Light, Spacetime, Observer(s)

[hyperion1is]

I'm not an expert on relativity, General relativity, Special relativity or any other kind.

 

From what I know the Light (or any other object) can't travel faster than the speed of light c=300.000 km/s (aprox or exact in psychical equations?).

 

My reasoning started from the question " Why light can't travel faster than c?" Or any other object. This doesn't constitute a paradox?

 

Because stating that an object can't travel faster than c in this Universe means that something limits it's speed. (like a rock in water-rough analogy).

Another way that I know this is expressed is that theoretically an object could travel faster than c but is nothing that can accelerate that object to such a speed. (to imprint that speed). I don't know if a law expressed in this way is a law. It enough to detect ONE object faster than c to proves us wrong (like is enough to see a single black swan to in-confirm that "All swans are white") and that object will have that speed on it's own independent to the speed of other - that we are aware of - so no need for it to be accelerated).

 

Anyway. Some axioms:

Axiom 1: Light travels at c regardless of the direction (or it is vector?) and speed of the source. In General relativity this may not be a Axiom but a theorem; but I can take this as an axiom for my "theory"?

Also, my question is: this is not a paradox also? Because in "day to day experience" the velocity adds up. If I'm on the ground stationary and throw a rock, that rock would have a speed. If I'm in a moving vehicle and I throw a rock that rock would have a combined speed for a stationary observer (related to my position and speed).

 

Axiom 2: If light would travel faster than c than that light (beam) would "travel back in time" not sooner than the time it started (t₀). It is this true? Is this an hypothesis or was "somehow" experimented? How people came to this conclusion? In this axiom I don't need "anti-telephone". I stick with cause and effect.

 

Axiom 3: We people, and probably any other living things, are travelers in time. We travel forward with each second. I heard this somewhere, but I don't know where. I know "heard" is not very scientific this is why I'm asking you. It's the Axiom 3 true? and in which conditions (how it can be interpreted)? Or it is an apparent phenomenon and how we define the "second"?

 

Using the assertions I come to the conclusion that objects can travel faster than c but is a problem of measurements and detections in which we define our Reality. I would need feedback from you first. I'm making mistakes along the way? I'm reporting in one case to General relativity and in others to Special Relativity? And this is a study of Reality or Universe or what?

Thanks!

 

[Strange]

Another way that I know this is expressed is that theoretically an object could travel faster than c but is nothing that can accelerate that object to such a speed. Another way that I know this is expressed is that theoretically an object could travel faster than c but is nothing that can accelerate that object to such a speed. (to imprint that speed). I don't know if a law expressed in this way is a law. It enough to detect ONE object faster than c to proves us wrong (like is enough to see a single black swan to in-confirm that "All swans are white") and that object will have that speed on it's own independent to the speed of other - that we are aware of - so no need for it to be accelerated).

 

There are hypothetical particle called tachyonw which only travel faster than light (they can't be slowed down to the speed of light). There have been experiments to detect such things but currently there is no evidence for them (and no real reason to believe they should exist).

 

Also, my question is: this is not a paradox also? Because in "day to day experience" the velocity adds up. If I'm on the ground stationary and throw a rock, that rock would have a speed. If I'm in a moving vehicle and I throw a rock that rock would have a combined speed for a stationary observer (related to my position and speed)

.

The thing is, we think that speeds add linearly (you throw the rock at 5 mph from a car doing 60 mph, and as a result the rock is travelling at 65 mph) but that is only because at everyday speeds the error is too small to see. In fact velocities don't add linearly. The sum of two velocities is given by:

[latex]s = {v+u \over 1+(vu/c^2)}[/latex]

 

If you are in a car doing 90% of the speed of light and throw a rock at 90% of the speed of light, the combined velocity will be 99.45% of the speed of light.

 

Axiom 2: If light would travel faster than c than that light (beam) would "travel back in time" not sooner than the time it started (t₀). It is this true?

 

No. Although, if faster than light travel or communication were possible, it would be possible to pass a message back in time. I don't think that is the same as travelling back in time.This would cause all sorts of things to do with causality (the effects could be seen before the cause).

 

Using the assertions I come to the conclusion that objects can travel faster than c but is a problem of measurements and detections in which we define our Reality.

 

I don't really know how you come to that conclusion.

[ajb]

My reasoning started from the question " Why light can't travel faster than c?" Or any other object.

