Jump to content

travelling faster than light


lxxvii24
 Share

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 65
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

oh I just read through and realized bascule already said it was imaginary lol... anyways, if it's really true then it's entirely impossible for anything to ever travel faster then light, then I doubt we will ever get very far outside our own solar system.

 

I bet that would kill the heart of sci-fi fans everywhere lmao

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I assume too that when you say faster then light you mean c.

 

A particle traveling through water could go faster then lights speed through that water. It produces Cherenkov radiation (blue light).

 

also quatum entaglement is instaneous but no information can ever be sent using it.

 

There are many examples of FTL but all of them (that I've heard) claim information can never be sent using them.

 

This is interesting though: stand up and stare at the moon. Spin around at 1/2 rev/s. To your reference frame the moon (385,000 km away) travels at 1.2 million km/s which is 4 times the speed of light. Theres an explanation of this, but I found it funny (spinning around to make the moon travel faster then light... lol.)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Swansont,

 

As you know, all of the great pioneers in science are at first thought of by their peers as 'crackpots'.

 

Columbus thought the world to be round not flat.

Capernicus thought the earth was'nt the center of the universe.

I could go on but I'm sure you know them all.

 

Neither Columbus nor Capernicus (et al) had calculus to prove to their peers the justification of their thought process, instead they used reasoning, courage and demonstration with the tools they had available as their proof.

For many... at the time it was still not enough. Their 'greatness' was not to be realized in their lifetime.

 

Anyone who goes against current thinking is assured of being called a 'crackpot' or any of the usual names that seem appropriate to use by anyone who wants to be assured themselves that what they know is complete and correct.

 

I agree that perpetual motion machines may never exist, but perpetual motion does. Propel an object in outer space and that object will sustain its velocity and direction (in theory) forever, until effected by some other force.

 

Electrons 'orbit' their proton assembly without adding or using up the energy that cause them to do so.

 

As humans, we use nature as our greatest teacher. All of the sciences are about learning the 'hidden secrets' that the universe holds, and in time reveals the secrets as laws.

 

As a society, we need such people. They take on the risk for the sake of those who fear to, they have earned the honor to be called pioneers, by their sacrifice. How then should we label the rest?

 

For myself I have learned to refrain from calling anyone a 'crackpot' because their opinion is different than mine.

 

More to the point:

Bearden's work has gained my apprieciation because he is working in an area of science that has no mathamatical representation outside of a closed loop circuit, yet there are many examples of over unity devices that have been title 35'd due to their threat to national security and current political policies.

 

If you need proof of scalar wave technology application just look over your head almost any day of the week, you'll see those high altitude planes laying down long white plumes of chemicals(barium titanate) that saturate the sky and spread to a milky haze... contrails evaporate.

You may also notice the pattern that occurrs in them as wave like until you observe the interference zone. It looks more like a grid pattern, you would instantly recognized... very few others would.

 

Does it make sense to you that if there were higher orders of symmetry within our current understanding of electromagnetic principles that those properties would be used as weapons and weapon systems first and then if any spinoffs from that technology could be used for industrial purposes it would be for sale to the highest bidder? Where and when have we seen this pattern before?

 

The defense rests.

 

K

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Tesla didn't understand Maxwell's Equations. He didn't understand the Inverse Square Law' date=' or maybe he wouldn't have wasted so much of his time on his elusive dream of wireless electrical power for the whole world.

 

Tesla did invent an awesome form of communication; the underlying technology behind radio, usurped by Marconi who was actually concerned with making it practical.

 

Tesla certainly deserved the nobel prize for his work on AC electric power and radio. But he quickly became eccentric and his ideas less grounded in practical, real world applications.

 

Considering he barely understood the mathematics behind electromagnetic radiation, how are you claiming he stumbled upon technologies "the world is not ready for?"[/quote']

 

Is it your assertion that physics cannot be understood outside of mathematics?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Swansont' date='

 

As you know, all of the great pioneers in science are at first thought of by their peers as 'crackpots'.

