Einstein's Math May Be Compatible With Faster-Than-Light Travel, Mathematicians Say

On Sun, 21 Oct 2012 19:25:07 -0400, Yousuf Khan
wrote:

On 15/10/2012 2:20 PM, Painius wrote:

On Mon, 15 Oct 2012 13:11:37 -0400, Yousuf Khan
wrote:

I do think that at some point it will be possible to go faster than the
speed of light, and the solution may turn out to be quite similar to the
problem and solution to going faster than sound. In the case of sound,
you just need find something more rigid than the air around it, which
won't get torn up by the air around it.

Similarly, you would need to find something that's more rigid than the
surrounding space around it. Much harder to do when the rigidity of
matter is entirely dependent on the rigidity of space. So as a lot of
people of said, we'd have to obtain some exotic negative mass to create
bubbles of space that are of a different rigidity than standard space,
in order to transitition through the superluminal barrier.

Does negative mass equal antimatter? Antimatter is used in both SF
and science-proposed FTL spacecraft drives.

No, negative mass and negative energy are pretty much the same thing,
just as mass and energy are the same thing. Just as mass is a highly
compact, organized form of energy, negative mass would thus be the
similarly compacted and organized form of negative energy.

So what is negative energy then? The universe is supposed to have a net
zero amount of energy when all of it is added together. Think of
building a dirt hill on a flat piece of ground: if you want dirt to
build the hill, then you'll have to dig it out of the surrounding flat
ground. You'll thus have a dirt hill, but you'll also have a dirt
trench, out of what was previously flat ground. Positive energy can be
thought of as the dirt hill, while negative energy is the trench.

If positive energy is what makes up all of the matter and the 3
non-gravitational forces, then negative energy is thus made up of the
4th force, gravity. All of the matter in the universe creates gravity
because the matter itself is positive energy, while the gravity is its
attendant cancelling negative energy.

Now somehow when the universe got formed, the positive energy went from
its original randomized state to some form of organization. But the
negative energy never got organized just exists in random form. But the
negative energy should be just as capable of being organized into
negative mass. With some unknown technology in the future, if they can
organize negative energy, they can then create negative mass. This
negative mass can then be used to wormholes and warp drives.

That's very interesting, Khan!

I imagine that mainstreamers ridicule that idea (especially since you
called gravitation a "force", which is contrary to the general theory
of relativity's "gravity is an 'effect', not a 'force'"), but I *like*
it!

You describe the negative energy as gravitational, which goes into
matter to eventually, perhaps over great periods of time, cancel out
the compacted positive energy that is called matter.

However (isn't there always a "but"? g), I still don't quite
understand why you appear to have answered an adamant "no" to my
question about antimatter being equal to negative matter.

You see, scientists have been able to produce antimatter, such as the
positron, in cloud chambers...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Positron

It was then found that when an electron collided with a positron, the
two particles would be annihilated, and there was an astonishing
amount of (positive and negative?) energy produced.

If a positron were actually a particle of negative matter, then the
cloud chamber was able to briefly convert the negative energy of
gravitation into a particle. It would seem that as long as negative
energy remains an energy (and not negative matter), there is no
immediate annihilation when it meets positive matter, but instead it
produces gravitation.

Well, what do you think now, Khan?

--
Indelibly yours,
Paine @ http://astronomy.painellsworth.net/
"Man invented language to satisfy his deep need to bitch and moan."

On Oct 24, 2:38*am, Painius wrote:
On Sun, 21 Oct 2012 19:25:07 -0400, Yousuf Khan









wrote:
On 15/10/2012 2:20 PM, Painius wrote:

On Mon, 15 Oct 2012 13:11:37 -0400, Yousuf Khan
*wrote:

I do think that at some point it will be possible to go faster than the
speed of light, and the solution may turn out to be quite similar to the
problem and solution to going faster than sound. In the case of sound,
you just need find something more rigid than the air around it, which
won't get torn up by the air around it.

Similarly, you would need to find something that's more rigid than the
surrounding space around it. Much harder to do when the rigidity of
matter is entirely dependent on the rigidity of space. So as a lot of
people of said, we'd have to obtain some exotic negative mass to create
bubbles of space that are of a different rigidity than standard space,
in order to transitition through the superluminal barrier.

Does negative mass equal antimatter? *Antimatter is used in both SF
and science-proposed FTL spacecraft drives.

