Jump to content

losfomot

Senior Members
  • Posts

    323
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by losfomot

  1. INCORRECTLY??? What do we have, trompe-l'œil again? Can B send a laser pulse to EO when he receives the light from A to let EO know the light got to B? If so, has not EO witnessed information exchanged between A & B at 1.7c?

     

    LHW

    I apologize, I do not understand your (french?) reference.

     

    Why would B need to send a laser pulse to EO? We already have janus' animation, so an extra laser pulse is redundant.

     

    The problem is that your wording is (purposely?) misleading.

     

    I don't know how I can make it any clearer than my last post.... how about this...

     

    If you want to know how fast information was truly exchanged between A and B... You will have to ask either A, or B... you cannot rely on any other observer (EO) to give you a correct answer (unless you knew you could trust that observer to have the correct formula, a good calculator, and believed in the laws of physics)

     

    edit - ahhh... trompe-l'œil... I love that type of art.

  2. No, I am NOT mixing frames, although some of the other posters feel compelled to introduce them incessantly. My statement is that the EO observes A & B colliding at 1.4c, and if it is true that light from A reaches B even sooner, then EO observes A & B exchanging info at 1.7c, just like the operator of a particle collider uses "closing speed" to know WHEN particle collision occurs. Nothing in my statements require light to exceed c through space.

     

    LHW

     

    Sorry, that is a presumption... not an observation.

     

    The EO observes a light signal from A 'closing' with ship B at 1.7c

     

    The EO therefore presumes (incorrectly) that A & B are exchanging info at 1.7c

  3. Then if the light from A precedes A itself, how does the light not reach B sooner, i.e., at 1.7c as seen by EO, as Janus' animation shows?

     

    LHW

     

    Yes, B and the the light from A will have a 'closing speed' of 1.7c... but this question is still different from the other statement in question:

     

    As far as I can tell, the bottom line is that just as there is no problem with EO observing A & B close at 1.4 c, there is no problem with EO observing A & B exchanging info at 1.7 c by using light, although A & B will not see it that way.

     

    The problem with this statement is that you are mixing frames mid-sentence. "A & B exchanging info at 1.7 c" throws us into the reference frame of either A or B, where they are clearly NOT exchanging info at 1.7c... whether or not the EO is observing them.

  4. Let's say that A and B are each 210,000 Km from the collision target, so their separation is 420,000 Km at that instant. Traveling at .7c, they will collide in 1 sec. If A fires a laser pulse to B at that instant, it will travel only 300,000 Km in 1 sec regardless of B's velocity, so both A and B will collide before light can inform B.

    Janus has explained how the EO will see it... the laser will reach B before the two ships collide... and, in fact, before a second has passed.

     

    I think your problem is still in mixing frames. You see 420,000 km between the ships, and light only goes 300,000 km/sec... so, if what Janus says is true, light must have travelled faster than 300,000km/sec in order to reach ship B in less than one second.

     

    That would only be true if ship A (or B) also measured 420,000km between themselves and the other ship. They do not. There is 420,000km between the ships in the EO's frame only.

     

    In either ship's frame the distance is not 210,000km to the collision point. Either ship will instead measure 150,000km to the collision point.

     

    Even weirder, In either ship's frame, the distance to the other ship is actually less than the distance to the collision point. (can someone else verify that I have this one right?)

     

    You can describe the scenario all the way through correctly only if you stick to one frame at a time.

     

    And each frame will describe the situation very differently... they will each measure different distances, and different times for everything that happens.

     

    And, in all of this, the only way you can get speeds exceeding c, is not by direct measurement (because nothing can exceed c), only by deduction ie: closing speeds.

  5. Perhaps another way to put it is, can nothing truly travel faster than c, or are we just unable to tell?

     

    On a universal scale, there are many things moving away from us faster than c.

     

    Also, tachyons are hypothetical particles that may exist.

     

    But locally, when discussing physical things that we can see and interact with (like light, or particles in (or out of) an accelerator, or spaceships), all experimental evidence shows that nothing can go faster than c... therefore no information can be conveyed faster than c

     

    ... but you already knew that was the answer

     

    ... are you satisfied with the explanations to your scenario?

  6. Here is where your numbers depart from what is demonstrably so, i.e., particles that can be made to close and collide at up ro 1.99c. And if they miss each other, they are opening at 1.99c. If particles can do this, why would a proton shot ahead of B at .99c relative to B not be added to his .7c, i.e., 1.69c?

     

    because you are talking about what the Earth observer sees. A 'closing speed' is deduced or calculated by the Earth observer... it is not measured. However you must measure the two speeds that you use to calculate a closing speed. EO (earth observer) measures 0.7c as the speed of each spaceship... so EO can use those measured speeds to calculate a closing speed between the two (1.4c). EO cannot just assume that .99c should be added on top of that as the speed of the proton stream. If EO wants to use the speed of the proton stream in any of his calculations, EO must measure the speed of the proton stream seperately. If EO does this they will find that the speed of the proton stream is just over.99c

     

    If particles can do this, why would a proton shot ahead of B at .99c relative to B not be added to his .7c, i.e., 1.69c?

     

    Velocity is relative.

     

    What exactly are you asking for in this question? ie relative to which observer?

    In B's frame of reference, B is standing still and the proton stream is moving away from B at .99c

     

    In Earth's frame of reference, B is moving at .7c, and the proton stream is moving at just over .99c... the EO sees the proton stream moving away from B at an 'opening speed' of just under .3c

     

    Like you've stated before, closing speeds cannot be greater than 2c... the reason is that you cannot arbitrarily add speeds together like you are doing with the ships and proton stream. A 'closing speed' is calculated, but the two speeds used in such a calculation must be based on measurement. Since nothing can travel faster than c, even a 'closing speed' cannot be greater than 2c.

  7. But if light from A cannot reach B at a speed > c (Einstein's postulate), how can light from A arrive at B before A itself does? (Unless you add c to the velocity of A, which means that c is NOT constant.) And since B is actually approaching A at 1.4c, from an Earth observer's perspective, and the proton stream B fires at A is fired at .99c relative to B itself, what is to prevent that proton stream from arriving at A before the collision, which in turn happens before B can receive the light from A?

     

    You have made the scenario a bit too complicated to respond to all of it... but maybe this will help...

     

    The Earth observer sees two spaceships approach each other, each with a velocity of .7c, so the 'closing speed', as you've stated is 1.4c.

     

    If one of the ships, B, fires a 'proton stream' toward the other ship at .99c relative to B... what will the Earth observer see (if the Earth observer could 'see' the proton stream)? The Earth observer would see a proton stream fired toward A from B at a little over .99c...

     

    The Earth observer would see the proton stream moving away from B at just under .3c

     

    The Earth observer would see the proton stream and A moving toward each other at a 'closing speed' of just under 1.7c

     

     

    The Earth observer would not see the proton stream moving toward A at .7c (ship B velocity) + .99c (proton stream velocity) + .7c (ship A velocity) = 2.39c

  8. Could it be possible to create a cylindrical container having two sides light air(less dense) and the other side heavy air(more dense). The sides are separated by another cylindrical container. Inside this container theres compartments of medium dense gas. When the gas turns to the light side it fall creating a downward force, on the heavy side the gas would rise to create an upward force. The resulting force would continuously spin the inside container which could be attached to a turbine or a generator of some kind.

     

    I don't understand how the medium dense gas would interact with the other gasses if it is in a separate cylinder?

  9. No, I don't think so. The horizontal 13,7 Light Years is a time, not a length. This time corresponds to a distance of 46,5 billion light-years following Wiki. The extended shape of the diagram is an indication of the expansion, because under normal circumstances (without expansion) a time of 13,7 BY should correspond to a distance of 13,7 Light years, and not 46,5 billion LY. So I think for this part the diagram is correct.

     

    It is not the horizontal aspect that I am questioning... it is the vertical. Horizontal represents time... vertical represents size (expansion).