 

Columbus thought the world to be round not flat.

Capernicus thought the earth was'nt the center of the universe.

I could go on but I'm sure you know them all.

 

Neither Columbus nor Capernicus (et al) had calculus to prove to their peers the justification of their thought process, instead they used reasoning, courage and demonstration with the tools they had available as their proof.

For many... at the time it was still not enough. Their 'greatness' was not to be realized in their lifetime.[/quote']

Columbus thinking the world was round was no big deal, since it had been known to be round for about two thousand years at that point.

 

 

Anyone who goes against current thinking is assured of being called a 'crackpot' or any of the usual names that seem appropriate to use by anyone who wants to be assured themselves that what they know is complete and correct.

 

No, not really. They're called crackpots when they don't have evidence to back up their positions. One big clue is when they say they're convinced that they're right, and nothing will convince them they are wrong. That's not science.

 

 

I agree that perpetual motion machines may never exist' date=' but perpetual motion does. Propel an object in outer space and that object will sustain its velocity and direction (in theory) forever, until effected by some other force.

 

Electrons 'orbit' their proton assembly without adding or using up the energy that cause them to do so.[/quote']

 

These processes are well-understood, though you're wrong about the first example if you think space is a perfect vacuum and that the object won't collide with particles.

 

As humans' date=' we use nature as our greatest teacher. All of the sciences are about learning the 'hidden secrets' that the universe holds, and in time reveals the secrets as laws.

 

As a society, we need such people. They take on the risk for the sake of those who fear to, they have earned the honor to be called pioneers, by their sacrifice. How then should we label the rest?

 

For myself I have learned to refrain from calling anyone a 'crackpot' because their opinion is different than mine.[/quote']

 

But in science it's not a matter of opinion. It's a matter of evidence.

 

More to the point:

Bearden's work has gained my apprieciation because he is working in an area of science that has no mathamatical representation outside of a closed loop circuit' date=' yet there are many examples of over unity devices that have been title 35'd due to their threat to national security and current political policies.

 

If you need proof of scalar wave technology application just look over your head almost any day of the week, you'll see those high altitude planes laying down long white plumes of chemicals(barium titanate) that saturate the sky and spread to a milky haze... contrails evaporate.

You may also notice the pattern that occurrs in them as wave like until you observe the interference zone. It looks more like a grid pattern, you would instantly recognized... very few others would.

 

Does it make sense to you that if there were higher orders of symmetry within our current understanding of electromagnetic principles that those properties would be used as weapons and weapon systems first and then if any spinoffs from that technology could be used for industrial purposes it would be for sale to the highest bidder? Where and when have we seen this pattern before?

 

The defense rests.

 

K[/quote']

 

Ah, yes, the light bulb goes on.

 

I'd be careful - the government is secretly working on technology that will render tinfoil hats ineffective. Elvis is helping them, and so is Nessie.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What do physicists normally do to validate mathematical models?

 

They do experiments. So? What does that have to do with the point at hand?

 

The assertion is that physics cannot be understood apart from mathematics. That statements asserts the necessity--not the sufficiency--of mathematics in understanding physics.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

They do experiments. So? What does that have to do with the point at hand?

 

The assertion is that physics cannot be understood apart from mathematics. That statements asserts the necessity--not the sufficiency--of mathematics in understanding physics.

 

Easy there killer - all I'm saying is that someone can, in fact, understand a given physical phenomena without ever using mathematics as his/her modelling tool. The problem that person might encounter when talking to someone who uses mathematics as his/her basis for understanding reality is that they would expect to get mathematically-based answers to questions. That bias toward mathematics does not discount the ability of someone to understand physical phenomena without mathematics.

 

Does the physics world as a whole use mathematics - yes.

 

Is it difficult to separate mathematics from physical reality once you've learned to look at it through a mathematical lense - yes.