Physics does not really answer why questions, it gives us mathematical models of nature. Now what I can say is that from Maxwell's equations we can show that electromagnetic radiation travels at the speed c relaative to it's source.

 

It was noticed that Maxwell's equations do not have the symmetry of classical mechanics. This lead to the development of special relativity and the realisation that the speed of light is a constant.

 

 

Another way that I know this is expressed is that theoretically an object could travel faster than c but is nothing that can accelerate that object to such a speed.

Okay, so you can put together a huristic argument that it takes an infinte amount of energy to accelerate a massive particle to speeds greater than c.

 

Axiom 1: Light travels at c regardless of the direction (or it is vector?) and speed of the source. In General relativity this may not be a Axiom but a theorem; but I can take this as an axiom for my "theory"?

You have to be more careful in general relativity. But anyway we have the constant speed of light locally.

 

Also, my question is: this is not a paradox also? Because in "day to day experience" the velocity adds up. If I'm on the ground stationary and throw a rock, that rock would have a speed. If I'm in a moving vehicle and I throw a rock that rock would have a combined speed for a stationary observer (related to my position and speed).

Because the speeds involved are small as compared to the speed of light. The relativistic corrections here are very small and not noticed.

 

Axiom 2: If light would travel faster than c than that light (beam) would "travel back in time" not sooner than the time it started (t₀). It is this true? Is this an hypothesis or was "somehow" experimented? How people came to this conclusion? In this axiom I don't need "anti-telephone". I stick with cause and effect.

You can show that if a particle were to be moving at a speed greater than c in one inertial reference frame, then you can find other inertial reference frames in which the particle is moving backwards in time.

 

Axiom 3: We people, and probably any other living things, are travelers in time. We travel forward with each second. I heard this somewhere, but I don't know where. I know "heard" is not very scientific this is why I'm asking you. It's the Axiom 3 true? and in which conditions (how it can be interpreted)? Or it is an apparent phenomenon and how we define the "second"?

Yes, it is okay to say that we move forward in time.

 

Using the assertions I come to the conclusion that objects can travel faster than c but is a problem of measurements and detections in which we define our Reality. I would need feedback from you first. I'm making mistakes along the way? I'm reporting in one case to General relativity and in others to Special Relativity? And this is a study of Reality or Universe or what?

Thanks!

There could be particles that travel faster than the speed of light. These are taychons. They cannot be slowed down to speeds less than c. This is all consistent with special relativity, but not quantum theory, so we expect any tachyons to decay rather quickly. Even then tachyons if they exist, should be detectable. There is nothing in relativity that says we cannot see tachyons, assuming they are realised in nature.

[hyperion1is]

 

I don't really know how you come to that conclusion.

 

I didn't write about it yet. I'm doing that now.

 

OK, Thank you warmly for your replies. I will present my reasoning here and if you "were" to follow you can tell me if I'm right or where I make mistakes. I'm not a scientist or science savvy and theoretically I can easily make mistakes by not "staying inside my theory" reporting to different systems of reference at the same time or any other such inconsistencies.

 

We take Axiom 2 as a starting point. "If light would travel faster than c than that light (beam) would "travel back in time" not sooner than the time it started (t0)." This would be an apparent effect to the observer and not a real thing. If this would be true why light would report to it's time and not mine, the observer?

I.e. Taking a distance A-B = 3 millions km.

1. Light beam 1 with c speed will travel this distance in 10s.

2. Light beam 2 with "c" speed 600.000 km/s will travel this distance in 5s. But the axiom states that would travel back in time and thus making the trip in 0-1 seconds. How can we interpret this? If an Observer will observe that the distance traveled by Light beam 2 (Lb2) is actually 300.000 km or less than that Observer can infer that Lb2 traveled "back in space". A sort of inverse warp travel. And that light beam did this in 0-1s interval. No law broken here.

If we mark here t₀ as the starting point (in time) of Lb2 then in t₅ (the fifth second) Lb2 would be in 3 mil km (would have traveled 3 mil km). But we only can take measurements in t₁₀ at which point Lb1 would arrive in point B anyway so even Lb2 would have traveled with 600.000 km/s and arrived in point B in 5 seconds, but we wouldn't know about it and doesn't helps us because we can't take measurements in t_5. So, for an observer making this experiment and making measurements Lb2 traveled with 300.000 km/s.

 

If we were to take measurements in t₅ we will "see" that Lb2 traveled 1.5 mil km (the same as if would traveled at c speed) and would infer that Lb2 traveled "back in space" since we know that it's speed should be 600.000 km/s.

Now, since the axiom states that Lb2 travels "back in time" and not "back in space" Lb2 renaming in 0-1 time frame, we have the make the second measurement in t₁ (not quite t₁ but for ease...), and in t₁ Lb2 would have traveled 300.000 km, not more.

 

This might not make sense from what I wrote, but maybe I can be more explicit, in the following.

What is the unit for space-time? Is it L? Or I can take L? L(light) = 300.000 km/s. I have space and time. In one dimension I have the meter 1m. 1m³ is in tree dimensions, a measure of volume. But here, I think it should be Sphere instead of cube. If I would have to go 300.000 km in any direction would result a Sphere with Radius of 150.000 km actually and the diameter being of 300.000 km. I don't know much math . What is the volume here, and can I report it to time, s?.

Anyway, linearity is enough for the following. 300.000 km = 1s and vice-versa (not international system, I know).

 

By the way. Theoretically traveling faster than light result in infinite speed? Such a person would be in any point of the space-time - in the same time? Theorized in Star trek Voyager. What's up with that?

 

Now: If I were to travel with the speed of light. In this case space in front of me would be the same as the space in behind me. Right? One won't matter over the other. In this case, I can stop, meaning to consider my self stationary , in the degree in which you can consider yourself stationary in space-time. Can I say that? Related to space-time, I'm stationary? I have a fixed position?

In this "moment": time would stay still for me (I'm in t₀ always) and everything would move around me instantly (or instant speed). I couldn't distinguish one thing over the other.

 

 

If a "rock" were to move around me (see pic) it would appear to me to be very "slowly". I will report it to the speed of light. How time would take that rock to travel 300.000 km.

Note: I "imagined" the rock moving around me, because would have to move at constant distance relative to my position. I think.

 

In this "state" if I were to travel 300.000 km (actually 150.000km, remember the radius) I will to that in 0s-0s interval (time-frame). Theoretically if I were to travel another 300.000 km it will be in 1s-1s interval. But only theoretically, because I can't do that. Time is staying "still" now. I can only be in 0s-0s time-frame now. If I were to be in 1s-1s time-frame I would be in other conditions altogether. A conceptual Observer can give as false reading sometimes. No? This is known in physics? There is a difference between an actual observer and a conceptual observer.

We may want to leave this state, but let's not. Let's "take" this as a normal state. Why? This is not the case? The light "hits" our eyes with 300.000 km/s. We have to ask ourselves the question "What gives us topology/geometry?" It is not the sight? We "record" everything at light speed. Everything else is an attempt to "slow down" the light speed, or in other words a shuttering effect (attempt).

 

Note: I hope I don't make a mistake here or other to have made a mistake, but every detector build by man is not to convey signals into signals associated with senses? A microscope allows the human eye to see. A telescope the same. Detectors at CERN does the same? Turns signals into signals that we can detect? You get my idea ?

 

Now we need to add a dimension: Time. If we report to a second (1s) interval what we "see" (above) starts to make sense. The light "slows down". We "switch" from a time-frame to another. If we travel at 300.000 km/s and we take as an interval 300.000 km, after 300.000 km we have "another" 300.000 km. t₀ - 300.000 km - t₁ - 300.000 km - t₂ and so on. At t₁ we can compare the space behind us with the space in front of us and we have an idea of time, and we have 4 dimensions (now).

 

I guess my point being that the Observer (the person who makes this "travel in time" or through time) should be included in the equations. This is done right now in physics? If not it's not a mistake?

From the definition, Reality: The world or the state of things as they actually exist, as opposed to an idealistic or notional idea of them: "he refuses to face reality". "things as they actually exist" - who can tell? Unless you include the observer.

 

Anyway, I don't want to lose anyone (that I didn't lose already).

 

An attempt to include the Observer (O) into equations. From what I know the image remains on retina for 0.3 seconds ( I don't know the exact value).

O=L/0.3s<>O= 300.000 km/s divided to 0.3s = 90.000 km/s² . I don't even know what that means. We don't have a definition for time anyway, it's just related to space. L= Light.

To heave a measure for time, meaning to define a second (s) we need additions "dimensions". Light, related to sight is just one of the senses. We have into account all senses (if we can know them all). One of our senses is related to Energy (hot, cold, temperature). Since the Human has to incorporate different signals (of different type) at a fixed rate (perception) we have to establish "the ratio".

