlete could do - for the world record 100m race the runner covered about 13.3m in 1.3 seconds... so we can cover 10m in that time.

 

Figures worked out using:

Speed of light: 299,792 km/s

Distance between moon and Earth: 386,242 km

Distance to bathroom: 10 m

World record 100m: As set in June 2005 by Powell, 9.77 seconds

 

Yer, I was bored!

[timo]

Looks more like 2.6 seconds to me. And my bathroom is less than 10m from where I´m sitting right now.

But at least we´ve proven that only Mr. Powell is able to beat the speed of light and only if it´s very urgent ....

[swansont]

Assuming your bathroom is 10m away you'd have to get there in about 1.3 seconds... which a really good athlete could do - for the world record 100m race the runner covered about 13.3m in 1.3 seconds... so we can cover 10m in that time.

 

Figures worked out using:

Speed of light: 299' date='792 km/s

Distance between moon and Earth: 386,242 km

Distance to bathroom: 10 m

World record 100m: As set in June 2005 by Powell, 9.77 seconds

 

Yer, I was bored![/quote']

 

 

Ah, but you have assume the sprinter's speed was constant, which ignores the start from the blocks. Luckily you only calculated the one-way transit time and not the round-trip time.

 

edit: Yarg! Atheist beat me to it.

[5614]

edit: Yarg! Atheist beat me to it.

Yarg² Yarg³ for me though! Doh!

 

And my bathroom is less than 10m from where I´m sitting right now.

Yeah, but is your sister/girlfriend/wife/daughter in there?!

[mr d]

hello

 

 

for atheist

 

Quote:

i accelerate my vehicle towards light speed , as i hit lightspeed ...

Atheist:

Which of course is not possible

 

should actually say 'to our understanding this appears to not to be possible based on current scientific data and proposed theory'.

 

Quote:

replys as to whether such a system could work in like manor, would only hypothesis i return to my original question. which is not can we travel beyond the speed of light, but if (perhaps only imaginary) we could travel beyond the speed of light do you consider the difference in current observed earth time, and actual time from any given distant point in space time travel.

Atheist:

Sorry, but my english skills are not sufficient to decipher this. I suspect you´re asking if what you proposed makes sense? Physically: No, it doesn´t.

 

then i shall attempt to express myself at a level which provides more chance for your comprehension, not just atheist but for all who misunderstand the later quote.

we shall leave out the need for a faster than light or wormhole technology. you are standing on earth looking at a distant planet a hundred million light years away. the light you see is from a hundred million years ago and shows how the planet. now though magic, takes imagination but do try,

you are hovering above that planet. what you now see of this world will not be seen on earth for a hundred million years. magic brings you back to earth and and once more you see the planet as it once was. question now, would you consider that you have traveled in time?

 

and if you say magic does not exist, please provide scientific proof. magic only requires belief, so if i believe it exists it does, and is the only proof needed to show it does exist.

 

oh: e equals mass times the speed of light-squared. energy is put equal to mass, multiplied by the square of the velocity of light. demonstrated by Cockcroft and Walton in 1932. also deals with the energy created when mass is convertered to energy.

since science says only light\energy\stimulated particles can travel at the speed of light, any mass excelerated to a speed equal to light would have to be converted to light and in the process releasing energy. see subject of nuclear fission.

 

i see a future full of lab technicians chained to their stools by bindings of scientific convention, staring longingly at those whose imaginations allow them the creativity for invention.

 

looking forward to replies

 

mr d

[mimefan599]

hello

 

some studies suggest light was traveling at a speed faster than current at the beginning of the universe

 

mr d

 

Ive never heard of any such study, I'm pretty sure c is a constant

[timo]

Atheist:

Which of course is not possible

 

should actually say 'to our understanding this appears to not to be possible based on current scientific data and proposed theory'.

Yes. I am afraid I cannot comment on your ideas other than from the standpoint of current mainstream physics. If you go beyond that' date=' then ... well... to twist a quote from Futurama: "Everything is possible if you can only imagine it. That´s what being a scientist ... err.. magical elf is all about".