 

Is it possible to understand the physical world without mathematics - yes.

 

The experiment used to validate a mathematical model can just as easliy be used as the basis for understanding. Trial, error and inspection, while time consuming, is a valid method for developing an understanding of a given phenomena.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The experiment used to validate a mathematical model can just as easliy be used as the basis for understanding.

 

I think that you did not understand my point about necessesity vs. sufficiency. Neither theory nor experiment alone can serve as the basis for understanding physics. Both are required' date=' and if either one is missing then understanding is not taking place.

 

Trial, error and inspection, while time consuming, is a valid method for developing an understanding of a given phenomena.

 

Not by any normal usage of the word "understanding" it isn't. It is not enough to simply observe that things that are thrown upwards eventually fall downwards (and even this is not always true). To understand what is happening it is necessary to know when, where, and how fast the object falls downwards, or if it will fall downwards at all. This requires mathematics.

 

Just out of curiosity, on what do you base your remarks? You obviously aren't basing them on your studies or research. That leaves one wondering what you are basing them on.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not by any normal usage of the word "understanding" it isn't. It is not enough to simply observe that things that are thrown upwards eventually fall downwards (and even this is not always true). To understand what is happening it is necessary to know when' date=' where, and how fast the object falls downwards, or if it will fall downwards at all. This requires mathematics.

[/quote']

 

Well there you go. If you define "understanding" to include "mathematical understanding", then it stands to reason that understanding would require mathematics. But that's a bit circular.

 

I think that this will ultimately boil down to a definition of "understanding". If you have a top level of understanding, let's call it "complete understanding", it will have a lot of prerequisites. Because mathematics exists, you can make the argument that it must be a prerequisite because "complete understanding" will include every possible means of understanding.

 

However, I would argue that mathematics was developed as a tool for "understanding", but does not constitute "understanding". If "understanding" is separate from the myriad of tools used in its ultimate cause, then none of those tools can claim to be necessary to reach it.

 

 

Just out of curiosity' date=' on what do you base your remarks? You obviously aren't basing them on your studies or research. That leaves one wondering what you [b']are[/b] basing them on.

 

What?? On what is your curiosity based? Is it based on your research? I have a brain and an opinion. Pretty much the same as everyone else here. What level of study do you require to have an opinion, Tom?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well there you go. If you define "understanding" to include "mathematical understanding"' date=' then it stands to reason that understanding would require mathematics. But that's a bit circular.

[/quote']

 

No, it's not circular at all if you consider that physics is a science, and that science is about making predictions. No scientist would acknowledge that you understand his subject unless you were able to make quantitative predictions. If you can figure out how to make such predictions without using mathematics, then you will have succeeded in proving wrong the assertion that physics cannot be understood apart from mathematics.

 

However, I would argue that mathematics was developed as a tool for "understanding", but does not constitute "understanding". If "understanding" is separate from the myriad of tools used in its ultimate cause, then none of those tools can claim to be necessary to reach it.

 

Nonsense. Your conclusion simply does not logically follow from your premises. But we don't even need to resort to formal logic here because common sense is enough to debunk your argument. Cars are built with tools, and yet a car is not 'tools'. Does that mean that tools are not necessary to build cars? If you tried to convince any auto builder of that he would laugh you out of the room. And it doesn't sound any more sensible when you apply the argument to physics.

 

What?? On what is your curiosity based? Is it based on your research? I have a brain and an opinion. Pretty much the same as everyone else here.

 

There's a difference between my curiosity and your opinions: I am open to learning new things, whereas you just want to tell people 'how it is', despite the fact that you have never so much as lifted a finger to see 'how it is' for yourself. The claims I have seen you make both in this thread and elsewhere are marked by having equal parts ignorance and arrogance. That is why, to the extent that you make those claims, your contribution to this thread in particular and SFN in general is rubbish, and should be exposed as such.

 

What level of study do you require to have an opinion, Tom?

 

Anyone can have an opinion. But in order for that opinion to not be meaningless at best or misleading at worst, then the required level of study is far higher than you have bothered to undertake.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 Is it possible to understand the physical world without mathematics - yes.Posted by Saint.

My answer is no. What really is mathematics, wat does maths deal with, wat does it use as its constant, variables,…… My thinking is that Maths models the world, e.g real nos model the physical world, and there on. Who has ever wondered y 0 and infinity are the most controversial nos in the world. Well I think the science community should start thinking about some universal forces in control. Y is all mathematical equations( this includes physics) equated to the no. ZERO.

Who can answer that.

Also, does anyone here have a great understanding of complex nos?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 Can anyone pls help falsify, if u can this statement by Bearden … A pseudo-longitudinal EM wave has finite energy and finite velocity, but its velocity may be less than or greater than the velocity of light in free space. When it’s subliminal, it’s called an “EM particle”. Nimtz and his colleagues have also transmitted Mozart’s 40th symphony down a waveguide at speed 4.7c, and clearly listened to it on the other end. This blows the tar out of the old saw that “information cannot be transmitted superluminally”

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 In fact, quantum tunneling has been known to permit superluminal communication, for some decades. So wat the hell is this “There are many examples of FTL but all of them (that I've heard) claim information can never be sent using them.” Posted by CanadaAotS.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

? Can anyone pls help falsify' date=' if u can this statement by Bearden … A pseudo-longitudinal EM wave has finite energy and finite velocity, but its velocity may be less than or greater than the velocity of light in free space. When it’s subliminal, it’s called an “EM particle”. Nimtz and his colleagues have also transmitted Mozart’s 40th symphony down a waveguide at speed 4.7c, and clearly listened to it on the other end. This blows the tar out of the old saw that “information cannot be transmitted superluminally”

 

...

 

In fact, quantum tunneling has been known to permit superluminal communication, for some decades. So wat the hell is this “There are many examples of FTL but all of them (that I've heard) claim information can never be sent using them.” Posted by CanadaAotS.[/quote']

 

As I understand it, Nimtz used a "pulse-peak" measurement to come up with his result. So you are prone to the same interpretation mistakes as the anomalous dispersion experiments - if you reshape the pulse you get a superluminal answer, but without violating causality.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Originally Posted by Tom Matson

Cars are built with tools, and yet a car is not 'tools'. Does that mean that tools are not necessary to build cars? If you tried to convince any auto builder of that he would laugh you out of the room.

Is that last sentence your opinion, a fact or just a put down or what?

Cars are built with tools. Saint made the distinction between understanding and tools. Saint wasn't talking about cars but if he had been then maybe he would have said that understanding is like a car's destination. In what ways do you think understanding is like a car?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Is that last sentence your opinion' date=' a fact or just a put down or what?

Cars are built with tools. Saint made the distinction between understanding and tools. Saint wasn't talking about cars but if he had been then maybe he would have said that understanding is like a car's destination. In what ways do you think understanding is like a car?[/quote']

 

It should be obvious. Understanding of physics is built with mathematics, and automobiles are built with tools. You ought to be able to figure it out from there.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Originally Posted by Tom Mattson

It should be obvious. Understanding of physics is built with mathematics, and automobiles are built with tools. You ought to be able to figure it out from there.

I get the bit that mathematics is a tool. But understanding of physics is like a car? How? What's the connection? Is that a metaphor, an analogy, what?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Of course it's an analogy. I stated it as a counterexample to Saint's argument, which is:

 

P is used to build Q.

Therefore, P is not necessary to achieve Q.

 

Finding counterexamples is a standard, textbook way to show the invalidity of an argument. Of course, it's obvious that the above syllogism is invalid, but I stated the counterexample anyway in case Saint hasn't studied logic, which I am inclined to think is likely.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share


×
×
  • 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.