RainmanTime Posted September 26, 2005 Share Posted September 26, 2005 Would anyone like to discuss the intricate non-linear scalings of Energy with respect to Velocity? It seems to be a key to understanding Time... at least that is what I get from my research and analysis. 1) Newtonian definitions of dynamic Energy is given as... KE = (1/2)*m*v^2. 2) We learned a lot as a society when we went from subsonic to supersonic flight through Space. 3) Einsteinien definitions of dynamic Energy is given as... E = m*c^2. 4) Just as aerodynamics are different in the subsonic/supersonic realms, the laws of luminal physics should be fractally shifted from subluminal to superluminal. Existing science already tells us something about these two fractal boundaries (sound and light). They are both centered in FREQUENCY. These could be interesting topics to discuss, as they relate to the dynamics of Time. RMT Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Einstein Posted September 26, 2005 Share Posted September 26, 2005 I would agree that time appears to appear in the presence of 4-D phenomena. So by identifying a 4-D phenomena that might be present in some already controllable phenomena then a control over time might be initiated. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RenUnconscious Posted September 26, 2005 Share Posted September 26, 2005 Would anyone like to discuss the intricate non-linear scalings of Energy with respect to Velocity? Nah. Nobody in the entire world, or even the whole universe wants to discuss the intricate non-linear scalings of energy with respect to velocity. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KnowThyself Posted September 26, 2005 Share Posted September 26, 2005 It's an interesting discussion. At least, I think so. It's much better than talking about Titor. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RainmanTime Posted September 26, 2005 Author Share Posted September 26, 2005 It's much better than talking about Titor. Amen, alleluia!!! RMT Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest iqbalgomar Posted September 26, 2005 Share Posted September 26, 2005 I would agree that time appears to appear in the presence of 4-D phenomena. So by identifying a 4-D phenomena that might be present in some already controllable phenomena then a control over time might be initiated. *sigh*... When are we going to get some standard terminology around here that means something? Anyway... interesting topic, RMT. Though I haven't the educational background to discuss what you're talking about in very meaningful terms, I remember a few years back wondering what the luminal analog to a sonic boom might look like. It was just the musing of a very bored twelve year old, but your post has caused me to take a second look at the idea. If aerodynamics is disrupted drastically as an object outruns its own sonic wavefront, might spacetime itself be disrupted by an object (somehow accelerated hypothetically beyond c) similarly outpacing the light associated with it? Or might the observer-invariant nature of light's velocity make such subjective outpacing impossible? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TimeNot_0 Posted September 26, 2005 Share Posted September 26, 2005 mmmmmmm................... Although not a new one, my dictionary seems to indicate that KE (I assume that to be Kinetic Energy) can not be discussed at relativistic speeds. It is only for non-relativistic speeds. If you travel at relativistic speeds as indicated by particle accelerators then you merely travel farther and last longer than expected due to gamma lumination, and have traveled at close to the limit of light speed. I provide the link but I gave it about a couple months back, and just can not link everything. It was about the Tau particle, and as particles smash together and sub-particles emerge they have not kinetic energy but relativitic energy that represents as a increase in electronVolts or gamma. All particles do that, so if an Electron is a certain electronVolt, then when smashed, it gains gamma and the electronVolts increase, and the particle makes a track, last longer than it normally would and travels further than it normally would have, and the gamma luminence is higher -- I suppose that pertains to energy. Got to go! If I find the link then I will post it, but I do have other work to do! Had to do a search to find it but here it is: From Stanford, http://www2.slac.stanford.edu/vvc/theory/relativity.html Okay they do use the term total energy and total energy has to be used at that speed. Einstein's Special Theory of Relativity! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RainmanTime Posted September 26, 2005 Author Share Posted September 26, 2005 Hello Iq, I remember a few years back wondering what the luminal analog to a sonic boom might look like. Yes indeed this is an interesting thought. I've thought about this from two different perspectives. Let's start with the one you mention here...A sonic boom is an intense pressure wave that is perceived by the human senses as a loud, brief sound. If there was a luminal analog to the sonic boom, then we would expect it would also be intense, but this time in the range of light frequencies. We would expect it to be as brief as a sonic boom if something was passing by our stationary position at superluminal speeds, but if a body existed perpetually "on the other side" of the speed of light, then we might surmise that this body could give off a steady, intense light wavefront. Do we know of any such phenomenon? Well, clearly stars in the universe give off intense light, but what is the most intense light source that we know of? Quasars! And they are QUITE a mysterious element at the very edges of our observable universe. Hmmmm... There is another way to view the analogy between the speed of sound and the speed of light, and that is by considering how the sonic boom is formed and its structure. The sonic boom is a large discontinuity of air pressure, density and temperature. Gas dynamics tables tell us the ratio of pressures, temperatures, and densities across a shock wave for any given Mach number. But in more simple language, a shock wave is nothing more than highly compressed air. So... if we accept that current "superfluid" and vacuum theories of physics might be true, then we would have to ask: What would it look like if we were able to highly compress light waves moving through the superfluid medium of the universe? RMT Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
newbie_0 Posted September 27, 2005 Share Posted September 27, 2005 Do you have an example subluminal equation that might not/will not work as superluminal? I wanna try Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RainmanTime Posted September 27, 2005 Author Share Posted September 27, 2005 Hi newbie, Do you have an example subluminal equation that might not/will not work as superluminal? I wanna try Well, I am not sure exactly what you mean by this, but let me ramble a little about something I've been thinking... It relates to the whole "velocity squared" issue I discussed above.With respect to normal fluid flow and forces resulting from it, the most important parameter is called dynamic pressure. The incompressible form of the dynamic pressure equation is q = 0.5*rho*V^2 (rho=fluid density, V=fluid flow velocity) To handle Mach effects due to compressibility, the more common form used by aerospace engineers in the supersonic regieme is: q = 0.5*gamma*P*M^2 (gamma=ratio of specific heats for air, P=local static pressure, M=Mach number) Assuming for the moment that we might be able to figure out some way beyond light speed, and that the speed of light is just another phase transition point (like the speed of sound), then we could consider the two speeds as fractally self-similar. If they are fractally self-similar, then we would expect there to be an analogous measure to dynamic pressure which would be of the form: q-light = F(Warp^2) In other words, energy scaling at superluminal speeds would be a factor of the relative velocity with respect to the velocity of light in the "superfluid" medium. Just some ramblings... RMT Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
newbie_0 Posted September 27, 2005 Share Posted September 27, 2005 Aww, I wanted you to give me the first one q = 0.5*gamma*P*M^2 (gamma=ratio of specific heats for air, P=local static pressure, M=Mach number) And would get really u=hhg,, creative? and try to figure out the superluminal one... But upon seeing the other one, theres no way I would have been able to try. Is F frequency in hertz? And Warp 1 is light speed, warp 2 = 2x light? And where would the dynamic pressure be? On the light waves or the medium through which they are passing? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RainmanTime Posted September 28, 2005 Author Share Posted September 28, 2005 Yo newbie, Is F frequency in hertz? No, actually I am using the "F()" mathematical notation which is meant to be read "is a Function of Warp-squared". It is a general way of saying that the "q-light" parameter (analog to dynamic pressure) would be proportional to Warp^2. What the constants of proportionality are for the "superfluid" are yet to be determined... but we might be able to make some educated guesses. And Warp 1 is light speed, warp 2 = 2x light? Yes. Same (analogous) concept to Mach number. And where would the dynamic pressure be? On the light waves or the medium through which they are passing? Well, again if we invoke the speed of sound analog, it is the accumulation of sound waves (which are weak pressure waves that move at Mach=1) at speeds beyond Mach 1 which create the shock wave. So if there is a "superfluid" medium through which light travels, then the analogy would say that it is the accumulation of light waves that would form a "Warp wave". We would expect to see sharp changes in pressure and density of this "superfluid" as we move from one side of the "Warp wave" to the other.What I find interesting about this "fractal self-similar" thought experiment is this: Good ole "E=mc^2" tells us that matter and energy are interchangeable at relativistic speeds (i.e. Warp 1). So if something were traveling past us as Warp>1, we would not see it until it had past by us (just like we don't hear a shock wave until it has past by)... and what we DO see after it passes us by may LOOK like matter and it would look like it doing some odd things that we don't associate with subluminal matter. A possible candidate for the wild and wooly things reported with some UFO encounters? Hmmmmm.... interesting to think about. RMT Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TimeNot_0 Posted September 28, 2005 Share Posted September 28, 2005 WHAT? I know what you said, but do you actually intend to believe that bit you put up? If something is traveling faster than light, then you would not see it at all. If you are traveling at the speed of light, also light is traveling at the speed of light, and coming or going, something faster is not there at all, or if it were there, you would not be able to even know about it! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
newbie_0 Posted September 28, 2005 Share Posted September 28, 2005 Ahh lol, see I didnt even pick up on F() so... I jumped around on Wikipedia and found this http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cerenkov_radiation Is space considered a medium? If dark matter has a refrative index, even a very tiny one, the same way photon's have very tiny mass, would pressure build up because of dark matter? Do we search the skies for very low(or high, i dont know where it would be in the spectrum) frequency, high intensity 'bursts' of light that might be objects moving FTL? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
newbie_0 Posted September 28, 2005 Share Posted September 28, 2005 You'd have to use a special light that was moving faster than your ship. They would bounce back, probably showing the other ship on vector that is not really it's true heading. ??? /shrug Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RainmanTime Posted September 28, 2005 Author Share Posted September 28, 2005 Hi TimeNot_0: I know what you said, but do you actually intend to believe that bit you put up? Please don't confuse me for someone like Hercules. I am not making claims about the veracity of this. If you read from the start of this thread, these discussions are focused on thought experiments that are based on viewing the speed of light as fractally self-similar to the speed of sound. I do not believe I have ever claimed this is "true", nor that I have any form of proof. I am using the basis of fractals, which we do know well, and "wondering" if these same principles apply to sonic and luminal thresholds. If something is traveling faster than light, then you would not see it at all. Yes, this is what GTR would imply, as a theory. Only problem is that we do not yet know how to test it, since we cannot make measurements at/above the speed of light. People used to claim that it was "impossible" to travel faster than the speed of sound, and also used to claim that wildly strange things would happen if you did exceed the speed of sound. Ever since actually doing it, we have discovered that these early theories were misinformed, at best, and flat out wrong at worst. If you are traveling at the speed of light, also light is traveling at the speed of light, and coming or going, something faster is not there at all, or if it were there, you would not be able to even know about it! Again I agree that this is what our "best" theories tell us. And I admit I have no evidence to counter them, just as there is no evidence to support them at this time. This whole thread could be summed up as:"If the speed of sound and speed of light are fractally self-similar phase transition points, how would the physical effects of superluminal speeds be similar to what we observe at supersonic speeds?" Again, I am not claiming this is true, or that I could "prove the interpretation". I'm not that sloppy and would never claim it unless I had science behind me! RMT Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RenUnconscious Posted September 28, 2005 Share Posted September 28, 2005 Well, clearly stars in the universe give off intense light, but what is the most intense light source that we know of? Quasars! And they are QUITE a mysterious element at the very edges of our observable universe. Hmmmm... Now we're getting into something I know a little something about, Astronomy! yay 3 cheers for Astronomy. but actually Rainman you are wrong, the most intense light given off is definitely NOT a quasar. the absolute most intense light source would have been from the original Big Bang who's echo remains in radio waves even to this day. as the big bang happened so so long ago and we cannot compare something we cannot visually see, the second greatest and active lightsource in the galaxy would be a Supernova explosion. Each Supernova explosion being so intense that they would be the brightest objects in the universe for a couple of minutes. A Supernova explosion in another galaxy has light so intense that it is brighter than all of the other stars in that galaxy including the supermassive blackhole which probably has millions of large clusters swirling around it. What would it look like if we were able to highly compress light waves moving through the superfluid medium of the universe? would this have some sort of blue shift, an artificially created doppler effect, photon compression. I could only assume if there are more photons in a compressed wave and they are reaching us at the speed of light it would only look different in the spectrum scale. I however do not agree that light is a wave, I do NOT believe in the particle duality proposed by scientists and I think eventually we will find that photons travel along a 3D sinewave type path, which is responsible for their ability to act like a wave but not truly. I would love to debate this with you rainman, what are your feelings on particle/wave duality as pertaining to photons of course? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hercules Posted September 28, 2005 Share Posted September 28, 2005 Please don't confuse me for someone like Hercules. RMT, I dont understand why you want to pull me into this. I guess you are the one totally "obsessed" with Titor on this board. I never claimed Titor is real, so I need not prove it either. As far as the interpretation is concerned, I have provided enough information about 5100 and s/360. Whether he is real or not, ROM is what he came for, not the "entire" computer. Go on, cut and paste, I will not respond, so you can better keep up with the Topic of this thread. I apologize for the Off-Topic statements in this thread, but RMT should forget about Titor and go on with his Merkaba. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RenUnconscious Posted September 28, 2005 Share Posted September 28, 2005 As far as the interpretation is concerned, I have provided enough information about 5100 and s/360. Whether he is real or not, ROM is what he came for, not the "entire" computer. and ROM is a read only memory which is pre-programmed with certain operating commands. these commands can be as simple as binary/assembly language to as advanced as some higher level programming language such as C++ I would like to clarify the statement as saying Titor was only after the software contained in the ROM. This software is most closely associated with a disassembler/recompiler. Its purpose was to take one type of code and convert it on the fly to another type. The best way to reproduce specific code into a new language is always going to be a hardware manufacturers internal ROM chips. As almost NO computer in the planet speaks directly to the processor in a higher level programming language, the code is always stripped down to its most basic elements and then run through the CPU. I believe the claim of coming back for this software (ROM) to be plausible. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RainmanTime Posted September 28, 2005 Author Share Posted September 28, 2005 Hi Ren, but actually Rainman you are wrong, the most intense light given off is definitely NOT a quasar. OK, I again admit that you got me on my specific wording, and would beg your indulgence to allow me to clarify what I meant. I agree the Big Bang (if it, indeed, happened) would have been the most intense source of light. But we were not there to observe it... and as best we can tell, Quasars are the earliest/largest energy sources. Yes, I would also agree that in the visible spectrum a Supernova is the brightest, but it is also very transitory. So let me clarify a few things:1) By "intense light" I was not restricting it only to visible spectrum. 2) Perhaps better words for what I meant were "most intense and persistent energy that travels at the speed of light". Just a link to explain what I was referring to... From: http://space.about.com/od/deepspace/a/quasarinfo.htm "A Quasar is an enormously bright object at the edge of our universe with the appearance of a star when viewed through a telescope. It emits massive amounts of energy, more energy than 100 normal galaxies combined." I think the most interesting thing is that they are at the edge of our observable universe, which means as close to what we think may have been the Big Bang as possible. I however do not agree that light is a wave, I do NOT believe in the particle duality proposed by scientists and I think eventually we will find that photons travel along a 3D sinewave type path, which is responsible for their ability to act like a wave but not truly. I would love to debate this with you rainman, what are your feelings on particle/wave duality as pertaining to photons of course? This gets into my general thoughts on any form of "paradox", and one could certainly say that the dual observed nature of light as wave/particle is a paradox. My only real thought about any paradox is that it is telling us that we are "missing" some form of knowledge that would resolve the paradox. Along these lines of thinking, I would say that if it is NOT a particle and it is NOT a wave, then it is some mishmash of both... a wavicle? Who knows... I just know I'm not passing judgment until more data comes in. And if there is one thing that history has assured us of, its that there WILL be more data, it WILL come in, and we WILL reach a new level of understanding about light.RMT Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TimeNot_0 Posted September 29, 2005 Share Posted September 29, 2005 All particles show wave-particle duality even now the electron (that was recent in a physics paper). So, the light would be blue-shifted until it goes black, I suppose, as the wavelengths get shorter and shorter. So with the imagination, if one