I was browsing the web one day and i had the notion to look up info on the philidelphia experiment . As the storys goes it said that they used Einstein's Unified Field Theory for Gravitation and Electricity to build this massive magnetic generator and possibly hide a ship from radar. From what i understand about black holes is that light can't escape them. In theory then the fastest speed would be none at all.

Point A = Point B (0,0)

point of entry=0
point of return=0



Just a thought

Originally posted by LordAza
I was browsing the web one day and i had the notion to look up info on the philidelphia experiment . As the storys goes it said that they used Einstein's Unified Field Theory for Gravitation and Electricity to build this massive magnetic generator and possibly hide a ship from radar. From what i understand about black holes is that light can't escape them. In theory then the fastest speed would be none at all.


Eh?

I wouldn't put any money on the Philadelphia myth.

Ron.

Ok forget the phildephia myth and do the math. which is faster?
Moving or being moved?


Point a-----------------------------------Point b

D= 20 light yrs (between point a and b)


speed of light is 670,878,000 miles per hour


speed of light (http://galileoandeinstein.physics.virginia.edu/lectures/spedlite.html)

or simply doing this

Point a=point b

this is the reason of the topic.

If light is the fastest there is in the known cosmos then why is it being pulled into a black hole. We can not say it is the fastest because we have never experience anything at that speed.

Theories ....take them for what they are (most of them anyways)....ideas mathmatically possible on paper but not probable in the here and now.

Originally posted by LordAza
Ok forget the phildephia myth and do the math. which is faster?... If light is the fastest there is in the known cosmos then why is it being pulled into a black hole. We can not say it is the fastest because we have never experience anything at that speed... Theories ....take them for what they are (most of them anyways)....ideas mathmatically possible on paper but not probable in the here and now.
Open a book. Use your mind. Reality beckons.

- Warren

The workings of the human brain are faster then light: If the beams of light can be changed in pictures as we experience our vieuwing the reality, then the transport/coding/presenting of the picture in the brain must be much faster then ligth, because we can see some very comlex pictures and understand them immediately. Thus the (slowly) flying beams come into the accelerator in the brain and the accelerator makes them "readable". If you compare this process to a simple mirror, than the brain (in practically no time) encodes the mirror-like picture into a "transportable' form, which can be understood/evaluated in the brain.

The workings of the human brain are faster then light

The same brain you can give the impression of motion by only flashing about 24 frames a second?

LordAza :

Pl. don't take philadelphia experiment story seriously. Not because it was officially denied by US Navy and authorities, but , I feel the whole story has a thread of fantacy! Dimensional violation, UFOs, space warp etc.. all intermingled, effectively employed! But enjoyed reading it as a fiction.!

Fastest known thing is the speed of light as of now.

The same brain you can give the impression of motion by only flashing about 24 frames a second?

Please consider: the eyes see the frames as distinct (slow light) but the brain accelerates the frames into a continuum (because it can work faster then light it can bridge the gaps - if the brain were slower than light you would see the frames).

Originally posted by chroot
Open a book. Use your mind. Reality beckons.

- Warren

i can't help but to think that everyone thinks i believe in everything. Well let me rectify this situation. As i stated before i was talking about theories. Until proven with scientific fact that is all they are. Can you physically see a black hole or a molecule?Think about when the scientists thought about flying. As for science where did it come from. Modern Chemistry is based off of the art of Alchemy. Medicine is based off of what used to be shamanistic practice. Didn't they also used to think the Sun died and was born everyday? As far as we know things we know now might be considered primative in the future. And what we deem impossible could be possible. :p


-Jace

Originally posted by LordAza
Didn't they also used to think the Sun died and was born everyday? As far as we know things we know now might be considered primative in the future. And what we deem impossible could be possible. :p


-Jace

They didn't have experimentally confirmed thoeries...But we have (For most ...).

Wish it would be possible to warp space as you think...in future !

Please consider: the eyes see the frames as distinct (slow light) but the brain accelerates the frames into a continuum (because it can work faster then light it can bridge the gaps - if the brain were slower than light you would see the frames).

The reason you do not see frames is because your brain very well sequences the images as if it were a movie. In addition - you do not see everything continuously, e.g. you do not see the process of your monitor building up an image because it goes too quickly for your brain to register.

The reason you do not see frames is because your brain very well sequences the images as if it were a movie. In addition - you do not see everything continuously, e.g. you do not see the process of your monitor building up an image because it goes too quickly for your brain to register.

Do you want to propose that the brain works slowlier than light? Then you woud not be able to see sharp pictures but only some haze. The pictures (and the changing of them) are brougt to you at the speed of ligth so to be able to "understand" them and to "opperate on them" mentally, the brain must work faster then light which forwards the pictures.

If neurons need EM pulses (<= c ) to communicate/analyse how brain could be faster than the light ? :eek:

However the conduction speed of neurons is 250 km/hour, at most (if i remember correctly).

Why would there be a haze if the brain only samples its environment just as a camera does, every x times in a second? If the sample rate is high enough, you'd notice nothing. This is what televisions and computer monitors do - they exploit our relatively slow sample rate. But now i am just repeating myself.

OK. The light brings the picture to the eyes, and then it, according to you, goes slower (eg 250 km/h)). Then the following picture is left out (to allow the retarded thinking to digest the previous picture). The screens are syncronised to this frequency and do (practically) what the brain would have done. Well I haven't thought about that that way. It means that the half of my life went unnoticed by. I will think about it. ( Are black-outs then caused by a disturbance in the the frequency of the lights in some bars? That would explain a lot!)

Are black-outs then caused by a disturbance in the the frequency of the lights in some bars? That would explain a lot
:D
Don't know... as for me, i would find it more likely to relate black
outs in bars to alcohol consumption.

Would u like to take the proposal that :

alcohol works faster than brain and hence light, at some times and at some places like bars.....:p

This is all becoming silly.

a) Of course our brains don't work faster than light! Speak to a psychophysicist if you don't believe me.

b) There is no contradiction between the speed of light and the behaviour of black holes. If some of our correspondents don't accept that then that is their problem.

c) The 'as far as we know...theories are only theories...one day we might find out differently...' arguments are fatuous - I hear it every day. Every serious scholar knows and accepts it - up to the point where evidence says otherwise.

Ron.

There exists a notion that black-outs can be connected to frequent/massive alcohol consumption, but such kind of thinking is based purely on "folklor wisdoms". I prefer the scientific approach suggested here: in some bars (and I know a couple of them) the alcohol consumption in interaction with the allumination of these places causes an inversion of "full" and "empty" frames so that (under some "ideal" conditions) the brain's processing of seeing at some point switches from the pictures to the black frames (comparable to inversed video camera). That explains it: your eyes can see and you can move and all, but your memory registers only the black frames. That, I would propose, is a scientific explanation of the black-outs.


This is all becoming silly.

My idea was something like:a watermill on the river turns as quickly as the water streams through it - the same with light: it brings pictures/water to the brain/mill (what comes in at the speed of light must be processed at the speed of light otherwise you get a lake/haze)

If you were traveling at the speed of light, the only things you would be able to see with some clarity, would be those in front of you light minutes ahead, anything else would be a blurr. No, your brain does not work at the speed of light. Just think if you would have to see anything moving a the speed of light, your brain would nbot stand a chance to detect it. You can only see the light constantly relected in a flower or lake or anything else, the light is moving not the flower or the lake etc..., so for as long as there is light moving youll see things, turn the switch off and puff!! they are gone out of sight. Take my word, i know..

There exists a notion that black-outs can be connected to frequent/massive alcohol consumption, but such kind of thinking is based purely on "folklor wisdoms".

Folklor wisdoms? aren't there millions of well documented cases?

in some bars (and I know a couple of them) the alcohol consumption in interaction with the allumination of these places causes an inversion of "full" and "empty" frames so that (under some "ideal" conditions) the brain's processing of seeing at some point switches from the pictures to the black frames (comparable to inversed video camera). That explains it: your eyes can see and you can move and all, but your memory registers only the black frames. That, I would propose, is a scientific explanation of the black-outs.

At best it is an far fetched hypothesis, not a scientific explanation. I am not well introduced to the way alcohol disturbs memory storage, but i am quite sure that large consumption of alcohol is affecting memory just as well in an illuminated bar as on a dark grassfield in the country.

At best it is an far fetched hypothesis, not a scientific explanation. I am not well introduced to the way alcohol disturbs memory storage, but i am quite sure that large consumption of alcohol is affecting memory just as well in an illuminated bar as on a dark grassfield in the country.

Anyone who's got a black-out "on a dark grassfield in the country" can put his/her name here, and so enter the history of science as the living proof that not the bulbs but alcohol causes the memory loss while drinking. Starry starry nigths drinkers are disqualified by default.

Just because you black out doesn't mean you mind 'stops registering frames'. We can't claim that because we don't know how the brain works. It could be that the brain registers, and later forgets due to the effects of alchohol. Or, if the brain uses some indexing system, maybe the index just doesn't get updated.

It is scientific to associate drinking with black-outs... but the method is just guessed.

Are you attempting to be facetious? Or are you merely flaunting your ignorance?

Are you attempting to be facetious? Or are you merely flaunting your ignorance?

Sorry for the diversion with the black-outs. I am really intrerested in the problem stated above: how the brain can process information coming into it at the speed of light "on-line":


My idea was something like:a watermill on the river turns as quickly as the water streams through it - the same with light: it brings pictures/water to the brain/mill (what comes in at the speed of light must be processed at the speed of light otherwise you get a lake/haze)

There you go again, ProCop, mixing unrelated concepts in astoundingly dumb ways. You crazy kid, you.

- Warren

A point here is the human brain can achieve FTL communication, this is possible due to a mixture of how brain signals travel.

It's not as simple as traveling between two points in the human brain, signals can take many paths and cause a collected Kaleidoscopic effect, you wouldn't notice that effect how ever as multiple Kaleidoscopic defractions compile to give for instance Vision.

[In fact only recently I've percieved how neurons inteface different, removing what I was told previously about using Axon's for information transition to actual radiance from a synaptic transition.

Namely a Synapse acts like a switch, and when a neuron fires (through stimulation), it radiates/echo's out it's movement through it's own synapses in their various chemical positions, to a nearby neuron that is also covered in synapses. Depending on the shape/positioning of the neuron and how all the synapses were chemically positioned, devises how the synapses that cover the whole neuron react to the field generated, spawning a value for the neuron.

The Axons are only used for neural transport, like a high speed connection to the main stems of the brain so the information can be processed.

[The above is from theory into Neurology for Cognative patterning for Aritificial Intelligence creation]
=======================================
Alcohol increases the speed at which calories are burnt, while also being a great conductor (for electrical charges). When a neuron fires it releases a charge which can travel further depending on the how saturated the system is with alcohol.

Again based on how I've perceived the mind to work, a neuron acts similar to a photo, in the sense that it's "photosensative".

This means that for it to "memories" it needs a period of "exposure". When someone has drank alot of alcohol the charge from neurons that are firing excite other neurons too much, not allowing them an exposure time which can cause memory loss and even blackouts.

Not to forget the body needs oxygen, and Alcohol burning helping to burn more calories than normal uses up the bodies oxygen content quicker, causing drowsiness.
======================================

As for any Reality to the Philadelphia Experiment, well there might very well have been an experiment in making something disappear from radar, but I doubt it made a whole object disappear.

(Namely you wouldn't see it on radar, but would see it if you looked).

There is only one Hypothesis that would allow the disappear of an object and it's based on a Multiworld theory, where two universal layers could be made from one universe, and an object Moved differently on each so it doesn't take up the same position.

The Hypothesis is that a bombardment of one of the objects from it's universal layer might be able to replenish lost energy at it's universal position. Making it Whole throughout the multiworld and appearing in a universe it didn't previously exist in.

Although this hypothesis is about the creation of matter, there is also the possibility of doing the reverse, but that would involve tunneling.

Although I would treat the above as ficitional as it's reality is at present.
=======================================

As for faster than light, Well the discussions that have followed this subject have been far too many to mention, But what I understand is:

Einstein worked with Boris Podolsky and Nathan Rosen over something that was puzzling them about how Atoms could stay in contact with each other over distances. It created what is known today as the EPR paradox.

The basis of Relativity though gave an idea that rather than trying to view two atoms moving apart from each other but seemingly still being able to communicate with each other, as one plane, that the very reason the atoms communicated with each other was down to multiple planes.

(Just like how I mentioned the multiworlds above for your Philadelphia experiment).

The understanding is that Mass acts like it's own centre of the universe throughout a plane of space. So each atom is at it's own universal centre, and those universal centres could exist as "Layers", the "Layers" could then be shifted over each other to those centre points.

I doubt this last bit would have made much sense, since it is again another Hypothesis, But it does explain how the universe is tied up with superstring.

Originally posted by Stryderunknown
A point here is the human brain can achieve FTL communication, this is possible due to a mixture of how brain signals travel..<big snip>.

Wow - what a posting. Let's start with the first sentence: No it doesn't.

Ron.

From what i understand about black holes is that light can't escape them. In theory then the fastest speed would be none at all.

As I understand light can escape from them, but since the speed of light is decreased by the pull of their gravity (untill it escapes ofcourse) they only immit very fade light that can not be seen on the background of the 'other stars'. Ofcourse in theory there must be those that are so large that light created on their surface doesn't come out. But at the place where light is trapped by the gravity, there is usually enough matter colliding to emit at least some light. In total, it's confusing.

When it comes to the human brain: it tricks us into being more eligable to survive in many ways.

When you travel with the speed of light, things you are facing directly are twice as bright and they seem to happening doublespeed. The rest is indeed a blurry.

Light was reported not to be the fastest thing arround. I have read that students have propelled something beyond it and could repeat the experiment (it costed only 500 dollars!).

The fact that light seems to be the fastest cruising speed at one can travel is because it's almost not constrained by mass and usually doesn't counter anything that slows it down. (Think of the deflector on startrek ships which keeps them safe from space rubble. At the speed of light a grain of sand will leave an exitwound.) Mind: It swims at the same speed, sometimes upstream sometimes downstream. It can be faster, it can be slower.

The thought that one can travel backwards and forwards in time by going beyond the speed of light holds the same amount of water as the ancient belief that the speed of sound equalled this treshold.

One time Einstein looked at the clock and imagined moving away from it with a speed greater then light and thought of seeing the clock turn backwards. Ofcourse he is right in seeing that if we can even see the backside of light. But that doesn't mean it hasn't happened yet or that it can be changed.

I am probably just saying that I don't understand that arguement. I am most likely not writing history stating this.