The brain has to incorporate "Light" signals along with "Energy" signals. But at which rate? If we were to quantify these signals (integers), we could say that the Conscious incorporates 5 Light signals on each 3 Energy signals. So would be 5/3 ratio.

 

So, I guess, a way to define (quantify) Perception to give us a value for the Observer. The Observer being a quanta, is this right?

 

In this manner you can include the Observer into equations, to be used as an Universal. But I don't think that would be a constant, not in the same conditions. In "places" where energy is higher the Observer would incorporate more energy signals over the others, so it's value changes.

 

That's it for now. It made more sense to me, when I thought about it the first time (yesterday), and I didn't think I will need a block of text, for this. Sorry. I will have to revise this.

 

Conclusions:

1.Things can travel faster than the speed of light, but we have "build" our (conceptual) Universe with c=300.000 km/s as a constant.

We have to have c>300.000 km/s or at least in some equations to envision another Universe to define some particles to be detected later. I don't know if we can detect Thahions, because Thahions may have other proprieties then those envisioned.

 

2.Light can't travel faster than 300.000 km/s because it wouldn't be light. Something else can, and it would "intersect" our Universe.

 

3. Each with it's frame. If we have the frame 300.000 km/s (space time) then I can't exchange information with an Observer, over a distance greater than 300.000 km. If a detector would be at 600.000 km (to me position) and theoretically I would receive data from it (instantly), these data (mine and his) would create paradoxes (for me) because we don't have anything in "common". Different space, different time. I would be in t₀ and it in t₁ and "we" exchange informations in t₀ .

Edited July 30, 2013 by hyperion1is

[Klaynos]

You need to reference times, distances and velocities to a given frame else you will not be able to work anything out.

[Strange]

Theorized in Star trek Voyager.

 

Not a great source for scientific information.

 

 

I guess my point being that the Observer (the person who makes this "travel in time" or through time) should be included in the equations. This is done right now in physics?

 

Yes. In relativity things such as distance, time, energy and many others are observer dependent.

[ajb]

I guess my point being that the Observer (the person who makes this "travel in time" or through time) should be included in the equations. This is done right now in physics?

My suggestion is to get up to speed with some physics like basic special relativity.

[hyperion1is]

Sorry, now I have finished editing my post actually. When I said that the Observer should be included in equations I meant for it to have a value. It does? And you are right ajb. I will try that and revising my post in the same time.

[hyperion1is]

You need to reference times, distances and velocities to a given frame else you will not be able to work anything out.

Thank you klaynos for your input. Easy said than done, for some

[Delta1212]

I would seriously recommend researching relativity, because taking a few concepts that get bandied about without context in pop science descriptions of relativity like "traveling faster than c will cause you to go back in time" and attempting to extrapolate a reasonable understanding of the theory from that is just not going to work out very well and will lead to questions exactly like the ones you're asking.

 

There are very good reasons for why massive objects cannot travel faster than the speed of light. For instance, the faster you go, the more energy it takes to achieve the same acceleration. You get diminishing returns that flatten out as you approach the speed of light. If you have a tank of fuel that is powerful enough to accelerate you to 90% of the speed of light by burning one gallon, the next gallon won't get you to 180% of the speed of light, it'll only get you to around 99% of the speed of light. And then, since you're traveling even faster, the third gallon will only get you to around 99.9% and so on. You can keep getting closer, but you'll never actually be able to reach light speed because the energy requirements spike to infinity.

[hyperion1is]

Warning: Wall of text!

 

I.1 My head aches. J Because I’m a laymen in physics: 1. I may have a hard time grasping concepts from some fields of research (general relativity, special relativity, quantum mechanics… biology). But doesn’t mean I can’t work with Perspective; 2. Communicating with scientists without (having) the scientific language.

 

Delta1212 is more about what Klaynos said (to me):

 

"You need to reference times, distances and velocities to a given frame else you will not be able to work anything out."

 

I.2 What I’m proposing here is a different perspective, which may be known to scientists and used/accounted for, or not (I don’t know). This is what I’m actually trying to determine (envision) here. I guess is a perspective about/regarding scales. We (those who talk on this post) may have or we may not have the same perspective regarding scales (probably mine being wrong, I realize that).