EDIT: And as a matter of fact, imho that is exactly what you should expect in the relativity subforum of a science forum: An answer saying what relativity sais about the issue at hand.

 

we shall leave out the need for a faster than light or wormhole technology. you are standing on earth looking at a distant planet a hundred million light years away. the light you see is from a hundred million years ago and shows how the planet. now though magic, takes imagination but do try,

you are hovering above that planet. what you now see of this world will not be seen on earth for a hundred million years. magic brings you back to earth and and once more you see the planet as it once was. question now, would you consider that you have traveled in time?

I wouldn´t see it as having travelled in time. Some others might.

 

oh: e equals mass times the speed of light-squared. energy is put equal to mass, multiplied by the square of the velocity of light. demonstrated by Cockcroft and Walton in 1932. also deals with the energy created when mass is convertered to energy.

I never claimed E=mc² was an incorrect equation.

 

since science says only light\energy\stimulated particles can travel at the speed of light, ...

It´s "massless particles" that can and do travel at lightspeed, which includes light. "Energy" really only is a property of a particle or a system of particles, no "entity" - regardless of what the terminoligy "lifeform made out of pure energy" in Star Treck suggests.

[mr d]

quote

athiest: It´s "massless particles" that can and do travel at lightspeed, which includes light. "Energy" really only is a property of a particle or a system of particles, no "entity" - regardless of what the terminoligy "lifeform made out of pure energy" in Star Treck suggests.

 

hum... particles without mass, new one on me

i take it more than you mean a gouping of particles that has no collective mass or cohesion, but amoungst whom there is a transference of energy? also depending on definition certain forms of plasma and even simple fire could be considered a lifeform under limit characteristics. reality suggests.

 

but i do thank you sir for your answer to the original quandry. and if i may ask, not just you but other respondants, why so many seemed not to be able to answer the time question as a supposition, but instead zoned in on lightspeed and appeared unable to imagine (that's imagine) a means to travel faster than light. and instead of suspending currently accepted science felt the need to explain why that aspect was impossible at this time (perhaps always). anything can be imagined, so why do so few seem able. do you feel somehow deminished scientifically if asked to imagine? do you think true science excludes the realm of what might be possible, for what has been proven possible?

that is not some type of put down, but i would like to see some insite into the logical reasoning of people.

 

ps: i shall attempt to discover the article on light speed being different at the time of creation.

 

mr d

[timo]

hum... particles without mass' date=' new one on me

i take it more than you mean a gouping of particles that has no collective mass or cohesion, but amoungst whom there is a transference of energy? [/quote']

No. I´m talking about particles (in the sense of physics) which have zero (rest-)mass. Photons (which are the particles of light) are the prime example.

 

and if i may ask, not just you but other respondants, why so many seemed not to be able to answer the time question as a supposition, but instead zoned in on lightspeed and appeared unable to imagine (that's imagine) a means to travel faster than light.

I acutally did not read you first post in here. I posted a reply to your post #4 which you originally posted as a new thread. During the time it took me to write the reply, the thread was deleted and the post I wanted to reply to showed up here -> copy-pasted the answer here.

 

I usually don´t participate in "what if [some thing most physicists believe to be true] were not true"-threads and I don´t really want to comment much on your post #1. But I can tell you why and what the problem with such threads/ideas is: When I assume some physical law not to be true, what about the other ones? Is it possible to change one physical law without altering the other ones (ususally the answer is "no")? How do the other laws have to change, then? Is there a clear rule for it or would a completely new set of laws be needed? If there´s a new set of rules needed, which one (people tend not to state this)? And if it could be any set of rules, then of course anything is possible. And then: Speculation about "what happens if anything is possible" seems pretty pointless to me.

... and instead of suspending currently accepted science felt the need to explain why that aspect was impossible at this time (perhaps always).

