Erich Posted January 2, 2012 Author Share Posted January 2, 2012 No, light has a constant velocity no matter what reference frame you are in, this is one of the basic principles of relativity. And this is why it's impossible to have this conversation. You understand but you don't. You need to picture in your mind how the acting of bending space would actually happen. Based upon experimentation and relativity math, I've come to my conclusions. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rob.derosa Posted January 2, 2012 Share Posted January 2, 2012 If you think of the speed of light as, rather than an upper-bound on velocity, as the speed at which a massless particle inherently travels, the physics makes a bit more sense, I think. That is how I think of the speed of light... I'm assuming you're implying in this that you know the clock in the plane ticked faster than the clock on the ground. That contradicts the rest of what you said because the time dilation that they measured from that was a result of distance to a celestial body (Earth). (Unless you meant the act of flying away and not just due to differences in gravity closer and further away.) You can do a quick thought experiment. Say there is a dependence on the way you are moving with respect to the sun on time dilation. If you place two atomic clocks at either side of the planet (say China and America), because one side is rotating towards the sun, and the other away, you will be able to confirm this effect. As we have heard nothing about this, and they have many atomic clocks, I'm pretty confident the effect the OP suggested doesn't actually happen. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Warboy Posted January 2, 2012 Share Posted January 2, 2012 Time is always in sync. It's the great constant. Current time dilation tests have tested "floating through" dilated time zones. But they haven't tested straight lines from astronomical bodies. Whenever a ship returns to earth, time dilation anomalies are always minimal and not even calculated for because of the sync we have with our sun. Check out Noether's Theorem and consider how that would be applied. You sorta dodged the concept tho, I don't mean out of sync completely. Just aka your concept of speed of light and time would break on these small scale examples. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rob.derosa Posted January 2, 2012 Share Posted January 2, 2012 And this is why it's impossible to have this conversation. You understand but you don't. You need to picture in your mind how the acting of bending space would actually happen. Based upon experimentation and relativity math, I've come to my conclusions. So publish your theories and get them peer reviewed (try arXiv for a start). I look forward to reading it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Erich Posted January 2, 2012 Author Share Posted January 2, 2012 m = E / c² Now do our gravity calculation: Fg = G ((E1 / c² ) * (E2 / c²)) / d² There you go, energy equals gravity. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rob.derosa Posted January 2, 2012 Share Posted January 2, 2012 m = E / c² Now do our gravity calculation: Fg = G ((E1 / c² ) * (E2 / c²)) / d² There you go, energy equals gravity. No. Force of gravity equals (constant * energy/c^2 * energy/c^2)/distance^2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Erich Posted January 2, 2012 Author Share Posted January 2, 2012 So publish your theories and get them peer reviewed (try arXiv for a start). I look forward to reading it. Will do, I'm quite serious about this, I believe I can prove just about all of it through existing experiments and currently accepted math. No. Force of gravity equals (constant * energy/c^2 * energy/c^2)/distance^2 That's what I just said wasn't it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rob.derosa Posted January 2, 2012 Share Posted January 2, 2012 That's what I just said wasn't it? No you said gravity equals energy, which is demonstrably not true. When can we expect a more comprehensive thesis of your work? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Erich Posted January 2, 2012 Author Share Posted January 2, 2012 No you said gravity equals energy, which is demonstrably not true. When can we expect a more comprehensive thesis of your work? Keeping me on my toes I see. Thanks :p I've been spamming my theories everywhere online looking for feedback, experiments providing proof or counter-proof. I've been somewhat fruitful at finding proofs. Non-existant at finding counter-proof, and a lot of brickwalls from skeptics. So I suppose I'll have to do this by the book with formulaic response. Don't worry I'm obsessed over this right now. I'll be working diligently. I believe I can explain the Pioneer Anomaly: http://en.wikipedia....Pioneer_anomaly Infact, I think that simply proves what I'm saying!! :D dead.cell 1 Share Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Snake89 Posted January 2, 2012 Share Posted January 2, 2012 Hey OP i think you should read: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OPERA_neutrino_anomaly http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neutrino Since they're going on about how these neutrinos can move faster then the speed of light. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Japlabot Posted January 2, 2012 Share Posted January 2, 2012 First, I don't have an astrophysics understanding. i don't know what it is actually being refered to be "warping" or "bending". Those are just words I can't put into context. But logically (to me) speaking, if a spacecraft was to travel faster than the speed of light to a distant planet, it would NOT appear to an Earth observer that they are going back in time, because the light particles which are coming back to Earth into the Telescope at the speed of light, are coming back at a slower rate than the spacecraft, and therefore the Telescope won't even see the Spacecraft, because the light particles havn't even arrived yet. For example, Lets say it is the Year 2012 on Earth, and it also happens to the year 2012 on Planet X, located 30 light years away. To an Earth observer, X appears to be in the year 1982 by the time that the light arrives on Earth, and vice versa. If we sent a spacecraft to Planet X at 30x lightspeed so it departs Earth in 2012 and arrives at X in 2013, we won't see the spacecraft on X until 2043, by the time the 2013 light from X arrives on Earth 30 years later. To an Earth observer in 2043, it will appear that the Spacecraft has landed in 2013 (which it had), not the 1982 that they could see when they sent it, or the 1983 they could see when it had actually arrived. This is not time travel or going back in time, the people onboard will not look younger than when they left, this is just a "delayed telecast", or when the TV Networks do that, is that going back in time too? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Erich Posted January 2, 2012 Author Share Posted January 2, 2012 I believe we would be able to observe the craft moving "faster than light" in deep space. And it would almost be like it travelled backwards in time. When really, it hasn't, it has just broken the speed of light which is our focal refractor of time essentially. But don't be mistaken, no time travel is actually occurring. Think of the stars as kind of, quantumly entangled with us, rather than sending an image 30 light years away. That's how I'm thinking of it anyways. I suppose it's only theory until proven. But we'll see how this goes. I think I can prove it and/or offer tests. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Japlabot Posted January 2, 2012 Share Posted January 2, 2012 I believe we would be able to observe the craft moving "faster than light" in deep space. And it would almost be like it travelled backwards in time. When really, it hasn't, it has just broken the speed of light which is our focal refractor of time essentially. Can you please explain how it would appear this way, maybe an example would help and why. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rfirth Posted January 2, 2012 Share Posted January 2, 2012 Yes, if a craft was moving faster than the speed of light, you could see it as going backwards in time. Simply because going faster than light will mess with the order in which the light will reach the observer. But this depends on the direction of travel relative to the observer. However, this all rests on the ability to exceed the speed of light (and it would take an infinite amount of energy for a craft to reach the speed of light). You haven't presented any evidence that I can see that would prove that you can exceed the speed of light. But imagine a craft traveling faster than the speed of light towards you, arrives, and goes past you. You wouldn't be able to see it until it arrived. And what you would see at the time of arrival is that it appears to originate at your location and move backwards away from you as the light from earlier in the trip finally arrives. At the same time, you would see it travel away from you forward in time in the direction of travel. So once it arrives, you would see two images of it - one moving away forward into the future, and another going backwards in time. That's what would happen, but doesn't mean it can happen. Japlabot 1 Share Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Erich Posted January 2, 2012 Author Share Posted January 2, 2012 Can you please explain how it would appear this way, maybe an example would help and why. Let's use my supporting evidence "The Pioneer Anomaly": http://en.wikipedia....ck_acceleration Let's assume that if pioneer 10 tested for the speed of light. It would still get the constant, 300,000 m/s. Cool? Sure (maybe). Well at the distance it is currently away from the sun, time is moving faster for the Pioneer probe, and time is continuing to accelerate as it reaches deep space. The implications of this are that it will take less force to initialize greater amounts of action. All of a sudden, deep space becomes this very small place where you can move great distances with very little effort. When you pick a spot to go, you can go to the same time everywhere, so interstellar missions would be observable by telescope, time light delay still exists, but with deep space travel, it's kind of like you'd be bending through that time at high speed, with ease. There wouldn't be any 88mph portal disappearing act. Just observable faster than the speed of light relative to us travel. Why haven't we observed it yet? Because it's not a naturally occurring phenomenon. We'll need photon thrusting engines capable of enough power to supply a constant G force away from the sun. The sun's influence is quite a large one to break, so it's not a small undertaking either. But I imagine if we had a good long rocket boost left on the voyagers, we'd begin to see some real serious ****. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