is looking at a wavelength that is getting shorter and shorter the faster and faster you are going, then between complete wave-lengths, to me you get into probabilities at that point. So the shock-wave of passing through would be to me like a probability shock-wave. What a probability shock-wave would look-like must be -- the future or unfolding futures! (again all the probabilities squeezed together in a front type event wave that is not formed yet fully, so perhaps space has turned into time and there are only probability waves ahead, a really form of other bizarre and weirdness factor that makes quantum theory look like it is not uncertainty anymore but just another form of some complete physic law. I hate to add anymore, since you know who will perhaps come up as a probability! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NoTime323 Posted September 29, 2005 Share Posted September 29, 2005 ok the only thing I can add to this maddness is In reply to "the big bang being the most intense light source" not to say that it never happened.....but it is still a theory supernova is real and can be used to argue that quasars are not as intense but you can't really argue the big bang because it may have never happened.....there are many theories for creation....with almost as much ground to stand on as the big bang.... anyway... this was a useless post and I just had to throw in my 2 cents or whatever great topic though...I like reading things I don't know about....wow that's probably most things Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Darby Posted September 30, 2005 Share Posted September 30, 2005 iqbalgomar, luminal analog to a sonic boom might look like. You might very well have such an analog if you put a ship in space and accelerate to some velocity very near c. As Rainman has explained on other threads, the sonic boom is associated with an object's velocity as it travels through a fluid/gas and compresses it. We think of space as a vacuum. Not a perfect vacuum but pretty close. Aside from all the fields that are present there are several hydrogen particles per cubic meter within our galaxy in interstellar space. In intergalactic space it is about 1 particle/cubic meter. At low velocities this isn't a problem. But if we are traveling at near the speed of light that vacuum becomes a thin gas along the leading edges of the surface of our ship. We're plowing through almost 300,000,000 meters of space per second along our x axis and we probably have a cross section of several meters. We're striking billions of particles per second. We're not only exceeding the speed of sound in the gas its possible that our velocity exceeds the speed of light for that medium (based on the Index of Refraction). We not only put out a rather silent sonic boom, we are putting out a very real and energetic luminal "boom." We begin to emit Cherenkov Radiation (the green glow in nuclear reactors caused by photons exceeding the speed of light in the reactor vessel's water). So your luminal anaglog to a sonic boom would look "green". ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- PS: Best make sure that your ship has some really trick shields. Protons won't hurt you...usually. But if you are striking them at near the speed of light, given their new relativistic mass and momentum, your ship is going to start to melt. You don't even want to think about hitting a grain of interstellar sand. These are just the Newtonian effects (other than the relativistic mass for the protons in the hydrogen). The blue shift was mentioned above. Indeed, the interstellar photons are blue shifted WRT your ship. They begin to act like a fluid...and our ship reacts to them as it would react to a fluid...thermally. A very close to the speed of light the universe itself begins to collapse to a single point directly ahead of you along your plus x axis. All that blue shifted light, meaning every photon in the universe, is condensed into a relativistic laser pointed at your nose. Technnical note: Very, very trick shields are necessary. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TimeNot_0 Posted September 30, 2005 Share Posted September 30, 2005 Oh, ya, forgot about the tunnel vision. Well, guess it is a point then, or actually I do not know. Raintime is talking about fractals, but I guess it is just a trip of the imagination, although I seem to not have any imagination at this time. Then it be something like a black hole string out tunnel in the end, but what -- light laser. Well, might as well be a laser head then! The only way to warp is to beat light as it bends across space, and the straight-through shortcut is taken then and again according to a book it is not space travel but time travel. Well then I wonder if quantum effects will take place someday with some form of -- shield -- call it I guess, but then the human would have to be in a protected field while all this energy form was taking place displacing space and time through/by these other means. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
newbie_0 Posted September 30, 2005 Share Posted September 30, 2005 Darby's post makes me think we'll get teleporters before FTL ships Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts