Jump to content


Photo
- - - - -

Yes, You Can Go Faster Than Speed Of Light


  • This topic is locked This topic is locked
1130 replies to this topic

#18 Farsight

Farsight

    Understanding

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 455 posts

Posted 12 June 2018 - 11:08 AM

You can't go faster than light because you are effectively made of light. It sounds odd I know, but don't forget gamma-gamma pair production along with electron spin and the wave nature of matter. We don't have gamma-ray bursters for nothing. 



#19 Moronium

Moronium

    Creating

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2894 posts

Posted 12 June 2018 - 11:17 AM

You can't go faster than light because you are effectively made of light. It sounds odd I know, but don't forget gamma-gamma pair production along with electron spin and the wave nature of matter. We don't have gamma-ray bursters for nothing. 

 

 

Cut and pasted from a post in another thread:

 

Posted 10 June 2018 - 01:55 AM

 

More magic from SPACETIME!!

 

There are many galaxies visible in telescopes with red shift numbers of 1.4 or higher. All of these are currently traveling away from us at speeds greater than the speed of light....The current recession velocity of the points from which the CMB was emitted is 3.2c. At the time of emission their speed was 58.1c, assuming (ΩM,ΩΛ) = (0.3,0.7). Thus we routinely observe objects that are receding faster than the speed of light and the Hubble sphere is not a horizon....Apparent superluminal motion is observed in many radio galaxies, blazars, quasars and recently also in microquasars....it is thought that galaxies which are at a distance of more than about 14 billion light-years from us today have a recession velocity which is faster than light.

 

https://en.wikipedia...ster-than-light

 

Well, hold on a minute here--this is quite disturbing...wouldn't all that faster than light travel kinda disprove special relativity?

 

http://www.sciencefo...e-2#entry358317


Edited by Moronium, 12 June 2018 - 11:20 AM.


#20 DaveC426913

DaveC426913

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 89 posts

Posted 15 June 2018 - 07:10 PM

 the relative velocity between our galaxy and the very distant galaxy is 75% the speed of light + 75% the speed of light which equals 1.5 times the speed of light.

I am afraid this is incorrect.

 

When calculating relativistic velocities, you must use the relativistic velocity addition equation.

 

The two galaxies are only moving at 0.96c with respect to each other.

 

 

 

 

http://hyperphysics....iv/einvel2.html

About halfway down the page is a calculator where you can see for yourself. (Don't forget one value should be negative!)

 

Note that even at +0.999999c and -0.999999c, the galaxies are only moving at 0.9999999999995001c with respect to each other.


Edited by DaveC426913, 15 June 2018 - 07:14 PM.

  • exchemist likes this

#21 Moronium

Moronium

    Creating

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2894 posts

Posted 16 June 2018 - 05:03 AM

The two galaxies are only moving at 0.96c with respect to each other.

 

That's not what your reference says.  It says:

 

The Einstein velocity relationship transforms a measured velocity as seen in one inertial frame of reference (u) to the velocity as measured in a frame moving at velocity v with respect to it (u').

 

 

 

You say the speed IS .96c.  Your reference merely addresses how velocity is (allegedly) "seen" and/or "measured" from particular frames.  To its credit, it doesn't, as you do, purport to tell you what the speed actually "is."

 

Concocting a mathematical formula can NEVER cause an object in nature to change its velocity.  Its velocity is what it is, regardless of how it may be "seen" (i.e. interpreted in accordance with presuppositions which may themselves be extremely dubious) or "measured."  Niether subjective perceptions nor distorted measurements can change an object's speed either.

 

Referring someone to a math formula or graph of math computations does not really address the question raised.


Edited by Moronium, 16 June 2018 - 05:59 AM.


#22 Moronium

Moronium

    Creating

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2894 posts

Posted 16 June 2018 - 05:38 AM

Concocting a mathematical formula can NEVER cause an object in nature to change its velocity.  Its velocity is what it is, regardless of how it may be "seen" 

 

 

So many people seem to fail to understand the difference between what an object is and how it is seen, that I'll take a minute to elaborate.

 

Suppose you construct a square table top.  Using very precise instruments you make it so that all 4 sides are 5 feet long, and all angles are exactly 90 degrees.

 

Now get your eyeball directly over its center, and look down.  You will "see" a square.

 

Now put 100 people in a room standing around it.  No two of them will have the same perception, nor will any of them "see" a square.  So, now it has been "seen" in 100 different ways by different observers.  But have any of their perceptions changed the table top in the least?  Have the lengths of it's sides, or any other physical aspect of it, changed?

 

Of course not.

 

In  theory, you could nonetheless construct a math formula which incorporates viewing angle, distance from the table, etc., to tell you what each individual observer will see, given their position.  Would the math formula change the physical aspects of the table?

 

Of course not.


Edited by Moronium, 16 June 2018 - 06:10 AM.


#23 Moronium

Moronium

    Creating

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2894 posts

Posted 16 June 2018 - 06:06 AM

Now get your eyeball directly over its center, and look down.  You will "see" a square.

 

 

This frame of reference would then be the "preferred frame" in theoretical terms.  Why?  Because it is the only frame where what you "see" accurately reflects what the object actually is.  The square only "looks" square from this frame.  All other frames merely get you deceptive appearances.

 

As "seen" from the moon, the table top would be undetectable.  Would that mean the table top has ceased to exist?

 

As seen from the roof of a skyscraper, the table top might appear to be about the size of an ant.  Does this mean the table top has physically shrunk?

 

Of course not.  Those appearances only indicate that you are not looking from the preferred frame.


Edited by Moronium, 16 June 2018 - 06:17 AM.


#24 Moronium

Moronium

    Creating

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2894 posts

Posted 16 June 2018 - 06:26 AM

In  theory, you could nonetheless construct a math formula which incorporates viewing angle, distance from the table, etc., to tell you what each individual observer will see, given their position.  Would the math formula change the physical aspects of the table?

 

Of course not.

 

Such a formula could be useful in determining what the table top actually is.  But only if you use it properly.  It would be an improper use to simply say that what you see is what the table "is."

 

However, if you knew your distance from a square table, knew your viewing angle, etc., you could apply the formula "in reverse" and accurately deduce that "If what I am seeing is this (which is NOT a 5' square), then that would mean that the table top actually is a 5' x 5' square."


Edited by Moronium, 16 June 2018 - 06:31 AM.


#25 DaveC426913

DaveC426913

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 89 posts

Posted 16 June 2018 - 06:44 AM

 

You say the speed IS .96c.  Your reference merely addresses how velocity is (allegedly) "seen" and/or "measured" from particular frames.  To its credit, it doesn't, as you do, purport to tell you what the speed actually "is."

 

Concocting a mathematical formula can NEVER cause an object in nature to change its velocity.  Its velocity is what it is, regardless of how it may be "seen" (i.e. interpreted in accordance with presuppositions which may themselves be extremely dubious) or "measured."  Niether subjective perceptions nor distorted measurements can change an object's speed either.

 

Referring someone to a math formula or graph of math computations does not really address the question raised.

 

What is observed is the only reality we can talk about. Relativity is not an illusion or mirage.

 

Spacetime is curved. As speeds increase, time and distances are altered. The galaxies are traveling wrt each other at 0.96c. 

 
 
Mainstream science does not "concoct" formulae. Use of such words is a red flag that an emotional - rather than rational - argument is in-play.

 

 

 

To the reader: Moronium has his preferred pet theories about relativity. They are not mainstream science. I'm not here to support or refute such claims. Non-mainstream theories can be raised elsewhere.


Edited by DaveC426913, 16 June 2018 - 06:55 AM.

  • pzkpfw likes this

#26 Moronium

Moronium

    Creating

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2894 posts

Posted 16 June 2018 - 06:57 AM

What is observed is the only reality we can talk about.   Spacetime is curved. 

 

 

When and how have you "observed" spacetime curving?  Did you look outside your window and see it?

 

Relativity is not an illusion or mirage. 

 

 

 

I agree 100%


Edited by Moronium, 16 June 2018 - 06:57 AM.


#27 Moronium

Moronium

    Creating

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2894 posts

Posted 16 June 2018 - 07:05 AM

Spacetime is curved. As speeds increase, time and distances are altered. 

 
To the reader: Moronium has his preferred pet theories about relativity. They are not mainstream science. I'm not here to support or refute such claims. Non-mainstream theories can be raised elsewhere.

 

 

Since you are so concerned with "mainstream science" let me point out that this has not been the "mainstream" view since about 70 years ago.

 

"Time" is not altered, clocks slow down.  All viable practical systems, such as the GPS, presuppose and utilize this understanding in order to get accurate results.

 

The galaxies are traveling wrt each other at 0.96c.

 

 

Similarly, this is NOT the mainstream view.  No mainstream scientist presents this proposition as a "fact," as you do.  Not even your own reference, as I have already pointed out.


Edited by Moronium, 16 June 2018 - 07:37 AM.


#28 DaveC426913

DaveC426913

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 89 posts

Posted 16 June 2018 - 07:02 PM

This frame of reference would then be the "preferred frame" in theoretical terms.  Why?  Because it is the only frame where what you "see" accurately reflects what the object actually is.

Here is a example where Moronium expresses antiquated ideas about what something is "supposed" to look like when observed.

 

For some reason, he feels the view of a table tabletop is not as valid as when seen from a specific angle of his choosing. Apparently, viewing a tabletop along its y-axis is less valid to him than viewing it along its z-axis. A table that is observed to be 5 feet wide and one inch thick is not what a "real" table is "supposed" to be. i.e., an arbitrary choice of position (that of above the table) leads him to that being a "better" position - the position he personally "prefers" when thinking of a table.

 

Obviously not scientific. That kind of humano-centric view of the world passed out of fashion around the time of the Renaissance. We dispensed with our ideas of the world fitting into our preferred view of it, and learned to accept it for what it is.

 

Mor carries this same error of preference into relativity.

 

This is a science forum. It is best to get your answers about science things from established science, and not from someone's personal ideas.


Edited by DaveC426913, 16 June 2018 - 07:04 PM.


#29 Moronium

Moronium

    Creating

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2894 posts

Posted 16 June 2018 - 10:06 PM

Obviously not scientific. That kind of humano-centric view of the world passed out of fashion around the time of the Renaissance. We dispensed with our ideas of the world fitting into our preferred view of it, and learned to accept it for what it is.

 

 

Hahahahaha.  The irony of it all, eh?  What's "not scientific," but is instead egocentric to an extremely solipsistic degree, is the notion that the perception of every guy and his brother magically changes the dimensions of a 5' by 5' square table.  Science is objective, not subjective, sorry.

 

The more you pretend to be the authority about what "science" is, the more you demonstrate that  you don't know what it is, I'm afraid.


Edited by Moronium, 16 June 2018 - 10:23 PM.


#30 Moronium

Moronium

    Creating

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2894 posts

Posted 16 June 2018 - 10:36 PM

For some reason, he feels the view of a table tabletop is not as valid as when seen from a specific angle of his choosing. Apparently, viewing a tabletop along its y-axis is less valid to him than viewing it along its z-axis. A table that is observed to be 5 feet wide and one inch thick is not what a "real" table is "supposed" to be.

 

 

Hint:  A "tabletop" is not a "table."  Two (dimensions) is not three.


Edited by Moronium, 16 June 2018 - 10:43 PM.


#31 OldBill

OldBill

    Thinking

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 52 posts

Posted 18 June 2018 - 01:31 AM

A man from the Isle of Wight/ Could travel much faster than light. 

 

He departed one day/ In a conventional way/

 

And returned on the previous night.

 

That 'speed-of-light' impediment imposed on energy's velocity exists solely as the essential "control rod" mechanism for each of those fusion reactors up there. It has no other real purpose except to restrain those reactors from going nova.   