No, negative mass and negative energy are pretty much the same thing,
just as mass and energy are the same thing. Just as mass is a highly
compact, organized form of energy, negative mass would thus be the
similarly compacted and organized form of negative energy.

So what is negative energy then? The universe is supposed to have a net
zero amount of energy when all of it is added together. Think of
building a dirt hill on a flat piece of ground: if you want dirt to
build the hill, then you'll have to dig it out of the surrounding flat
ground. You'll thus have a dirt hill, but you'll also have a dirt
trench, out of what was previously flat ground. Positive energy can be
thought of as the dirt hill, while negative energy is the trench.

If positive energy is what makes up all of the matter and the 3
non-gravitational forces, then negative energy is thus made up of the
4th force, gravity. All of the matter in the universe creates gravity
because the matter itself is positive energy, while the gravity is its
attendant cancelling negative energy.

Now somehow when the universe got formed, the positive energy went from
its original randomized state to some form of organization. But the
negative energy never got organized just exists in random form. But the
negative energy should be just as capable of being organized into
negative mass. With some unknown technology in the future, if they can
organize negative energy, they can then create negative mass. This
negative mass can then be used to wormholes and warp drives.

That's very interesting, Khan!

I imagine that mainstreamers ridicule that idea (especially since you
called gravitation a "force", which is contrary to the general theory
of relativity's "gravity is an 'effect', not a 'force'"), but I *like*
it!

You describe the negative energy as gravitational, which goes into
matter to eventually, perhaps over great periods of time, cancel out
the compacted positive energy that is called matter.

However (isn't there always a "but"? g), I still don't quite
understand why you appear to have answered an adamant "no" to my
question about antimatter being equal to negative matter.

You see, scientists have been able to produce antimatter, such as the
positron, in cloud chambers...

*http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Positron

It was then found that when an electron collided with a positron, the
two particles would be annihilated, and there was an astonishing
amount of (positive and negative?) energy produced.

If a positron were actually a particle of negative matter, then the
cloud chamber was able to briefly convert the negative energy of
gravitation into a particle. *It would seem that as long as negative
energy remains an energy (and not negative matter), there is no
immediate annihilation when it meets positive matter, but instead it
produces gravitation.

Well, what do you think now, Khan?

--
Indelibly yours,
Paine @http://astronomy.painellsworth.net/
"Man invented language to satisfy his deep need to bitch and moan."

Nothing can produce gravitation. We can induce magnetisim ,but that's
a lot different. Particles can only be produced in pairs,and they
have opposite spin(anti-pairs) they are separated by a time lapse.(my
time lapse theory tells it all) Gravity is created when space
concaves(no straight lines in the universe) If the universe has space
energy(and it does) part of that energy is used to attract all there
is,and over any distance. There was space energy,and gravity eons of
spacetime before the first BB went off. TreBert

On 24/10/2012 2:38 AM, Painius wrote:
That's very interesting, Khan!

I imagine that mainstreamers ridicule that idea (especially since you
called gravitation a "force", which is contrary to the general theory
of relativity's "gravity is an 'effect', not a 'force'"), but I *like*
it!

Every other force seems to have an identifiable force carrier particle,
except gravity. But Gravity's force carrier may be spacetime itself.
Since force particles are highly concentrated bundles of energy, this
may explain why all other forces are much stronger than gravity, because
gravity is highly diffuse, non-concentrated. It would also explain why a
force carrier particle for gravity can't be found, as every individual
Planck Length of space itself is the force carrier of gravity: these
would be the particles of discrete spacetime. You'd have to find a scale
lower than the Planck scale to detect this particle.

You describe the negative energy as gravitational, which goes into
matter to eventually, perhaps over great periods of time, cancel out
the compacted positive energy that is called matter.

However (isn't there always a "but"?g), I still don't quite
understand why you appear to have answered an adamant "no" to my
question about antimatter being equal to negative matter.

snip rest

Because Anti-matter is still positive energy; it's made from the same
type of energy that matter is made from. Anti-matter looks different to
matter only from the point of view of the 3 non-gravitational forces,
but not to gravity. Matter and antimatter were created after the
split-up of the 3 non-gravitational forces.

The Big Bang is often described as a series of symmetry breakages. The
first force to break off from the other forces is gravity. If gravity
and negative energy are the same thing, then that means the first
symmetry breakage was the split of positive and negative energy from
each other. Then later we had the Weak, Strong, and Electro-Magnetic
forces breaking off from each other. But those three forces came from
the positive energy side of things, as did all of the matter. Thus
matter and anti-matter are both made from positive energy, and thus
don't look any different to gravity which is made from negative energy.

