Moontanman

In UFO studies by civilians it is often suggested that sightings that are easier to debunk are more likely to be debated than sightings that are not easily debunked... nah, can't be true... can it?  

1 hour ago, Genady said:

But if you can travel in space so that you reach Moon in 0.5 s, causality is violated.

I can't argue with the point of causality being violated but how is it any different than someone detecting the asteroid in advance with a telescope and getting the area evacuated before impact? In both cases the deaths are prevented, in both cases the terrorists survive that wouldn't have. In one case the antiphone is used and the other a telescope is used. Methods are different, results are the same.   

4 hours ago, Genady said:

Give me a bit more detailed scenario and I'll try.

There exists a time phone, it was created in 2020. In 2025 an asteroid hits in the atlantic ocean off the eastern seaboard of north america, millions die, Trillions of dollars in property damage occur. After the strike the phones is used to call 2024 and the extent of the damage is conveyed to the people of 2024, they evacuate the east coast and millions of lives are saved. The property damage still occurs but the lives are saved when the asteroid strikes. The phone call still occurs so the people can be saved from the threat that still happens. The Phone can only be used to call the time period that it exists in, no phone calls to before the phone exists. 

3 minutes ago, swansont said:

Causality is a linchpin. Losing it would be a large upheaval.

Thank you, that was what I was looking for, I've been told that the scenario I proposed wouldn't break causality and therefore might be possible under some conditions as though breaking causality was the key that prevented communication through time not that the act itself was the problem and that breaking causality was the result not the problem.  

3 minutes ago, swansont said:

 

The response from the purported FTL neutrino signal among scientists was largely to look for the flaw in the experiment.

And rightly so. 

4 minutes ago, Genady said:

But it could.

How so? 

4 hours ago, exchemist said:

They seem all to have observed something, but apparently nothing with a radar signature.

Irritatingly this is presented to emphasise mystery rather than to dispel it, so no helpful details are provided. But if what the picture shows is correct in that the sun was just rising above the clouds, and what they saw was a bright light, my suspicions are aroused that this could have been some effect attributable to sunlight. 

9 minutes ago, swansont said:

What follow-up/investigation do you propose? 

The light in the sky they saw isn’t there anymore. You can’t collect more data from something that’s no longer there.

Which sighting are we discussing? The Minot air base sighting did have radar data and the crews were of air force B-52 bomber. Not just a light in the sky. 

16 hours ago, MigL said:

This is more usually stated as the 'grandfather paradox', Moon, and yes it does violate causality.

As usually stated, you go back in time and kill your grandfather. 
But then, you were never born to be able to go back in time.
So your grandfather still lives, you are born , and travel back to kill him.
But then you couldn't have ...

 This is the loop Sabine was talking about.

And it doesn't necessarily involve actual travel in time either.
Say you send a manuscript of Shakespeare's \\\romeo and Juliet back to William, who then publishes it, so that you, in the future, can send a copy back to him.
Who actually wrote Romeo and Juliet ?
What exactly 'caused' the play ?

The scenario I proposed wouldn't or at least shouldn't cause a time loop. 

16 hours ago, swansont said:

Scenarios that don’t cause issues aren’t the arguments that point to the impossibility of FTL signals. One could probably contrive a large number of scenarios that used FTL and didn’t cause other problems 

Thank you but I do understand that, what I am asking is would such a possibility require the retooling of all our science or would it just require a slight rethinking of certain concepts?  I remember when neutrinos had supposedly been found to be traveling FTL. The uproar was from a mild, things might need to be changed to running in circles like their hair was on fire, of course it turned out to be a mistake but it still left the question of what needed to be different for it to have been real unanswered.   

26 minutes ago, Genady said:

This scenario breaks the laws of electrodynamics. It breaks the law of energy conservation. Etc. If such a scenario possible, the physics is all wrong.

If I understand correctly you are saying that the only consequence is breaking a law. Does this mean all of physics is wrong or that just a small subset of physics is wrong? I am not trolling, I am looking for physical consequences apart from just some subset of physics being wrong. Would a time "phone" just be something to be explained or would all of physics be wrong... I often get the impression that if just one thing was discovered that broke a law of physics then all of physics would be wiped clean instead of just needing to amend one thing.  

3 minutes ago, Genady said:

The electron travelling faster than light in water does not break any physics because physics in fact says that it cannot move faster than the speed of light in vacuum.