 

And those of us living in the same galaxy where all this is going on, have dubbed our experience with that particular restraint  of kinetics/dynamics as that process we call  "time".

 

One other thing to consider: That 'Universal Constant" we call 'C' - the speed of light - is neither "universal" nor is it a "constant".  It likely varies from one galaxy to another to conform to the available materials and possibly different  construction techniques used to build that particular group of stars - ----

 

AND, as far as a 'constant' is concerned, we're guilty of pure folly in our attempt at measuring the the range of C's temporal velocity using one of the very things it affects most - i.e. any and all versions of our clocks - from that Grandfather pendulum clock to a Strontium-90 decay counter.  The speed of light could vary up and down by literally thousands of kilometers per second and we'd never know it, because all of our time measuring devices would speed up and slow down to exactly pace it.


Edited by OldBill, 18 June 2018 - 11:55 PM.

  • hazelm likes this

#32 Moronium

Moronium

    Creating

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2894 posts

Posted 18 June 2018 - 07:02 AM

You can never go faster than the speed of light. There is no exceptions in our theories. The furthest galaxies are receding faster than light because the metric is changing in regards to the flow of the material. They move faster than light relative to our frame, but because of these relativistic effects, in their frame of reference, they are moving atsubluminal speeds. 

 

It has also been stated, the Alcubierre drive provides a solution in which we can move faster than light. This is also not true, and rightly so, because if you could move at velocities above lightspeed, you would surely fry to a crisp by passing through electromagnetic radiation in the vacuum. Thankfully, devices like the Alcubierre drive attempt to manipulate spacetime around you, so technically you are ''not moving anywhere.''

 

Even tachyons exist in nature, but they only reside in special environments we create in which the medium greatly reduces the resistance of the motion of electrons, so much in fact, they exceed the speed of light and start projecting Cherenkov radiation (which is the equivalent of the Larmor radiation for accelerated charges). 

 

Boy, that post is sho nuff packed chock-full of fairy tale physics presented as fact ("tachyons exist in nature"), eh?

 

"The metric is changing," eh?  Ya don't say.  What causes that?  A slide rule?

 

"They move faster than light relative to our frame, but because of these relativistic effects, in their frame of reference, they are moving at subluminal speeds."

 

Now that's an interesting concoction of words.  Are they moving inertially?  If so, then by the dictates of SR, they are never moving at all, anytime, 'in their frame of reference."  Since you're going zero, obviously you are not moving faster than light. An object could be going 50 billion light years per second in "our" frame, and that object would still be motionless in it's frame. Yet you say they "are moving." So which is it?  Is it moving, or aint it?

 

Are they moving non-inertially?  If so, then their motion is absolute, and "relativistic effects" wouldn't apply. 


Edited by Moronium, 18 June 2018 - 07:10 AM.


#33 Moronium

Moronium

    Creating

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2894 posts

Posted 18 June 2018 - 07:28 AM

Shakespeare said something like "A rose by any other name would smell just as sweet."  But is that true?  Me, I aint so sure.

 

Looky here:  Suppose we started calling a rose a "turd."  Wouldn't that force it to stink?  It's not what a thing is that counts, it's what we call it, right?  It's quite easy to change reality with words.  Just change your definitions of words and/or concepts, like SR does, and it's a done deal.


Edited by Moronium, 18 June 2018 - 07:31 AM.


#34 Moronium

Moronium

    Creating

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2894 posts

Posted 18 June 2018 - 08:33 AM

. I personally think the acceleration is a result of Newtons law.  A system in acceleration, remains in acceleration unless acted by some outside (or inside) force. 

 

 

Not that it really matters, but this is wrong.  Under Newton's law, an object continues to maintain a uniform velocity unless it is acted upon by a force.

 

A system in acceleration IS (already) subjected to a force. It is not moving "uniformly" and it will not "remain in acceleration" without the continuing application of that force.  It would only be when you removed the force that it would continue moving at its (then present) speed.  But it would not keep accelerating if you did that.


Edited by Moronium, 18 June 2018 - 08:53 AM.