Questions on faster than light
madscientist
applies.
I've been asking myself this question... If the laws of Physics
dictate that nothing can travel faster than light, how can objects in
the universe be so vastly separated? Did it not take a faster-than-
light instantanous expansion to get celestial objects and galaxies to
where they are now? Take galaxies, for example, which are millions to
billions of light years separated from one another. How long did it
take for these galaxies to become so far apart? Wasn't the rate of
expansion faster than light at some point in the distant past?
I don't know, it seem to me that space exploration would be completely
impractical using methods at sublight speeds. It would take millions
of years to even reach the nearest galaxies.
Ian Parker
Inflation is a form of warp, so yes the early Universe did indeed
expand FTL. Mind it is SPACE that is expanding and not matter. To get
inflationary solutions you need negative mass. It is not certain what
negative mass is. I posted some time ago on "Forget Warp and Wormholes
Inflation is 99.9999% certain".
If you are travelling (by whastever means) FTL into a void there is no
paradox as you are not returning. Warp drives, and indeed wormholes
tend of have energy requirements of the order of the Whole Universe.
This may be a way of saying "Only at the Big Bang".
- Ian Parker
Spaceman
> Hey guys. First off, I'm no physicist, so forgive my ignorance if it
> applies.
>
> I've been asking myself this question... If the laws of Physics
> dictate that nothing can travel faster than light, how can objects in
> the universe be so vastly separated?
The "laws" of physics do not say anything like such.
Only some stupid ass "theories" say that.
There is no physical proof nor physical law that speeds above
186,000 miles per second can not exist.
:)
--
James M Driscoll Jr
Creator of the Clock Malfunction Theory
Spaceman
Mike Jr.
You will need to get your head around a concept named the metric
expansion of space.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metric_expansion_of_space
The space in between two objects expands. The objects themselves are
not moving rather the space is getting bigger. Think of a balloon
being blown up. Two dots on the surface of the balloon get further
apart as the balloon gets bigger. The dots themselves are not moving.
In contrast, a bug crawling on the expanding balloon would be moving.
This leads to recession speeds which exceed the "speed of light" c.
Einstein's first signal principle for light is not violated because
the objects are not moving faster than light. Speed is a local
measurement.
Exponential expansion (inflation) means that the physical distance
between any two non-accelerating observers will eventually be growing
faster than the speed of light. At that point those two observers are
no longer able to make contact. We say that each observer sees an
event horizon beyond which we have no information. The event horizon
is the edge of our local universe but not the edge of *the* universe.
I hope this helped.
--Mike Jr
Mike Jr.
wrote:
This is a waste of time because facts seem to make no dent in your
belief system but yes the laws of physics do say that c is a limiting
factor.
--Mike Jr
Spaceman
> On Aug 16, 5:55 pm, "Spaceman" <space...@yourclockmalfunctioned.duh>
> wrote:
>> madscientist wrote:
>>> Hey guys. First off, I'm no physicist, so forgive my ignorance if it
>>> applies.
>>
>>> I've been asking myself this question... If the laws of Physics
>>> dictate that nothing can travel faster than light, how can objects
>>> in the universe be so vastly separated?
>>
>> The "laws" of physics do not say anything like such.
>> Only some stupid ass "theories" say that.
>> There is no physical proof nor physical law that speeds above
>> 186,000 miles per second can not exist.
>> :)
>>
>> --
>> James M Driscoll Jr
>> Creator of the Clock Malfunction Theory
>> Spaceman
>
> This is a waste of time because facts seem to make no dent in your
> belief system but yes the laws of physics do say that c is a limiting
> factor.
>
Sorry Mike Jr,
You posted a "postulate list".
Somehow you have confused "laws of physics" with "postulates of theories".
No wonder you can not grasp that actual "physics" parts I speak of
all the time.
Please feel free to find what "law" of physics FTL violates still.
Spaceman
> On Aug 16, 4:14 pm, madscientist <madscientist5...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Hey guys. First off, I'm no physicist, so forgive my ignorance if it
>> applies.
>>
>> I've been asking myself this question... If the laws of Physics
>> dictate that nothing can travel faster than light, how can objects in
>> the universe be so vastly separated? Did it not take a faster-than-
>> light instantanous expansion to get celestial objects and galaxies to
>> where they are now? Take galaxies, for example, which are millions to
>> billions of light years separated from one another. How long did it
>> take for these galaxies to become so far apart? Wasn't the rate of
>> expansion faster than light at some point in the distant past?
>>
>> I don't know, it seem to me that space exploration would be
>> completely impractical using methods at sublight speeds. It would
>> take millions of years to even reach the nearest galaxies.
>
> You will need to get your head around a concept named the metric
> expansion of space.
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metric_expansion_of_space
>
> The space in between two objects expands. The objects themselves are
ROFLOL!
Who wants to buy a couple truck loads of that snake oil!
I will sell it to you very cheap!
LOL
Sam Wormley
> Hey guys. First off, I'm no physicist, so forgive my ignorance if it
> applies.
>
> I've been asking myself this question... If the laws of Physics
> dictate that nothing can travel faster than light, how can objects in
> the universe be so vastly separated?
No Center
http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/nocenter.html
http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/infpoint.html
Also see Ned Wright's Cosmology Tutorial
http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/cosmolog.htm
http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/cosmology_faq.html
http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/CosmoCalc.html
WMAP: Foundations of the Big Bang theory
http://map.gsfc.nasa.gov/m_uni.html
WMAP: Tests of Big Bang Cosmology
http://map.gsfc.nasa.gov/m_uni/uni_101bbtest.html
Spaceman
> madscientist wrote:
>> Hey guys. First off, I'm no physicist, so forgive my ignorance if it
>> applies.
>>
>> I've been asking myself this question... If the laws of Physics
>> dictate that nothing can travel faster than light, how can objects in
>> the universe be so vastly separated?
>
>
> No Center
> http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/nocenter.html
On that page the dot in between A and B is a paradox planet.
It is getting torn apart by the no center bullshit waves as seen
from A and B.
:)
> http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/infpoint.html
That page says the galaxies are moving away from each other.
Andromeda and the Milky Way, laughs at that page simultaneously.
:)
<rest snipped because it is full of morons that do not understand
the limits of observation when light is used.>
We can not see more of the space that is already there because
either no object we can see has gotten there, or because the light from
anything that is there has not reached us yet or the coolest thought
of all,
The objects beyond what we can see are movign away from us
FTL so the light that would reflect for us to see it never actually
reaches it to reflect at all.
Simple observational limitations of light and it's limited speed.
Only morons that say "no center" and "no FTL" can not understand
such simple logic.
:)
Mike Jr.
wrote:
Is your problem that you are on drugs or is that you are off your
drugs?
--Mike Jr
Spaceman
Is your problem that you are just not smart or just used to be smart?
Is the only thing you do is show how foolish you are about simple
facts when stated, or just show how ignorant you are to simple logic?
madscientist
any scientific books that discuss scientific theories that elaborate
on all these concepts in detail? What is the opinion of the mainstream
scientific community on these FTL concepts?
Spaceman
The "mainstream" science community is more like a religion now,
so they refuse to even attempt to think of such thoughts, so
you will not find many books on such thoughts.
But sure enough science will some day drop this "religious" dogma
when they simply come back to using the science of measurement
to advance science again.
The simple use of single standards for distance or time will slowly
but surely rip apart the house of cards glued together with bullshit,
that relativity is created from.
Ian Parker
wrote:
> madscientist wrote:
> > Thank you all for your help. It all makes sense now. Can you recommend
> > any scientific books that discuss scientific theories that elaborate
> > on all these concepts in detail? What is the opinion of the mainstream
> > scientific community on these FTL concepts?
>
> The "mainstream" science community is more like a religion now,
> so they refuse to even attempt to think of such thoughts, so
> you will not find many books on such thoughts.
>
experimental evidence as it always has. You ask what the evidence for
Realativity is. It is here.
http://ianparker.g3z.com/Relativity/
In fact the much more interesting question is why Relativity is
opposed. If people go along with experiment and observation they are
simply being good scientists - no need to impute any conspiratorial
motive. If theories fly in the face of the evidence it is appropriate
to look for conspiracies.
Academic Physicists will investigate any theory, no matter how wild,
that fits the evidence. There is no universal consensus.
About the existence of tachyons, faster than light particles, there is
division, the majority I think believe they exist. Now here comes the
rub. When we work out the consequences Academic Physics arrives at the
conclusion that they can consense into subluminal fields, thereby
contributing to our familiar forces, or that they are non localised.
This conclusion comes about by considering their Feynmann diagrams
within the context of Relativity.
- Ian Parker
PD
> Hey guys. First off, I'm no physicist, so forgive my ignorance if it
> applies.
>
> I've been asking myself this question... If the laws of Physics
> dictate that nothing can travel faster than light, how can objects in
> the universe be so vastly separated?
Good question. Space can expand faster than light. No material object
can travel faster than light. There is a good article for the lay
public in Scientific American about this -- I think February 2007 or
so.
PD
wrote:
> madscientist wrote:
> > Hey guys. First off, I'm no physicist, so forgive my ignorance if it
> > applies.
>
> > I've been asking myself this question... If the laws of Physics
> > dictate that nothing can travel faster than light, how can objects in
> > the universe be so vastly separated?
>
> The "laws" of physics do not say anything like such.
> Only some stupid ass "theories" say that.
> There is no physical proof nor physical law that speeds above
> 186,000 miles per second can not exist.
