# Thread: Photon in an acceleration field

1. Arguing with a crank - useless.

I'm done trying to explain this to trolls. See ya.
Promise?

2. Mazulu, I have been thinking about your problem. In another thread you mentioned how god destroyed the earth with the flood. You and Noah have/had a similar situation. God/aliens have given you information and of course people are not believing you. What did Noah do? He did hang out in town arguing with the non-believers. He set to work building his arc and finished it (in the nick oft time). I think you should do similar.

I looked around the web and found stories of other people who were convinced their ideas would work. Like you, it was not just a matter of belief, they knew! And almost all of them have constructed their devices. Of course many of them failed to work and that is probably because they were not using aether wave gravity beam technology from aliens. But I did find one who was successful. http://www.forceborne.com/FBW/News/news.htm Notice that his last update said he received some major funding Aug 18, 2007. If you look around on that page you will find endorsements from NASA, JPL, Hughs Aircraft and and various engineers and scientists who claimed his device worked. I don't know what happened to it, but it is probably quarantined at Area 51 or some other secret facility. But still, it is being investigated and perhaps there are FTL ships out there right now, in our government's control, zipping from star to star. Aliens only know.

Another avenue you might want to investigate is earthtech.org where Harold E Puthoff is CEO. He is interested in stuff like your gravity beam. Here is what his website says.
EarthTech International is a privately funded research organization exploring novel ideas in physics. Our current interests include gravity, cosmology, and modifications of standard theories of electrodynamics, particularly as they may apply to space propulsion and new sources of energy. We strive to translate these ideas into laboratory experiments.

Also read about other reactionless drive ideas on Wikipedia. Most are failures but many received funding and attention. And many also received national attention in popular magazines an newspapers. You should look into these methods of bringing awareness of your breakthrough science to the world.

Finally, watch this video. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rQ7VYGw6DBY It is missing the key concept of aether wave, but perhaps if they were to merge that concept into what is presented, they could have a working FTL spaceship, gravity beam, or disintegration ray in minimal time. You might want to contact the guy who made the video, aka AlienScientist. He sounds like he would be receptive. Good luck and bon voyage.

3. Originally Posted by Mazulu
You dispute my aether medium ideas with opinionated rubbish.
I've already given explicit examples of where some of your claims have been demonstrably false. This illustrates you are not infallable and thus someone cannot simply take your word for things. This, coupled with the fact you have nothing but your opinion and assertions, means it is not only my conclusion that you've failed to do anything even remotely scientific but it is the only rational conclusion. Until you provide evidence there's no reason to believe you. Why should I or anyone else believe you about something outside of the current knowledge of science when you have gotten things science does know about wrong? Clearly whatever your information source is it isn't always right so why should anyone think you're right now? If you cannot provide evidence the rational conclusion is not to believe you.

Playing the "That's opinionated rubbish!" card isn't a very wise idea when you have nothing but opinion and it has been proven false in certain circumstances. You also hold self contradictory views, so once again there's an explicit demonstration you do not have good logical reasoning ability, so further reason for people to not take your assertions as gospel.

Originally Posted by Mazulu
How do you explain this? The way I explain it is that the aether is made of EM waves that obey $c=\lambda f$.
Flawed logic, something I've already explained to you. Whether or not I can provide an answer is immaterial to how valid your 'answer' is. To repeat my example suppose I ask you and Cheezle to guess the number between 1 and 1 million I'm thinking of. You both guess and write down your guesses on bits of paper. We look at Cheezle's guess and he got it wrong. Is your guess now more likely to be valid? Would it be reasonable for us all to assume you're right? Of course not, whether or not someone else can provide a correct answer has no bearing on the validity of your attempt at an answer.

Do I know why the universe seems to work in such a way as to make it seem the postulates of special relativity are correct? No. Does that make your random assertion, which you cannot justify and which you cannot use to construct a working model of any phenomenon, including anything relativity related, is more valid? No. Besides, I could just as easily ask you why the value of c is what it is, your comment doesn't explain that. It also doesn't actually explain the postulate of special relativity because you haven't shown your statement leads necessarily to that postulate, you haven't shown it's a logical implication of your statement. Thus you have a double assertion, first that the statement is true and second that it implies the relativity postulate. You cannot provide any evidence for the truth of either of those and thus you have 'opinionated rubbish'. At least relativity allows precise predictions to be made, it has demonstrable utility. You cannot say anything concrete and predictive about any part of nature.

Originally Posted by Mazulu
I expect you to avoid a rational discussion about an aether medium.

Originally Posted by Mazulu
After all, this isn't a science community, this is Troll land.
Correct, this thread is in a subforum of the Fringe section of this forum. You would not be allowed to post this thread in the main maths/physics forum because it is utterly unscientific and you have been completely incapable of providing reasoned argument and evidence for your position. The reason I do not believe your assertions is because you've failed to meet minimal requirements for scientific discourse and scientific methodology.

4. The mathmatics of a photon that travels faster than the speed of light is called a tachyon. They are theorized to have a small interaction with the electrons of a dome of water. The experiment was not reported to be successful, but no new attempts where made to correct the mathmatical properties of the tachyon. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Central Inteligience Agency
---------------

5. Hi Prof.Layman,

Can you PM me forbidden formulas that the CIA redacted from your post?

I'd love to have a look at this secret information for myself.

6. Originally Posted by FTLinmedium
Hi Prof.Layman,

Can you PM me forbidden formulas that the CIA redacted from your post?

I'd love to have a look at this secret information for myself.
Google it, I am only suggesting that the orginal work on tachyons may not be flawed, so there is no need to hunt down hidden formula. I just read somewhere that the funding was cut short on proving the theory, and it wasn't done long enough to disprove it either. So the conspriacy theory is that they did find it and just classified any other work on it, and that I don't know. Either that or the funding committe just said no, no, no, nothing can travel FTL don't waste to much of our money, but then why would they have supported it to begin with? The point being that either way you look at it someone goofed on this discovery coming out in the making since it was allowed to happen and was cut short.

7. I hate to disagree with the CIA, but I have a different view of faster than light phenomena. I think that a small region of space-time can be lifted out of or separated from the space-time continuum of the universe. When this occurs, that small region, and whatever is inside of it, becomes a particle or object in hyperspace (space with c' >> c). Acceleration field generators have not been discovered yet. When they are, they can be modeled as a surface area with an acceleration field emitted perpendicular to it (just like a planet, star or black hole has an acceleration field). If this acceleration field emitting surface is curved propertly, a strong enough acceleration will push the surface (and the generator inside) into hyperspace.

8. Mazulu,

Originally Posted by Mazulu
I think that a small region of space-time can be lifted out of or separated from the space-time continuum of the universe.

When this occurs, that small region, and whatever is inside of it, becomes a particle or object in hyperspace (space with c' >> c).
What's your evidence for the existence of hyperspace?

Acceleration field generators have not been discovered yet.
Yes, and we're also waiting for the invention of the Fluffy Foonwaffler. It'll be great when that is discovered!

When they are, they can be modeled as a surface area with an acceleration field emitted perpendicular to it (just like a planet, star or black hole has an acceleration field).
How would we model the Fluffy Foonwaffler, Mazulu? You seem to be an expert on things that haven't been discovered yet.

If this acceleration field emitting surface is curved propertly, a strong enough acceleration will push the surface (and the generator inside) into hyperspace.
How? Why? What's the proper curvature? What's strong enough? Quantify please.

9. Originally Posted by James R
Mazulu,
I've read textbooks on alien technology about warp-drive physics. OK I'm kidding (exaggerating). But think about it; there is no benefit to assuming it doesn't exist. There is benefit to assuming that hyperspace does exist. For one, it allows us to think about physics from a different perspective (which can be helpful). Second, we can think up experiments to test for the existence of hyperspace. Third, if we're right, we wouldn't have gotten there from our present course.
What's your evidence for the existence of hyperspace?
Alien spacecrafts visit the earth.
Yes, and we're also waiting for the invention of the Fluffy Foonwaffler. It'll be great when that is discovered!How would we model the Fluffy Foonwaffler, Mazulu?
I don't know what that is.
You seem to be an expert on things that haven't been discovered yet.
The existence of a UFO culture should have been enough of a nudge for the physics community to think about FTL drives. The energy requirements of the Alcubierre drive are a hint that FTL drives don't work that way; why do you need all that energy anyway? I won't bore you with details because nobody is interested in hearing it. But as a sophisticated thought experiment, it goes like this. You have to build a particular kind of EM field generator that produces an acceleration field strong enough to simulate the inside of a black hole. If done properly, your spaceship (field source generator) generates a closed surface "bubble". Everything on the inside is familiar space-time. Everything on the outside is hyperspace. At the boundary there exists a kind of "handshaking" between two universes. When the physics community overcomes its ontological aversion, and seeks to understand the aether medium, these technologies will emerge.

10. Originally Posted by James R
How? Why? What's the proper curvature? What's strong enough? Quantify please.
Centripetal acceleration is $a=\frac{v^2}{r}$. The escape velocity is $v_e = \sqrt{\frac{2GM}{r}}$. The event horizon is the point at which light cannot escape. So we set $v_e = c$ for the event horizon of a black hole. Within the event horizon, you are in hyperspace. For an acceleration field generator that can generate an acceleration "a", the generator must have a radius smaller than r for it to behave like the inside of an event horizon. The equation is: $r< \frac{c^2}{a}$.

11. Thanks for the private message! These equations are amazing... I must say, they're way above and beyond anything I've ever seen. If I'm reading them correctly, they clearly indicate how to exceed light speed. I'll have to study these more and get back to you.

12. Originally Posted by OnlyMe
I cannot believe I am about to post this but.....

Wouldn't it be far easier to just project a holographic black hole in the direction you want to go. That could get you up to at least the speed of light.., even multiples of the speed of light, since you are accelerating toward the holographic black hole, and it is always moving inertially with your ship, your acceleration toward it would always be relative, to it.., and it would always be moving as fast as you are, relative to everything else....... It gets even better, since you are projecting it from your spaceship, as its gravity accelerates you, the projector keeps it far enough ahead that you don't get sucked in! And the beauty of it is as you accelerate, there are no G-forces to deal with, you just feel like you are falling, into the holographic projection....
If you know a good programmer, you could even test it pretty easily, in a virtual reality simulator, you know a computer game.....
I think you have the basic idea.; you would need attraction in the direction that you're moving, and repulsion is the back, the direction that you're coming from. But tell me, what is a holographic black hole and how do you create one?

13. Originally Posted by FTLinmedium
Thanks for the private message! These equations are amazing... I must say, they're way above and beyond anything I've ever seen. If I'm reading them correctly, they clearly indicate how to exceed light speed. I'll have to study these more and get back to you.
It sounds interesting.

Prof Layman,
Can you pass it along to me, too? Thank you.

14. "Wouldn't it be far easier to just project a holographic black hole in the direction you want to go" . . . how does one accomplish this . . . with a 'projector', I guess . . . .

15. Originally Posted by Mazulu
I think you have the basic idea.; you would need attraction in the direction that you're moving, and repulsion is the back, the direction that you're coming from. But tell me, what is a holographic black hole and how do you create one?
The whole post was a joke!

It was like saying project a 3D movie, of a black hole, in front of you and let the gravity of the black hole drag you along...

It is not real... It was a joke.

P.S. Things are really bad when you have explain that something like a picture, of a black hole, would not have the gravity of a black hole.

EDIT: I just deleted the original post. It is unbelievable that anyone could find anything serious about it.

16. Originally Posted by wlminex
"Wouldn't it be far easier to just project a holographic black hole in the direction you want to go" . . . how does one accomplish this . . . with a 'projector', I guess . . . .
A holographic projector!

17. Originally Posted by OnlyMe
The whole post was a joke!
It was like saying project a 3D movie, of a black hole, in front of you and let the gravity of the black hole drag you along...
It is not real... It was a joke.
P.S. Things are really bad when you have explain that something like a picture, of a black hole, would not have the gravity of a black hole.
Jokes are a way to express the truth without personal risk; it gets the idea out there. In your case, I think it's a good guess. A projector is just something that projects visible light. Try projecting gravitational redshift.

And yes, I'm sure it was humorous.

18. Originally Posted by onlyme
a holographic projector!
of course!!

19. Originally Posted by Mazulu
It sounds interesting.

Prof Layman,
Can you pass it along to me, too? Thank you.
Sure, It is called the tachyon, Google it! Your welcome. By the way, for the record I never sent him such equations. On another note, hyperspace cannot be proven to exist almost by definition. The only "proof" we have of hyperspace is having the inability to be able to detect it by the nature of what it is or entails. A holographic projector? What are you going to do watch a movie while your trying to perform such a experiment?

20. Originally Posted by Prof.Layman
On another note, hyperspace cannot be proven to exist almost by definition. The only "proof" we have of hyperspace is having the inability to be able to detect it by the nature of what it is or entails.
We would have proof that hyperspace exists if we could hop into a starship, hyper-drive around the solar system, go sight seeing, visit Mars for some rocks, and return home before dinner. What kind of proof are you looking for?

By the way, even if tachyons or superluminal starships exist, there is no risk of violating causality or traveling back in time. Traveling back in time means you have to move every particle, object and planet back to a specific set of position and momentum states, everywhere in the universe. This is impossible. Time travel is impossible.

#### Posting Permissions

• You may not post new threads
• You may not post replies
• You may not post attachments
• You may not edit your posts
•