The Light Speed Barrier - Is there really a universal speed limit?

Pat Galea · 2003-10-09 09:58:39

(Closed space example) Two spaceships ditto, but on an open-ended cylinder representing space with the cylindrical axis as the time-axis--one along a straight line on the surface and the other along a line spiraling around the cylindrical surface. The clocks don't match on arrival, with the spiral-line clock having run slower than the straight-line clock. But, by imagining the cylinder cut and unrolled, the spiral is seen to be straight as well, only longer. Velocity alone can be attributed to the discrepancy.

By 'unrolling' the cylinder, you change the geometry of the space. So the observation that the line is straight when the cylinder is unrolled doesn't have any bearing on the rolled-up case.

A line spiralling around the cylinder is travelling along a curved geodesic, therefore it is experiencing 'acceleration'.

(It's not acceleration in the dv/dt sense, but it is equivalent as far as the geometry of the space is concerned.)

dicktice · 2003-10-09 11:01:03

I know, I know. It was just a way of separating-out acceleration from the conventional thought experiments (where you have to turn around and come back) in order to show that velocity-difference alone would produce time dialation.

Josh Cryer · 2003-10-10 21:02:33

Is the stuff discussed later on in this thread anything regarding Sorce Theory?

A link: http://www.anpheon.org/

Spider-Man · 2003-10-10 23:04:53

THAT'S IT!!

Josh, by God, you have found it! This is absolutely, indescribably incredible...

Everyone, I beseach you all, if you have the interest or the inclination or inspiration to do so, read all material you can on this site as Josh Cryer, like Hermes himself, the crier, the herald from the heavens to bring to conscience knowledge the inherent workings of divinity, has given us to comprehend.

I have never been so convinced of having read the very Word of God.

Spider-Man · 2003-10-11 01:17:12

Here is an excerpt from that glorious site; I thought this was hilarious:

http://home.comcast.net/~anpheon/html/B … neyBin.htm

dicktice · 2003-10-11 09:40:06

I think you've both gone off the rails. What was the title for this topic--I forget. Oh, yes (I had to go back to look) the Speed of Light Barrier . . . and Spiderman brought up the question of the aether/ether's existence. Well, after all that Word of God hoopla, I think I'll refrain, and go somewhere else to deal with lightspeed and all that, because now you're just being silly.

Spider-Man · 2003-10-11 11:23:24

Thank you for being an ignorant fool, Dick. My words were, as they often are, poetic, emotional, and, ultimately, exaggerative. They were meant to relate the profundity and sagacity of what I had just read. If you have ever endeavored to read something I suggested, read this, for if you find it the slightest bit as enlightening as I, you will be amazed, my friend.

And of course I brought up the aether. Einstein himself stated there was an aether in 1920, saying in his book Ether and Relativity:

Recapitulating, we may say that according to the general theory of relativity space is endowed with physical qualities; in this sense, therefore, there exists an ether. According to the general theory of relativity space without an ether is unthinkable; for in such a space there not only would be no propogation of light, but also no possibility of existance for standards of space and time (measuring-rods and clocks), nor therefore any space-time intervals in the physical sense.

Do you see? Einstein believed that an aether was necessary for his entire theory of General Relativity to have any validity at all.

Don't be a jerk.

Josh Cryer · 2003-10-11 12:45:23

Yeah, I think that there is really evidence to suggest that we exist within a superfluid ether of sorts. It's just that way back when, we didn't think a liquid could have certain transmission properties. But liquified Helium (which cannot be a solid, actually) proves that liquids can and do have solid transmission properties.

However, I think that some of the stuff in The Orb is slightly... well... silly. Check out the chapter on Thermodynamics, for a cute example.

I wanna see numbers, and see how those numbers can predict phenonema. Mostly it's logical arguments. I confess, I haven't read all of The Orb, though. Just chapters I felt I knew about.

Anyway, dicktice, this could have over reaching implications. Relatively was created on the basis that an ether doesn't exist. Evidence suggests that this may in fact be wrong. (Despite Einstein's claims that an ether has to exist; his math doesn't require it to exist, and that's the fundamental issue here.)

Pat Galea · 2003-10-11 13:26:58

Einstein believed that an aether was necessary for his entire theory of General Relativity to have any validity at all.

Have you read Stephen Wolfram's A New Kind of Science?

He's trying to develop a completely fresh approach to physics based on cellular automata (and similar structures).

One of his models is a network of interconnected nodes which grows with time (representing the expansion of the universe). He puts forward the idea that the curvature of spacetime that you get in GR could just be an artefact of the density of nodes.