Physical theories ARE laws. What do you think physical laws are? Hint:
They are not PROOFS that the converse cannot possibly happen. This is
not what science does.
For example, the LAW of conservation of momentum does NOT *prove* that
momentum conservation can never be violated. It is simply a statement
that, in nature, it appears that it is always conserved and that there
is not a single shred of evidence that it has ever been violated.
Likewise, the laws of physics do not PROVE that nothing can travel
faster than the speed of light. It is simply a statement that things
seem to be structured so that they simply do not, and there is not a
single shred of evidence that anything has *ever* gone faster than the
speed of light.
Now, I know you think that with technology, ANYTHING is possible,
including finding a ways to violate laws of physics. This is a
statement of religious faith.
When physicists make note of a regularity of nature, something that
all things seem to respect --- regardless whether that regularity is
ever *proven* --- that regularity is recorded and used in the design
of things, to great effect and success. The only way to show that this
regularity is not real is to provide a real example of some place
where it obviously does not apply. Then -- and only then -- does the
regularity (known as a law of physics) get overturned. Simply stating
emphatically that *anything* is possible doesn't do it.
PD
Spaceman
> On 17 Aug, 19:47, "Spaceman" <space...@yourclockmalfunctioned.duh>
> wrote:
>> madscientist wrote:
>>> Thank you all for your help. It all makes sense now. Can you
>>> recommend any scientific books that discuss scientific theories
>>> that elaborate on all these concepts in detail? What is the opinion
>>> of the mainstream scientific community on these FTL concepts?
>>
>> The "mainstream" science community is more like a religion now,
>> so they refuse to even attempt to think of such thoughts, so
>> you will not find many books on such thoughts.
>>
> There is no religion as you put it. Mainstrean science goes with
> experimental evidence as it always has. You ask what the evidence for
> Realativity is. It is here.
>
> http://ianparker.g3z.com/Relativity/
Your entire Newton column is basically wrong.
Everywhere you have a no should be a yes and
the relativity church just never tries to figure out why.
Spaceman
> On Aug 16, 3:14 pm, madscientist <madscientist5...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Hey guys. First off, I'm no physicist, so forgive my ignorance if it
>> applies.
>>
>> I've been asking myself this question... If the laws of Physics
>> dictate that nothing can travel faster than light, how can objects in
>> the universe be so vastly separated?
>
> Good question. Space can expand faster than light.
More bullshit.
for space to be considered expanded, there has to be two "real"
objects to measure the space as expanding.
Damn rubber ruler moron.
Spaceman
> On Aug 16, 4:55 pm, "Spaceman" <space...@yourclockmalfunctioned.duh>
> wrote:
>> madscientist wrote:
>>> Hey guys. First off, I'm no physicist, so forgive my ignorance if it
>>> applies.
>>
>>> I've been asking myself this question... If the laws of Physics
>>> dictate that nothing can travel faster than light, how can objects
>>> in the universe be so vastly separated?
>>
>> The "laws" of physics do not say anything like such.
>> Only some stupid ass "theories" say that.
>> There is no physical proof nor physical law that speeds above
>> 186,000 miles per second can not exist.
>
> Physical theories ARE laws.
Wrong.
You really should stop being such an idiot PD.
Physical laws are laws, physical theories are theories
and theories that lack physicals are bullshit such as relativiy.
Ian Parker
wrote:
>
> - Show quoted text -
All the cases I have mentioned are where either classical Physics has
nothing to say or where it definiteivly produces the wrong answer.
- Ian Parker
Spaceman
That just proves you never actually learned how to use classical physics
for such cases.
PD
wrote:
Spaceman went to see the doctor last month.
The doctor took a small rubber mallet and tapped Spaceman just below
the knee.
His leg didn't move, but he instantly hollered "Wrong!" and began
flinging saliva from his mouth.
PD
The Ghost In The Machine
<spac...@yourclockmalfunctioned.duh>
wrote
on Mon, 18 Aug 2008 10:33:44 -0400
<MYWdnT9icrbMFTTV...@comcast.com>:
You are free to explain Ives-Stilwell or Sagnac
using an alternative theory, then.
--
#191, ewi...@earthlink.net
/dev/signature/pedantry: Resource temporarily unavailable
** Posted from http://www.teranews.com **
Androcles
"The Ghost In The Machine" <ew...@sirius.tg00suus7038.net> wrote in message
news:t34qn5-...@sirius.tg00suus7038.net...
You are free to explain Ives-Stilwell or Sagnac. You haven't yet.
--- -. dotat
You are free to explain how a mirror works, Androcles.
You haven't yet.
w.
Dr. Mary Ruwart
Ian,
You are describing a mathametical bandaid that astronomers use to make
a current observation fit what is pre-supposed to have went before. In
fact they do not know how the universe began, but astronomers who say
they don't know, do not get funding.
There is no FTL in the known universe today and there isn't
hyperspacial physics known either.
Mary
Androcles
<hwabnig@ .- --- -. dotat> wrote in message
news:qrcla4t3nbrc2dm82...@4ax.com...
At chachahanson's request I've unplonked you to give you an opportunity
to be sensible for a change, Wabbie.
I last plonked you for believing that two different frequencies require time
dilation to explain them, an indication of just how fucking stupid you
really
are.
Go ahead and teach me how a mirror works, Wabbie, I'd be delighted to
learn something (anything) from you. Fail and back on the dork pile you go.
Spaceman
Neither have to do with proof that FTL motion of an object
can not occur, so why would I need to explain irrelevant bullshit?
Spaceman
Dear Dr Ruwart,
You are correct when stating astronomers do not "really" know about
what started the universe,
But sadly you are incorrect about there neing FTL,
FTL is also an "unknown".
There is no physical proof that FTL can not occur in space.
The only proof that is out so far is that light can not move FTL.
no proof of object doing or not doing such in space has been
made to date.
Raghar
> Hey guys. First off, I'm no physicist, so forgive my ignorance if it
> applies.
If we would forgive your ignorance, who would forgive ignorance of
physicists?
> I've been asking myself this question... If the laws of Physics
> dictate that nothing can travel faster than light, how can objects in
Math says FTL transfer of information is entirely plausible, and no
physical experiment denied it. ONLY electromagnetic are limited by
standard vacuum.
FTL interactions are non electromagnetic, thus they are unlikely to be
observed with any degree of reliability.
> the universe be so vastly separated? Did it not take a faster-than-
> light instantanous expansion to get celestial objects and galaxies to
> where they are now? Take galaxies, for example, which are millions to
> billions of light years separated from one another. How long did it
> take for these galaxies to become so far apart? Wasn't the rate of
> expansion faster than light at some point in the distant past?
Look at theories of continual universe.
G=EMC^2 Glazier
crazy talk. You are not going to get any where before you leave. Go
figure bert
--- -. dotat
Let's see Androcles' ballistic light:
http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Orbit/Orbit.htm
Light balls incoming from left at a certain speed, not equal to "c":
(because Andro has c+/-v speeds)
(fixed pitch font)
o ...... o .........o ---------> direction of travel
they will hit a mirror, also travelling from left to right
| -----------> direction of travel
mirror with a certain speed
Now we put together the scenario:
.....o
.......o
|
......o |
| --->
o... | mirror
o... | moving
| right
o...
The reflected "light balls" will have less speed, Andro?
Same speed, Andro? No speed at all, Andro, hahahaha...
By repeating that process we could eventually stop the
light to speed zero.
It's just an engineering problem of how to move mirrors.
ahahaha...Androcles is an engineer, hanson is an engineer,
they don't need relativity to solve relativistic problems,
haha
Because it's so funny, let us burst out into a hanson - roar:
>Hey dudes, all of you who participated here in this portion
>of the thread THANKS FOR ALL THE LAUGHS. You are good guys!
>ahahaha... ahahaha....
>Has it helped you any?... ahahahaha... AHAHAHAHA...
>ahahaha... ahahahahahahaha...
Andro, you are top in creating physics animations,
may I suggest you make that one:
----------------------------------------------------------
light balls incoming from the left, hitting a moving mirror
(user may vary mirror speed)
and then watch the resulting light balls reflected from the
moving mirror.
-----------------------------------------------------------
-----------------------------------------------------------
Androcles violating causality:
http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Orbit/Orbit.htm
Andro's o-tone:
>Eventually the faster light emitted later must pass the
>slower light emitted earlier.
So we will recaive the results of the Mira Sunday evening
lottery already on Saturday noon. Place your bets, quickly.
Because it's so funny, let us burst out into a hanson - roar:
>Hey dudes, all of you who participated here in this portion
>of the thread THANKS FOR ALL THE LAUGHS. You are good guys!
>ahahaha... ahahaha....
>Has it helped you any?... ahahahaha... AHAHAHAHA...
>ahahaha... ahahahahahahaha...
w.
PD
> Hey guys. First off, I'm no physicist, so forgive my ignorance if it
> applies.
>
> impractical using methods at sublight speeds. It would take millions
> of years to even reach the nearest galaxies.
Yes, traveling to distant galaxies seems to be a pointless exercise,
except in science fiction books.
Ian Parker
It is a little bit more than that. There is also the cosmological
primciple. We are at the centre of the Universe or rather appear to
be. Now the cosmological principle states that where the Universe is
expanding at c/2 there too you are at the centre of the Universe. You
need FTL to establish the cosmological principle. To repeat no paradox
as information cannot return.
GTR talks about warp. This is a solution involving negative mass.
Inflationary theory tells us that it was present at the start of the
Universe and rapidly went to infinity. It does NOT say what form
negative mass was or is or whether it can exist in the Universe today.
I feel evidence is stacking that it can't.
Of course astronomers could be wrong about the start of the Universe.
- Ian Parker
Androcles
<hwabnig@ .- --- -. dotat> wrote in message
Don't ask me questions.
Second chance:
Dirk Van de moortel
TyFqk.19289$6s4....@newsfe14.ams2
> <hwabnig@ .- --- -. dotat> wrote in message
> news:qhula49h1c052818b...@4ax.com...
>> On Tue, 19 Aug 2008 15:03:09 +0100, "Androcles"
>> <Headm...@Hogwarts.physics> wrote:
[snip]
Ideal opportunity for Helmut not to bother any further and
respond with silence.
You can't win games against creeps who don't play by rules :-)
Dirk Vdm
Sam Wormley
> Ian,
> You are describing a mathametical bandaid that astronomers use to make
> a current observation fit what is pre-supposed to have went before. In
> fact they do not know how the universe began, but astronomers who say
> they don't know, do not get funding.
What astronomers are claiming to know "how the universe began"? We've
got a pretty good handle on say back to the first nanosecond or so....
But sooooooo much that's no known yet.
Sam Wormley
What about your "spin" theory Herb... that's even crazier talk...
--- -. dotat
Explain something to Androcles, and he will say you didn't.
haha....brain sickness diagnosed: age caused stubbornity..
haha
w.
Androcles
<hwabnig@ .- --- -. dotat> wrote in message
<snip Dork crap>
<snip Dork crap>
> Explain something to Androcles, and he will say you didn't.
> haha....brain sickness diagnosed: age caused stubbornity..
> haha
> w.
Third and final chance:
Dirk Van de moortel
> <hwabnig@ .- --- -. dotat> wrote in message
> news:jcena4d514jejmspq...@4ax.com...
>
> <snip Dork crap>
>
>>> Androcles <Headm...@Hogwarts.physics> wrote in message
>>> TyFqk.19289$6s4....@newsfe14.ams2
>>>> <hwabnig@ .- --- -. dotat> wrote in message
>>>> news:qhula49h1c052818b...@4ax.com...
[snip]
>>>>> The reflected "light balls" will have less speed, Andro?
>>>>
>>>> Don't ask me questions.
>>>>
>>>> Second chance:
>>>> Go ahead and teach me how a mirror works, Wabbie, I'd be delighted to
>>>> learn something (anything) from you. Fail and back on the dork pile you
>>>> go.
>>>
>>> Ideal opportunity for Helmut not to bother any further and
>>> respond with silence.
>>> You can't win games against creeps who don't play by rules :-)
>>
>> Explain something to Androcles, and he will say you didn't.
>> haha....brain sickness diagnosed: age caused stubbornity..
>> haha
>> w.
I told you, Helmut... "to respond with silence".
He is playing with you and he does not follow any set of rules.
Hush now.
Dirk Vdm
Dr. Mary Ruwart
wrote:
>
> - Show quoted text -
Dear James,
A negative cannot be proved. That is, you cannot prove something does
not exist. FTL is an idea that appears to give symmetry to the speed
of light limitation. The idea that there is an opposite and equal
reaction to the physical universe that cannot travel slower than
light. Its attractive. Its elegant. And its science fiction.
It may be true that we are all 'flat landers' puzzling over a 3
dimmensional world. But if thats true then all of our tools to
understand a "3 dimensional" world are also 2 dimensional here in
"Flatland". Mathematics is a wonderful modelling tool to model another
reality and how it might work. Simulators can give wonderful insights,
but they are only a "movie" and not be taken so seriously.
Mary
Spaceman
FTL is not a "negative".
Lightwaves speeds are not a physical force that "stops" nor disallows
motion.
Therefore there is no physical reason for a lightwaves speed to
be considered a limit for a massive object in space.
> It may be true that we are all 'flat landers' puzzling over a 3
> dimmensional world. But if thats true then all of our tools to
> understand a "3 dimensional" world are also 2 dimensional here in
> "Flatland". Mathematics is a wonderful modelling tool to model another
> reality and how it might work. Simulators can give wonderful insights,
> but they are only a "movie" and not be taken so seriously.
I know all about modeling.
Using 2D wrapped around parts in a 3D world is not really using 2D at all.
No object that has "existance" is only 2D.
2D is the science fiction wrapper.
If you have a 0 in any dimension. you do not even have a true object
at all.
2D objects existing in this 3D Universe is more scifi than anything
about FTL being possible is.
Darwin123
> <hwabnig@ .- --- -. dotat> wrote in messagenews:qhula49h1c052818b...@4ax.com...
>
> > The reflected "light balls" will have less speed, Andro?
>
> Don't ask me questions.
>
HWAB has a point, Androcles. Why not set up a series of moving
mirrors so as to stop photons from moving? Then, you could show people
your collection of photons. You could make a lecture circuit, carrying
your photons and showing them to the public. You can begin every
lecture with that "quotation" from Einstein. Then, you take the
stationary photons out of your pocket and listen to everyone gasp.
Photons that stand still can have all sorts of useful
properties. Put them in a little spray can. Aerosolize them. The
advantage of the aerosolized photons over a flashlight is that
aerosolized can diffuse around corners. The light speed photons coming
out of a flashlight have to moving in nearly straight lines, obeying
the laws of momentum conservation.
Given that relativity is not true, and that photons act like
Newtonian particles, there should be some means of stopping them in
their tracks. So go and catch the little buggers|;-)
G=EMC^2 Glazier
now you are implying my spin speed is faster than light. You are really
out to get me. Please Sam do not be so critical without any evidence.
You are acting shameful,and that is despicable Bert
Yousuf Khan
> Hey guys. First off, I'm no physicist, so forgive my ignorance if it
> applies.
>
> I've been asking myself this question... If the laws of Physics
> dictate that nothing can travel faster than light, how can objects in
> the universe be so vastly separated? Did it not take a faster-than-
> light instantanous expansion to get celestial objects and galaxies to
> where they are now? Take galaxies, for example, which are millions to
> billions of light years separated from one another. How long did it
> take for these galaxies to become so far apart? Wasn't the rate of
> expansion faster than light at some point in the distant past?
>
> I don't know, it seem to me that space exploration would be completely
> impractical using methods at sublight speeds. It would take millions
> of years to even reach the nearest galaxies.
Einstein's laws state that nothing "in the universe" can travel faster
than the speed of light. However, the mechanism during the Big Bang is
known as Inflation, and Inflation is the universe itself (i.e.
space-time) expanding within itself faster than light. There are no laws
governing how fast space-time itself can expand within itself. So in
summary matter and energy are limited to light speed or less within
space-time, because they travel through space-time, but space-time
doesn't travel though itself so it can go faster.
Yousuf Khan
Spaceman
> madscientist wrote:
>> Hey guys. First off, I'm no physicist, so forgive my ignorance if it
>> applies.
>>
>> I've been asking myself this question... If the laws of Physics
>> dictate that nothing can travel faster than light, how can objects in
>> the universe be so vastly separated? Did it not take a faster-than-
>> light instantanous expansion to get celestial objects and galaxies to
>> where they are now? Take galaxies, for example, which are millions to
>> billions of light years separated from one another. How long did it
>> take for these galaxies to become so far apart? Wasn't the rate of
>> expansion faster than light at some point in the distant past?
>>
>> I don't know, it seem to me that space exploration would be
>> completely impractical using methods at sublight speeds. It would
>> take millions of years to even reach the nearest galaxies.
>
> Einstein's laws state that nothing "in the universe" can travel faster
> than the speed of light.
First of all,
Einstein has no "law".
Second of all,
There is no "law" at all, that states objects can not travel faster
than light.
> However, the mechanism during the Big Bang is
> known as Inflation, and Inflation is the universe itself (i.e.
> space-time) expanding within itself faster than light. There are no
> laws governing how fast space-time itself can expand within itself.
Space-time is a joke to science.
Space expanding would mean objects have to show this expansion
is occuring at all.
And even if the expansion of the space between the objects is expanding
at FTL speeds, it also physically means the objects themselves
are moving away from each other at FTL speeds to measure the
space itself expanding.
You can not measure the "volume" of nothing.
C,mon man!
> So in summary matter and energy are limited to light speed or less
> within space-time, because they travel through space-time, but
> space-time doesn't travel though itself so it can go faster.
In physical summary,
Nothing travels "through" spacetime,
Objects travel through space, at a rate of time.
Not one bit of physical evidence has proven that FTL speeds for
objects are impossible.
Sam Wormley
Herb, please go not make claims without any evidence.
You make claims about your images without any traceable evidence.
You claim gravity comes from spin without any traceable evidence.
We should all be skeptical of your outrageous claims, Herb!
Dr. Mary Ruwart
Flatland is just like a drawing and where there is no third dimension
from the viewpoint of the paper. It isn't that you have a zero in a
imaginary 2-D flatland representing the third dimension; you have only
2 dimensions and there is no third dimension at all. The fact is that
there is no FTL. Daring someone to prove there isn't such a thing as
FTL is trying to prove a negative. I can easily ask you to show me FTL
then, couldn't I? I'm not going to do that because I already know FTL
doesn't exist.
As far as lightwaves are concerned they are just one form of energy
propogation. There are others like radio waves. What are you trying to
say in your description of lightwaves that is so different as to
counter observations measuring the speed of light? In an intense
gravitational field the speed of lightwaves remains the same but the
frequency shifts. What are you saying that is different?
Mary
Matthew Johnson
>
[snip]
>In physical summary,
>Nothing travels "through" spacetime,
>Objects travel through space, at a rate of time.
What did you think "travel through spacetime" would mean if not "trvalling
through space and time"?
>Not one bit of physical evidence has proven that FTL speeds for
>objects are impossible.
Not true. You were given links with many experimental proofs of SR. You were
even given such links many times. But once we have the proof of SR, we have the
proof that FTL speeds for objects are impossible (if the object has ever been
STL).
Then again, for some mysterious psychological reason, you cannot bear to bring
yourself to examine that evidence, can you?
Sam Wormley
Perhaps you failed to grasp that during proposed inflation and the
cosmic expansion of today that no two points in the observable universe
"see" each other receding at or greater than the speed of light.
No violation.
Spaceman
> In article <lZSdnV0EYYtSxjHV...@comcast.com>, Spaceman
> says...
>>
>
> [snip]
>
>> In physical summary,
>> Nothing travels "through" spacetime,
>> Objects travel through space, at a rate of time.
>
> What did you think "travel through spacetime" would mean if not
> "trvalling through space and time"?
You are not traveling through "time" dingleberry licker.
You are "timing" your motion through space.
>> Not one bit of physical evidence has proven that FTL speeds for
>> objects are impossible.
>
> Not true.
Sorry,
Tis true.
You can think it is true all you want, but not one bit of "physical" proof
has ever been able to prove an object with mass can not move in space
faster than light.
The only thing proven about lightspeed is that humans can not use
e/m waves nor magnetic fields to make an object move FTL.
Maybe you will wake up some day, til then.
There is no complete proof it can not be done.
Matthew Johnson
>
>Matthew Johnson wrote:
>> In article <lZSdnV0EYYtSxjHV...@comcast.com>, Spaceman
>> says...
>>>
>>
>> [snip]
>>
>>> In physical summary,
>>> Nothing travels "through" spacetime,
>>> Objects travel through space, at a rate of time.
>>
>> What did you think "travel through spacetime" would mean if not
>> "trvalling through space and time"?
>
>You are not traveling through "time" dingleberry licker.
I see that true to form, you are establishing your low level of understanding of
both ths scientific method and basic decorum by resorting to name-calling
instead of refutation.
But of course, this is to be expected, since you have no refutation. Nor can
you, since your position is false, as has been shown over and over...
[snip]
Spaceman
> Flatland is just like a drawing and where there is no third dimension
> from the viewpoint of the paper. It isn't that you have a zero in a
> imaginary 2-D flatland representing the third dimension; you have only
> 2 dimensions and there is no third dimension at all.
That is a 0 for the third dimension.
I am sorry you do not understand "physical" modeling.
There is no physical way to create a 2D model without including
a 3rd dimension.
>The fact is that there is no FTL.
No,
That is a theory and has no physical proof for object in space.
> Daring someone to prove there isn't such a thing as
> FTL is trying to prove a negative.
No it is not.
> I can easily ask you to show me FTL
> then, couldn't I? I'm not going to do that because I already know FTL
> doesn't exist.
Then you are in the same class as people who thought nothing could
move faster than sound.
You are simply limiting your own views and not allowing for
techology to expand.
> As far as lightwaves are concerned they are just one form of energy
> propogation. There are others like radio waves. What are you trying to
> say in your description of lightwaves that is so different as to
> counter observations measuring the speed of light? In an intense
> gravitational field the speed of lightwaves remains the same but the
> frequency shifts. What are you saying that is different?
The speed does not remain the same if the frequency shifts.
Do you know the most basic causes for Doppler?
The causes are from "relative" speed.
The frequency shifts because an object travels across
the waves at a different speed than if it was not moving.
Do you also think the shortest "physical" distance between
2 objects is a curve?
Spaceman
> I see that true to form, you are establishing your low level of
> understanding of both ths scientific method and basic decorum by
> resorting to name-calling instead of refutation.
I am name calling as I see it.
You are proving my name calling fits.
You have no clue about "time" nor about space.
You are a brainwashed dingleberry that has lost all logic
when it comes to science.
> But of course, this is to be expected, since you have no refutation.
> Nor can you, since your position is false, as has been shown over and
> over...
I don't need refutation for "non proofs".
How stupid are you?
Androcles
"Yousuf Khan" <bbb...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:48ac5963$1...@news.bnb-lp.com...
> madscientist wrote:
>> Hey guys. First off, I'm no physicist, so forgive my ignorance if it
>> applies.
>>
>> I've been asking myself this question... If the laws of Physics
>> dictate that nothing can travel faster than light, how can objects in
>> the universe be so vastly separated? Did it not take a faster-than-
>> light instantanous expansion to get celestial objects and galaxies to
>> where they are now? Take galaxies, for example, which are millions to
>> billions of light years separated from one another. How long did it
>> take for these galaxies to become so far apart? Wasn't the rate of
>> expansion faster than light at some point in the distant past?
>>
>> I don't know, it seem to me that space exploration would be completely
>> impractical using methods at sublight speeds. It would take millions
>> of years to even reach the nearest galaxies.
>
> Einstein's laws state that nothing "in the universe" can travel faster
> than the speed of light.
Yeah, but he was a fucking lunatic.
Why did Einstein say
the speed of light from A to B is c-v,
the speed of light from B to A is c+v,
the "time" each way is the same?
Your answer goes here:
________________________________________________________
Other answers have been:
According to Ian Parker:
"We are not talking about the speed of light here we are talking
classical stability theory." -- Idiot Ian Parker.
______________________________________________________
According to cretin harald.vanlin...@epfl.ch
"Easy: he did NOT say that."
According to moron van lintel, Einstein did not write the equation he wrote.
______________________________________________________
According to xxein:
It is an artefactual/superficially imposed yin-yang of sorts.
______________________________________________________
According to Lamenting Shubert:
Why do you want to know?
______________________________________________________
According to Imbecile Jimmy Black:
" In neither system (meaning frame of reference in modern-day terminology)
is the speed of light c-v or c+v. In both systems the speed of light is c."
According to the imbecile Jimmy Black, Einstein did not write the equation
he wrote.
______________________________________________________
According to Dork Bruere
"I don't give a damn what Einstein wrote."
______________________________________________________
According to Spirit of Truth:
that math is correct but WRONG
______________________________________________________
According to constipated Eric Gisse
"I don't give a shit (fill in the blank ____________)."
______________________________________________________
'we establish by definition that the "time" required by
light to travel from A to B equals the "time" it requires
to travel from B to A' because I SAY SO and you have to
agree because I'm the great genius, STOOOPID, don't you
dare question it. -- Rabbi Albert Einstein
Dr. Mary Ruwart
wrote:
Everyone knows that the speed of sound "wall" existed only for manmade
aircraft using propellers because of pressure buildup on the wing
leading edge preventing greater speed. Books from the time clearly
describe propeller rotation speed limitation as also limiting the
speed of the aircraft due to immense drag near the speed of sound.
This is all well docemented in any city library. However naval rifles
on battleships and cruisers had a projectile speed of around Mach 2,
prior to World War I.
Disregarding science for a moment, if your analogy were true then we
would have things like spacecraft limited to the speed of light or
below but be able to fire a high energy burst weapon at say, twice the
speed of light. If that or something like it were true then we have
evidence that faster than light travel was possible, but that we just
didn't know how to do it yet. But thats not true, is it James?
Mary
Spaceman
Where is the ship that can reach close to such speeds and
where is the "high energy weapon used that proves it won't occur?
Do you get it yet?
You are saying it is not going to happen but have no phsysical
proof of trying methods like that which may allow it to happen.
So.
Where is the proof it "can't happen?
OH YA!
There is no proof.
Amazing.... that it what I stated to begin with and still have
not seen anything close to proving such wrong.
Yousuf Khan
> First of all,
> Einstein has no "law".
> Second of all,
> There is no "law" at all, that states objects can not travel faster
> than light.
Einstein's theories are now a *law*, even if we continue to call them
theories out of tradition (i.e. we got too used to calling them
"theories"). The difference between a law and a theory? A theory becomes
a law once it's been observationally proven. There's been plenty of
observations and experiments proving it right.
There is a huge difference between being a skeptic and being ignorant.
I'm a skeptic I like to doubt theories that haven't been proven yet,
such as Superstrings, Quantum Gravity, Dark Matter, etc. But doubting
well-proven laws is just pure ignorance.
Einstein's Relativity laws have been around for 100 years, and their
proofs are almost as old too. On the quantum side, the law is the
Standard Model which had been completed more than 30 years ago; and this
model has been developed & proved over as many years as Relativity, 100
years. Both these laws have been proven over and over and they are now
ancient history, and to rail against them is simple ignorance. There's
whole areas of new physics (above and beyond Relativity and the Standard
Model) with plenty to be skeptical about, without having to tilt at
windmills.
>> However, the mechanism during the Big Bang is
>> known as Inflation, and Inflation is the universe itself (i.e.
>> space-time) expanding within itself faster than light. There are no
>> laws governing how fast space-time itself can expand within itself.
>
> Space-time is a joke to science.
> Space expanding would mean objects have to show this expansion
> is occuring at all.
And those objects are known as galaxies and galactic clusters. Next
question.
> And even if the expansion of the space between the objects is expanding
> at FTL speeds, it also physically means the objects themselves
> are moving away from each other at FTL speeds to measure the
> space itself expanding.
> You can not measure the "volume" of nothing.
> C,mon man!
The part of the universe that we see is only a small part of the whole
universe. Due to Inflation, there is an unknown amount of the universe
that is beyond our ability to observe because it is expanding away from
us at faster than the speed of light, so light from those parts of the
universe will never reach us.
>> So in summary matter and energy are limited to light speed or less
>> within space-time, because they travel through space-time, but
>> space-time doesn't travel though itself so it can go faster.
>
> In physical summary,
> Nothing travels "through" spacetime,
> Objects travel through space, at a rate of time.
> Not one bit of physical evidence has proven that FTL speeds for
> objects are impossible.
There is, you just have chosen to ignore it, and tilt at your windmills.
Yousuf Khan
The Ghost In The Machine
<spac...@yourclockmalfunctioned.duh>
wrote
<GqadnYJsBsjmRTfV...@comcast.com>:
> The Ghost In The Machine wrote:
>> In sci.physics, Spaceman
>> <spac...@yourclockmalfunctioned.duh>
>> wrote
>> on Mon, 18 Aug 2008 10:33:44 -0400
>> <MYWdnT9icrbMFTTV...@comcast.com>:
>>> PD wrote:
>>>> On Aug 16, 4:55 pm, "Spaceman" <space...@yourclockmalfunctioned.duh>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>>> Hey guys. First off, I'm no physicist, so forgive my ignorance if
>>>>>> it applies.
>>>>>
>>>>>> I've been asking myself this question... If the laws of Physics
>>>>>> dictate that nothing can travel faster than light, how can objects
>>>>>> in the universe be so vastly separated?
>>>>>
>>>>> Only some stupid ass "theories" say that.
>>>>> There is no physical proof nor physical law that speeds above
>>>>> 186,000 miles per second can not exist.
>>>>
>>>> Physical theories ARE laws.
>>>
>>> Wrong.
>>> You really should stop being such an idiot PD.
>>> Physical laws are laws, physical theories are theories
>>> and theories that lack physicals are bullshit such as relativiy.
>>>
>>
>> You are free to explain Ives-Stilwell or Sagnac
>> using an alternative theory, then.
>
> can not occur, so why would I need to explain irrelevant bullshit?
>
Ah, well, if you want to go *that* route, the
OhMyGodParticle, which had enough energy in a fast-moving
*proton* or comparable particle to light a bulb for several
seconds (about 51 J or 3.2*10^20 eV) ... and yet, it is far
from clear that the Fly's Eye detector, which presumably
can measure speed as well as direction, has measured
anything going faster than light (surely the folks at
Utah, after suitable checking, would have announced such a
momentus discovery!), even though Newtonian math suggests
that a proton with that energy would be traveling at more
than 580,000 times lightspeed.
God only knows how such particles are generated.
--
#191, ewi...@earthlink.net
Useless C++ Programming Idea #889123:
std::vector<...> v; for(int i = 0; i < v.size(); i++) v.erase(v.begin() + i);
** Posted from http://www.teranews.com **
Spaceman
How does it measure speed?
I bet you it does the stupid wavelength*frequency stupidity.
which of course does not truly measure "speed" at all.
:)
Spaceman
> Spaceman wrote:
>> First of all,
>> Einstein has no "law".
>> Second of all,
>> There is no "law" at all, that states objects can not travel faster
>> than light.
>
> Einstein's theories are now a *law*,
Bullshit!
Try to gain a clue about science someday.
Apparently some stupid ass professors have been teaching the
Einsteins thories have no problems at all yet they do.
And just because some stuff is correct does not make any theory
a "law".
You have been duped sir.
There is no "law" that states FTL can not exist.
Try and get a clue some day.
PD
wrote:
> And just because some stuff is correct does not make any theory
> a "law".
Gotta love that.
What do you think makes a theory a law, Spaceman?
Spaceman
> On Aug 20, 6:52 pm, "Spaceman" <space...@yourclockmalfunctioned.duh>
> wrote:
>
>
>
>> And just because some stuff is correct does not make any theory
>> a "law".
>
> Gotta love that.
> What do you think makes a theory a law, Spaceman?
When there are no paradox problems "fixes" needed.
Still can't figure out both twins are the same age can ya?
LOL
:)
PD
wrote:
> PD wrote:
> > On Aug 20, 6:52 pm, "Spaceman" <space...@yourclockmalfunctioned.duh>
> > wrote:
>
> >> And just because some stuff is correct does not make any theory
> >> a "law".
>
> > Gotta love that.
> > What do you think makes a theory a law, Spaceman?
>
> When there are no paradox problems "fixes" needed.
What "paradox problems 'fixes' "?
But just to be sure....
You're saying that when a theory has no teaching puzzles that confuse
students, then the theory becomes a law?
The Ghost In The Machine
<spac...@yourclockmalfunctioned.duh>
wrote
<6I2dnY5B5_rzMDHV...@comcast.com>:
OK, I'll bite. What does wavelength*frequency measure, then?
You do ask a good question, as I'm not that familiar with
the Fly's Eye and its electronics. The general idea is
that of a set of 67 detectors, each covering a part of
the sky. Apparently, the detectors monitor light pulses
from the showers created by high-energy cosmic rays, and
the time resolution is 25 nanoseconds, which isn't all that
good but is more than enough to reconstruct the general path
of the shower.
--
#191, ewi...@earthlink.net
/dev/signature: Resource temporarily unavailable
YKhan
wrote:
> Bullshit!
> Try to gain a clue about science someday.
> Apparently some stupid ass professors have been teaching the
> Einsteins thories have no problems at all yet they do.
> And just because some stuff is correct does not make any theory
> a "law".
> You have been duped sir.
If you would stop tilting at windmills for a minute, in your quixotic
quest to get 100 year old well-proven physics laws overturned, then
you would've realized that there is plenty of new and much more
interesting physics to be discovered yet. No, the universe is not as
simple as your common experience would've led you to believe, but that
just made the universe much more interesting.
I'm absolutely certain that a solution to FTL travel will be found one
day. But it won't be found by someone overturning and disproving the
100 year-old (and getting older by the day) Relativity or Quantum
Mechanics laws. Rather it will be found by finding new deeper insights
into those existing laws. Both Relativity and QM were in their turn
more deeper insights into Newton's Laws and Maxwell's Laws. Relativity
and QM are not the end of the road, there's plenty more to come yet.
> There is no "law" that states FTL can not exist.
> Try and get a clue some day.
Again if you were paying attention, rather than charging at those evil
windmills on your donkey, you'd have known that people have said that
there are loopholes that both Relativity and QM have not totally
prohibited FTL travel. We just haven't figured out how to make use of
those loopholes yet. There are things like Quantum Entanglement,
Casimir Effect, wormholes, negative mass, negative energy, etc. which
are impractical, but not specifically ruled out by existing laws that
may allow us to go faster than light.
Yousuf Khan
Androcles
"The Ghost In The Machine" <ew...@sirius.tg00suus7038.net> wrote in message
news:9u8vn5-...@sirius.tg00suus7038.net...
> In sci.physics, Spaceman
> <spac...@yourclockmalfunctioned.duh>
> wrote
>> I bet you it does the stupid wavelength*frequency stupidity.
>> which of course does not truly measure "speed" at all.
>>:)
>>
>
> OK, I'll bite. What does wavelength*frequency measure, then?
http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Wave/StandingWave.gif
One more time: what does wavelength*frequency measure?
PD
> "The Ghost In The Machine" <ew...@sirius.tg00suus7038.net> wrote in messagenews:9u8vn5-...@sirius.tg00suus7038.net...
>
> > In sci.physics, Spaceman
> > wrote
> >> How does it measure speed?
> >> I bet you it does the stupid wavelength*frequency stupidity.
> >> which of course does not truly measure "speed" at all.
> >>:)
>
> > OK, I'll bite. What does wavelength*frequency measure, then?
>
> http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Wave/StandingWave.gif
>
> One more time: what does wavelength*frequency measure?
For a *traveling* wave, it measures the speed of propagation of the
signal.
Of course, for a standing wave, which is the superposition of at least
two waves propagating in opposite directions, this isn't obvious from
the pattern. But that's no more relevant than fussing about what the
wavelength of white light is.
Feel free, though, to dither and whine as you poke for soft spots with
the handle of a wooden spoon.
PD
The Ghost In The Machine
<Headm...@Hogwarts.physics>
wrote
on Thu, 21 Aug 2008 12:41:46 +0100
<IKcrk.64392$Mn3....@newsfe30.ams2>:
I wasn't asking you; I was asking Spaceman. :-) But you
do have a point, and we have to be careful; a standing
wave either does not move, or moves with a far slower
velocity than it might propagate through a medium. I'd
frankly have to research the matter.
--
#191, ewi...@earthlink.net
Conventional memory has to be one of the most UNconventional
architectures I've seen in a computer system.
The Ghost In The Machine
<TheDrap...@gmail.com>
wrote
on Thu, 21 Aug 2008 06:24:20 -0700 (PDT)
<59f923b9-dc33-4b89...@c58g2000hsc.googlegroups.com>:
That's what makes a great engineer: the ability to poke
for soft spots and engineer failure. (Success is easy;
any rock can do it. ;-) ) Think of, for example, the
common glass bottle with a metal or plastic screw cap;
this is obviously a compromise of many factors but at the
end of the day, we still have to break the seal with
some sort of effort that is far less than dropping the
bottle. (In that case, one can simply grip and twist,
an action which is not expected to happen during shipping.)
Ditto for airplanes, which have to break their connection
with the ground, move through the air, and then reestablish
it, without breaking up during flight. Spacecraft move
through the air, then through space.
Various devices break an electrical connection under
certain conditions -- heaters don't want to melt or burn
out the element, battery chargers don't want to overheat
the battery and blow up, air conditioners don't need to
run if the air is comfortable, certain machines might not
want to run too fast.
Various other devices exist for cutting, molding,
milling, bending, and shaping; one might construe
those as failures of rigidity.
Of course, most great engineers don't resort to profanity,
at least in a formal setting. :-) And they try not
to do the mathematically impossible, such as dividing
by zero.
One might also include scientists; they look for
vindication of a theory, or rush to blackboards (or their
modern equivalent) trying to analyze/explain anomalies
and adjusting theories, if a result doesn't show what is
expected -- presumably, a lot of chalk was used in the
early 1900s after the initial MMX experiment. ;-)
(BTW, analysis = 'to pick apart', so it's a form of
failure as well. Of course post mortem analysis is
used often -- traffic collisions, RMAs, and natural
disasters come to mind.)
But I still want to ask Spaceman what wavelength*frequency
is.
--
#191, ewi...@earthlink.net
Conventional memory has to be one of the most UNconventional
architectures I've seen in a computer system.
Androcles
> In sci.physics, Androcles
> <Headm...@Hogwarts.physics>
> wrote
> on Thu, 21 Aug 2008 12:41:46 +0100
> <IKcrk.64392$Mn3....@newsfe30.ams2>:
>>
>> "The Ghost In The Machine" <ew...@sirius.tg00suus7038.net> wrote in
>> message
>> news:9u8vn5-...@sirius.tg00suus7038.net...
>>> In sci.physics, Spaceman
>>> <spac...@yourclockmalfunctioned.duh>
>>> wrote
>>>> How does it measure speed?
>>>> I bet you it does the stupid wavelength*frequency stupidity.
>>>> which of course does not truly measure "speed" at all.
>>>>:)
>>>>
>>>
>>> OK, I'll bite. What does wavelength*frequency measure, then?
>>
>> http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Wave/StandingWave.gif
>>
>> One more time: what does wavelength*frequency measure?
>>
>
> I wasn't asking you; I was asking Spaceman. :-)
You bit.
> But you
> do have a point, and we have to be careful; a standing
> wave either does not move, or moves with a far slower
> velocity than it might propagate through a medium. I'd
> frankly have to research the matter.
Drop a stone in a pond and watch the ripples. They look something
like this, except they decay:
http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/AC/doppler.gif
The ocean surface has standing waves, the surfboard rider comes to
shore on a travelling wave.
When does a standing wave become a travelling wave?
Seems all your statements these days are "I'd have to research".
I'll teach you.
In this diagram:
http://www.kettering.edu/~drussell/Demos/SHO/damp.html
the oscillator's position is fixed, the trace is everywhen.
The photon spins. As it travels, it leaves the trace of a wave.
That trace is static in space and time, just as the trace of a spinning
bullet is static in space and time. As Louis Savain rightly says,
nothing moves in spacetime.
Androcles
learn anything. He bashes his relativity bible and that's all he
knows, if anyone else wants to discuss physics the cunt can
only sneer.
Spaceman
> On Aug 20, 8:07 pm, "Spaceman" <space...@yourclockmalfunctioned.duh>
> wrote:
>> PD wrote:
>>> On Aug 20, 6:52 pm, "Spaceman" <space...@yourclockmalfunctioned.duh>
>>> wrote:
>>
>>>> And just because some stuff is correct does not make any theory
>>>> a "law".
>>
>>> Gotta love that.
>>> What do you think makes a theory a law, Spaceman?
>>
>> When there are no paradox problems "fixes" needed.
>
> What "paradox problems 'fixes' "?
>
> But just to be sure....
> You're saying that when a theory has no teaching puzzles that confuse
> students, then the theory becomes a law?
No,
When you don't have to ignore the theory to support the theory, like you
have to do all the time, is when it has no problems to be fixed.
Too bad you always still need to ignore "some relative motion" to support
your stupid ass worshipping.
Spaceman
It measures the speed of the wave through "aether"
It basically ignores the speed the ojects is moving across
the waves if the object is moving so it actually does not
measure the "relative" speed at all.
When you drive over a bumpy road, the bumps are "set" in the road.
They are set at 1 foot and there are 100 of them.
(I will call that 1 "section" of wavelengths)
Drive over that road at 50 ft a second and you will get a frequency of
what?
50 wavelengths per second?
Drive at 100 ft a second and then what occurs?
100 wavelengths per second?
Does the wavelength physically change?
No, of course not.
Or is it the speed you are moving across them if you ignore
your speed "creating the shorter wavelengths"?
"wavelength*frequency" ignores the motion speed of the detector
and because it does not figure such in, it always get the silly c.
:)
> You do ask a good question, as I'm not that familiar with
> the Fly's Eye and its electronics. The general idea is
> that of a set of 67 detectors, each covering a part of
> the sky. Apparently, the detectors monitor light pulses
> from the showers created by high-energy cosmic rays, and
> the time resolution is 25 nanoseconds, which isn't all that
> good but is more than enough to reconstruct the general path
> of the shower.
The question would be, is the speed of the detectors is also
being considered.
The only true way to measure speed is to have a known distance,
and a timing method to time that motion and find the speed.
Spaceman
> On Aug 21, 6:41 am, "Androcles" <Headmas...@Hogwarts.physics> wrote:
>> "The Ghost In The Machine" <ew...@sirius.tg00suus7038.net> wrote in
>> messagenews:9u8vn5-...@sirius.tg00suus7038.net...
>>
>>> In sci.physics, Spaceman
>>> <space...@yourclockmalfunctioned.duh>
>>> wrote
>>>> How does it measure speed?
>>>> I bet you it does the stupid wavelength*frequency stupidity.
>>>> which of course does not truly measure "speed" at all.
>>>> :)
>>
>>> OK, I'll bite. What does wavelength*frequency measure, then?
>>
>> http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Wave/StandingWave.gif
>>
>> One more time: what does wavelength*frequency measure?
>
> For a *traveling* wave, it measures the speed of propagation of the
> signal.
No it does not.
And if it did it would simply find out that you get more info per second
when you move towards the wavesource.
It ignores the speed of the observer.
If the wave is still moving at c relative to the observer heading
towards the source, how does the observer collect more "wave" packets
in the same second, than someone not moving towards the source does?
Spaceman
> On Aug 20, 7:52 pm, "Spaceman" <space...@yourclockmalfunctioned.duh>
> wrote:
>> Bullshit!
>> Try to gain a clue about science someday.
>> Apparently some stupid ass professors have been teaching the
>> Einsteins thories have no problems at all yet they do.
>> And just because some stuff is correct does not make any theory
>> a "law".
>> You have been duped sir.
>
> If you would stop tilting at windmills for a minute, in your quixotic
> quest to get 100 year old well-proven physics laws overturned, then
> you would've realized that there is plenty of new and much more
> interesting physics to be discovered yet. No, the universe is not as
> simple as your common experience would've led you to believe, but that
> just made the universe much more interesting.
Actually, my "tilting at windmills" brings far more great accomplishements
that will use "real" science and will be far more interesting than the
rubber ruler
stuff that only creates more "bullshit" scifi, instead of Science non
fiction
that humans love because it turns out real.
> I'm absolutely certain that a solution to FTL travel will be found one
> day. But it won't be found by someone overturning and disproving the
> 100 year-old (and getting older by the day) Relativity or Quantum
> Mechanics laws. Rather it will be found by finding new deeper insights
> into those existing laws. Both Relativity and QM were in their turn
> more deeper insights into Newton's Laws and Maxwell's Laws. Relativity
> and QM are not the end of the road, there's plenty more to come yet.
As it is now, Relativity and QM are more like a deadend path.
>> There is no "law" that states FTL can not exist.
>> Try and get a clue some day.
>
> Again if you were paying attention, rather than charging at those evil
> windmills on your donkey, you'd have known that people have said that
> there are loopholes that both Relativity and QM have not totally
> prohibited FTL travel. We just haven't figured out how to make use of
> those loopholes yet. There are things like Quantum Entanglement,
> Casimir Effect, wormholes, negative mass, negative energy, etc. which
> are impractical, but not specifically ruled out by existing laws that
> may allow us to go faster than light.
No "loopholes" are needed in the real world, only physical facts
and actual science.
Wormholes, negative mass, negative energy etc.. are all the windmills
you are charging at on your donkey.
I am sorry you can not understand that Don.
:)
PD
G=EMC^2 Glazier
pictures speak a thousand words and are virtually impossible to fake
When shown at MIT faking was never said. You would not give my shadow
reality Bert
G=EMC^2 Glazier
can reach a speed of 186,242 mps All other particles are bigger(more
massive) can not reach that speed. The old Cern could push an electron
up t0 99.999999999 of light speed. The newer Cern will get the electron
up to 99.999999999999999999 of light speed. Einstein told us why this is
Bert
Sam Wormley
What's your relationship to MIT?
The Ghost In The Machine
<06749d19-d53f-47f4...@y21g2000hsf.googlegroups.com>:
I'm assuming he's referring to the Twin Paradox, which
is indeed a paradox -- a result that looks false that is
actually true. For all intents and purposes, we will
never observe the Twin Paradox directly; if one travels
8 hours from city A to city B traveling 100 kph, then
turns around and takes 8 hours back, one is looking at
an age difference of about 247 picoseconds, absent
GR rotational issues. One will have to use very
accurate and stable clocks, especially if the road
conditions are less than optimum.
Even the Hafele-Keating results had to be doctored a bit,
mostly because of irregularities in the clocks used at
the time. Clocks are better now; a round trip using an
airplane from NY to London can reproduce the experiment,
and in fact did.