  10. I stole this diagram from a recent post by Spyman, although I have had the same diagram in my desktop pics for years. It seems misleading to me:

     

    060915_CMB_Timeline75.jpg

     

    A representation of the evolution of the universe over 13.7 billion years. The far left depicts the earliest moment we can now probe, when a period of "inflation" produced a burst of exponential growth in the universe. (Size is depicted by the vertical extent of the grid in this graphic.) For the next several billion years, the expansion of the universe gradually slowed down as the matter in the universe pulled on itself via gravity. More recently, the expansion has begun to speed up again as the repulsive effects of dark energy have come to dominate the expansion of the universe. The afterglow light seen by WMAP was emitted about 380,000 years after inflation and has traversed the universe largely unimpeded since then. The conditions of earlier times are imprinted on this light; it also forms a backlight for later developments of the universe.

     

    This seems to be a good visual of the 'rate' of expansion, but not the expansion itself. Shouldn't the diagram be much more cone shaped to represent the expansion?

     

    Here's a link to the 'nasa site'

  11. I'm not sure you're being coherent here. Gravitation is a changing of the metric of spacetime due to the mass-energy density of the region. This is why light bends in a gravitational field. The only way I know to 'invert the values of this process' is to have enough light in one area(how your 'gravitational isolator', supposedly works) to appreciably increase the mass-energy density of that region. Unless you state a specific alternate mechanism, your description fits EXACTLY with my above calculations and is indeed trying to 'dry water by adding more water.'

     

    I had the understanding that the 'gravitational isolator' worked by sort of 'using up' the gravitons. In other words, because the light was deflected, it must have interacted with gravitons. because it interacted with gravitons, it must have used up those gravitons. So, if you have a disk of laser-light of sufficient density (and, apparently, frequency) it will interact with (neutralize) the gravitons to such an extent that if you put this disk between the Earth (source of gravitons) and another object, that other object will not receive as many gravitons from the Earth and will weigh less...

     

    that was how I understood it, anyway.

  12. Of-coarse the universe has a centre...It's where the big bounce happened.

    The big bang was (is) an expansion of everything everywhere. There is no specific (special) place in the universe that it happened.

     

    Relative to whatever... just generally moving...

     

    What?I don't understand what you are asking me...

     

    Just answer my questions...

     

    Whatever isn't good enough. If you were standing next to a boulder, you would say that the boulder was not moving... because it isn't... relative to you. But to someone on the moon, both you and the boulder are moving quite fast. To someone looking at you from the surface of the Sun, your moving even faster. To some alien looking at you from another galaxy, you are moving faster still. Motion is relative. You can only say something is moving relative to something else. To just say something is moving is meaningless until you define what it is moving relative to.

     

    When you say the entire universe is moving, you are comparing everything that exists to ..... what? There's nothing left to compare it to.

     

    What if space really was moving...what if our movement meant we only saw the same side of space...

     

    Space is moving in the sense that is stretching / expanding... and our observable universe is only a small portion (possibly infinitely small) of the entire universe, so in that sense we do only see the same side of space... the theory is though, that space looks the same (in general) from anywhere in the universe.

  13. Thank you for your messages regarding my discovery "The Gravitational Isolator".

    For the beginning, please read all details from my article so that you will know that it is serious (not an attempt to obtain not deserved donations). By the way, it is the first time when someone is thinking to invest, even if only "few pennies", for helping me to build a better prototype to make this important invention usable sooner. Also, I am open for any kind of honest constructive collaboration. Many thanks again!

     

    Sincerely yours,

    Mihail Vrapcea

     

    You haven't asked for investment... you've asked for donations... these are 2 very different things. And I have to warn you that an 'invent now' patent is not an official u.s. patent and offers very little in the way of protection of your idea.

     

    Your link has two animated gifs side by side that seem to be showing evidence(?) that your idea works... if you truly believe you have made this work, then give details of the experiments you have done. The laser you are using is not very powerful. You can buy a 200mW blue laser for less than $200 This will increase your power enormously. If you don't have this much money, I have seen the laser you are using for sale at dollar stores for a buck. So spend $1 and you will have another laser and double the power. Spend $2 and you will have triple the power.

     

    Keep us posted.

  14. Is there a limit to how many photons can fit into a space.. let's say a cubic millimeter? Let's say you pointed 20 very powerful lasers so that they all crossed paths within the same cubic millimeter... would they all fit? Would it be crowded? Would they bounce of of each other, scattering at angles other than the original path of the lasers?