 

A perspective is what separates 2 theories and advancement in science is/was done by changing perspective? Aristotle: a body comes to a rest on its own; this is its natural state. Newton: a body doesn’t come to a rest unless a force (of opposite direction) is being exercised on it. Conservation of mass and energy; inertia? Einstein: My time does not equal your time? He introduced Observer as a notion/dimension for understanding Reality. From here on, the concept of relativity; So 2 Observers (in different reference frames) observing the same phenomena will get different readings.

 

I.3 Me: Are we (me and you) taking readings on the same phenomena on the same scale? My scale doesn’t equal your scale.

Note: if you detecting arrogance on my part, please let me know.

II.1 Now, it’s a problem about conveying my idea/perspective to you. In which language (terms)? Can we discuss in layman terms (somehow)?

 

A reading let me to believe that is possible to communicate between 2 areas in which you don’t have the same definitions of terms.

Here, please read this and see if you can distinguish something. http://www.fa-kuan.muc.de/LUCEAFA.HTML#eng . From “Then Evening-star went out” to “To blind oblivion.”.

 

 

There are very good reasons for why massive objects cannot travel faster than the speed of light.

 

 

Probably a problem with the term I have used. It doesn’t have to be “massive”. I well may be tachyons; it may be other particles, or tachyons and other particles.

For instance, the faster you go, the more energy it takes to achieve the same acceleration.

 

 

I didn’t say that such acceleration is possible. I acknowledged the problem with that.

Me (in the first post): “It enough to detect ONE object faster than c to proves us wrong and that object will have that speed on its own independent to the speed of other - that we are aware of - so no need for it to be accelerated)."

I want to use your feedback, in a useful way, but, from what you got the idea that I want to “accelerate” something, even in theory? Probably from my improper use of terms, which may had detoured the reader along the way.

 

 

 

III.1 I stated previously this is a matter of scales actually. But I need a starting point and end point to this.

 

Where to start?

 

The World (better word Reality) it’s to be said that is fluid (super-fluidity), ever changing. How does it appear solid to the Observer? If this has been explained, then I’m just rambling (please follow my non-understanding of this.

A way in which that this was expressed (and an effort to understand it) was (one of many): “An electron of an atom is orbiting around a neutron (it’s center) in high speed. So, it’s moving (the electron) but the atom appears to us solid. An “explanation” for this is that the electron is moving very fast and this creates solidity.” (?)

 

A way to explain such a state (the state of Reality) I tried to explain it to myself in a section which starts with "Now: If I were to travel with the speed of light." of my second post. There I tried a transition from a state to another (with success or not).

 

An Observer (a Human, and you can probably include animals) makes observations of the same phenomena using “detectors”. There are 5 primary (it’s hard to identify which can be considered as primary) detectors: Sight, hearing, touch, smell, taste. Note: you can split touch in two to include Energy (what we interpret as being hot or cold). It’s about 5 detectors that we call Senses (but we must be careful of our definition/interpretation of sense.

 

Using 5 different detectors over the “same phenomena” the Observer creates a measuring unit. We will call/refer it here a detector (one single detector). The Observer “records” data (in packages) from Sight, Hearing, Touch, Smell and Taste detectors (5 different kinds of data) and integrates them.

 

How, in which manner? Hard to explain. One might postulate that the Observer is using a blank data set to integrate all the others. The amount of packages (of each 6 different type of data-including blank data) needed to create “1 package” (the smallest unit possible) is defines a quanta. This discrete measuring unit is used by the detector to observe Reality. This is what “creates” solidity.

An experiment: A man eating a sandwich.

-----

1. The man sees the sandwich; the Observer is recording data from/with the Sight detector. Nothing distinguishable at this point.

2. The man is touching the sandwich; again: the (same) Observer is recording data using Touch detector.

At this point we can state that the integration begins (has began/can begin).

3. The man smells the sandwich. No need to explain the process again, no? Enough to say that new data is added/recorded.

After the final sense (the final recording), the Taste, (and the experiment/observation is over)the Observer is using the recorded data “captured” during this process and integrates them in a single one. Overall we can say the this event was recorded/observed using a single detector.

-----

I hope that by skipping I didn’t detoured someone. There are 5 steps.

 

Note(improper terms usage !): It will be more helpful to you if you don’t “integrate” 2 detectors into one: Smell and Taste. Saying that is recording the same type of data: chemical. Not sure; also be careful that these 5 detectors are placed in 5 different locations in Reality. As a first experience for our subject (the man), the man could conclude from, first smelling the sandwich, and later tasting the sandwich: “Hm, this (object) is giving me information from a “distance” in opposition to information that is giving me from “up close” (in my mouth). “ This experience gives us (at least) “distance” as a concept/interpretation.