And of course spacecraft traveling at 0.99999c --
or anything faster than about 0.10 c, it turns out --
verge on the ridiculous. Even 0.10 c requires a vastly
better rocket (a theoretical boron-hydrogen fusion affair)
than we have now. Such a spacecraft might shave a year
or two off a round trip lasting two centuries to a system
10 lightyears distant.
Fortunately, atomic or subatomic particles show the effect
as well, and are far easier to accelerate to 0.99999c.
--
#191, ewi...@earthlink.net
New Technology? Not There. No Thanks.
The Ghost In The Machine
<spac...@yourclockmalfunctioned.duh>
wrote
<qMqdnddHYPUkFjDV...@comcast.com>:
I suppose it would, at that. Would the rotation of the
experiment make any difference? MMX was constructed
on a large mercury bearing; it basically floated.
> It basically ignores the speed the ojects is moving across
> the waves if the object is moving so it actually does not
> measure the "relative" speed at all.
>
> When you drive over a bumpy road, the bumps are "set" in the road.
> They are set at 1 foot and there are 100 of them.
> (I will call that 1 "section" of wavelengths)
> Drive over that road at 50 ft a second and you will get a frequency of
> what?
> 50 wavelengths per second?
>
> Drive at 100 ft a second and then what occurs?
> 100 wavelengths per second?
>
> Does the wavelength physically change?
> No, of course not.
frequency * wavelength = speed in this case.
50 * 1 = 50
100 * 1 = 100
Did I miss something in your confused example?
BTW, there's at least one roadway in (I think) Korea that
plays tunes when driven over it.
> Or is it the speed you are moving across them if you ignore
> your speed "creating the shorter wavelengths"?
>
> "wavelength*frequency" ignores the motion speed of the detector
> and because it does not figure such in, it always get the silly c.
>:)
>
>> You do ask a good question, as I'm not that familiar with
>> the Fly's Eye and its electronics. The general idea is
>> that of a set of 67 detectors, each covering a part of
>> the sky. Apparently, the detectors monitor light pulses
>> from the showers created by high-energy cosmic rays, and
>> the time resolution is 25 nanoseconds, which isn't all that
>> good but is more than enough to reconstruct the general path
>> of the shower.
>
> The question would be, is the speed of the detectors is also
> being considered.
> The only true way to measure speed is to have a known distance,
> and a timing method to time that motion and find the speed.
>
So OK then. The MMX had a known distance.
--
#191, ewi...@earthlink.net
Insert random misquote here.
Spaceman
True only according to a malfunctioning clock.
A single clock timing both says of course, they are both
the same age still.
(like very simply, they are both "x" revolutions of the Earth
wrt the Sun old.)
> Even the Hafele-Keating results had to be doctored a bit,
> mostly because of irregularities in the clocks used at
> the time. Clocks are better now; a round trip using an
> airplane from NY to London can reproduce the experiment,
> and in fact did.
Yes,
Again, the clock malfunctioned and the "predictions"
of the malfunction are really good. but of course again.
Both clocks exist for the same amount of time according
to any third clock.
> And of course spacecraft traveling at 0.99999c --
> or anything faster than about 0.10 c, it turns out --
> verge on the ridiculous. Even 0.10 c requires a vastly
> better rocket (a theoretical boron-hydrogen fusion affair)
> than we have now. Such a spacecraft might shave a year
> or two off a round trip lasting two centuries to a system
> 10 lightyears distant.
Not really,
The clock will simply say it was shorter time, but when you
get back the time at home did not changes so you still
took as long as the home clock said.
:)
> Fortunately, atomic or subatomic particles show the effect
> as well, and are far easier to accelerate to 0.99999c.
Clock malfunctions.
All of them.
Science and nature, do not care about what the clocks
say since the clock will not change any other clocks timing.
:)
Spaceman
The MMX could not detect any aether since it was all "at rest"
wrt each other frames.
>> It basically ignores the speed the ojects is moving across
>> the waves if the object is moving so it actually does not
>> measure the "relative" speed at all.
>>
>> When you drive over a bumpy road, the bumps are "set" in the road.
>> They are set at 1 foot and there are 100 of them.
>> (I will call that 1 "section" of wavelengths)
>> Drive over that road at 50 ft a second and you will get a frequency
>> of what?
>> 50 wavelengths per second?
>>
>> Drive at 100 ft a second and then what occurs?
>> 100 wavelengths per second?
>>
>> Does the wavelength physically change?
>> No, of course not.
>
> frequency * wavelength = speed in this case.
> 50 * 1 = 50
> 100 * 1 = 100
And as you see, that is only correct for the
"stationery ground"
Now move the ground (actual lightwaves)
at a speed of 100 feet per second.
Do the wavelengths physically change?
Or do they only "relatively" change?
> Did I miss something in your confused example?
Not at all.
You told me the speed of the wavelengths were 50
and 100 but of course.. the speed of the actual wavelengths
were 0 so your wavelength*frequency goofed for the speed
of the actual waves didn't it?
Or did you find a 0 for wavelength*frequency according
to those cars?
Dr. Mary Ruwart
"And of course spacecraft traveling at 0.99999c --
or anything faster than about 0.10 c, it turns out --
verge on the ridiculous. Even 0.10 c requires a vastly
better rocket (a theoretical boron-hydrogen fusion affair)
than we have now. Such a spacecraft might shave a year
or two off a round trip lasting two centuries to a system
10 lightyears distant. "
The best systems for thrust-to-weight ratio and minimal fuel storage
and using say, the 'easier' Helium-3 fusion, might be able to reach
0.1c. But now what happens if you run across a rock floating in space
at that speed? Not only do you have to get to that speed, you also
have to plan for what you do when something goes wrong. The part I
like the best is what you are going to do at your destination. You
must slow back down to non-relavistic velocities. What if there's
nothing for you to use at your destination to help you? (like oxygen
to breathe, or water to drink, or a place to live easily) You now must
get back up to 0.1c and go somewhere else.
Or die?
Alot of science fiction from the 1800s has become either true or is at
least proven possible in the 21st century. But alot of this involved
new discoveries of new processes not known in the 1800s. (nuclear
energy, electronics, thermodynamics, medicine, etc) All of these new
process were always there, we just didn't know about it. That has yet
to demonstrated with M-theory and science fiction's FTL travel. M-
theory evolved from string theory which evolved from a mathematical
'bandaid applied to certain inconsistencies in Big Bang Theory of the
formation of our universe. Now in astronomy another mathematical
'bandaid is being applied to certain inconsistent observations that
are not understood from the viewpoint of earth, dark matter and dark
energy. These things have never been observed nor have the effects
from them ever been observed. Yes, galaxies appear to rotate at a
remarkable rate when the inner ring of material is compared to the
outer ring of material. Yes, galaxies appear to be flying apart and
also appear to be accelerating. But at the distances involved these
effects probably involve processes not yet discovered, there is no
reason to invent names of things to explain them away just have an
explanation all the time.
Its ok if some things cannot be explained. It means there's something
constructive to look forward to 'tomorrow.
FTL travel will not involve any process known today or we would
already have it. It may be that colliding two super sized artifically
made transuranic element atoms together at near the speed of light may
create a temporary field of 'something that has a different top speed
other than the speed of light if you could travel through it for the
one nanosecond it might exist. Or a new flux field may be discovered
near the first stellar black hole visited in the future which can
operate as a wormhole. Or while building the first true fusion power
plant a new process of physics might develop in its reactor core that
gives rise to something undiscovered today. But any FTL travel process
is going to have to involve new physics of a process not yet
discovered. Thats not at all the same as thing as saying FTL travel
cannot be proven to not exist. You cannot prove a negative, instead
all you have proved is that you are still looking for 'it. The 'it in
this case being FTL.
As for me, I think I'll take the train.
:)
Mary
G=EMC^2 Glazier
at light speed you would be every where at once. I think that is fast
enough. bert
G=EMC^2 Glazier
to the strobe wing. That is was many moons ago I presented my fastest
pictures in the world at the strobe wing. Did not go to any university.
I am self taught. I know how every thing works and how to make them
better and simpler bert
Ian Parker
>
> As for me, I think I'll take the train.
I think at this point we have to argue fundamentally, not argue about
what we can do technologically. A Black Hole is NOT a wormhole. Both
Wormholes and Warp Drive require Negative Mass.
My question - What exacly is Negative Mass? This is a fundamental
question, not simply one of technology.
If we travel at 0.999c this is difficult, we can't do it now, but
there are no IN PRINCIPLE difficulties.
How are time paradoxes resolved (any method). This is NOT simply a
matter of technology.
- Ian Parker
Spaceman
There are no "time paradoxes" when you use the simple single standard
of time in science.
No matter what a clock states it was "away" for, it never changes
the time it ends up coming back at according to the clock that
never left.
A clock might think it was only gone for 10 days.
but if the "home clock" says it was gone for 20 days.
It was gone for 20 days and nothing about the lying face of the
traveling clock can change the planetary motion that told
the "home" clock how long the traveling clock was gone for.
No Speed will change "time" in science.
The clock, malfunctioned.
Ian Parker
wrote:
some of the others you are actually going backwards in time. Use the
Poincaré group transfomation matrices.
- Ian Parker
Spaceman
No paradox arises ever from any speed at all.
Use the science of measurement that sticks with single standards
for time and distance.
Dr. Mary Ruwart
>
> - Show quoted text -
There is no time paradox with sub-particles accelerated to near the
speed of light in the various accelerators around the world. No
distance contraction paradox either. No mass paradox.
Electrons accelerated this way exhibit the mass of a baseball when
they hit their targets. Unstable sub-atomic particles or phenomena
which normally decay very quickly take alot longer to decay, that is,
they die far older when compared to the same phenomena at rest. They
also show a large difference in colliding versus their mass, that is,
the Inertia=1/2 mass *V^2 collision energies begin to shift towards
E=mc^2 energies due to mass increase at relavistic velocity. Some of
the phenomena today are 'old hat', they have been known about since
the first acelerators were built.
If a spaceship or a imaginary 'elevator travelled close to the speed
of light, applying these observations to the poor traveler seems to go
beyond plausible. They would happen. His destination would begin to
blue shift, his originating point would red shift. Eventually the
traveler would be blind to his destination and only see a bright ring
of the universe perpendicular to his destination which would get
brighter and brighter until this too disappeared to his sight.
Electronics would appear to the traveller to work fine, nothing wrong
'here'. But to an earthbound person watching this the man in the
spaceship would get slower and slower until finally he would appear to
just stop. But long before this the video would just die from the
spaceship because the scanning part of the vide camera would have also
slowed down to the point where nothing would be received at all by the
earthbound person watching this. But time in both the spaceship and
everwhere else is operating just fine, to anyone in that same frame of
reference.
There is no paradox, only distorted observations from either 'side'
that then appear to disappear.
Including the clocks.
Mary
Dr. Mary Ruwart
Math is wonderful and those computer simulators are amazing but the
math is statistical in its nature and the simulators are just movies.
Your 'fundamaentals' of a BH have no analogy anwhere else. The rules
don't apply we attach to our universe. Example? The incredible density
of matter that not even light can escape. That also means energy like
heat etc. So near a black hole that is not 'feeding', the temperature
is probably ambient, which means near absolute zero. The hole itself
is also probably zero since it can't leak anything because not even
light can escape. (what would it leak then?) But wait a minute, if all
that collision energy from all its matter feeding (remember 1/2mv^2
collision energies at near the speed of light?) is pent up inside then
the temperature of the BH must be trillions and trillions of degrees
that its gravity is holding back from our measuring it. The BH ability
to not follow the rules doesn't stop there either. Remember the math
that says smaller black holes must leak energy? If thats true then
what is the mechanism that it allows it to leak if nothing, not even
light can escape it? Noone's ever visited a stellar BH, remember?
Yes there might be explantions discovered if one is ever actually
visited. There might be direct-current-electricity version of light
we don't know about that would allow the stellar BH to leak energy.
Remember as one goes faster relavistically the frequencies all shift,
time slows down and the speed of light remains the same to the poor
traveller. So this is also true of dumb matter feeding a black hole.
Inside the black hole then the speed of light would still remain the
same but all frequencies of that light would be zero because of the
gravity. There may be a kind of light that has no frequency at all
that is only produced by stellar BHs. Maybe that is what dark energy
is? We will only know but actually going there and taking a look.
Negative mass? It might your mass in Tachyons.
Mary
Spaceman
So the great ignorant relativists ignore the little crap they use about
a twin having a slower clock and won't say the particle has a slower
clock when moving?
And even at that speed apparently the will not try to "fit" the
contracted particle in a tiny shorter than the particle barn huh?
So why do they say such shit about the rest of reality?
G=EMC^2 Glazier
instantly Go figure Bert
Dr. Mary Ruwart
>
> - Show quoted text -
Yes thats all true if the math is true.
Emphasis on "if the math is true". It may not be.
Dr. Mary Ruwart
Wormholes and Warp Drive require Negative Mass."
A black hole is thought to have at its center a singularity. But it
must have the same density throughout. So entering the event horizon
is the same thing in our universe outside the BH, as going through the
BH center. Since the angle of the BH gravity well 'wall' is
perpendicular to our universe many believe this is an exit point out
of the universe. In a way they are right. You will never return if you
go there. So whats so special about the BH center? Remember the BH is
a sum of opposites in temperature, time, distance, gravity, and light
in that it doesn't folow our rules. I talked a little bit about the
mutually exclusive temperature phenomena. it doesn't stop there.
Compare its center to the center of the earth for a moment. What is
the gravity strength of the earth at its precise center? Well all the
mass of the earth is above this precise point, isn't it? So the answer
must be zero. Yet at any distance from the earth all other objects
react gravitationally to the earth as though all its mass was at the
earths center. We look at that and accept it because its an
observational truth. But consider now the same process of though
applied to stellar BH. All the universe reacts to it as though all its
mass is also is at it's center too. And again at its center all a BH's
mass is 360 degrees around it at an equal distance, so the gravity
there should also be zero. There should be nothing there that has
anything to do with our universe because this is the near-convergence
of those almost perpendicular gravity-well "walls" that incoming
ordinary mass must follow on its way in. These convergence lines never
actually contact into a point though. In one of the statistical
models a reaction to this staggering amount of energy in such a small
place 'may' burst back out of the BH into a kind of BH non-space and
reform back out the other side and must be resolved somehow. It is
assumed that this would resolve into some kind of entry point into a
'other' universe or perhaps form a wormhole in our universe. Since the
speed of this non-space of travel or its existence either is not
actually known, it is assumed that it may be FTL and not resolve in
linear time to the traveller. For myself, this is just too much;
intuitive jumps in logic followed by supposition and the maybe taken
as a polynomial all resolved by another logic assumption. Worse they
now make simulators that can show this 'kind of almost science fiction
as a movie. Then other people argue about the math as though we've
already sent a Federation Starship that recorded somehow all this
stuff.
Although examples of a stellar BH are illustrated as being a flat 2-D
circle, I wonder; if the contraction due to gravity well is equal to
its time diliation. (the effects from acceleration due to gravity are
equal also in a equivalent gravity field) maybe the 2-D circle should
actually appear as a 2-D black rift or varying thickness in space. If
that is seen to track true, then might the only BH's that appear as a
flat 2-D circle in space mean that they are rotating? Until these
things are actually visited noone will know for sure what a stellar BH
actually is.
Mary
The Ghost In The Machine
<drmary...@yahoo.com>
wrote
on Fri, 22 Aug 2008 05:00:56 -0700 (PDT)
<e4000476-f734-466a...@a70g2000hsh.googlegroups.com>:
> You stated that:
>
> "And of course spacecraft traveling at 0.99999c --
> or anything faster than about 0.10 c, it turns out --
> verge on the ridiculous. Even 0.10 c requires a vastly
> better rocket (a theoretical boron-hydrogen fusion affair)
> than we have now. Such a spacecraft might shave a year
> or two off a round trip lasting two centuries to a system
> 10 lightyears distant. "
>
>
> The best systems for thrust-to-weight ratio and minimal fuel storage
> and using say, the 'easier' Helium-3 fusion, might be able to reach
> 0.1c. But now what happens if you run across a rock floating in space
> at that speed? Not only do you have to get to that speed, you also
> have to plan for what you do when something goes wrong. The part I
> like the best is what you are going to do at your destination. You
> must slow back down to non-relavistic velocities. What if there's
> nothing for you to use at your destination to help you? (like oxygen
> to breathe, or water to drink, or a place to live easily) You now must
> get back up to 0.1c and go somewhere else.
>
> Or die?
The radiation problem at high speeds is non-trival.
The average density of the Universe (when measured from a
point, say, moving in a circular orbit of about 10^-4 c)
is apparently about 1 atom per cubic meter.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Outer_space
Envision now a 1 m^2 "piston" accelerating through space.
At very low speeds one might expect to encounter 1 atom
per linear meter; at higher speeds space begins to contract
and twist.
At v = 0.10c the number of particles per second will approach
gamma * v = 30130000
It gets worse. Each of those particles is also moving at 0.10 c
(relative to the ship), more or less. Since these are mostly
hydrogen we can use the proton mass, m_p = 1.673 * 10^-27 kg.
The impact energy is on the order of
(gamma - 1) * m_p * c^2 = 7.575 * 10^-13 J
*per particle*. The total irradiation is therefore this
value multiplied by 30130000, or about 23 microwatts.
One can express this as
E = density * gamma * v * (gamma - 1) * m_p * c^2
This will of course be absorbed through the length of the
spacecraft behind the piston, which yields "gray" as a
variable value (1 gray = 1 J/kg or 1 m^2/s^2).
It appears tolerable; however, if one uses the
interplanetary density, which is 5 atoms per cc (or 5
billion atoms per cubic meter), thanks, presumably, to the
solar wind, one gets the far worse value of 114 kilowatts,
irradiating that piston.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interplanetary_medium
This is about 10 times the insolation of Earth.
Fried humans, anyone? :-)
There is probably a third density involved, though I'm not
sure how to specify it; obviously, galaxies have a lot of
gas and dust variably interspersed through their form (yielding
spiral bars and other such), which will probably lead to values
between these two extremes.
And we've not even gotten to hitting the rocks yet.
I have my doubts, personally. It's a pity, too; there's
been so much science fiction from Isaac Asimov's Jump to
shifting into hyperspace, subspace, or other such space,
to wormholes.
But we'll see. Even Isaac Asimov postulated that we
wouldn't discover the truth until we get out into
the asteroid belt and use a supercomputer that can
deal with human "death" (cessation of existence during
the Jump proper) without freaking out.
>
> As for me, I think I'll take the train.
>:)
> Mary
--
#191, ewi...@earthlink.net
Error 16: Not enough space on file system to delete file(s)
Sam Wormley
Mostly Bullshit Mary.