The energy required to accelerate an object of mass m from rest to a velocity v is [math] E = mc^2 \left( \frac{1}{\sqrt{1-v^2/c^2}} - 1 \right)[/math] according to special relativity. Therefore, the velocity you have attained with putting an energy E into the movement will be [math] v(E) = c \cdot \sqrt{1- \left( \frac{mc^2}{E+mc^2} \right)^2} [/math]. As you can hopefully see, for a mass greater than zero, the velocity will always be smaller than c, no matter how much energy you used to accelerate the particle.

 

anything can be imagined, so why do so few seem able. do you feel somehow deminished scientifically if asked to imagine? do you think true science excludes the realm of what might be possible, for what has been proven possible?

It´s less about being able to imagine something, it´s more about thinking pure imagination doesn´t make much sense. I think that true science requires the imaginations to turn into a coherent model which leads to verificable predictions of what nature is/behaves like, not into fantasies of what nature would be if it was different from what it appearently is.

[mr d]

hello

 

thank you for your responce athiest, quite interesting.

do you consider photons true particles then, and not (a crude word usage here) wave-particles duality?

and i understand -zero mass when not in motion, but as a person of physics is there mass when momentum is applied\created?

 

though i must disagree about there not being a need for 'what if' in science. people like da vinci, galileo, copernicus, newton, tesla, einstein, were all men who asked 'what if' and challenged the accepted laws of physics at their times. and many of those laws (modern term) were broken by these men, many of whom purposed what we now concider laws. and i have no doubt there are people out there now asking 'what if' who may cause currently accepted laws to fall, or at least need amending. but does science fall, no.

would you say the practicioners of physics who came after einstien should never have asked 'what if' his theories (and they are theories not laws, though they seem be backed by more and more validation) about relativity are not all there is to physics. we would not now have quantum physics or string theory.

scientist should always push the bounds of laws or theories to see if they bend or crack. and imaginative-radical thought is required for that. acceptance only breeds complacency.

if no one asked 'what if' we'd all be sitting around in crude skin garments hanging out in caves. i believe it was einstein himself who said 'imagination is more important than knowledge'.

 

people of imagination - inventors people of knowledge - technicians

 

thank you again for the reply

 

 

ps for changing light speed some places of interest.

 

 

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/2181455.stm

 

http://curious.astro.cornell.edu/question.php?number=575

 

http://frontwheeldrive.com/joao_magueijo.html

 

http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=dn6092

 

http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/generalscience/faster_than_c_000719.html

 

http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/generalscience/constant_changing_010815.html

 

 

to athiest: what is your view on joao magueijo theories.

 

caution to all: some creationist groups are trying to pass magueijo's theories as laws, in an attempt to discredit the bang bang and theory of realitivity. to show scientific explainations for the beginning of the universe are wrong.

site listed above are ones i think show less bias, but show care as many sites listing the subject try to pass themselves off as scientific publications or educational forums

 

mr d

[TimbaLanD]

Err' date=' maybe, but you cannot go faster than light so it kinda makes it irrelevant.

 

As you are travelling at Less than the speed of light when you turn back to look at Earth you will see nothing but events which occured After you have left. For your method to work you would have to go faster than light and in effect overtake it then you turn around and see it come to you, the light of the past, but going faster than light is impossible, so the point is mute.[/quote']

 

What if we find a worm hole that takes us a distance of 65m light yrs? Will we go back or forward in time?

[5614]

What if we find a worm hole that takes us a distance of 65m light yrs? Will we go back or forward in time?

If you faster than light then in theory you would have in effect gone backwards in time, as you would see events which have already passed. Having said that many of the laws of physics will be incorrect so who really knows what would happen.

 

do you consider photons true particles then' date=' and not (a crude word usage here) wave-particles duality?

and i understand -zero mass when not in motion, but as a person of physics is there mass when momentum is applied\created?[/quote']The zero rest mass arises from the fact that a photon can never be at rest, and so it cannot have a rest mass. You can give a photon a relativistic mass, however generally this is an out-dated term not used any more.

 

would you say the practicioners of physics who came after einstien should never have asked 'what if' his theories (and they are theories not laws, though they seem be backed by more and more validation) about relativity are not all there is to physics. we would not now have quantum physics or string theory.

