Some problems with light speed barrier.

As I stated before, there are alternative views. This is an cut from an article by
Bernard Haisch:

"Recent work by us and others now appears to offer a radically different insight into the relation E=mc2, as well as into the very idea of mass itself. To put it simply, the concept of mass may be neither fundamental nor necessary in physics. In the view we will present, Einstein's formula is even more significant than physicists have realized. It is actually a statement about how much energy is required to give the appearance of a certain amount of mass, rather than about the conversion of one fundamental thing, energy, into another fundamental thing, mass.

Indeed, if that view is correct, there is no such thing as mass-only electric charge and energy, which together create the illusion of mass. The physical universe is made up of massless electric charges immersed in a vast, energetic, all-pervasive electromagnetic field. It is the interaction of those charges and the electromagnetic field that creates the appearance of mass. In other words, the magazine you now hold in your hands is massless; properly understood, it is physically nothing more than a collection of electric charges embedded in a universal energetic electromagnetic field and acted on by the field in such a way as to make you think the magazine has the property of mass. Its apparent weight and solidity arise from the interactions of charges and field."
http://www.calphysics.org/haisch/sciences.html

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

MacM,

I remembered you also said that you don't believe on time dilation. Let's go back to your ship travelling to another star 10 ly away from earth so that we can examine the outcome of your idea. Say your ship travel at constant speed of 0.6 c, according to observer on earth.

As you believe on Lorentz's contraction, according to you as the captain of the ship, that 10 ly distance shrinks to 0.8 x 10 ly = 8 ly. According to you, your travel time - as you don't believe on time dilation - should be as observed by earth observer, that is 10/0.6 = 16.666 years. Of course we have no doubt that the speed of the ship of 0.6 c is correct. However, according to your perception, your speed relative to earth is 8/(10/0.6) = 0.48 c. Therefore, your idea give us confusion as to what the real speed of your ship. You would see the earth moves away at speed of 0.48 c, while earth observer sees you moving away at speed of 0.6 c. How do you explain this discrepancy? According SR, velocity as observed by you or earth observer must be the same, that is 0.6c!

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Paul T,

Here is the first problem. We are not going to agree on the distance traveled because of the variable distance feature of space (See response to Jame R., above). Therefore we are not going to agree on velocity either. That is what we are starting to realize in the four deep space craft which seem to be going slower than they should. It is because we see distance as less than they do in gravity free deep space.

This is only partially true. I believe in dimensional contraction but it is not the same as Lorentz. Contraction in UNiKEF is based on "q" a term associated with mass density. Deep space will not contract at the same rate as the rocket.

This is not precisely true. It isn't a matter of not believing in time dilation, I see time entirely different than you. Time is not a 4th dimension or enity of its own, it is an illusion or property of energetic space.

You can't say that because you do not know what the distance is, you only know what distance "You" observe it to be" but others and the rocket will see a different distance, hence different velocity.

Whle I don't agree that the numbers you claim are my numbers (since I don't have any), it is not a descrepancy, it is a fact that different observers will see different distance and hence conclude different velocities.

And that is one of the primary problems. SR fails to realise that GR's curved space means "Variable Distance". With distance not being a fixed number velocity is not fixed either. It is all a function of each observers view.

The fact is many people see Relativity a being mathematically screwy. When actually if I am right then Relativity is a piece of cake for what really lies ahead mathematically. Just glad you guys like math.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

James R,

We see time as changing events which is in reality nothing more than energy flow. Clocks are not reliable measurements. Time doesn't enter the picture in a direct way but change in energy can be linked to a form of time measure. That is F = ma establishes an energy change per your on board clock. But the clock is simply an accounting tool it is not a physical enity which can be manipulated.

Yes but only for the observer. You will see and measure a different distace, compute a different velocity and claim a different time. But these are not the same changes you predict in Relativity.

We agree but we will not agree on the distance or velocity that we each see.

And it is appropriate to carry one frame into another to log the trip of the rocket. It is the rockets log of frames that dictate it performance, not the logs of outside observer frames.

NO and niether did your earth bound observer sahre my frame. The earth observers farme for the events doesn't properly consider the actual frame of referance that the physics is occuring in. The rocket.

And herein lies a problem. d =vt is not the same as d' = v't'. Because distance is a function linked to gravity (curved space), the only valid frame is the one of the rocket. Nothing the stationary observer sees is correct. Not the distance, not the velocity.

Be nice if I could but as you know UniKEF is conceptual ad not mathematiclly formalized. But before attacking that fact let me suggest that you give a reasonable description of the meaning, physically and functionally of "Curved Space"

See above

As stated the math is not done, however, a plot of curved space would lok like a contour map around the planet based on the energy density of space. You would have basically concentric circles except where there were obvious braitational couplings such as the moon and sun. There you would see dips in the contour. draw those mapps between the earth and the moon and you would see a narrow band of energy which is not subject to your inverse square and it would be of a generally fixed value out the entire "distance". That quantity of enery in that band is what we would sense as distance. See Fig 14 referenced above.

I know that because you invoke time dilation. But the point is it rakes a photon 4.3 ly to get there at v=c and what I am telling you is it would take a bowling ball less time travelling at v = c. Hence the distance is different.

Not entirely correct but close. "Position" in the field doesn't alter distance. POsition in the field alters the fields strength which is part of the geometry CoS thing but sidtance is along a line between centers of objects and for which there is no inverse square change in the field energy density.

I don't deal with time dialtion at all, since time is a property dependant of an energetic space and not a tangiable enity of its own.

You are free to think what you want but it is not a goal of UniKEF to "Counter Relativity", it in many ways and places supports the views of Relativity but is based on a physical model; which ultimately has different conclusion in some areas.

I agree with that and the same can be said for your opinion of UniKEF. If UniKEF describes how the universe actually functions then it cares less about your advocating Relativity.

As you well know the only area that has any math what-so-ever is in UniKEF Gravity. It is well beyond my level, and frankly probaly yours, to develope such mathematics for it. But the time will come, i'm sure of that.

I don't see that UniKEF would see this situation any different that classical physics. It is not a self propelled object. There would be no need to develope different mathematics. But the answer then is there is no special math required in this case.

That would be good. I have tried to look up only one reference so far but what I found were a lot of citations to papers but no papers to read.

Come on

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

, ever shoot skeet? The clay pigeon is moving horizontal. You see its motion and can compute its velocity but it can have no velocity relative to you. NOw something moving horizontal in a straight line will have some relative velocity to you except at the very point of orthogonal tangency but that component is minor compared to its actaul motion horizonal.

By my referenced paper 99% of all FTL observations, by your statement of a paper 75% of all FTL observations.

 

JAmes R.,

mathematically perhaps but neither FR nor SR are physical conceptions and the link to variable distance is not made nor considered mathematically. That is a physical interpretation of GR and curved space but it isn't treated so mthematically. So the mathematical model misses an important feature of its own assumptions.

I'll pass on responding to that. I think what I meant is obvious.

Actually my tensor calculus is about as good as my matrix math which is subtantanially void. However, when I was studying such things, I don't recall it being terribly difficult.

 

MacM:

Let me guess, you studied tensor calculus in your uh, nuclear engineering classes, right? Do you even know what a tensor is?

- Warren

 

chroot,

You know and I know that I have had only introductory calculus. Fortunately however, it isn't a requirement to be able to think in systematic terms but it may be required to properly formalize the system developed.

 

MacM,

I notice that this discussion is becoming more and more confusing. Firstly, you are not sure on many things. Thing like the speed of rocket, which to me is an obvious thing, you made it complicated. If your ship moving at speed of 0.6c toward a star 10ly away, isn't it obvious that the speed of your ship is 0.6c? We first must agree that whatever observed by an observer on earth (distance of 10ly, your speed of 0.6c and your travel time of 16.666 years) are correct.

I believe you know that based on SR, you in the rocket would measure your speed to be also 0.6c relative to earth. Okay, may be you would say that from your perspective it is the earth that is moving, which I think is not important. A relatively intelligent captain know that his ship is the one that move, not the earth. Based on SR, dx and dt observed by you are not the same as those observed by earth observer for two consequitive events such as flash of laser beam, however the ratio of them are the same (both 0.6c).

According to you, the ship observer find that his speed is not 0.6c. I had computed the speed of your ship (AKA earth toward the opposite direction) as seen by you based on your idea (with assumption Lorentz contraction exist but without time dilation). My result was 0.48c. None of them agreeable to you. Could you please provide the result that truly reflect your idea?

It doesn't matter you believe on time as 4th dimension or not. One thing we know, the clock that you bring with you in your ship would not tick at the same pace as those on earth. The clock is what you use to measure time, doesn't matter time is 4th dimension or not. The clock could be also your yardstick to measure distance, for example by beaming a flash of laser to the earth (or other object at rest relative to earth behind or in front of your travel direction) and measuring the time it take to return to you, or that sort of thing.

Please provide your number! You claimed that earth observer and you in the ship would observe different speed. Please show the computation.

 

James R.,

I have just scanned your referenced paper. It does indeed seem to say what you claim. I want to make only two notes. One in your favor and one in mine.

1 - Your paper is 20 years newer than the one I cited.

2 - Your paper does not mention "Blue Shift" even once and it appears to be a vital distinction in determining if the mathematics of your paper should be applied. That is I suggest the mathematics may be fine in your paper but the broad sweeping application seems to deliberatly ignore the fact that it should not be applied in absence of "Blue Shifted" data. Therefor I am inclined to discount it altogether. Until I see where someone scientifically justifies ignoring Blue Shift, I cannot accept the Illusion Solution as satisfying the FTL observation.

My referenced paper discusses may causes for the FTL observation and discusses each at length. Though it is an older paper it seems much more thourough on the issue and discounts the application in your paper as being totally unjustified, not only statistically but based on other observed data for such observations.

Bottom line, I take your paper to be poorly considered.

 

Paul T,

Correction. I didn't make it complicated, I merely pointed out that it is complicated and that science is not considering the consequences of curved time-space when they make their simplistic evaluations using purely mathematical concepts. Distance and velocity are not so straight forward as it might first appear and that leads to false conclusions mathematically.

I agree that to use the current mathematics we must agree but I also note that we cannot agree because of curved time-space. So the enire "Consistant" mathematical solutions presently being used are invalid. You complain that I don't seem to know. Well what I am suggesting is that "Nobody" actually knows and until we step back, take a deep breath and start over, we aren't going to know.

But that, and every other thing we have done mathemtically, fail to recognize that because of curved time-space (GR and gravity) distance, hence velocity, are not the same, even for at rest observers. Gravity alters our view of distance and without a common distance at rest there is no way to resolve the velocity issue and do any calculations.

No I can't and my point is that I know of nobody that can. It is a major problem with the way we have looked at physics and until it is resolved I don't see how any of our mathematics even d = v * t have any meaning.

This is true. The only point being one must be sure that changes in process (affect on clocks) are in any way related to the physical process we are calulating. The "Time" component of our mathematics should be replaced and mathematics should deal with total energy and energy change, not some arbitrary clock data.

You problem lacks sufficient information since distance to the rocket is based on respective gravities between the rocket and the observed target. Even if you arbitrarily assume gravities, the mathematical support to accomadate the affects of curved time-space on distance is not yet in place. So we are stuck with using our current system to be able to calculate anything but we are very much just spinning our wheels until the signifigance of curved time-space is properly appreciated.

 

JAmes R.,

Cute but a bit off topic. The functions you elude to don't involve relavistic time dilation. Like you keep saying such mundane things can be processed using Newtonian concepts.

Of course clocks are physical entities but time isn't. Show me a tangiable quantity of some physical time. List its attributes, mass, charge, energy, density, pick anything thing.

I don't seem to be the one confused here. You want to disregard portions of my trip which are based on "My" frame(s). My frames starts the same as earths but yes it changes and it is those changes that must remain relative to my frame to properly describe my rockets performance. You don't describe the rockets performance by an observers frame. Each observer will give you a different results. The rockets actual results are in my frame, not yours. Yours is perception and not physics of the inertial frame.

Show me one table of data that gives distance to A.C. as anything but 4.3 ly which makes the distance distinction as a function of the mass (gravity) of the observer.

So if I shine a flashlight on a bowling ball, the photon has a relative velocity of v=c to the ball BUT THE BOWLING BALL DOES NOT HAVE A RELATIVE VELOCITY OF v = c TO THE PHOTON. :bugeye: Your statement is invalid and off point. Actually achieving v = c is not the issue. Just to stop the double talk I'll restate the case.

For a Ping Pong Ball travelling 0.99999 c it is 0.99999 * 4.3 ly to A.C. For a bowling ball travelling 0.99999 c it is less than 0.99999 * 4.3 ly to A.C.

You should know by now that UniKEF predicts the same energy that Relativity does. But it does so without making the false conclusion that mass has increased.

Perhaps but I am not convienced. If it is not toward or away from you it is not relative motion. A ball whirling overhead on the end of a string, at any velocity has no "Relative" velocity to the person in the center. It is called "Proper Motion" and by definition prohibits "Relative" motiion.

Let me suggest you look it up. They are classed as "Mathemtical" theories, not 'Physical" theories. They are used to calculate physical things but they lack a physical model or causation and are purely mathematical.

Because currently gravity is viewed as a local phenomena, the UniKEF geometric streaming component (trig function of 1.000) of a mass is not considered. It is the curved time-space affect along that line of gravity between universal bodies that dictates what is considered distance. GR not only has a local affect but alters the distance between bodies as a function of the masses of the bodies. Hence two observers of different mass, resting side by side and measuring the distance to a third common object located along a line perpendicular and centered on the line of gravity between the two observers will measure a different distance or calculate a different velocity. The sides of an isosclese triangle are no longer equal.!!!

Note:These statements are based on the assumption that UniKEF is correct and that gravity is an externally generated force via energy flow. So I would not expect you to know of the problem since you do not see what I see. If I am right, and I justifiably believe I may be, then we have a problem. No two observers, unless they are cogruents, can agree on distance or velocity of anything.

 

quote:


For a Ping Pong Ball travelling 0.99999 c it is 0.99999 * 4.3 ly to A.C. For a bowling ball travelling 0.99999 c it is less than 0.99999 * 4.3 ly to A.C.
===============================================================

So Mac, you believe if we were traveling on a spaceship toward A.C. at relativistic
speeds and tossed a ping pong ball out the side of the ship, it would no longer remain
at the side of the ship, but would be swept back and arrive at A.C. much later than
the ship?

 

2Inquisitive,

Something like that but not quite that simple. The CoS is not abrupt but tapers off. You have to get aways from the enfluence of the other mass's CoS. Actually it is even less effective than that suggests.

Keep in mind our (4) deep space probes left earths gravity and still had to rtravel to the edge of the solar system before even minor descrepancies began to show up in distance. It takes a large mass change to see substantial distance change.

 

James R.,

Perhaps but if that is so it is because those that choose to not think but follow the rut plowed before them.

Show me where I have stated Relativity (GR was flawed in this thread. What I said was current interpretation of GR. GR is correct in that gravity curves time-space. What is missing is the physical model understading that should go with it. That is the theory doesn't have to be wrong for you to be wrong.

On the contrary, I made it clear that variable diatance is based on curved time-space asuming gravity as an external energy induced force. If you don't understand simple geometry then that isn't my problem. I did not raise this issue to overturn Relativity but to get some ide if any of you lhave any depth to your understanding beyond what you have read in books.

I volunteered to move my responses to UniKEF and you said keep them here, so don't turn around and bitch about it. I'll be more than glad to take it back to UniKEF but in the interim stop flip flopping.

Then perhaps it is about time to start to move on. The rut is only getting deeper.

The only aspects of UniKEF that I strongly advocate is UniKEF Gravity and only because the mathe seems to verify the possibility and the consequences (Unifying gravity over the entire observational range) is way to much for coincidence. beyond that I advocate nothing.

Give me a break. Even you would not go so far as to suggest that there is Lorentz Contraction or Time Dilation between yourself and an object moving orthogonally to you. Why because there is no "Relative" velocity. Look up the definition of "PRoper Motion", now tell me it doesn't specify "No line of sight motion".

Of course you can but that isn't very sensible. It is sensible to define the rocket in its own inertial frame. Performance is really a pretty straight forward term. Thrust produced per fuel consumed. F = ma, d = at^2/2, v = at, etc that is performance.

HeHeHe. What a wasted mind. Of course performance can be translated from one frame to another but the only one that really counts when discussing performance is that of the rocket. Or should we compute gas milage of my new car using an observers reference frame. Lets see that add. "Get 25 Mpg in City at sub =luminal velocity and get 35 Mpg on the open road at relavistic velocities. Yea I see the merit of that way of thinksing. :bugeye:

Yep and thats why it is sscrewed up

It is called conceptualizing. You should try it sometime. It is to take a given set of factors and project a rational consequence . It is the sort of thing that mathematics abaout ideas are based on.

The only thing baseless here is your attacks. I have made it clear what the concept is and what the conclusions are. If you can't walk and chew gum with having a slide rule and math guide book in hand I can't help you.

Shame on you no righteous physicist uses the term "Relavistic Mass" anymore.

Let me just remind you that we are discussing Relativity and gamma functions, etc. They do not come into play for orthogonal motion. The only thing non-standard here is you attempting to create confusion. When discussing Relativity the "Relative Motion" is that motion along the lin of sight. Give it up your attacks are starting to look foolish.

Fine. I'm not going to argue with you. Anybody that wants to look it up will find that Relativity is classed as a Mathematical Model Theory not a Physical Model Theory.

 

You are wrong MacM. Go and check reference about addition of velocities for Vx, Vy, Vz.