As far as we can tell, the only form of negative energy we know is
gravity. We don't know if within the negative side of the ledger, if any
further symmetry breakages occurred too after the Big Bang. I suspect
that we'll find out that there were symmetry breaks on the negative side
too, and those are what we nowadays call Dark Energy and Dark Matter. In
other words, Dark Energy and Dark Matter are offshoots of Gravity, much
like Weak/Strong/EM are offshoots of each other. It also means that
we'll never find a particle of Dark Matter because it too is just an
effect of spacetime, like gravity is.

Yousuf Khan

On Oct 24, 5:00*am, "G=EMC^2" wrote:
On Oct 24, 2:38*am, Painius wrote:









On Sun, 21 Oct 2012 19:25:07 -0400, Yousuf Khan

wrote:
On 15/10/2012 2:20 PM, Painius wrote:

On Mon, 15 Oct 2012 13:11:37 -0400, Yousuf Khan
*wrote:

I do think that at some point it will be possible to go faster than the
speed of light, and the solution may turn out to be quite similar to the
problem and solution to going faster than sound. In the case of sound,
you just need find something more rigid than the air around it, which
won't get torn up by the air around it.

Similarly, you would need to find something that's more rigid than the
surrounding space around it. Much harder to do when the rigidity of
matter is entirely dependent on the rigidity of space. So as a lot of
people of said, we'd have to obtain some exotic negative mass to create
bubbles of space that are of a different rigidity than standard space,
in order to transitition through the superluminal barrier.

Does negative mass equal antimatter? *Antimatter is used in both SF
and science-proposed FTL spacecraft drives.

No, negative mass and negative energy are pretty much the same thing,
just as mass and energy are the same thing. Just as mass is a highly
compact, organized form of energy, negative mass would thus be the
similarly compacted and organized form of negative energy.

So what is negative energy then? The universe is supposed to have a net
zero amount of energy when all of it is added together. Think of
building a dirt hill on a flat piece of ground: if you want dirt to
build the hill, then you'll have to dig it out of the surrounding flat
ground. You'll thus have a dirt hill, but you'll also have a dirt
trench, out of what was previously flat ground. Positive energy can be
thought of as the dirt hill, while negative energy is the trench.

If positive energy is what makes up all of the matter and the 3
non-gravitational forces, then negative energy is thus made up of the
4th force, gravity. All of the matter in the universe creates gravity
because the matter itself is positive energy, while the gravity is its
attendant cancelling negative energy.

Now somehow when the universe got formed, the positive energy went from
its original randomized state to some form of organization. But the
negative energy never got organized just exists in random form. But the
negative energy should be just as capable of being organized into
negative mass. With some unknown technology in the future, if they can
organize negative energy, they can then create negative mass. This
negative mass can then be used to wormholes and warp drives.

That's very interesting, Khan!

I imagine that mainstreamers ridicule that idea (especially since you
called gravitation a "force", which is contrary to the general theory
of relativity's "gravity is an 'effect', not a 'force'"), but I *like*
it!

You describe the negative energy as gravitational, which goes into
matter to eventually, perhaps over great periods of time, cancel out
the compacted positive energy that is called matter.

However (isn't there always a "but"? g), I still don't quite
understand why you appear to have answered an adamant "no" to my
question about antimatter being equal to negative matter.

You see, scientists have been able to produce antimatter, such as the
positron, in cloud chambers...

*http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Positron

It was then found that when an electron collided with a positron, the
two particles would be annihilated, and there was an astonishing
amount of (positive and negative?) energy produced.

If a positron were actually a particle of negative matter, then the
cloud chamber was able to briefly convert the negative energy of
gravitation into a particle. *It would seem that as long as negative
energy remains an energy (and not negative matter), there is no
immediate annihilation when it meets positive matter, but instead it
produces gravitation.

Well, what do you think now, Khan?

--
Indelibly yours,
Paine @http://astronomy.painellsworth.net/
"Man invented language to satisfy his deep need to bitch and moan."

Nothing can produce gravitation. *We can induce magnetisim ,but that's
a lot different. * Particles can only be produced in pairs,and they
have opposite spin(anti-pairs) they are separated by a time lapse.(my
time lapse theory tells it all) *Gravity is created when space
concaves(no straight lines in the universe) *If the universe has space
energy(and it does) part of that energy is used to attract all there
is,and over any distance. *There was space energy,and gravity eons of
spacetime before the first BB went off. *TreBert

Supposedly aether fills everything that isn't molecular. If the
ongoing flow of aether is faster than light, it can't bee seen nor
detected.