We are not saying you shouldn't ask 'what if' but if you are going to propose a change as big as you are you'd need a lot of international respect and a very good mathematical and theoretical proof to keep us interested.

 

'imagination is more important than knowledge'

Yes, but imagination [math]\neq[/math] stupidity or illogicality or denying what is correct without any proof.

 

ps for changing light speed some places of interest.

The New Scientist article is from 2004... don't you think if there was solid evidence of this then we all would have heard about it?

 

what is your view on joao magueijo theories

Whilst he claims is helps with many problems relating to astronomy and cosmology it does make a lot of new problems regarding relativity and many other aspects of physics which have been proven correct mathematically, theoretically and experimentally... I'm not saying his theory is incorrect as I haven't really looked at it, but it causes so many problems it cannot be correct by itself or as it is.

[mr d]

Posted by mr d:

would you say the practicioners of physics who came after einstien should never have asked 'what if' his theories (and they are theories not laws, though they seem be backed by more and more validation) about relativity are not all there is to physics. we would not now have quantum physics or string theory.

5614:

We are not saying you shouldn't ask 'what if' but if you are going to propose a change as big as you are you'd need a lot of international respect and a very good mathematical and theoretical proof to keep us interested.

 

firstly i must say this reeks, reeks of scientific elitism. any idea no matter how odd, unscientifically based, or what many might call outright insane should be allowed to be voiced. it's a little thing called freedom of speech\thought\idea. would you argue that sfn should have a moderator inspect each post to see if it meets your standard for scientific acceptance. do you fore see a scientific intelligencia created to protect people from unexceptable ideas or thoughts.

oh and i did not propose a change, i was merely proposed 'if', this is not an idea put forward as a proposed theory. it is merely a devise that requires a momentary suspension of what you currently accept possible, and asks you to concider 'if' under different condictions could this happen.

if i were making an earth shattering proposal challenging einstein's theory of relativity and the limit of the speed of light, though sfn is a fine forum, that would be at a symposium or though scientific publication. and would include a long boring lecture with lots of squiggly math equations and papers on experiments conducted. you see a forum is supposed to be used for the free exchange of ideas, again regardless of whether you consider their context to be of merit or not.

 

 

 

Posted by mr d:

einstein quote 'imagination is more important than knowledge'

5614:

Yes, but imagination does not equal stupidity or illogicality or denying what is correct without any proof.

 

huh... imagination must rely on logical correctness. kind of flies in the face of what is imagination, unless you're suffering from a lack of imagination.

 

 

 

5614:

The New Scientist article is from 2004... don't you think if there was solid evidence of this then we all would have heard about it?

 

no. as it tends to point to on going work, and is merely referencing prelimary findings. at that stage in most work points that seem to best draw reaction and news bites are released to attract futher attention to the work and hopefully increase project funding.

unless your amoung the group carrying out the work, or amoungst the community of related research scientists whom would recieve the occasional update paper. results of most scientific research never really makes it to the general public. for little of it is truely of any interest or use to the general public. also remember einstein's theory of relativity took decade or more to gain a general acceptance amoung the scientific community, and is still challenged today (again, seems to holdup well to most challenges). if what they propose holds up to preliminary challenge and gains a measure of acceptance, i'd not expect it to be accepted by the general public for a decade or two. question in my mind is since their findings are trying to be used prematurely by creationists to leverage their beliefs (by their interpretation), will they decided that their work stands to be corrupted by politics and limit futher general releases of subsiquent findings.

 

 

5614 if you would be so kind however to indulge my asking. as with athiest, thank you again for answering, though the original message ultimately dealt with viewed-time verus real-time, and the faster than light vehicle was only used as a hypothetical means to achieve the to states. a wide array of 'true science' defenders could only see such a vechicle as a violation of their sacred theory of relativity and sought to inform how i could not travel faster than the speed of light. sadly few seemed able to see beyond that to the true question. i admit you at least answered 'er..if you' so you could show some level of suspension.

by why are so many unable to do at least that much. for some do they only look for points that allow them to show their vast scientific knowledge from feelings of superiority, or perhaps just trying to stroke threaten ego's. do they think as you put forth above only ideas corresponding to accepted beliefs should be allowed to be voiced.

genuine interest. though i must make a leap of faith here that you are a real person. scientifically i have no proof of such. or perhaps sfn is really a company testing and artificial intelligence program and your so many lines of code, imagination used here while it's still free and unregulated by science.

 

enjoying tilting at windmills

 

mr d

[GutZ]

Mr.D

 

I think what's important, and I confused this as well, is that I don't think it has much to do with elitism or lack of imagination or stubborness (Maybe).

 

Science is a fickle thing. It's very complicate if not impossible to prove 100% that a theory is correct. It's more of a beyond reasonable doubt since we are humans after all. You create models, then test them. I think what Einstein is more importantly saying is imagination is great to allow yourself to create these models, but they have to be logical for it to work in science.

 

Think about it. How many Theories could you possibly come up without undeniable logic. "The sky is blue because god split the comic blue paint." Sure...that could be the exact reason for it being that way, but for "us" that's meaningless. You can't test it, it's not worth spending ample time working on getting these theories to work.

 

Now if you propose something imaginative, present some mathematical work, maybe test it on a small scale, have it repeat more than once...now you got a good theory to work on. That's worth exploring, It takes Knowledge to get to that point but more importantly imagination to think up a new way or direction. Hense what Einy said. Let go of my Einy baby. (lol sorry had too)

 

P.S.

 

Also it ensures the right integrity of science. The methods of collecting and creating theories/evidence/etc has to be more than just thought. It's so that the science it self doesn't get lazy and sloppy, and thats important because it means nothing otherwise. Right?

 

I hope I am making sense.

[5614]

any idea no matter how odd, unscientifically based, or what many might call outright insane should be allowed to be voiced

Indeed there is freedom of speech and there's nothing wrong with you saying 'if' as long as you don't expect others to listen. As you said yourself:

"Einstein's theory of relativity took decade or more to gain a general acceptance amoung the scientific community"

this is the point. Einstein's theory was so unusual and strange people couldn't see it as logically correct, but here's the catch... Einstein had the theory all sorted and it worked. He had the maths all sorted and it worked. And at the time he had some experimental backing which all proved the theory correct. To come along and say that c is not constant or you can excede it will take many years to come to grips with and will, as far as the scientific community is concerned, be ignored unless there is very good underlying theory, maths and experiments, because that is what science is based on. It wont be ignored because you don't have freedom of speech, of course you do, it will be ignored because you are denying something that is almost so certain that it would take overwhelming evidence to dismiss. This isn't about elitism, it's about reality and what's right.

 

results of most scientific research never really makes it to the general public.

Scientific research papers are public and anyone can access them. If something as major as a fundemental flaw in relativity was discovered I'm quite certain I would hear about it one way or another, as would everyone in the general public, they might not understand, but something big they would hear about.

 

though i must make a leap of faith here that you are a real person

Err, yeah, I am a real person, not thousands of lines of code!

 

i admit you at least answered 'er..if you' so you could show some level of suspension.

The problem with the 'err ye' is that we are taking a situation in which the, well, to keep safe I'll say the current laws of physics say cannot happen. Once we have broken the current laws we are then reapplying the current laws to reach a conclusion. This cannot work, regardless of whether the rules are correct or not.

 

Also can you please use the quote tags because it got quite confusing when I kept flicking back to your post to see what you said.

[swansont]

Posted by mr d:

would you say the practicioners of physics who came after einstien should never have asked 'what if' his theories (and they are theories not laws' date=' though they seem be backed by more and more validation) about relativity are not all there is to physics. we would not now have quantum physics or string theory.

5614:

We are not saying you shouldn't ask 'what if' but if you are going to propose a change as big as you are you'd need a lot of international respect and a very good mathematical and theoretical proof to keep us interested.