Originally posted by adunguem factus homo
From what i understand about black holes is that light can't escape them. In theory then the fastest speed would be none at all.
The fastest speed is c, the speed of light. That the escape velocity of a black hole is greater than c says nothing about c itself.
As I understand light can escape from them, but since the speed of light is decreased by the pull of their gravity
The speed of light is always c.
(untill it escapes ofcourse) they only immit very fade light that can not be seen on the background of the 'other stars'.
Black holes do not radiate -- at least not in the normal sense. Hawking radiation is not light.
Ofcourse in theory there must be those that are so large that light created on their surface doesn't come out. But at the place where light is trapped by the gravity, there is usually enough matter colliding to emit at least some light. In total, it's confusing.
It's not confusing at all. v_esc > c. Done.
When you travel with the speed of light, things you are facing directly are twice as bright and they seem to happening doublespeed. The rest is indeed a blurry.
Nothing with mass can travel at the speed of light. Your factor of two should be in fact, a factor of infinity.
Light was reported not to be the fastest thing arround. I have read that students have propelled something beyond it and could repeat the experiment (it costed only 500 dollars!).
No information or energy can be transmitted faster than light. However, it is possible to create something that carries no information or energy, that travels faster than light. The common example is a light-bulb: if you wave a paper back and forth across it, at some great distance, the shadow is going faster than the speed of light.
The fact that light seems to be the fastest cruising speed at one can travel is because it's almost not constrained by mass and usually doesn't counter anything that slows it down.
I don't know what this means -- but the speed c is just a constant of our universe. It has nothing to do with mass.
At the speed of light a grain of sand will leave an exitwound.) Mind: It swims at the same speed, sometimes upstream sometimes downstream. It can be faster, it can be slower.
Nothing with mass can go the speed of light. The speed of light is not a quantity which is relevant to understanding minds.
The thought that one can travel backwards and forwards in time by going beyond the speed of light holds the same amount of water as the ancient belief that the speed of sound equalled this treshold.
If you go faster than light, you can break causality. Effects can happen before their causes. This is intermediate physics. It holds substantial water.
One time Einstein looked at the clock and imagined moving away from it with a speed greater then light and thought of seeing the clock turn backwards. Ofcourse he is right in seeing that if we can even see the backside of light. But that doesn't mean it hasn't happened yet or that it can be changed.
I don't recall light having a characteristic known as a "backside."

- Warren

One time Einstein looked at the clock and imagined moving away from it with a speed greater then light and thought of seeing the clock turn backwards. Ofcourse he is right in seeing that if we can even see the backside of light. But that doesn't mean it hasn't happened yet or that it can be changed.

If I stand in a dark landscape shinig a cone of ligt against faraway hill and then suddenly turn the light off, then (for a very short moment) I can see the "backside" of the light cone fly away. Not absolutely sure about this. Does light disappear the rest of it flying towards the hill at the speed of light? If so and if I had two mirrors exactly reflecting each other between me and the hill and the light came from my torch placed in front of my side mirror and I switched the light off how many times would the last reflection of the light travel the distance between the mirrors. It would be very short process but I gues the light would be reflected to a back thousands of times between the mirrors.

chroot, light does have it's C. But measuring from A any to B any the speed appears not constant because it can be pulled "so it slows down" (you might explain it by saying it's zigzagging heavily). Proof? You know it is bendable.

And light does have mass. It's unbearably small, but it does have mass.

"The speed of light is not relevant because we will never be able to travel as fast." I think for now that is as true as it gets. But one needs to speculate to gain understanding.

"Your factor of two should be in fact, a factor of infinity." When saying that we could travel exactly the speed of light. It would be 2. The light would meet us with it's normal speed and we would be going towards it with the same speed. Give me one reason why it would be infinite (under the assumptions of the model).

"If you go faster than light, you can break causality. Effects can happen before their causes. This is intermediate physics. It holds substantial water. "

Explain this to me. And explain why this isn't true when one travels beyond the speed of sound.

"If I stand in a dark landscape shinig a cone of ligt against faraway hill and then suddenly turn the light off, then (for a very short moment)"

Aha! but can you actually see the backside? Light goes too fast to know that for sure. And if you are talking about fogg or something like that: then isn't the light interupted and reflected back at you, perhaps returning to it's usual front-end first?

Aha! but can you actually see the backside? Light goes too fast to know that for sure. And if you are talking about fogg or something like that: then isn't the light interupted and reflected back at you, perhaps returning to it's usual front-end first?

Are you suggesting that I have to go and stand in front of my torch to see its light, because if the light flies away from me at the speed of light I cannot see it from behind the torch? (I wonder now that I see the light at all (in my living room). Probably I see only the half of light shining towards me. The other half of the light which is flying away from the midde-of-the-room lamp I cannot see because "it goes too fast to know" So I am left with the second hand light (reflection of my half of the room reflections)).

Originally posted by adunguem factus homo
chroot, light does have it's C. But measuring from A any to B any the speed appears not constant because it can be pulled "so it slows down" (you might explain it by saying it's zigzagging heavily). Proof? You know it is bendable.
Certainly, light can be slowed down. Pass it through a medium with a non-unity refractive index -- or, stated equivalently, a medium with a different permeability and permittivity from those of the vacuum.
And light does have mass. It's unbearably small, but it does have mass.
This is entirely, resoundingly incorrect from both theoretical and experimental standpoints. This is, in fact, contrary to all of modern physics. Could you bother to provide some deeper insight as to why you feel this is true?
"Your factor of two should be in fact, a factor of infinity." When saying that we could travel exactly the speed of light. It would be 2. The light would meet us with it's normal speed and we would be going towards it with the same speed. Give me one reason why it would be infinite (under the assumptions of the model).
The Lorentz O(3,1) group governs the behavior of four-vectors under coordinate system transformations. This leads to the special relativistic time dilation equation

T = <font face=symbol>g</font> T₀

where T₀ is the proper time experienced by a moving clock and T is the time experienced by a stationary clock, and <font face=symbol>g</font> is 1 / sqrt(1 - v²/c²). These transforms are derived both from a study of electromagnetism (in which magnetic phenomena are essentially relativistic effects of electric phenomena), and from the simple (and experimentally validated) axiom that the speed of light is the same for all observers.

I'll leave it to you to evaluate the limit of <font face=symbol>g</font> as v -> c.
Explain this to me. And explain why this isn't true when one travels beyond the speed of sound.
Time dilation is a phenomenon experienced between two observers. If this relative velocity exceeds the speed of light, the time dilation experienced is negative. This means the moving object is going backwards in time. If it's going backwards in time, it can violate causality.

- Warren

people, please take at least an elemetry physics class!

RDT2

I would still differ with your understanding of the human brain, you'll probably base your speeds on information travelling via the Axon's to their destination. The theorum is that the human brain doesn't just work with "Pathways" but also frequencies/impulses.

So where you would have grounds that an impulse travelling via an Axon route is slower, the actually "Non-Locality" effect transfers information quicker.

(Basically I base the understand on how information can be Relayed through the brain at great speed on Neural Networking)

And information can travel FTL, thats been proven in a laboratory experiment, but of course it involves the capacity to superconduct.

Originally posted by Stryderunknown
RDT2


And information can travel FTL, thats been proven in a laboratory experiment, but of course it involves the capacity to superconduct.

wheres your proof?

I've never seen any proof that FTL information is possible or ever happened.

I came up with a theory a while ago that later got debunked by some science guy in a way I still don't fully understand.
My theory was this:
say it takes a jet 2 seconds to fly over a football feild. What if an alien made the jet faster to the point where it only took half a second to get over the football feild? and what if after that another alien made the jet even faster so it only took .001 of a second. If aliens kept making the jet faster and faster wouldn't it eventually have to take no seconds to get over the football feild? and after that wouldn't it have to start taking negative seconds to get over it? wouldn't this be travelling backwards through time? I realise this is dumb, I know a solid object can't physically travel at that speed but do you see what I'm saying?
Some guy brought out all this information about relativity and mass and stuff I couldn't wrap my primitave brain around. Can you wrong me in an easy to understand moron-dialect please? I'm sure one of you guys could :)

Can you wrong me in an easy to understand moron-dialect please? I'm sure one of you guys could

I am not one of the guys teaching others here, but I have an opinion on this subject. When the speed encreases as you have described at some point you would be at both places at the same moment. That could lead to a kind of splitting of the universe to make this possible: in the alternative universe (an exact copy of our universe) that would be created by your exceding the speed of light, the time would be going the opposite direction. You would be then travelling back in time from the point of view from this universe, but it would happen in the alterantive universe (where our future is "their" past).

Now we're starting on alternate universes. This is getting interesting. As i stated before i believe that faster then light speeds can be achived. Perhaps with gravity. As for light being able to escape black holes can't be sure. We haven't been able to step up to one and say "Yep the light is just bending" Using a mathmetical equation to prove it is one thing...seeing it is another.