> > : But lobbing those diamond monuments into his/its own past _is_ a
> > : causality violation.
> > Sure, but how is that hypocritical? Entity A having the right to do things
> > that Entities B-Z do not is hardly "hypocricy".
> Sure, and one country, that has nuclear reactors and bombs, threatening
> another country that may be developing that same technology is hardly
> "hypocritical", either!!
> Not!!
Once again, hypocrisy only exists when an entity claims that something is actually wrong that said entity does itself. A purely self-interested threat against someone someone who threatens your interests is not hypocrisy.
William December Starr wrote:
> In article <WlZ5s.1291$TA5....@newsfe05.iad>,
> "Danie...@teranews.com" <d...@albury.nospam.net.au> said:
>> What intrigues me is what happens when space is being warped by
>> several space ships travelling in different directions *at* *the*
>> *same* *time!!* e.g. if one space ship wanted to travel from the
>> bottom of one of the spiral arms of our galaxy to the top, and at
>> the same time a second space ship wanted to travel from the centre
>> of our galaxy to the outer edge along the spiral arm, and a third
>> space ship wanted to travel from the inner edge of one of the
>> spiral arms of our galaxy to its outer edge, i.e. in three
>> dimensions at the same time.
>> Space must be warped really, really, strangely!!
> I thought relativity meant that you can't say "at the same time."
>> What intrigues me is what happens when space is being warped
>> by several space ships travelling in different directions *at* *the*
>> *same* *time!!* ...
> By then they'll have built the Intragalactic Highway System, with
> appropriate warp drive on- and off-ramps, and bridges where their
> paths intersect and so on. :-)
> My last response to Wayne got sent out with some typos and a
> few edits missing, but for example at one point I said science
> fiction is not science fact and never will be. That holds, because
> by definition "fiction" at any given time isn't fact. But the fiction,
> if it's proves prescient enough, might become fact and my last
> draft would have made that point.
> The way you've described it evokes space being manipulated
> over large distances. I've always assumed the tech wouldn't
> have that problem. If space is being warped ahead of and
> behind the ship, I conceptualize that as propagation of the
> warped space and the bubble within it. So normal space is
> restored in the wake.
So you're suggesting that, rather than warping from point A to point Z in one jump, a "ship" warps from point A to point b, then from b to c, and from c to d, etc, etc and finally from point y to point Z.
::: What intrigues me is what happens when space is being warped by
::: several space ships travelling in different directions *at* *the*
::: *same* *time!!*
:: I thought relativity meant that you can't say "at the same time."
That turns out not to be the case. You can still say at the same time
in the same place, and you can still say at the same time wrt given
coordinates. So, the way to specify the multiply warped scenario
is wrt where the intersection occurs, not the trip endpoints.
That way, "same time" is observer invariant.
: Well.....it's all relative, isn't it??
That turns out not to be the case. For example, acceleration is
absolute (though the equivalence principle can make seem otherwise,
but even then, if you treat acceleration as gravity, it has the same
observer-invariant effects that acceleration has, which is one way of
realizing that gravity must have time dilation effects, but I digress).
For another, lightspeed is invariant.
And as usual, relativity is the worst-popularized science topic, with the
possible exception of evolution. Misconceptions abound. Most having
to do with one of those two topics: relativity of simultaneity, and
effects of inertial vs noninertial frames. The two worst-popularized
bits of the arguably-worst-popularized topic.
> My convexing of space touches on "space warping" It goes with my idea
> space is foeshortened in a space ship going at 9.999999999 of c in the
> direction it is going. We know its inner micro space is foreshotened
> in the diection it is going. reality is if a paricle could ever reach
> c it would be a black hole,and have the mass of a universe
Hang On! If a black hole has the mass of a universe......then the universe must be fairly massive, because there are several/many black holes in the universe, so current theories suggest!! But then each black hole is this massive.....my head hurts!!
Or is it only the black holes caused by particle travelling "c" that have the mass of a universe??