On Wed, 24 Oct 2012 05:00:56 -0700 (PDT), "G=EMC^2"
wrote:

On Oct 24, 2:38*am, Painius wrote:
On Sun, 21 Oct 2012 19:25:07 -0400, Yousuf Khan

wrote:
On 15/10/2012 2:20 PM, Painius wrote:

On Mon, 15 Oct 2012 13:11:37 -0400, Yousuf Khan
*wrote:

I do think that at some point it will be possible to go faster than the
speed of light, and the solution may turn out to be quite similar to the
problem and solution to going faster than sound. In the case of sound,
you just need find something more rigid than the air around it, which
won't get torn up by the air around it.

Similarly, you would need to find something that's more rigid than the
surrounding space around it. Much harder to do when the rigidity of
matter is entirely dependent on the rigidity of space. So as a lot of
people of said, we'd have to obtain some exotic negative mass to create
bubbles of space that are of a different rigidity than standard space,
in order to transitition through the superluminal barrier.

Does negative mass equal antimatter? *Antimatter is used in both SF
and science-proposed FTL spacecraft drives.

No, negative mass and negative energy are pretty much the same thing,
just as mass and energy are the same thing. Just as mass is a highly
compact, organized form of energy, negative mass would thus be the
similarly compacted and organized form of negative energy.

So what is negative energy then? The universe is supposed to have a net
zero amount of energy when all of it is added together. Think of
building a dirt hill on a flat piece of ground: if you want dirt to
build the hill, then you'll have to dig it out of the surrounding flat
ground. You'll thus have a dirt hill, but you'll also have a dirt
trench, out of what was previously flat ground. Positive energy can be
thought of as the dirt hill, while negative energy is the trench.

If positive energy is what makes up all of the matter and the 3
non-gravitational forces, then negative energy is thus made up of the
4th force, gravity. All of the matter in the universe creates gravity
because the matter itself is positive energy, while the gravity is its
attendant cancelling negative energy.

Now somehow when the universe got formed, the positive energy went from
its original randomized state to some form of organization. But the
negative energy never got organized just exists in random form. But the
negative energy should be just as capable of being organized into
negative mass. With some unknown technology in the future, if they can
organize negative energy, they can then create negative mass. This
negative mass can then be used to wormholes and warp drives.

That's very interesting, Khan!

I imagine that mainstreamers ridicule that idea (especially since you
called gravitation a "force", which is contrary to the general theory
of relativity's "gravity is an 'effect', not a 'force'"), but I *like*
it!

You describe the negative energy as gravitational, which goes into
matter to eventually, perhaps over great periods of time, cancel out
the compacted positive energy that is called matter.

However (isn't there always a "but"? g), I still don't quite
understand why you appear to have answered an adamant "no" to my
question about antimatter being equal to negative matter.

You see, scientists have been able to produce antimatter, such as the
positron, in cloud chambers...

*http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Positron

It was then found that when an electron collided with a positron, the
two particles would be annihilated, and there was an astonishing
amount of (positive and negative?) energy produced.

If a positron were actually a particle of negative matter, then the
cloud chamber was able to briefly convert the negative energy of
gravitation into a particle. *It would seem that as long as negative
energy remains an energy (and not negative matter), there is no
immediate annihilation when it meets positive matter, but instead it
produces gravitation.

Well, what do you think now, Khan?

Nothing can produce gravitation. We can induce magnetisim ,but that's
a lot different. Particles can only be produced in pairs,and they
have opposite spin(anti-pairs) they are separated by a time lapse.(my
time lapse theory tells it all) Gravity is created when space
concaves(no straight lines in the universe) If the universe has space
energy(and it does) part of that energy is used to attract all there
is,and over any distance. There was space energy,and gravity eons of
spacetime before the first BB went off. TreBert

Poor choice of words on my part, Bert. Perhaps I should have written:
If a positron were actually a particle of negative matter, then the
cloud chamber was able to briefly convert the negative energy of
gravitation into a particle. *It would seem that as long as negative
energy remains an energy (and not negative matter), there is no
immediate annihilation when it meets positive matter, but instead it
RESULTS IN gravitation.(?)

--
Indelibly yours,
Paine @ http://astronomy.painellsworth.net/
"God is a comedian playing to an audience too afraid to laugh."