Light itself does not set a limit. The limit is the speed, c. Light and any other massless particle move in vacuum with this speed, c. This is the connection to the "speed of light." 

I understand that, the lit is actually the speed of causality (as we know it) what I am asking is how would that cause problems in the real universe. The scenario I set up would not seem to bring about any paradoxes or cause any harm to the universe.  

23 minutes ago, Genady said:

Yes, it does. The electrons in your "phone", in the past, start moving without a physical cause.

A signal from the future is not a physical cause? Even if this is true how does it do any harm? Even if the signal to the past have no apparent physical cause how does this break physics any more than a an electron traveling FTL through water causing a glow that a man can see but not understand a break in physics?  

On 4/8/2023 at 5:32 AM, Dave said:

I hope you are well and having a good Easter! This is a quick note with two updates:

• GDPR and CPRA requirements now ask that we require consent for third-party cookies, which we do use to serve the advertisements that support the upkeep of the site. You will therefore be presented with a confirmation box if you live in the EU, UK or California so that we are compliant with this legislation.
• There will be some downtime for the site on Tuesday 11th April starting from around 9am UK time (presently GMT+1), and lasting for approximately 2-3 hours. This is to facilitate some much-needed software and hardware updates.

Please do let me know if in this thread if you're having any issues with the cookie notifications or have any other queries.

Thank you for making the use of this forum safer and easier for us all! 

Why is causality violation such a deal breaker? Let's set up a real world example:

Assume we have a "phone" that allows for communication with the past but only between the point in time that the "phone" is created and the present. An asteroid strikes the ocean off the east coast of North America resulting in a wave that wipes out much of the east coast from the Appalachian Mountains to the sea coast.  Millions of lives are lost and property destruction is off the charts in cost. A simple "phone" call allows for the evacuation of the affected area and no lives are lost. 

Does this break causality? Does the universe "break"? Or is this no different than from warning people of an approaching hurricane and taking measures to avoid loss of human lives?  

58 minutes ago, TheVat said:

What's cute and fluffy and full of glycerides?

 

The ester bunny.

 

Groan!!! But still witty! 

1 hour ago, TheVat said:

Have never seen Sabine slip a cog.  Clean that pine tar off your hands.  Does she have a blog segment on this?  I can't watch video atm.

I know what you mean, I watched it a couple times and I couldn't quite figure out what she was saying, I looked for a link but no joy. 

1 hour ago, swansont said:

!

Moderator Note

We need a summary of the argument. From rule 2.7:

Videos and pictures should be accompanied by enough text to set the tone for the discussion

 

Is the argument that you can have v>c solutions in the relativity equations, as long as some other term is imaginary or negative (that is normally positive and real)?

As far as I could tell no, the only thing I didn't quite get was something she called the "co-moving frame" or something similar, it was about the average rest state of the local universe. 

To be honest I thought I did accompany the video with enough text to set the tone for discussion. If it has been any source other than Sabine I would not have posted their video. She is one of a handful of youtubers that meet the criteria of real science done right. In other words she really is the scientist she claims to be. (she sings as well) She says something about this being connected to quantum gravity. The disconnect I am having a problem with starts at 16:00 and ends at 21:54. 

BTW does this rule also apply to written reports that do not rely on videos or pictures? 

I thought I had a pretty good grip on why FTL was impossible. I was knowledgeable enough to at least think I understood why FTL was impossible even in the face of things like warp drive and worm holes. I was pretty confident that the time travel aspects would prohibit FTL even if the infinite energy requirements didn't.

Now I see one of my most respected scientific sources seemingly asserting that all I've been taught was solid as a rock is in fact on shaky ground at best, Sabine Hossenfelder has blown my mind by suggesting all I know might not be as solid as I was led to believe. Is anyone willing to watch this video and assure me that Sabine has slipped a cog so I can let go of the nearest pine tree and return to the idea of solid ground being solid ground?     

Is there any chance we can discuss this report from Minot air base? This is not a video and The paper lists the many ways the sighting was documented and is very interesting to say the least. I am thinking of you @swansonT, your input would be greatly appreciated. 

Why would outer space be a better place to preserve/store body parts? 

Is the Vaquita doomed? With their small size (about one meter) and an economic incentive to continue fishing methods that kill them as by catch can we save them? It is thought that only 10 individuals remain of the population. This short video goes into detail about them. 

1 hour ago, swansont said:

How much power would be required for a planetary-size field?

If the paper doesn't tell it I have no idea. 

13 hours ago, swansont said:

But the scale in still quite small. 10m or so for the craft. 24 tons (3 tons each x8) for that size is a lot.

That is true, but it indicates that a magnetic field can be used in ways that allow for a better coverage from several small magnets rather than one huge one. I think the devil will be in the engineering with this one. Even planetary size mag fields have been proposed. 

On 4/1/2023 at 7:43 PM, swansont said:

That wasn’t clear, and I don’t agree that we can easily generate strong magnetic fields on the scale necessary. We can generate strong fields on a scale of several meters. 

There seems to be some effort on that front. 

https://phys.org/news/2022-05-magnetic-astronauts-dangerous-space.html

22 hours ago, swansont said:

In which case the craft is not encased in ice, and the radiators would tend to melt the ice.

But yes, shedding heat is generally a problem - since all you have is radiation - and it gets worse as the craft gets larger (volume grows faster than surface area). This is especially an issue when they are warmed by the sun. Radiating fins that are near each other don’t work well, since they “see” each other and absorb almost as much as they emit. i.e. two such fins are only marginally better than one, not twice as good. Ice by itself could only radiate a few hundred watts per square meter. (a perfect radiator would emit ~300 W at most at 273K)

To extract electrical energy you have to…wait for it…reject heat.

 

Yes. But you wouldn’t be limited to the radiators being below the freezing point of water, and radiated power varies as T^4. Something at the boiling point of water radiates ~3.5 as much power as at the freezing point, all else being the same

You assume the radiators would have to be near or in contact with the ice? Ok, lets use silicate debris in stead. Even Kuiper belt objects wouldn't be made of exclusively ice nor would all asteroids be made exclusively of silicates. I am sure there are or will be engineering work arounds for these heat radiation problems. 

This does direct back to my original premise of detecting aliens via their heat signatures or do we assume they have Clark tech that negates the issue? Heat radiation is a well known problem for space craft and many designs of nuclear powered craft do indeed take this into account. 

39 minutes ago, swansont said:

We’re talking about the feasibility of encasing something in ice as a radiation shield, and I’m telling you that you’d bake everything inside if you did that. They wouldn’t die from radiation but they’d be just as dead. It’s not a viable solution.

You would have to have radiators no matter what it was made of wouldn't you? 

3 hours ago, swansont said:

Only if you completely ignore the laws of thermodynamics.

This thread has moved away from detecting an alien space habitat by it's IR emissions. Currently it is discussing the viability of such habitats pertaining to protecting the inhabitants from space radiation coming in from outside the habitat. Preventing IR radiation from escaping is not relevant and such escape would occur no matter what the habitat was made of. In fact getting rid of waste heat might very well be a problem in the vacuum of space hence my idea of detecting such objects via their IR emissions which is not what we are currently talking about. 

2 hours ago, NTuft said:

I am not up on this thread, and if the discussion has gone towards sourcing materials locally I suppose that's what you're saying?
Boron, California mine operations

I think there is another large natural deposit in Turkey.

Yes, we are talking sourcing materials locally in the kuiper belt or asteroid belt. Also boron suffers from being rare in the universe at large as well. 

9 hours ago, mistermack said:

You two seem to be talking at cross purposes. 

I agree with Moontanman that waste materials, or stores can be used on the outside of a giant space living module to absorb harmful rays. Once you get over the problem of sourcing heavy materials from space rather than Earth, then it should be easy enough to design effective protection. 

I don't get why the protection can't rotate along with the living area though. Wouldn't it be fiendishly complicated, to have a spinning living module, inside a non-rotating shield ?

Having the protection spinning causes some problems. its mass for one and it's strength or lack thereof. Ice isn't exactly a strong material for structural use and using using it stationary precludes having to stick the chunks together. Not much more strength than a rubble pile possibly held loosely in place by a light structure of some common metal like aluminum? 

The habitat itself would be made principally of carbon instead of metals. Much stronger and lighter, and possibly more available in kuiper belt objects than metals although this might not apply if the habitat was made of asteroidal material and in that case even the waste material would be rock instead of ice.  

If I remember correctly there is also the problem of countering the rotation of the of the habitat. In some of the versions this is countered by having twin cylinders rotating opposite each other. I'm not sure how important this would be.    

8 hours ago, NTuft said:

Boron nitride.

Wouldn't this material be limited due to borons rarity?