The relevance of this (about the detector):

1. The detector is using a scale. Different from the scales of the detectors. Might be relevant?
2. Also caution about the integration of data.

An Observer is using a binocular to see a tree (“brings objects closer”). Firstly: the Observer is recording data using only Sight detector. The “tree” makes sense to the Observer? Probably yes, through extrapolation regarding the integration of data (each/all kind/type of data is needed in observing a phenomena – every single phenomena; with integration). Second: conversion of scales is being used. Not being big differences, the approximation is considered “accurate”.

How about “looking” through a microscope? Different scales? Can we touch, smell taste the molecule? Not, when taking these measurements anyway.

 

A simple way to express this: 1 km = 1000 meters = 100.000 cm = 1.000.000 mm. 1km equals 1 million mm? They may be circumstances in which it doesn’t?. (this is an example of a single instance).

You might say to me that this has been accounted for, through non-Euclidian geometry or other). It’s been really accounted or is it more like the “accounts” in the Ptolemaic system? Tweaking your theory/interpretation to account for observations. J

 

Conclusions: I don’t know about the proper usage of the term scales here. There is a scale for distance, a different scale for energy and so on? How about intersecting all the scales? I’m trying here a more concrete definition of the Scale. An universal measuring unit on a scale (a fifth dimension) may be a better word for this?

Word salad, maybe. I will try revising this post working on the terms used, reference frames and so on.

What I’m trying to conclude here about the Observer (more to the point, the nature of the Observer) and Scale has been discussed in physics (and solved)? If so where (Wikipedia if it can be used as a source ) so I can understand what I can't understand.

Edited August 1, 2013 by hyperion1is

[Delta1212]

A kilometer always equals a million millimeters. They are different terms for the same distance. Similarly, you can express the speed of light in different units (miles per hour, kilometers per day, meters per second, inches per year, lightyears per century), but it would always be the same speed.

 

Now, relativity does state that different frames will measure time differently (and, consequently, measure distances differently). So on Earth, I might see a star as being 10 lightyears away. I see a spaceship blast off and travel toward the star at around 85% of the speed of light. So I'd see the ship take around 12 years or so to reach the planet. If I looked at the ship, I'd see it experiencing time at around half the rate that I experience it, so for them the trip would take about 6 years. Now, does making a 10 lightyear trip in six years mean that they see themselves as traveling faster than light from their perspective? No, because aside from time dilation, there is also the phenomenon of length contraction, so they only experience 6 years during the time I observe to be 12 years, but they also see the trip that I measure as 10 lightyears as only being 5 lightyears.

 

So observers in different frames will measure the distance and time between events differently. However, the speed of light is always measured to be exactly the same in every frame. It's considered a constant because you will always get the same measurement no matter what frame you are measuring it from.

[michel123456]

(...)

So observers in different frames will measure the distance and time between events differently. However, the speed of light is always measured to be exactly the same in every frame. It's considered a constant because you will always get the same measurement no matter what frame you are measuring it from.

Yes.

That's what makes me think that Relativity is a Theory of what is observed, an Observational Theory.

 

 

I would seriously recommend researching relativity, because taking a few concepts that get bandied about without context in pop science descriptions of relativity like "traveling faster than c will cause you to go back in time" and attempting to extrapolate a reasonable understanding of the theory from that is just not going to work out very well and will lead to questions exactly like the ones you're asking.

 

There are very good reasons for why massive objects cannot travel faster than the speed of light. For instance, the faster you go, the more energy it takes to achieve the same acceleration. You get diminishing returns that flatten out as you approach the speed of light. If you have a tank of fuel that is powerful enough to accelerate you to 90% of the speed of light by burning one gallon, the next gallon won't get you to 180% of the speed of light, it'll only get you to around 99% of the speed of light. And then, since you're traveling even faster, the third gallon will only get you to around 99.9% and so on. You can keep getting closer, but you'll never actually be able to reach light speed because the energy requirements spike to infinity.

(emphasis mine)

I think the above emphasized statement is misleading.

Even when traveling at 99,9% of SOL (as seen from the spaceship, going away from Earth at 99,9% of SOL), the observer on the spaceship will see light going at SOL.

Also the observer on the spaceship may observe his own velocity to another Galaxy as 0,00001 of SOL, because velocity is relative and the other galaxy is also going away from Earth at near SOL velocity.

 

So the gallon of fuel used for acceleration will not help much the change of velocity regarding Earth but will change a lot regarding the other Galaxy.

 

In both cases, the gallon of fuel will have the same effect on the spaceship:

the observer on the spaceship will know it is under acceleration because he will feel a force. The force will not change whether the astronaut looks at the Earth or at the other Galaxy.

 

Also the mass of the spaceship will not change. Simply the mass as observed from Earth will be different from the mass as observed from the other galaxy.

 

And if all observers are using Relativity, they will all agree on their measurements after Relativistic transformations.

Edited August 2, 2013 by michel123456

[PureGenius]

Space time is effected by velocity and mass also gravity and electromagnetic fields our understanding of time is not complete but I suggest learning the details of special relativity, the idea of a constant and universal frame of reference has been proposed before, I think his name was einstien . The point at which time reverses has not been figured out by anyone as far as I know although I'm close to discovering it.I think it's really a matter of knowledge observation and continuous testing of an idea then one can build upon that foundation .

The speed of light is constant in all frames of reference Einstein's theories have been proven again and again there is no one comparable to his level of thought alive today.

Edited August 2, 2013 by PureGenius

[hyperion1is]

A kilometer always equals a million millimeters. They are different terms for the same distance.

 

Potatoes and tomatoes. I was challenging the definition of the distance and you give me the definition of the distance. A circle somehow.

How the meter was defined the first time? Now, from what I understand was linked with c. So, I'm referring before that.

Conventions will always equal conventions Delta1212. No dispute about that. There in that post I wasn't trying to re-enforce a meter that was conceived about someone in a "laboratory". I was speaking about measurements in this Real Universe that we live in and observe, that doesn't necessarily obeys our conventions.

 

Space time is effected by velocity and mass also gravity and electromagnetic fields our understanding of time is not complete but I suggest learning the details of special relativity, the idea of a constant and universal frame of reference has been proposed before, I think his name was einstien . The point at which time reverses has not been figured out by anyone as far as I know although I'm close to discovering it.I think it's really a matter of knowledge observation and continuous testing of an idea then one can build upon that foundation .

The speed of light is constant in all frames of reference Einstein's theories have been proven again and again there is no one comparable to his level of thought alive today.

I was trying to read something about Special Relativity, even though I don't plan to take a Phd in physics. "universal frame of reference has been proposed before" - so proposed, not found? Or found? Because later you came with: "The speed of light is constant in all frames" This makes it an Universal frame of reference? If it were so, I don't think we would need at least 3 different theories in physics field: General relativity, Special relativity and quantum mechanics.

 

"there is no one comparable to his level of thought alive today." then we should cease activity - and go home.

[PureGenius]

I think we should strive to be better I think your questions are intelligent I wasn't trying to be insulting , also yes I was saying the speed of light is both a universal constant and an reference as to the scope and ultimate purpose of of the space time construct. Mass Xs s.o.l. = 5Xs t.v. = + 90 percent Mass .

Edited August 2, 2013 by PureGenius

[swansont]

 

The point at which time reverses has not been figured out by anyone as far as I know although I'm close to discovering it.I think it's really a matter of knowledge observation and continuous testing of an idea then one can build upon that foundation .

!

Moderator Note

It is against the rules to hijack other's threads to discuss your ideas. Please stop doing this.

[hyperion1is]

 

!

Moderator Note

It is against the rules to hijack other's threads to discuss your ideas. Please stop doing this.

 

 

Thank you swansont for your intervention. I know that here are rules, and I don't know what PureGenius did before,

But this statement has some truth in it: "The point at which time reverses has not been figured out by anyone" ?

I mean is scientifically proven of something? Because if so, is relevant to this topic. Because it involves "spacetime", and "distinctions" of time.

If not...

Thanks!

[swansont]

Thank you swansont for your intervention. I know that here are rules, and I don't know what PureGenius did before,

But this statement has some truth in it: "The point at which time reverses has not been figured out by anyone" ?

I mean is scientifically proven of something? Because if so, is relevant to this topic. Because it involves "spacetime", and "distinctions" of time.

If not...

Thanks!

!

Moderator Note

The truth of the statement is not in question here, it is that the poster claims to have (or be close to) a solution to it, using some "alternative" science. That is the hijack. Speculations are to be addressed with accepted science, not further speculations.