 

firstly i must say this reeks, reeks of scientific elitism. any idea no matter how odd, unscientifically based, or what many might call outright insane should be allowed to be voiced. it's a little thing called freedom of speech\thought\idea. would you argue that sfn should have a moderator inspect each post to see if it meets your standard for scientific acceptance. do you fore see a scientific intelligencia created to protect people from unexceptable ideas or thoughts.

oh and i did not propose a change, i was merely proposed 'if', this is not an idea put forward as a proposed theory. it is merely a devise that requires a momentary suspension of what you currently accept possible, and asks you to concider 'if' under different condictions could this happen.

if i were making an earth shattering proposal challenging einstein's theory of relativity and the limit of the speed of light, though sfn is a fine forum, that would be at a symposium or though scientific publication. and would include a long boring lecture with lots of squiggly math equations and papers on experiments conducted. you see a forum is supposed to be used for the free exchange of ideas, again regardless of whether you consider their context to be of merit or not.

[/quote']

 

 

Freedom of speech is not the issue. This is not political in nature, and it is not a matter of expressing an opinion, to which all are entitled. In science, ideas do not all merit equal consideration. If you want to broach a new idea, expect to have it challenged, for it has to go through the same trial-by-fire that all earlier ideas had to in order to be accepted. A theory that either is or can't be falsified is going to be discarded.

 

SFN isn't as formal as all that, but it doeas, after a fashion, screen posts for merit. It's one thing that separates this board from some other boards, like physorg (a vast separation, IMO)

 

And you're wrong about what happened after Einstein introduced relativity. Relativity does not attempt to explain much of atomic and nuclear physics, so quantum mechanics would have come along just fine; nobody thought it explained everything, and QM did not arise by taking the position that relativity was wrong.

[mr d]

hello

 

 

hope your finding this dialog as amusing as i am.

 

 

a theory is defined as: a set of statements or principles devised to explain a group of facts or phenomena, especially one that has been repeatedly tested or is widely accepted and can be used to make predictions about natural phenomena.

your point i take it would be that since i've conducted no repeated testing of a means to travel faster than the speed of light, the phenomena, that invalidates the theory. however if i can gather a wide enough group of like minded individuals who do believe the theory and we use it to predict the results of faster than light travel and what a human being would experience at such speed. that would therefore be a valid theory by definition.

now i also take it that you would purpose my question of the difference in view-time verus real-time is invalid as that it requires an impossibility (greater than light) to accomplish. so to follow through with your line of logic, would that mean during the 10th century when the world was considered flat by men of the church and science at that time. and ships sailing out beyond the horizon found nothing and most did not return. it should have been excepted the world was flat and men like columbus should not have questioned still if the world was round. or when the late astronomer carl sagan theories about landing on other billions and billions of worlds, since man can never travel beyond lightspeed and that he can not achieve the energy required to travel even a fraction of the speed under current understanding, any theory he might espouse is totally invalid because men can not reach those worlds. infact since we can not achieve those speeds all work on intersellar travel becomes worthless and should stop now.

or shall we add the scientist of the early 1910's who stated how the then laws of then used by physics and math calculations proved any human being traveling above 30 miles and hour would die instantly. hmm... i must be in purgatory as seemed to have violated some of their laws this morning.

or is it theories and laws only stand till they are replaced by other theories and laws, some more valid than others.

and unless those laws are questioned we will never know.

as to the public having open access to research data. people actually get to see very little research data, as the main portion is carried out by goverments and for profit companies that have no inclinations to reveal most of that information to you or others. they paid for it, it's theirs. and information that is released is always checked first, giving out portions on a need to know basis. even in institutions of learning most research is not released to the general public depending on the person or group financing the research.

also for 5614, or athiest if still hanging about, where people throw c(speed of light) as a constant, i seem to vagely recall that was speed was constant in a vacumn, but less than c when traveling through a medium other than a vacumn. so do changes in space density due to matter density and composition present mean light is traveling at different speeds in different areas of space.

do i stand a lonely vigil out here willing to question accepted science?

for 5614: reason no quotes used is i have to type my answers using notepad in spare momoments, then workbreaks to paste in quick post replys. big brother does not like his machines being used to ask questions. and i enjoy life far more when i don't have to deal with this glorified calcualtor at home.

 

mr d

 

ps: still waiting for a clear answer as to why my question of 'if' we somehow became 'he's purposing a theory of beyond light speed, where's his experimental resaults, show us the data; what devises where just to attempt this. how dare you challenge the law of light speed.' here the sacred horned helmet of science is put on, and the secret members of the royal order of scientific truth rallied forth to preserve logic and reason. btw... do you guy have a nifty secret handshake.

 

perhaps those people studying science, fail to take reading comprehension.

[5614]

or shall we add the scientist of the early 1910's who stated how the then laws of then used by physics and math calculations proved any human being traveling above 30 miles and hour would die instantly.

What? Gimme some evidence for that one...

 

or is it theories and laws only stand till they are replaced by other theories and laws, some more valid than others.

Quite essential this: They stand, assumed correctly, until someone comes a long with quite solid evidence that they are incorrect.

 

and unless those laws are questioned we will never know.

If a law of physics were incorrect someone would notice. When it was first published, when it underwent experimental proof or when it was applied elsewhere, if there were a fault someone would find it. If no one found a fault it could only be because it were correct. Or maybe with something like Newton's Laws of Motion it is correct under all the circumstances they tested it with, sure it is not correct, but in every way they used it they found no significant difference between the real answer and what they got using Newton's Laws. That was until Einstein came along and people set up an experiment deliberately looking for the difference. Only then could they notice the difference. And because you have to work so hard to notice the error in Newton's Laws they are still taught today as basics, general laws which generally apply.

 

c is the speed of light in a vacuum. That is it, it never changes. When light goes through a medium it does indeed slow down, that does not change c, it changes the speed of the light passing through the medium. As c, the constant, is defined as the speed of light through a vacuum what happens in a medium is irrelevant.

 

Scientists don't like the idea of breaking the speed of light, exceeding or replacing c because it is so fundemental in science. It appears everywhere. c is used in relativity all over the place. It is used in Maxwell's equations. It is used in quantum mechanics... it is used everywhere, theoretically, mathematically and experimentally and in Every case it works, perfectly. Now why the hell would you want to change that? And furthermore we see it works in all of those cases, why would we believe you if you said otherwise?

[swansont]

a theory is defined as: a set of statements or principles devised to explain a group of facts or phenomena' date=' especially one that has been repeatedly tested or is widely accepted and can be used to make predictions about natural phenomena.

your point i take it would be that since i've conducted no repeated testing of a means to travel faster than the speed of light, the phenomena, that invalidates the theory. however if i can gather a wide enough group of like minded individuals who do believe the theory and we use it to predict the results of faster than light travel and what a human being would experience at such speed. that would therefore be a valid theory by definition. [/quote']

 

The dictionary isn't a valid technical authority. The latter part of the definion is required for the scientific use of the word. Your scenario does not fulfill that, and would not constitute a valid theory until it had been tested and the results matched the predictions.

 

 

ps: still waiting for a clear answer as to why my question of 'if' we somehow became 'he's purposing a theory of beyond light speed' date=' where's his experimental resaults, show us the data; what devises where just to attempt this. how dare you challenge the law of light speed.' here the sacred horned helmet of science is put on, and the secret members of the royal order of scientific truth rallied forth to preserve logic and reason. btw... do you guy have a nifty secret handshake.

 

perhaps those people studying science, fail to take reading comprehension.[/quote']

 

Challenge away, it happens continually. It's expected to happen continually. But, as I stated before, though, you don't get a free pass. Your idea has to pass through the same gauntlet as any other in science. It's amusing to hear this grousing about sacred helmets and secret handshakes but it sounds like the tantrum of a four-year-old complaining about not getting his way. The protocols of science are not secret and are there for good reason and if you choose not to follow them I don't care, but when you fail to do so, don't complain about being left out.

[Saryctos]

If you get somewhere faster than a light wave that left the same spot, you will only run into the light again. Time is not a thing to be manipulated, as it does not exist.