I'm not totally convinced that he can get the model to work out as easily as he wants, but it's certainly a compelling way of looking at spacetime. It also provides - effectively - an 'aether', without having all the normal problems of how compressible it is etc. It's just the network of nodes, and particles are just configurations of those nodes; so in a way, the particles and the aether are the same 'stuff'.

As I say, I'm not convinced, but it's an interesting direction.

Spider-Man · 2003-10-11 14:26:04

It's just the network of nodes, and particles are just configurations of those nodes; so in a way, the particles and the aether are the same 'stuff'.

I came up with just such a theory years ago.

My high school teacher, a horrendous b*tch and a sorrowful excuse for a woman, just laughed at me, and nearly smothered the flame in my heart that burns for science.

*Grumbles bitterly...*

Spider-Man · 2003-10-12 10:29:38

*Laughs.* I'm half Irish and half Italian, my friend. There's less combustion mixing fire and gasoline.

My sudden rage was at ignorance. I hate ignorance. More than that, you took to criticizing what you interpreted as religious, when it was really just poetic. It was doubly insulting.

Naturally, all is forgiven, as I hope you forgive me.

Spider-Man · 2003-10-13 20:30:39

I'm not a religious person in any way, but certainly spiritual. Are you confusing spirituality with religion, perhaps?

Spider-Man · 2003-10-16 22:25:33

Soul, spirit, inner being, these are all terms that refer to that which constitutes the intangible essense of who we are. You indeed of a soul, my friend, in the Ancient Greek, Socrates/Aristotle/Plato sense of the word ? that is, not something immortal, but simply that about you which cannot be seen, touched, or sensed in any physical way. Your thoughts, your emotions, your dreams, your hopes, your aspirations, your knowledge, your reason, your wisdom, your personality, your courage all compose the essense of your being. They may not be physical, but they are very real. Just as an idea has no physical properties, yet still exists, as does your spirit, my friend.

You require no religion to recognize the fact that you are an existing, conscious being, and more than just a shell or the addative sum of your component parts. The Great Philosophers, as I mentioned, were all atheists; yet they still were wise enough to recognize the simple fact of the human psyche, the soul.

As for the Speed of Gravity, you should actually read the undeniable evidence gathered by van Flandern. He shows how it is not physically possible for gravity to travel as slowly as light; it must go faster, much faster, or the Solar system would fly apart, among other cataclysmic Armageddons that do not occur.

Spider-Man · 2003-10-18 13:28:53

How about thinking. "I think, therefore I am" says it all for me, including mind, consciousness, intellect, imagination--and all of them within the confines of the human brain.

*Laughs outloud!* That's hilarious, Dick! In the very same work that you cite in which Descartes wrote "Cogito ergo sum", "I think, therefore I am," he was trying to prove the existence of God. Descartes was devoutly religious, as well as very philosophical, and could not agree with the atheistic, although very spiritual philosophers from Ancient Greece who contended there were no God of any type.

More than that, Descartes changed what he wrote in a later version: Cogito ergo existo; I think, therefore I exist.

Dreams (aside from the unconscious sleeping variety), hopes, aspirations, knowledge, reason (involving logic I suppose), wisdom, personality, courage (could be foolish), essence of being--I would generalize all these on your list, as functions of the intellect.

But the intellect refers solely to the conscious mind. As human beings, we have both the conscious and unconscious mind. All our emotions, our inherent reactions (to someong being hurt, to danger, to a wonderful or positive event) are nothing that we think about, nothing that is part of our conscious, reasoning mind. The conscious mind refers to all processes in which we logically order one concept after another until we reach comprehension. Intuition (some people are mathematically intuitive, doing numbers quite easily, or artistically intuitive, drawing portraits without any training, or musically intuitive like Mozart, playing without any conscious knowledge of how music works) is governed but the non-logical processes of the unconscious mind.

The intellect is simply the intellect, and nothing more, but a half of who you are and everybody else is. But the other half, what defines you as a person, how you react to situations of moral consequence, how you govern your life, how you treat people, none of that is intellective; unless you make conscious decisions to go against your inherent personality and being (which leads to insanity), you act, in all non-thinking cases, according to the impellments of your heart.

I'm sorry, but soul, spirit and inner being, are terms I'm uncomfortable with, especially when someone uses them in serious discussion supposed to contribute something (eg. while brainstorming) due to the usually theological connotations they carry along with them.

That's horrible. I'm very sorry for you. That reminds me of individuals who have been so jaded by political correctness that they are afraid to use the word "black" in discussion, for fear of offending an individual of African descent. It's incredibly foolish and painfully inhibiting; you have my pity that you are so terribly afflicted.

Re. the rate/speed/velocity of gravity propagation--I never considered it anything but lightspeed, so I'll have to give it a look and get back to you.

Then why pretend to be a know-it-all and that you have read everything on the subject of this discussion, and then speak without the slightest comprehension of the material cited?

Palomar · 2003-10-18 13:56:35

*I actually am rather comfortable with the word "spiritual." I define it as the emotive quality. Music can be spiritual; a work of art one considers beautiful can provoke a spiritual feeling.

I also associate it with "romance" (and not necessarily ala male-female dichotomy).

The music I'm currently listening to, "Baroque in Bohemia," is spiritual IMO -- all Baroque music is, to me. Some Classical as well.

In some respects I am quite spiritual and I don't feel this clashes at all with being an agnostic.

--Cindy

Spider-Man · 2003-10-18 20:47:25

Thank you, Cindy, for reminding us of the perfect and most imperative examples: art and music. They cannot truly be appreciated on a purely intellectual level.

Indeed, perhaps Dick lacks an appreciation of art and the other emotive beauties of this world.
I would hate to ever lose my ability to love and revel in the beatitude that music instills in my core...or to lose the glorious feeling in my heart when seeing a woman with intensely gorgeous eyes; I would find such a fate worse than death?indeed, as if I had lost my very soul.

Josh Cryer · 2003-10-18 20:52:51

An email about Sorce Theory and faster than light possiblities (I don't think the author will mind):

Hi Josh,

In Sorce Theory, light is a pure wave in a superfluid medium, as necessitated by the quantum experiments and equations. It is only the quantum reaction at measurement and emission that is quantized. (see www.unquantum.com). The speed of light is a constant which is inversely proportional to the density of the fluid medium. That is why light refracts when traversing interfaces between media of different density.

Since an atom is a harmonic structure of the equilibrating flux of the medium and since this flux must be equilibrated at the speed of light, an object can thus travel no faster than its ability to equilibrate this flux. [[this highly generalized and abstract explanation will likely be difficult to understand without knowing the Sorce Theory model of the atom etc]] When an object approaches the speed of the equilibration of its internal wave structure then it cannot equilibrate fast enough, the medium through which it travels and of which it is also made, thus it begins to compress as it begins to drag the medium with it. This compression increases the density of the medium of the atoms and thus the speeds of the internal wave systems also slow down proportionally to the increased density. This is measured as a slow down of the rates of atomic clocks etc. and interpreted abstractly as "Time dilation", but it really only has to do with rates of processes (waves) in media of different densities. [[time dilation simplified as a direct function of the speed of light per unit density of the medium because all processes are ultimately dependent on waves in the basic medium]]

So, this light-speed-limit is a function of the ability of the fluid medium to equilibrate its disruptions which include the objects composed of it as flux systems moving through it much slower than the waves which compose them [[like the slow speed of a tornado compared to the high speed of its circulating winds]] and thus this limit is relative only to the fluid medium itself. If you can set up flows, or currents of this medium then an object traveling though a traveling flux corridor of the medium would move in accordance with the limits within this moving "frame of reference".

That is the only way I know of for an atomic object to travel relatively faster than light while absolutely "obeying" the flux-equilibrium limit of the medium. I do not know quite what it would take to set up such a "flux corridor", but it certainly seems possible to an extent. Likely it would need to be a circuit of some sort, perhaps stabilized perhaps through electro-magnetic structuring or something, but this is far far afield. Fun to think about though. Thank you.

Regards,
Joel Morrison

----

I'm not too sure about Sorce Theory as a whole, but I believe that if its model fits our observations, there is no reason not to use it as a model to represent what we're seeing. Especially if the model itself is much simplier than our other ad hoc models.

Spider-Man · 2003-10-18 22:45:29

Well done, Josh! Good going on getting that information; thank you very much; I appreciate reading that greatly.

I'm curious to know what this clearly intelligent fellow thinks of van Flandern's work on the speed of gravity. Do you think you could ask that for us as well, Josh, seeing as you've opened a line of communication? Experimental evidence is just so very lucent on the fact of gravity's superluminal propogation velocity; could it be that photons, like gluons and other bosons, do have a little bit of mass, enough to make them significantly (perhaps 20 billion fold) slower than theoretical gravitons?

Thanks again, friend; that find is a beautiful one. If you don't wish to place the e-mail, I could give it a try.

Mars_B4_Moon · 2022-09-23 14:02:31

Proving that quantum entanglement is real: Researcher answers questions about his historical experiments

https://phys.org/news/2022-09-quantum-e … rical.html

‘Chameleon’ forces remain elusive in a new dark energy experiment

https://www.sciencenews.org/article/cha … experiment

A hypothetical fifth force that morphs based on its environs didn’t turn up

Dark matter: An invisible glue that may not even exist

https://www.dw.com/en/dark-matter-an-in … a-62744077

There's something in the universe that seems to hold everything together, a dark matter like glue. We can't see it, and yet it's got to be out there, right?

Storing antihydrogen

https://home.cern/science/physics/antim … tihydrogen

Because antimatter annihilates in a flash of energy when it interacts with regular matter, storing it presents a challenge

Last edited by Mars_B4_Moon (2022-09-23 14:08:35)

SpaceNut · 2022-10-16 11:39:17

It appears that we can move faster Scientists Spotted Something That Appeared to Be Moving 7 Times the Speed of Light

kbd512 · 2022-10-16 13:18:03

SpaceNut,

The actual recorded speed was still below the speed of light (99.97% of the speed of light, not 7X the speed of light). This latest "find" doesn't violate the speed of light at all and it says so in the article. Improper measurement technique caused the initial errant result. All of these things are click-bait. If scientists found an object that was actually moving faster than the speed of light, then you'd see it everywhere in media and academia.

Mars_B4_Moon · 2023-03-09 09:20:27

In the past we had Sundials and the flow of sand in an hourglass could be used to measure the passage of time.

Is there a a such thing as an Opposite Anti-Time?
The future or past occupation of Chrononaut sending a Time Traveller particle forward or backward in 'Time'

Our steps and seconds of time the continued sequence of existence and events that occurs in an apparently irreversible succession from the distant past, through the present, into the far future.

The nature of time is addressed by general relativity with respect to events in spacetime.

In modern days time is often referred to as a fourth dimension, it has become part of 'String Theory' and M-Theory along with three spatial dimensions

Scientists Found an Entirely New Way of Measuring Time
https://www.thesciencemag.com/2023/03/s … ay-of.html
In our world of moving timepieces and swinging pendulums, telling the difference between "then" and "now" is as easy as counting the seconds.
But 'then' can't always be predicted down at the subatomic size of buzzing electrons. Even worse, "now" frequently turns into an ambiguous cloud. In some situations, a timer will not be effective.
The shape of the quantum fog itself may hold the key to an answer, according to a 2022 investigation by scientists at Sweden's Uppsala University.

Calliban · 2023-04-08 16:42:51

FTL may not be as impossible as physicists tend to assume...
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=9-jIplX6Wjw

...or else, it may be impossible for different reasons.

New Mars Forums

Announcement

#51 2003-10-09 09:58:39

Re: The Light Speed Barrier - Is there really a universal speed limit?

#52 2003-10-09 11:01:03

Re: The Light Speed Barrier - Is there really a universal speed limit?

#53 2003-10-10 21:02:33

Re: The Light Speed Barrier - Is there really a universal speed limit?

#54 2003-10-10 23:04:53

Re: The Light Speed Barrier - Is there really a universal speed limit?

#55 2003-10-11 01:17:12

Re: The Light Speed Barrier - Is there really a universal speed limit?

#56 2003-10-11 09:40:06

Re: The Light Speed Barrier - Is there really a universal speed limit?

#57 2003-10-11 11:23:24

Re: The Light Speed Barrier - Is there really a universal speed limit?

#58 2003-10-11 12:45:23

Re: The Light Speed Barrier - Is there really a universal speed limit?

#59 2003-10-11 13:26:58

Re: The Light Speed Barrier - Is there really a universal speed limit?

#60 2003-10-11 14:26:04

Re: The Light Speed Barrier - Is there really a universal speed limit?

#61 2003-10-12 10:29:38

Re: The Light Speed Barrier - Is there really a universal speed limit?

#62 2003-10-13 20:30:39

Re: The Light Speed Barrier - Is there really a universal speed limit?

#63 2003-10-16 22:25:33

Re: The Light Speed Barrier - Is there really a universal speed limit?

#64 2003-10-18 13:28:53

Re: The Light Speed Barrier - Is there really a universal speed limit?

#65 2003-10-18 13:56:35

Re: The Light Speed Barrier - Is there really a universal speed limit?

#66 2003-10-18 20:47:25

Re: The Light Speed Barrier - Is there really a universal speed limit?

#67 2003-10-18 20:52:51

Re: The Light Speed Barrier - Is there really a universal speed limit?

#68 2003-10-18 22:45:29

Re: The Light Speed Barrier - Is there really a universal speed limit?

#69 2022-09-23 14:02:31

Re: The Light Speed Barrier - Is there really a universal speed limit?

#70 2022-10-16 11:39:17

Re: The Light Speed Barrier - Is there really a universal speed limit?

#71 2022-10-16 13:18:03

Re: The Light Speed Barrier - Is there really a universal speed limit?

#72 2023-03-09 09:20:27

Re: The Light Speed Barrier - Is there really a universal speed limit?

#73 2023-04-08 16:42:51

Re: The Light Speed Barrier - Is there really a universal speed limit?

Board footer