> > My convexing of space touches on "space warping" It goes with my idea
> > space is foeshortened in a space ship going at 9.999999999 of c in the
> > direction it is going. We know its inner micro space is foreshotened
> > in the diection it is going. reality is if a paricle could ever reach
> > c it would be a black hole,and have the mass of a universe
> Hang On! If a black hole has the mass of a universe......then the
> universe must be fairly massive, because there are several/many black
> holes in the universe, so current theories suggest!! But then each black
> hole is this massive.....my head hurts!!
> Or is it only the black holes caused by particle travelling "c" that
> have the mass of a universe??
> Daniel
No object that is not a black hole to begin with will become a black
hole by flying cose to c.
: Double-A <double...@hush.com>
: No object that is not a black hole to begin with will become a black
: hole by flying cose to c.
Indeed. Yet Another Aspect of relativity that is incredibly
poorly popularized. The whole notion of "mass increase"... feh.
Though, I suppose to be fair, lots of people who should have
known better pursued it (and still pursue it) in the lit-ra-chur.
: Double-A <double...@hush.com>
: No object that is not a black hole to begin with will become a black
: hole by flying cose to c.
Indeed. Yet Another Aspect of relativity that is incredibly
poorly popularized. The whole notion of "mass increase"... feh.
Though, I suppose to be fair, lots of people who should have
known better pursued it (and still pursue it) in the lit-ra-chur.
Course we have those that say this bit of relativity by the fuckwit Einstein
is right, I like it, but that bit is wrong. Relativity by popular vote and personal
preference, the best religion there is. Hooray for Jesus, down with the papists.
-- This message is brought to you from the keyboard of Lord Androcles, Zeroth Earl of Medway
Wayne Throop <thro...@sheol.org> wrote:
>::: Well.....it's all relative, isn't it??
>:: That turns out not to be the case. For example, acceleration is
>:: absolute
>: "Danie...@teranews.com" <d...@albury.nospam.net.au>
>: ....with respect to some reference point!!
>That, too, turns out not to be the case.
Instead, it's with respect to a set of reference frames, all moving at
different velocities; the inertial ones. So he's got the right idea but
he's thinking four dimensions too small.
Dave
-- \/David DeLaney posting from d...@vic.com "It's not the pot that grows the flower
It's not the clock that slows the hour The definition's plain for anyone to see
Love is all it takes to make a family" - R&P. VISUALIZE HAPPYNET VRbeable<BLINK>
http://www.vic.com/~dbd/ - net.legends FAQ & Magic / I WUV you in all CAPS! --K.
Danie...@teranews.com <d...@albury.nospam.net.au> wrote:
>G=EMC^2 wrote:
>> AA Reality is the only way to get from A to B faster than a photon is
>> to make the space between A and B shorter TreBert
>but if you make the distance from A to B shorter, then that's a shorter >distance for the photon to travel, so it still gets there first!!
Unless you put up a "Photons Use Alternate Route Please" highway sign, of
course.
Dave, will nobody think about the poor gravitons?
-- \/David DeLaney posting from d...@vic.com "It's not the pot that grows the flower
It's not the clock that slows the hour The definition's plain for anyone to see
Love is all it takes to make a family" - R&P. VISUALIZE HAPPYNET VRbeable<BLINK>
http://www.vic.com/~dbd/ - net.legends FAQ & Magic / I WUV you in all CAPS! --K.
David DeLaney wrote:
> Wayne Throop <thro...@sheol.org> wrote:
>> ::: Well.....it's all relative, isn't it??
>> :: That turns out not to be the case. For example, acceleration is
>> :: absolute
>> : "Danie...@teranews.com" <d...@albury.nospam.net.au>
>> : ....with respect to some reference point!!
>> That, too, turns out not to be the case.
> Instead, it's with respect to a set of reference frames, all moving at
> different velocities; the inertial ones. So he's got the right idea but
> he's thinking four dimensions too small.
