Theory Of Relativity

[Krazeh]

The theories of relativity are fundamentally unsound because of the concept of a 'universal speed limit' of c. For ballistic objects that appears to be sound(thus far) but not for objects that can cause their own acceleration(powered by engines). This is why the lightspeed limit can't be disproven in particle accererators. The particles are BALLISTIC.

But when you have a ship in space with engines, there is nothing to stop it from surpassing the speed of light RELATIVE to the point of departure.

This just demonstrates a complete misunderstanding of the topic you're discussing. Particles in a particle accelerator are no more or less "ballistic" than a rocket with engines (the clue about the particles is the "accelerator" bit of particle accelerator), just because the particles are being accelerated by the use of electric fields rather than a chemical reaction pushing against them makes no difference.

None of which has anything to do with using conventional engines to exceed the speed of light, which is impossible in a local sense. That doesn't however mean that, over large enough distances, a ship couldn't travel faster than the speed of light relative to it's point of departure, altho doing so would have nothing to do with the engines on the ship and would have everything to do with the expansion of space between the point of departure and the ship. It's perfectly acceptable within the confines of general relativity for an object to travel at less than the speed of light in a local sense while travelling many times faster than the speed of light in a global sense.

[K^2]

The idea of a space-time continuum is another form of Aether, repackaged.

You are mistaken. Aether implies existence of an absolute coordinate system. Space-time does not. Space-time is a manifold with a metric defined over it. You are still free to choose the coordinate system you like.

The idea that metric of space-time is fixed, which is exactly what you are claiming, is arbitrary. There is no reason to assume so. Assumption that metric of space-time is related to energy stress tensor leads directly to Einstein's Field Equations.

And while you may question results from early 20th century, we have experiments testing relativity based on Pulsar Timing. Look it up. These give us 10^-10 precision. Nowhere near numbers you are complaining about. There is no atmosphere involved. No complex super-precise measurements. All you need is a very good clock, and we have these.

The fact that flat space-time has Minkowski metric is also well tested. We have actually measured time dilation using atomic clocks. I'm not sure how more clear it can get.

[Aer'ki]

Gravity travels at the speed of light.

Aether was the idea that there was something light propagated through like sound through air or water. Space-time is the stage on which all of this stuff takes place. They are two completely different things.



Certain bullets are supersonic, the Voyager probes are most certainly supersonic, neither of those has engines that were used to get to those velocities.

How do we know that? Don't say some equation...point to some data. Unless we have a device that can measure gravity this discussion is speculation only.

As for the Voyager probes, they were accelerated by engines then left to drift. I don't see how that is related...or 'supersonic' especially since we're not talking about in atmosphere.

Both the bullet and Voyager are ballistic after 'launch.'

This just demonstrates a complete misunderstanding of the topic you're discussing. Particles in a particle accelerator are no more or less "ballistic" than a rocket with engines (the clue about the particles is the "accelerator" bit of particle accelerator), just because the particles are being accelerated by the use of electric fields rather than a chemical reaction pushing against them makes no difference.

None of which has anything to do with using conventional engines to exceed the speed of light, which is impossible in a local sense. That doesn't however mean that, over large enough distances, a ship couldn't travel faster than the speed of light relative to it's point of departure, altho doing so would have nothing to do with the engines on the ship and would have everything to do with the expansion of space between the point of departure and the ship. It's perfectly acceptable within the confines of general relativity for an object to travel at less than the speed of light in a local sense while travelling many times faster than the speed of light in a global sense.

No, you've misunderstood. In a particle accelerator the particle is ballistic because it has no means of propulsion in and of itself. The device accelerates it to top speed...then it can go no faster because the accelerator can't 'push' any faster. This is why particle accelerators can't get past light speed.

A ship with an engine isn't 'pushed' by anything else. It is propelled through equal/opposite reactions. It thrusts, it gains speed, it coasts. It thrusts again, it gains more speed, it coasts. The speed is never lost, and if it has enough fuel it will pass lightspeed, ten times lightspeed, etc.

The part I bolded above...relativity says that nothing can surpass lightspeed. That's why the idea of 'warpdrive' 'hyperspace' etc was created for scifi. The theory says that the closer you get to c, you time dilate and so forth. Check it out, it really is absurd.

You are mistaken. Aether implies existence of an absolute coordinate system. Space-time does not. Space-time is a manifold with a metric defined over it. You are still free to choose the coordinate system you like.

The idea that metric of space-time is fixed, which is exactly what you are claiming, is arbitrary. There is no reason to assume so. Assumption that metric of space-time is related to energy stress tensor leads directly to Einstein's Field Equations.

And while you may question results from early 20th century, we have experiments testing relativity based on Pulsar Timing. Look it up. These give us 10^-10 precision. Nowhere near numbers you are complaining about. There is no atmosphere involved. No complex super-precise measurements. All you need is a very good clock, and we have these.

The fact that flat space-time has Minkowski metric is also well tested. We have actually measured time dilation using atomic clocks. I'm not sure how more clear it can get.

You're missing the point. The need for 'space-time' is the Aether. Relativity says that space-time can be 'bent.' You can't bend nothing, therefore 'space-time' is representing a hypothetical medium of some sort. They can't grasp the concept of a pure vacuum.

As for pulsars, they keep better time than the atomic clocks...which suggests the atomic clocks aren't trustworthy enough.

BTW...the pulsar interval will appear to decrease with movement toward it and appear to increase with movement away from it. Again, based on the EM coming from it and the varying speeds of source and destination.

[K^2]

You're missing the point. The need for 'space-time' is the Aether. Relativity says that space-time can be 'bent.' You can't bend nothing, therefore 'space-time' is representing a hypothetical medium of some sort.

Wrong. "Bending" of space time is just an analogy that comes from embedding diagrams. There is a metric at every point in space-time, which is similar to electric or magnetic field. The later do not require an aether, and neither does the former. Metric determines distance between "neighboring" space-time points. There is no "bending".

Yet again, you make an argument from ignorance. You do not know anything about the theory, and yet you keep arguing about its flaws.

As for pulsars, they keep better time than the atomic clocks...which suggests the atomic clocks aren't trustworthy enough.

Pulsar's pulse time changes over time. IF you account for that drift, yes, it's better at time keeping, but you have to use GR to account for the drift. And the difference can be checked with an atomic clock, which is good enough for a 10^-10 measurement. This has been done, and once again, we get that GR works to 10 decimal places.

Incidentally, the other experiment, anomalous magnetic moment, also works to 10 decimal places. But it only proves special relativity, not general. You haven't answered anything about that either.

[ColdZero]

How do we know that? Don't say some equation...point to some data. Unless we have a device that can measure gravity this discussion is speculation only.

The pulsar PSR 1913+16 is a binary system who's orbit is currently decaying. Energy in the system is thought to be being lost because of gravity. The damping of the system can be computed and finds that gravity propagates within 1% of the speed of light. A second pulsar system PSR B1534+12 also supports this but with a larger margin for error.

No, you've misunderstood. In a particle accelerator the particle is ballistic because it has no means of propulsion in and of itself. The device accelerates it to top speed...then it can go no faster because the accelerator can't 'push' any faster. This is why particle accelerators can't get past light speed.

A ship with an engine isn't 'pushed' by anything else. It is propelled through equal/opposite reactions. It thrusts, it gains speed, it coasts. It thrusts again, it gains more speed, it coasts. The speed is never lost, and if it has enough fuel it will pass lightspeed, ten times lightspeed, etc.

Except that things get heavier as they go faster, which means it requires more fuel to go faster. The next thing you are assuming, which is wrong, is that thrust will scale with speed all the way up past light. The next thing you are assuming is that you will coast forever and that just because you are in space, nothing is acting against you to slow you down which is again untrue. Gravity, while very weak, does not have a distance limit and cannot be blocked.

The part I bolded above...relativity says that nothing can surpass lightspeed. That's why the idea of 'warpdrive' 'hyperspace' etc was created for scifi. The theory says that the closer you get to c, you time dilate and so forth. Check it out, it really is absurd.

Again, wrong. Relativity says nothing can go faster than light in a local context. Uhh those things were invented for Sci Fi because there's no way to do those things in the real world.

You're missing the point. The need for 'space-time' is the Aether. Relativity says that space-time can be 'bent.' You can't bend nothing, therefore 'space-time' is representing a hypothetical medium of some sort. They can't grasp the concept of a pure vacuum.

No you are really missing the point because you are limiting yourself to an understanding of space-time to a three dimensional object.

I'm at the point where I can't tell if you are trolling or not.

[K^2]

I'm at the point where I can't tell if you are trolling or not.

Ah, welcome to the club.

At least, if he is trolling, he found a rather unique niche.

[Aer'ki]

The pulsar PSR 1913+16 is a binary system who's orbit is currently decaying. Energy in the system is thought to be being lost because of gravity. The damping of the system can be computed and finds that gravity propagates within 1% of the speed of light. A second pulsar system PSR B1534+12 also supports this but with a larger margin for error.

Didn't I just say no equations, just data? This isn't data. This isn't a way to measure the speed of gravity. This is also taking place a long, long time ago as the light coming here originated many years in the past.

Again, this isn't data.

Wrong. "Bending" of space time is just an analogy that comes from embedding diagrams. There is a metric at every point in space-time, which is similar to electric or magnetic field. The later do not require an aether, and neither does the former. Metric determines distance between "neighboring" space-time points. There is no "bending".

You still don't get it. The 'space-time points' are the Aether. They don't exist. Vacuum is nothing. You can't measure it, you can't bend it, you can't manipulate it at all. There is nothing there...period. There is no such thing as the space-time continuum. It is pure fiction.

Incidentally, the other experiment, anomalous magnetic moment, also works to 10 decimal places. But it only proves special relativity, not general. You haven't answered anything about that either.

I would remind you of the meaning of the word anomalous...

Except that things get heavier as they go faster, which means it requires more fuel to go faster.

No they don't. No mass measurements have ever changed due to speed.

Again, data please, not theory.

[K^2]

You still don't get it. The 'space-time points' are the Aether. They don't exist. Vacuum is nothing. You can't measure it, you can't bend it, you can't manipulate it at all. There is nothing there...period. There is no such thing as the space-time continuum. It is pure fiction.

Ok. If that is your definition of 'aether', then mere existence of electromagnetic waves proves aether. You have a specific electric field at every point in space. Therefore, there is aether. Done.

You keep making conclusions on GR based on what you picked up from science fiction and textbooks for school kids. Pick up a real book on gravity. Read it. Then come back to me.

I would remind you of the meaning of the word anomalous...

Oh, wow. This tells me that you didn't even look up what it is all about. The history of magnetic moment of elementary particles explains clearly why it is anomalous. But sure, go ahead and make fun of words you don't understand. That will make you sound smart and credible.

No they don't. No mass measurements have ever changed due to speed.

Sure we have. We passed particles through electric and magnetic fields at different speeds and clearly saw that their mass changes. This is also clear from conservation of momentum. There is also conservation of Energy, which, if E=mc^2 does not hold, we've found clear violations of in particle accelerators. Give it up.[/QUOTE]

[ColdZero]

Didn't I just say no equations, just data? This isn't data. This isn't a way to measure the speed of gravity. This is also taking place a long, long time ago as the light coming here originated many years in the past.

Again, this isn't data.

You uh compute things to get data. When they do those calculations....they get results. But of course you wouldn't want any equations to go along with it, its much easier to just make stuff up.

[webxro]

oh people this is troling one on one

[Aer'ki]

You uh compute things to get data. When they do those calculations....they get results. But of course you wouldn't want any equations to go along with it, its much easier to just make stuff up.

Data comes from observation. You gather numbers and that's the raw data. Computation then takes the data and changes it in some way.

For example...if you could directly measure the mass of a planet that would be the data...then you use that data number to compute the orbit of a moon around that planet.

The orbital track is a calculation...the mass of the planet is the data. Yes, the orbit comes from the data, but you also involve computations that may or may not be valid.

That's what I mean.

[ColdZero]

Data comes from observation. You gather numbers and that's the raw data. Computation then takes the data and changes it in some way.

For example...if you could directly measure the mass of a planet that would be the data...then you use that data number to compute the orbit of a moon around that planet.

The orbital track is a calculation...the mass of the planet is the data. Yes, the orbit comes from the data, but you also involve computations that may or may not be valid.

That's what I mean.

Yea, they OBSERVED the real amount of time the orbit of the pulsar was decaying. Then they said hey, I wonder if this would work for relativity. So they threw in some of the OBSERVED data into the equations and hey, they're the same. So so far, the OBSERVED and COMPUTED values matched up, as they have for almost all other observations and computations.

But hey I bet those telescopes were made using calculations to figure out the curve of their mirrors so we'll just throw all that data out. Maybe if you squint really hard at the pulsar you could see how slow it is getting and just make stuff up from there.

[RubberJesus]

Einstein's Theory Of Relativity says that we will never be able to travel at the speed of light. What are you guys thoughts on that?

well I think calling it a theory is a little ridiculous at this point, it has been experimentally verified, they've put atomic clocks on airplanes traveling at different speeds and when slowed back down they had differences in time like the theory predicts, also the GPS network is effected by relativity.

the only options that allow theoretically possible FTL travel are wormholes and warp-drives, but both are WAY beyond our civilizations capacity to create, but not impossible if our civilization continues to advance at it's current rate for several centuries (I'm being generous with centuries it could very well take thousands of years).

[RubberJesus]

The opposite of energy should be matter.

Matter is inertia or the resistance to a change in motion.
Energy has no such resistance.

actually energy and matter are the same thing, e = mc^2

Dr. Feynman would disagree.

The equation for a positron is identical to that of an electron with time reversed.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antiparticle

I take it you've never heard of a PET scan, positrons are actually introduced into the blood stream (well to be more accurate positron emitting particles), medical professionals use positrons on a daily basis, I assure you they do not move back in time

You do not need to believe it. That's simply how things work. All objects always propagate at the speed of light in local 4-space. That means that no object will exceed the speed of light in its local 3-space. Globally, it can move as fast as you want, but you do need a warp bubble for that. Unfortunately, there is no known warp configuration that does not require negative energy, and we have no means of producing that, at least for now.

there was that theory of pumping large amounts of energy into the 11th dimension crating dark energy to get the negative energy effect, but that all depends on string theory being correct

mass is energy. so far, there are two known forms of matter and energy.

the normal varient and the Dark varient.

there is also antimatter

so far, it's not ruled out that negative energy, negative mass and negative gravity exist,
we never got enough antimatter to find out.

and there's anti-matter and anti-dark matter, so we simply do not know enough to say for sure that there's no negative energy.

also, energy is about how much of our known energy exist. negative energy wouldn't mean less than none, but rather an amount of an opposite energy.

it's possible energy exists, anti-energy, dark energy and anti-dark energy. we won't find out soon

you're a little wrong there, there is no "anti-dark matter" WIMPs are their own antiparticle

a form of energy.


ok just throwing in ideas here:

is it possible that:

1: antimatter has negative energy? or better said, Anti-energy? energy is energy. but negative energy wouldnt be -(energy) but actually the polar opposite of energy.

antimatter has regular energy and is effected by gravity just like normal matter. you guys seem to have antimatter and negative-mass matter confused, antimatter is made of the same stuff as normal matter just arranged exactly oppositely therefore they cancel eachother out producing gamma rays and kinetic energy, we have created antimatter and observed it in the lab, antimatter is even used in medicine in the form of PET scans. matter with negative-mass is only theoretical but would have the characteristics you described.

Antimatter does not have negative energy. Antimatter is simply matter traveling backwards in time therefore it has a opposite charge on its particles. The energy of the particles is still positive.

Negative energy and negative mass aren't anything we have an explanation for yet.

I assure you antimatter does not travel backward in time

Anti-matter does propagate backwards through time. It doesn't mean that objects composed of it will age backwards, though. Time as coordinate and time as sequence of events are two very different things from two completely different fields of physics.

LOL seriously where are people getting this antimatter travels backwards through time stuff from, we create and even sometimes use antimatter all the time (though only in very small quantities) we already know for a fact it does not travel back in time.

[ColdZero]

actually energy and matter are the same thing, e = mc^2




I take it you've never heard of a PET scan, positrons are actually introduced into the blood stream (well to be more accurate positron emitting particles), medical professionals use positrons on a daily basis, I assure you they do not move back in time




there was that theory of pumping large amounts of energy into the 11th dimension crating dark energy to get the negative energy effect, but that all depends on string theory being correct



you're a little wrong there, there is no "anti-dark matter" WIMPs are their own antiparticle




antimatter has regular energy and is effected by gravity just like normal matter. you guys seem to have antimatter and negative-mass matter confused, antimatter is made of the same stuff as normal matter just arranged exactly oppositely therefore they cancel eachother out producing gamma rays and kinetic energy, we have created antimatter and observed it in the lab, antimatter is even used in medicine in the form of PET scans. matter with negative-mass is only theoretical but would have the characteristics you described.



I assure you antimatter does not travel backward in time



LOL seriously where are people getting this antimatter travels backwards through time stuff from, we create and even sometimes use antimatter all the time (though only in very small quantities) we already know for a fact it does not travel back in time.

I mistyped when I said traveled, when I meant propagates backwards. And it does. That isn't saying it is time traveling.