srbeen Posted January 2, 2012 Share Posted January 2, 2012 great theory now you have the theory - what do you need to PROVE it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Erich Posted January 2, 2012 Author Share Posted January 2, 2012 I think can prove most of it with existing equations, particularly relativity applied to a more solid lorentz transformation. I'd like to get in contact with NASA and get more details about any space atomic-clock experiments, show them how I can calculate their "anomalies" with Einstein's Relativity. It's just a little outside the box thinking... I honestly believe Einstein already knew all of this. It's quite easy to apply his age old formula into these anomalies, maybe he was leaving something behind for someone else to figure out. Kind like, he's the best and he didn't even have to explain all of the implications. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Muhammad Farrukh Posted January 2, 2012 Share Posted January 2, 2012 Thats a great theory. Took me some time to go through it, but didn't find anything that wasn't relevant or was false. Nice work Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kreuger Posted January 2, 2012 Share Posted January 2, 2012 If this were the case, wouldnt Scientists have discovered this already? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Japlabot Posted January 2, 2012 Share Posted January 2, 2012 But imagine a craft traveling faster than the speed of light towards you, arrives, and goes past you. You wouldn't be able to see it until it arrived. And what you would see at the time of arrival is that it appears to originate at your location and move backwards away from you as the light from earlier in the trip finally arrives. At the same time, you would see it travel away from you forward in time in the direction of travel. So once it arrives, you would see two images of it - one moving away forward into the future, and another going backwards in time. Thanks, Great Explanation Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bogas04 Posted January 2, 2012 Share Posted January 2, 2012 It's quite simple really, just solve E = mc² for c. You get: c = ?(E / m) Gravity = energy, mass = energy, light = energy all proportionally of course. Eventually you come to the conclusion that "speed of light is equal to Energy". In an astronomical sense, we can consider the stars like big balls of energy, warping our perception of time. While we will always measure the speed of light in a vacuum the same, that rate at which we can propel an interstellar craft is indeed well beyond that from a relative Earth observer. Think of it this way. The further away you are from the sun, the slower your timezone ticks. Force becomes more effective and as theoretical light speeds are approached, space bends around you. If viewed in a telescope, a relative rocket that would take 12 onboard human years to travel 560 lights years would appear to make the trip going back in time 548 years. Although no time travel actually occurred, we will indeed break the speed of light. Mass is not constant , it depends on your velocity , mass defect equation ? So as you go faster your mass decreases... so u can't just solve using that equation... p1p3 and Muhammad Farrukh 2 Share Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
xeleraph Posted January 2, 2012 Share Posted January 2, 2012 Mass is not constant , it depends on your velocity , mass defect equation ? So as you go faster your mass decreases... so u can't just solve using that equation... Was just going to post that, but you beat me to it. Kind of surprising how someone who claims to work with photon emissions doesn't even know that mass is variable and momentum contributes to energy, and the equations he's been trotting out are only valid when a particle is at rest... The real mass-energy equivalence equation (and Lorentz transformations) shows that the mass of particles increase as they gain energy. As they approach light speed, their relativistic mass approaches infinity, and hence an infinite amount of force is required to accelerate the particle any further. Which is why the speed of light is an impassable barrier. Arthax 1 Share Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Erich Posted January 2, 2012 Author Share Posted January 2, 2012 Awesome... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rfirth Posted January 2, 2012 Share Posted January 2, 2012 The real mass-energy equivalence equation (and Lorentz transformations) shows that the mass of particles increase as they gain energy. As they approach light speed, their relativistic mass approaches infinity, and hence an infinite amount of force is required to accelerate the particle any further. Which is why the speed of light is an impassable barrier. This. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Erich Posted January 2, 2012 Author Share Posted January 2, 2012 Was just going to post that, but you beat me to it. Kind of surprising how someone who claims to work with photon emissions doesn't even know that mass is variable and momentum contributes to energy, and the equations he's been trotting out are only valid when a particle is at rest... The real mass-energy equivalence equation (and Lorentz transformations) shows that the mass of particles increase as they gain energy. As they approach light speed, their relativistic mass approaches infinity, and hence an infinite amount of force is required to accelerate the particle any further. Which is why the speed of light is an impassable barrier. Which is why, you use photonic laser thrusters. "warp speed" will do. Kinda like you warrrrrrrp. Cuz that's what it'll feel like. Infinite energy? No problem. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts