Log in
Register
Search
Search titles only
By:
Search titles only
By:
Forums
New posts
Forum list
Search forums
Leaderboards
Games
Our Blog
Blogs
New entries
New comments
Blog list
Search blogs
Credits
Transactions
Shop
Blessings: ✟0.00
Tickets
Open new ticket
Watched
Donate
Log in
Register
Search
Search titles only
By:
Search titles only
By:
More options
Toggle width
Share this page
Share this page
Share
Reddit
Pinterest
Tumblr
WhatsApp
Email
Share
Link
Menu
Install the app
Install
Forums
Discussion and Debate
Discussion and Debate
Physical & Life Sciences
Proof of the Constancy of the Speed of Light
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Kaon" data-source="post: 74752008" data-attributes="member: 407930"><p>The context is the speed of light in a vacuum - which is implied to be not only constant, but a maximum of c in all inertial frames. The math being used to get to part of that conclusion is the Lorentz Factor - which is source-independent. That is the problem, not whether or not it is a limit - the self-independence of the critical velocity.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>The Hubble Constant is seriously flawed. But I admire GR. </p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>That there is no experimental evidence for the existence of superluinal inertial frame is a testament to our crude physics - not to its impossibility. Have we been able to reproduce a galaxy in the lab to test its dynamics in the same manner it would occur in real-time nature? That doesn't stop the mathematical theory from evolving things we will/hope to see later on (things we are incapable of realizing now, for whatever reason).</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>Ok. Let's create an example that is in the middle - an <em>alternative</em> (where one front is superluminal, and one is not); we don't even need the particle to be superluminal for this example. Define <em>alternative</em> as <em>superluminal</em> if both fronts are superluminal, and <em>semi-superluminal</em> if only one front is superluminal.</p><p></p><p>Lets say in "world" M1 there is a photon sent from the Earth (call this event E1) to arrive at a distant star at some moment T1 by the clock of that star. Let M2 be the world that was <strong>initially </strong>the same as M1 but instead of the photon assume the "Enterprise" is sent (the start of the spaceship is event E2). On its way to the star the spaceship "warps" and tears spacetime by travelling very fast passing stars, merging binary black holes and triggering other imaginable powerful processes.</p><p></p><p>We are still assuming no tachyonic matter.</p><p></p><p>Despite all of this, the spaceship arrives at the star <strong>later </strong>than the photon emitted in E2. However, we can still entertain that the spaceship arrives in time T2 less than T1. So, the speed of the</p><p>spaceship in one world (M2) would "exceed" the speed of light in another (M1), which</p><p>would <strong>not </strong>contradict the non-tachyonic nature of the spaceship. It also wouldn't break the ‘light barrier’ in M1: the inequality T2 < T1 implies the front (call it N1) is superluminal, but no matter signal in M1 corresponds to the front. Particularly no spaceship in that space-time is associated with N1.</p><p></p><p></p><p><img src="http://api.muchosmedia.com/brainwave/uploads/client_553/snap_232d33bdfdcd99ae75f076bab2298c91.png" alt="" class="fr-fic fr-dii fr-draggable " style="" /></p><p></p><p></p><p>These two "worlds" would be considered the <em>alternative </em>of semi-superluminar speed, and if one can accept these conditions it shows such an <em>alternative </em><strong>allows</strong> "superluminal" signalling without tachyons.</p><p></p><p>Its "superluminal" character does not contradict the principle of causality in M1, because in the space M1 (Minkowski space) the surface N1 does not correspond to any signal. The front N2 is not superluminal, so the alternative is semi-superluminal. The spaceship reaches the destination at a moment preceding the arrival of any photon emitted in E1, but no tachyons are involved. Even though the photons are in M1, the spaceship belongs to the universe M2, where its trajectory is timelike.</p><p></p><p>If/When we get the opportunity to build a spaceship like this and test it, we would be inclined to confirm what we would have already known.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Kaon, post: 74752008, member: 407930"] The context is the speed of light in a vacuum - which is implied to be not only constant, but a maximum of c in all inertial frames. The math being used to get to part of that conclusion is the Lorentz Factor - which is source-independent. That is the problem, not whether or not it is a limit - the self-independence of the critical velocity. The Hubble Constant is seriously flawed. But I admire GR. That there is no experimental evidence for the existence of superluinal inertial frame is a testament to our crude physics - not to its impossibility. Have we been able to reproduce a galaxy in the lab to test its dynamics in the same manner it would occur in real-time nature? That doesn't stop the mathematical theory from evolving things we will/hope to see later on (things we are incapable of realizing now, for whatever reason). Ok. Let's create an example that is in the middle - an [I]alternative[/I] (where one front is superluminal, and one is not); we don't even need the particle to be superluminal for this example. Define [I]alternative[/I] as [I]superluminal[/I] if both fronts are superluminal, and [I]semi-superluminal[/I] if only one front is superluminal. Lets say in "world" M1 there is a photon sent from the Earth (call this event E1) to arrive at a distant star at some moment T1 by the clock of that star. Let M2 be the world that was [B]initially [/B]the same as M1 but instead of the photon assume the "Enterprise" is sent (the start of the spaceship is event E2). On its way to the star the spaceship "warps" and tears spacetime by travelling very fast passing stars, merging binary black holes and triggering other imaginable powerful processes. We are still assuming no tachyonic matter. Despite all of this, the spaceship arrives at the star [B]later [/B]than the photon emitted in E2. However, we can still entertain that the spaceship arrives in time T2 less than T1. So, the speed of the spaceship in one world (M2) would "exceed" the speed of light in another (M1), which would [B]not [/B]contradict the non-tachyonic nature of the spaceship. It also wouldn't break the ‘light barrier’ in M1: the inequality T2 < T1 implies the front (call it N1) is superluminal, but no matter signal in M1 corresponds to the front. Particularly no spaceship in that space-time is associated with N1. [IMG]http://api.muchosmedia.com/brainwave/uploads/client_553/snap_232d33bdfdcd99ae75f076bab2298c91.png[/IMG] These two "worlds" would be considered the [I]alternative [/I]of semi-superluminar speed, and if one can accept these conditions it shows such an [I]alternative [/I][B]allows[/B] "superluminal" signalling without tachyons. Its "superluminal" character does not contradict the principle of causality in M1, because in the space M1 (Minkowski space) the surface N1 does not correspond to any signal. The front N2 is not superluminal, so the alternative is semi-superluminal. The spaceship reaches the destination at a moment preceding the arrival of any photon emitted in E1, but no tachyons are involved. Even though the photons are in M1, the spaceship belongs to the universe M2, where its trajectory is timelike. If/When we get the opportunity to build a spaceship like this and test it, we would be inclined to confirm what we would have already known. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Forums
Discussion and Debate
Discussion and Debate
Physical & Life Sciences
Proof of the Constancy of the Speed of Light
Top
Bottom