> Dave
So, if I'm accelerating at 1m/s/s and you are accelerating at 0.5m/s/s, doesn't that, at the very least mean I am accelerating at 0.5m/s/s wrt you?
If somebody else is accelerating at 0.25m/s/s, then I am accelerating away from this person at 0.75m/s/s!!
(all assuming we are heading in the same direction and starting at same point!!)
(Three dimensions is more than enough for me!! Oh, alright, I'll handle a fourth, just for you!!)
David DeLaney wrote:
> Danie...@teranews.com <d...@albury.nospam.net.au> wrote:
>> G=EMC^2 wrote:
>>> AA Reality is the only way to get from A to B faster than a photon is
>>> to make the space between A and B shorter TreBert
>> but if you make the distance from A to B shorter, then that's a shorter
>> distance for the photon to travel, so it still gets there first!!
> Unless you put up a "Photons Use Alternate Route Please" highway sign, of
> course.
> Dave, will nobody think about the poor gravitons?
Doesn't the Universe have these signs, naturally??
<d...@albury.nospam.net.au> wrote:
> David DeLaney wrote:
> > Wayne Throop <thro...@sheol.org> wrote:
> >> ::: Well.....it's all relative, isn't it??
> >> :: That turns out not to be the case. For example, acceleration is
> >> :: absolute
> >> : "Danie...@teranews.com" <d...@albury.nospam.net.au>
> >> : ....with respect to some reference point!!
> >> That, too, turns out not to be the case.
> > Instead, it's with respect to a set of reference frames, all moving at
> > different velocities; the inertial ones. So he's got the right idea but
> > he's thinking four dimensions too small.
> > Dave
> So, if I'm accelerating at 1m/s/s
WRT what?
> ...and you are accelerating at 0.5m/s/s,
WRT what?
> doesn't that, at the very least mean I am accelerating at 0.5m/s/s wrt you?
Yes, IF you are both accelerating in the same direction from the
same reference event..
> If somebody else is accelerating at 0.25m/s/s
WRT what?
> If somebody else is accelerating at 0.25m/s/s, then I am accelerating
> away from this person at 0.75m/s/s!!
> (all assuming we are heading in the same direction and starting at same
> point!!)
*Same point* defines a reference frame.
> (Three dimensions is more than enough for me!! Oh, alright, I'll handle
> a fourth, just for you!!)
How do you know your reference event wasn't under acceleration when
all three of you started out?
: "Danie...@teranews.com" <d...@albury.nospam.net.au>
: So, if I'm accelerating at 1m/s/s and you are accelerating at
: 0.5m/s/s, doesn't that, at the very least mean I am accelerating at
: 0.5m/s/s wrt you?
Yes (in the newtonian approximation, and noting that you haven't said
what the first two accelerations you quote are wrt; we can assume
some sort of arbitrary standard). The odd thing is that you seem to find this significant wrt the upthread context.
: "n...@bid.nes" <alien8...@gmail.com>
: How do you know your reference event wasn't under acceleration when
: all three of you started out?
Well, the obvious way is to check if the coordinate system you build
from your reference has pseudoforces associated with it; that is,
forces that don't obey newton's "equal and opposite reaction", and vary
wrt where you are (eg, "centrifugal") or how fast you are moving (eg,
"coriolis"), etc. "Where you are" and "how fast you are moving" are
wrt your chosen coordinates, of course.
Incorporating gravity into that scheme is a bit difficult, since gravity
acts an awful lot like a pseudoforce, and in fact it's often convenient to
have pseudoforces in your coordinates, and likewise convenient to treat
gravity as a pseudoforce (you got pseudoforces in my coordinates / you
got coordinates in my pseudoforces) yet one can still tell the difference.
> So you're suggesting that, rather than warping from point A
> to point Z in one jump, a "ship" warps from point A to point b,
> then from b to c, and from c to d, etc, etc and finally from
> point y to point Z.
Pretty much. I actually hadn't thought about it much before
this thread, but when the concept of 10c came up I then thought
of that in terms of visiting a planetary system that's, say, 20 light
years away. So at 10c (all this our reference frame) the mission
gets there and back two years travel time each way plus say one-
to-three years spent there exploring the system. So it becomes a
5-to-7 year mission.
To me, warping space wouldn't look like the Star Trek light
trails. That just looks cool visually. But nor would it be
like some "spooky warping at a distance" that stretched its
unseen hands out to the destination system 20 light years
away, and wrenched it back onto some region of space near
where our space port is -- in a stationary orbit on the far
side of the Moon or whatnot. To achieve 10c, that enormous
length of space would need to be rolled over " flat" more
than one simple time.
That just seemed a weird way to think of it. Something
equivalent to that might be possible if we find string theory's
extra dimensions and learn to traverse those in a teleportation
or other kind of way, and/or if we build a permanent wormhole
or whatnot. But again that's not what I see as a "warp drive"
capable of taking a big ship, physically, from A to B by warping
space and shortening the distance along the way. It would
have to manage the journey in discrete and very small steps
relative to the 20-light year journey in that example.
How discrete? Whatever's optimal for the kind of recurring
or oscillating or wavelike or cyclical or whatever you want to
call it technology that the drive uses. Maybe it's 100 ship
lengths of space, that gets warped down to 10 ship lengths.
By then the next 100-ship-length warped space is opened up
ahead of the ship in its bubble, while the trailing one collapses.
The energy or exotic matter or whatever "unknown stuff" is
needed is recycled to allow this cyclical process to continue.
So "visually," any instant of time (and it would be only a small
fraction of a microsecond or whatever it works out to) a 10-ship
length section of space would propagate (I use the term loosely)
along its 20-light year trajectory. It might be detectable as some
kind of anomaly if you were to know where to look and point your
detector equipment towards it. But no one would see it as we
understand the term
> Awfully messy, IMHO!!
Much, much messier and difficult to conceptualize if it's
spooky vwarping at a distance wrenching back light years
of space in some kind of God-like folding ballet... no?
Danie...@teranews.com <d...@albury.nospam.net.au> wrote:
>David DeLaney wrote:
>> Wayne Throop <thro...@sheol.org> wrote:
>>> :: That turns out not to be the case. For example, acceleration is
>>> :: absolute
>>> "Danie...@teranews.com" <d...@albury.nospam.net.au>
>>> : ....with respect to some reference point!!
>>> That, too, turns out not to be the case.
>> Instead, it's with respect to a set of reference frames, all moving at
>> different velocities; the inertial ones. So he's got the right idea but
>> he's thinking four dimensions too small.
>So, if I'm accelerating at 1m/s/s and you are accelerating at 0.5m/s/s, >doesn't that, at the very least mean I am accelerating at 0.5m/s/s wrt you?
Nope. It means "somewhere between .5 and 1.5 m/s^2". And both of you are
accelerating with respect to inertial reference frames, which are the ones
that are NOT accelerating at all. (You can tell which ones those are because
there aren't any acceleration-related fictitious forces in them.)
>If somebody else is accelerating at 0.25m/s/s, then I am accelerating >away from this person at 0.75m/s/s!!
No; you're accelerating in some direction relative to him, at a difference
of somewhere between .25 and .75 m/s^2. Acceleration, like velocity, is a
_vector_; it has a direction as well as a magnitude.
>(all assuming we are heading in the same direction and starting at same >point!!)
Then you've done your math wrong; if they're accelerating in the same
direction as you, you subtract to find the difference, not add.
Dave
-- \/David DeLaney posting from d...@vic.com "It's not the pot that grows the flower
It's not the clock that slows the hour The definition's plain for anyone to see
Love is all it takes to make a family" - R&P. VISUALIZE HAPPYNET VRbeable<BLINK>
http://www.vic.com/~dbd/ - net.legends FAQ & Magic / I WUV you in all CAPS! --K.
Wayne Throop <thro...@sheol.org> wrote:
>Incorporating gravity into that scheme is a bit difficult, since gravity
>acts an awful lot like a pseudoforce,
and Einstein says there's a reason for that...
>and likewise convenient to treat
>gravity as a pseudoforce (you got pseudoforces in my coordinates / you
>got coordinates in my pseudoforces) yet one can still tell the difference.
Oh? How?
Dave, think carefully
-- \/David DeLaney posting from d...@vic.com "It's not the pot that grows the flower
It's not the clock that slows the hour The definition's plain for anyone to see
Love is all it takes to make a family" - R&P. VISUALIZE HAPPYNET VRbeable<BLINK>
http://www.vic.com/~dbd/ - net.legends FAQ & Magic / I WUV you in all CAPS! --K.
Danie...@teranews.com <d...@albury.nospam.net.au> wrote:
>David DeLaney wrote:
>> Danie...@teranews.com <d...@albury.nospam.net.au> wrote:
>>> G=EMC^2 wrote:
>>>> AA Reality is the only way to get from A to B faster than a photon is
>>>> to make the space between A and B shorter TreBert
>>> but if you make the distance from A to B shorter, then that's a shorter
>>> distance for the photon to travel, so it still gets there first!!
>> Unless you put up a "Photons Use Alternate Route Please" highway sign, of
>> course.
>> Dave, will nobody think about the poor gravitons?
>Doesn't the Universe have these signs, naturally??
No, the Universe is easy, it lets them take all routes simultaneously.
Dave, we can demonstrate this with this pair of slits and this sleeping cat
-- \/David DeLaney posting from d...@vic.com "It's not the pot that grows the flower
It's not the clock that slows the hour The definition's plain for anyone to see
Love is all it takes to make a family" - R&P. VISUALIZE HAPPYNET VRbeable<BLINK>
http://www.vic.com/~dbd/ - net.legends FAQ & Magic / I WUV you in all CAPS! --K.
KalElFan <kalel...@yanospamhoo.com> wrote:
>To me, warping space wouldn't look like the Star Trek light
>trails. That just looks cool visually.
...
>But again that's not what I see as a "warp drive"
>capable of taking a big ship, physically, from A to B by warping
>space and shortening the distance along the way. It would
>have to manage the journey in discrete and very small steps
>relative to the 20-light year journey in that example.
Now think about what the light coming in from outside would look like. With
small enough steps, it would seem as though the starfield was moving the other
way at your fictitious velocity; persistence of vision might well provide
the 'trails' effect. :)
Dave
-- \/David DeLaney posting from d...@vic.com "It's not the pot that grows the flower
It's not the clock that slows the hour The definition's plain for anyone to see
Love is all it takes to make a family" - R&P. VISUALIZE HAPPYNET VRbeable<BLINK>
http://www.vic.com/~dbd/ - net.legends FAQ & Magic / I WUV you in all CAPS! --K.
>> To me, warping space wouldn't look like the Star Trek light
>> trails. That just looks cool visually...
> Now think about what the light coming in from outside would
> look like. With small enough steps, it would seem as though
> the starfield was moving the other way at your fictitious velocity;
> persistence of vision might well provide the 'trails' effect. :)
Absolutely, assuming the technology allowed persistence of vision
or of anything from inside. I doubt it's a glass or transparent ship
though for starters. :-) Anyway I was talking about our reference
frame looking at it from outside the space warp, which is what
Star Trek for example portrays. Unless you argue that the shot
is supposed to be within the warped space but outside the ship.
If it is then okay, but it's still not "our" reference frame outside
the warped space. It's a place No Camera Has Gone Before...
and I doubt ever will. They'd just film it from the observation
deck or stellar cartography. :-)
:: convenient to treat gravity as a pseudoforce (you got pseudoforces in
:: my coordinates / you got coordinates in my pseudoforces) yet one can
:: still tell the difference.
Well, the most obvious one is there's no "equal and opposite rection"
for pseudoforces, but there is for gravity. And then there's the whole
thing about "it's gravity if spacetime is curved" (though some coordinates
may obscure that... but even so).