  15. The next step after rockets can be the gravitational propulsion, by using "The Gravitational Isolator" as explained here: [link deleted], on the link corresponding to the first application sample image, on the left, ("those two spheres").

     

     

    Interesting and hopeful

    Sins there is no comments for so long, neither toward the validity of the patent nor to the possibility of this actually having or not having a possibility of working in some way or an other, someone like me would have to "assume" (love Benny Hill) that something like this might actually has a chance of working.

    I am very much hoping for some comments or enlightenment soon from some one, or is everybody buisy testing? If that is the case, I will patiently wait or try to find a way and the time to do some testing my self's. I feel that the potential importance of the issue certainly deserves some comments.

    It seems like everybody is hiding behind a mask today. I hate to donate the few pennies I can afford toward some thing that the smart guys say "can't work".

    Why is nobody saying that?

    Don't know if I can sleep tonight.

     

    Unfortunately, the idea probably does not work. "can't work"... I wouldn't say that. It is a gamble to take out a patent on an idea that probably will not work, but it could pay off enormously one day, so if you have some extra cash... why not. If this guy had any hard evidence that it worked, then he would not need to ask for donations.

     

    Claiming this idea as a source of free energy makes the idea less credible. This guy does not even know that such an effect exists... and yet he is assuming that it will give more power back (the energy needed to turn the wheel) than it takes to make the thing work (the energy needed to power the laser). Why would he assume this?

     

    If it does work, I would guess (assume) quite the opposite... It would take an enormously powerful laser to measurably change the weight of an object.

  16. Your comparison with the images is not fair to the question asked in the OP, since the first image is not taken from the same location with such higher speed that distance is compressed 7 times, instead it is taken from a location that actually is 7 times closer, and I would guess with close to the same speed.

     

    And this is kind of the gist of my question... I thought special relativity said that, from the rocket telescope frame, that distant galaxy (or whatever we are looking at) really is 7 times closer. Not 'seems', not 'compressed 7 times'... the distance is actually 1 billion ly instead of the 7 billion ly in Earth's frame (for example).

     

    My point was not about camera exposures, what I am trying to say is that both cameras will capture identical photons if everything else is equal and thus reveal the same image.

     

    Let's say that the spaceship is coming from behind Earth and exactly when it passes, both cameras simultaneously takes the picture. The spaceship going very fast covers a large distance while the shutter is open and thus recieves more photons than it would if it would have been standing still. The camera on the Earth on the other hand instead has it shutter open for an equal longer duration letting the same amount of photons entering, which then also will come from the same distance the spaceship is covering. Both cameras thus captures almost exactly the same amount of nearly identical photons from a matching location during an interval they both individually percieve to be of an indistinguishable shutter time. So why would their images be different?

     

    I see what you are saying and it does make sense. I just thought this might be a way to take advantage of the effects of SR (one day).

     

    After watching

    , I don't see that the rocket-telescope would get any kind of useful image.
  17. I still don't get why you think objects were farther apart in the past, so I'm not sure how to go about answering it.

     

    I think he is measuring the distance between galaxies A and B and comparing it to the distance between galaxies C and D (the further back you go in time, the farther apart the objects are)... when he should be measuring the average distance between galaxies E and B and comparing it to the average distance between galaxies F and D.

     

    I think.

     

    CUTEDRAWING.jpg

     

    The center represents Earth.

    lol... sorry, F and D should be closer together in the diagram.

  18. Shutter time in the camera on the spaceship would be subjected to time dilation relative the camera on Earth.

     

    From the frame of the camera in the spaceship the distance might seem 7 times closer but clocks on Earth would tick 7 times slower. Thus the camera on Earth has its shutter open and recieves photons for a 7 times longer period, while the camera on the spaceship collects photons from a 7 times longer distance.

     

    I seems that their pictures would be equally good, except maybe for the effect of less redshifting.

     

    I thought the purpose of longer exposures was to capture more light from very dim objects... I didn't know this had an effect on the actual resolution of the image.

     

    compare.jpg?t=1288293292

     

    These two images (photos of a photo) were taken with the same camera, but the 2nd one was from 7 times farther away. Are you saying that, if I had a long enough exposure, I could get the same quality image as the first photo?

     

    Why does red-shifting make things harder to see? It just moves the light to a different part of the spectrum...

     

    I was under the impression that the further you go to that side of the visible spectrum, the worse the resolution got (with the same size instrument)... I don't know why I have that idea.

  19. Thanks for the answers. I should have seen that myself.

     

    So our (co-moving) observable universe would actually shrink, in the direction of travel, from 46 billion ly to about 6.5 billion light years (because of length contraction). That is, the 'wall' would be in the same place, but that place would be much closer.

     

    Even if we can't see more of the universe in this fashion, it still seems to me that we would be able to get a better (clearer) picture, since we have reduced the distance 7 fold?

     

    For examples:

     

    That new furthest galaxy is roughly 30 billion light years away... but to our rocket telescope, traveling toward it at .99c, it is only ~4.3 billion light years away. (of course it was only 13.1 bly away when the light we see was emitted, so is it that distance that is reduced?.. probably... here's a less confusing example:)

     

    That new 'goldilocks' planet is 20 light years away... but to our rocket telescope, traveling toward it a .99c, it is less than 3 light years away.

     

    Being roughly 7 times closer should make for a better picture? Or is this advantage somehow nullified?

     

    In principle, I guess the image would be less red-shifted.

     

    Why such a hesitant answer? It seems to me that, even if our observable universe did not get bigger, the farthest stuff we can see would become much less red-shifted, and therefore easier for us to see.?

     

    Edit - perhaps this thread would fit better in the relativity subforum, rather than cosmology?

  20. We are only able to see so much of the universe. Can we alter this?...

     

    Say we built a rocket telescope and fired it directly toward a specific area of space... say the hubble deep field area. We get this rocket going about .99c and then let it coast for a day or a week... however long it takes to get a good exposure. Then we turn the rocket around and have a look at the photo... what would we see?

     

    Would we see farther than the observable universe we experience on Earth? (since distance has contracted in the direction of travel)

     

    Would red-shifting be (to some degree) reversed by our velocity toward the light we are collecting?

  21. You don't need an increasing cosmological constant for this, and I am not aware of anyone suggesting that the cosmological constant is changing in any way.

     

    You can roughly think of the cosmological constant as an acceleration term. If space expands with a constant acceleration, then the rate of expansion will increase quadratically without any bound, and at some point the expansion will become significant at the scale of a galaxy, and then at the scale of a solar system.

     

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

     

    I'm sorry DanielC, but I am going to have to call you on this one. The link you provided does not support your statement. The 'Big Freeze' is based on stars using up all their fuel, and proton decay. What you are describing is called the 'Big Rip' and is based on the possibility that the cosmological constant is not a constant at all, but is increasing over time.

     

    I am used to being humbled, so I won't feel too bad if you prove me wrong on this.

  22. I want to be very careful replying to this... If you look at the really long term (as in, several times the age of the universe), you can consider the tiny friction in the solar system as a factor that could make the planets or a whole galaxy spiral inward, but if you are going to look at that long term, you have to consider whether the expansion of the universe might not take the same solar system or galaxy and spread it apart before it has a chance to coalesce. If you wait long enough, the expansion of the universe should eventually tear everything apart (except maybe black holes). But if you wait long enough, even black holes will evaporate away by Hawking radiation, so in the really really absurdly long term you should have a universe that is nothing more than a very thinly dispersed sea of elementary particles. This is known as the "Heat Death" of the universe.

     

    I was under the impression that this is a pretty far-fetched possibility. Clusters of galaxies will probably separate... but our solar system, our galaxy, and even our galactic cluster should hold together regardless of the expansion or 'dark energy'. Is there evidence that the cosmological constant is actually increasing over time?

  23. So you mean that our observations say that some parts are going backwards.. toward the big bang? In what direction according to the big bang are we moving? I thought everything was moving away from the big bang.

    There is no 'backwards' direction. The Big Bang happened here, there and everywhere... we were all in the same place, and now we are all expanding away from each other. Things are moving away from us in every direction equally... and if we were in some other galaxy (far, far away) we would see the same thing. The only way to go 'backwards' would be if everything started moving toward each other.

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.