A Space & astronomy forum. SpaceBanter.com

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Go Back   Home » SpaceBanter.com forum » Others » Misc
Site Map Home Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Are We Alone ?



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #11  
Old May 17th 21, 05:58 PM posted to alt.astronomy
R Kym Horsell[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 111
Default Are We Alone ?

R Kym Horsell wrote:
In alt.astronomy Bast wrote:
wrote:
Amazing how the whole point of this thread continues to be missed,
that distances are FAR too great for any practical travel between
stars, even in the very unlikely event of traveling near light speed,
or of any communications. All experience so far has confirmed this.

You mean,......SO FAR
It was not that long ago the same thought about being impossible was said
about beng able to travel at speeds of over 30 miles per hour......
Until it happened.
If I have missed the point that some people willl always refuse to believe
that limits are only something thet has not been figured out yet, then you
are right.
Wait until we discover that light actually can travel faster than "C", and
it's medium is actually the "stuff" we now wrongly call "dark matter".

...
Sounds a bit speculative.
We know the speed of light in a vacuum is faster than the speed of
light in a material with a refractive index 1.
But we also know the vacuum is nowhere near empty -- there are virtual
particles, mostly electron/positron paris, jamming around any photon
trying to motor along. If you had a "real" quantum vaccum then you
might find photons moved faster.

....

Here's a classic paper on photons travelling faster than c
in a "special vacuum".

Between the plates of a Casimir device there is a volume
of -ve energy -- i.e. a quantum energy density below
the zero point energy of the (normal) vacuum.

The -ve energy space allows us to extract energy from
nowhere but also it's observed photons travel faster than c
in there.


[Yat Another Case of FTL:]
Speed of light in non-trivial vacua
Jos? I. Latorre, Pedro Pascual, Rolf Tarrach
Cited by: 148
6/3/1995
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/0550321394004906
Finally, the modification of the speed of light due to Casimir plates has
been compared and related to the one due to temperature. A field-theoretical
explanation in terms of modes suggests the following physical picture of
why photons move faster between plates than in a normal vacuum, in contrast
to what happens in a heated vacuum.

Ads
  #12  
Old May 18th 21, 09:20 AM posted to alt.astronomy
Daniel65
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 75
Default Are We Alone ?

R Kym Horsell wrote on 18/5/21 1:09 am:
In alt.astronomy Bast wrote:
wrote:
Amazing how the whole point of this thread continues to be missed,
that distances are FAR too great for any practical travel between
stars, even in the very unlikely event of traveling near light speed,
or of any communications. All experience so far has confirmed this.

You mean,......SO FAR
It was not that long ago the same thought about being impossible was said
about beng able to travel at speeds of over 30 miles per hour......
Until it happened.
If I have missed the point that some people willl always refuse to believe
that limits are only something thet has not been figured out yet, then you
are right.
Wait until we discover that light actually can travel faster than "C", and
it's medium is actually the "stuff" we now wrongly call "dark matter".

...

Sounds a bit speculative.

We know the speed of light in a vacuum is faster than the speed of
light in a material with a refractive index 1.

But we also know the vacuum is nowhere near empty -- there are virtual
particles, mostly electron/positron paris, jamming around any photon
trying to motor along. If you had a "real" quantum vaccum then you
might find photons moved faster.


O.K., pick me, I'll ask the question that everyone's thinking!! (My
theory is ... "The only dumb question is the question that goes unasked!!)

Doesn't a 'photon' have Mass?? If so, then how could 'a "real" quantum
vacuum' possibly contain a photon??
--
Daniel
  #13  
Old May 18th 21, 06:00 PM posted to alt.astronomy
palsing[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 3,068
Default Are We Alone ?

On Tuesday, May 18, 2021 at 1:20:09 AM UTC-7, Daniel65 wrote:
R Kym Horsell wrote on 18/5/21 1:09 am:
In alt.astronomy Bast wrote:
wrote:
Amazing how the whole point of this thread continues to be missed,
that distances are FAR too great for any practical travel between
stars, even in the very unlikely event of traveling near light speed,
or of any communications. All experience so far has confirmed this.
You mean,......SO FAR
It was not that long ago the same thought about being impossible was said
about beng able to travel at speeds of over 30 miles per hour......
Until it happened.
If I have missed the point that some people willl always refuse to believe
that limits are only something thet has not been figured out yet, then you
are right.
Wait until we discover that light actually can travel faster than "C", and
it's medium is actually the "stuff" we now wrongly call "dark matter".

...

Sounds a bit speculative.

We know the speed of light in a vacuum is faster than the speed of
light in a material with a refractive index 1.

But we also know the vacuum is nowhere near empty -- there are virtual
particles, mostly electron/positron paris, jamming around any photon
trying to motor along. If you had a "real" quantum vaccum then you
might find photons moved faster.

O.K., pick me, I'll ask the question that everyone's thinking!! (My
theory is ... "The only dumb question is the question that goes unasked!!)

Doesn't a 'photon' have Mass?? If so, then how could 'a "real" quantum
vacuum' possibly contain a photon??
--
Daniel


A photon has no mass but it does have momentum. Recall that nothing with mass can attain the speed of light.

https://socratic.org/questions/how-d...um-of-a-photon
  #14  
Old May 18th 21, 10:34 PM posted to alt.astronomy
R Kym Horsell[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 111
Default Are We Alone ?

palsing wrote:
On Tuesday, May 18, 2021 at 1:20:09 AM UTC-7, Daniel65 wrote:
R Kym Horsell wrote on 18/5/21 1:09 am:
In alt.astronomy Bast wrote:
wrote:
Amazing how the whole point of this thread continues to be missed,
that distances are FAR too great for any practical travel between
stars, even in the very unlikely event of traveling near light speed,
or of any communications. All experience so far has confirmed this.
You mean,......SO FAR
It was not that long ago the same thought about being impossible was said
about beng able to travel at speeds of over 30 miles per hour......
Until it happened.
If I have missed the point that some people willl always refuse to believe
that limits are only something thet has not been figured out yet, then you
are right.
Wait until we discover that light actually can travel faster than "C", and
it's medium is actually the "stuff" we now wrongly call "dark matter".
...

Sounds a bit speculative.

We know the speed of light in a vacuum is faster than the speed of
light in a material with a refractive index 1.

But we also know the vacuum is nowhere near empty -- there are virtual
particles, mostly electron/positron paris, jamming around any photon
trying to motor along. If you had a "real" quantum vaccum then you
might find photons moved faster.

O.K., pick me, I'll ask the question that everyone's thinking!! (My
theory is ... "The only dumb question is the question that goes unasked!!)

Doesn't a 'photon' have Mass?? If so, then how could 'a "real" quantum
vacuum' possibly contain a photon??
--
Daniel

A photon has no mass but it does have momentum. Recall that nothing with mass can attain the speed of light.
https://socratic.org/questions/how-d...um-of-a-photon


Although as we know photons can move faster than c and this has been
experimentally verified.

Moral: "laws" are only guides and not hard and fast rules.
People that take them literally dont make very good scientixsts.

--
[Even light can travel faster than c:]
Speed of light in non-trivial vacua
Jos? I. Latorre, Pedro Pascual, Rolf Tarrach
Cited by: 148
6/3/1995
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/0550321394004906
Finally, the modification of the speed of light due to Casimir plates has
been compared and related to the one due to temperature. A field-theoretical
explana- tion in terms of modes suggests the following physical picture of
why photons move faster between plates than in a normal vacuum, in contrast
to what happens in a heated vacuum.
Alcubierre drive - Wikipedia
The Alcubierre drive, Alcubierre warp drive, or Alcubierre metric (referring
to metric tensor) is a ... Alcubierre interpreted his "warp bubble" in terms
of a contraction of space ahead of the bubble and an expansion behind, ...
arXiv:gr-qc/0406083.
-- wiki
  #15  
Old May 19th 21, 04:39 AM posted to alt.astronomy
Bast[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,917
Default Are We Alone ?



palsing wrote:
On Tuesday, May 18, 2021 at 1:20:09 AM UTC-7, Daniel65 wrote:
R Kym Horsell wrote on 18/5/21 1:09 am:
In alt.astronomy Bast wrote:
wrote:
Amazing how the whole point of this thread continues to be missed,
that distances are FAR too great for any practical travel between
stars, even in the very unlikely event of traveling near light
speed, or of any communications. All experience so far has
confirmed this.
You mean,......SO FAR
It was not that long ago the same thought about being impossible was
said about beng able to travel at speeds of over 30 miles per
hour......
Until it happened.
If I have missed the point that some people willl always refuse to
believe that limits are only something thet has not been figured out
yet, then you are right.
Wait until we discover that light actually can travel faster than
"C", and it's medium is actually the "stuff" we now wrongly call
"dark matter".
...

Sounds a bit speculative.

We know the speed of light in a vacuum is faster than the speed of
light in a material with a refractive index 1.

But we also know the vacuum is nowhere near empty -- there are virtual
particles, mostly electron/positron paris, jamming around any photon
trying to motor along. If you had a "real" quantum vaccum then you
might find photons moved faster.

O.K., pick me, I'll ask the question that everyone's thinking!! (My
theory is ... "The only dumb question is the question that goes
unasked!!)

Doesn't a 'photon' have Mass?? If so, then how could 'a "real" quantum
vacuum' possibly contain a photon??
--
Daniel


A photon has no mass but it does have momentum. Recall that nothing
with mass can attain the speed of light.

https://socratic.org/questions/how-d...um-of-a-photon





There you go, BREAKING THE RULES again.
No mass, can not have any momentum. THAT is the rule, and has been for
decades

Funny how alll the rules of physics are total and unquestionable,.....until
somebody discovers something that doesn't fit, so a new rule gets made up.

Even the new 2020-21 rule that no mass is allowed for any photon, or any
other Christian. Churches are closed, Masses are outlawed.
Get with the globalist programs and quit thinking for yourself. Or the
Ministry of Truth thought police will come for you.




  #16  
Old May 19th 21, 01:42 PM posted to alt.astronomy
[email protected]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 33
Default Are We Alone ?

Photons have no mass.

Observed or measured speed in any inertial frame will always be c .
  #17  
Old May 19th 21, 01:48 PM posted to alt.astronomy
R Kym Horsell[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 111
Default Are We Alone ?

wrote:
Photons have no mass.

Observed or measured speed in any inertial frame will always be c .


Bzzzt.
  #18  
Old May 19th 21, 02:21 PM posted to alt.astronomy
R Kym Horsell[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 111
Default Are We Alone ?

R Kym Horsell wrote:
wrote:
Photons have no mass.
Observed or measured speed in any inertial frame will always be c .

Bzzzt.



For any remaining hillbilly parrots that dont know what they are
talking about.

c is the speed of light in a vacuum.

But there is more than one kind of vacuum.

The vacuum most scientists mean is the standard vaccum where the
speed of a photon is c.

The speed of light in a medium is whatever it is. Many are slower
than c. The refractive index tells you how much slower.
(The change in speed of photons as they enter a medium defines the
angle of refraction and hence the RI).

The standard vacuum has an RI of 1.00000000000.

But the standard vacuum runs at the "zero point energy" where
virtual particules pop in and out of existence at high speed.
On balance the vacuum is "essentially" empty. But that doesnt mean
really empty.

Some of the virtual particles are electron/positron pairs. These
come in and out of existence in pairs and keep the electric charge
balanced. After a small time (~Plank time interval) they mutally
anahilate again. And it goes on and on.

These electrons do have an effect. They make the RI of the vacuum 1.0000.

But if you can create a vacumm with "less energy than 0" you can
decrease the RI to below 1 and the speed of light in that kind of
vacuum can be measured as faster than c.

In at least 1995 (op cit) this has been done.

Hillbillies will continue to quote from 100 year old high school
dulled-down-for-100-IQ-everyman science textbooks because they
are parrots and do not actually understand anything.

It's all covered in Incompetence Theory.

--
Kruger and Dunning argue that for a given skill, incompetent people will:
1. tend to overestimate their own level of skill;
2. fail to recognize genuine skill in others;
3. fail to recognize the extremity of their inadequacy;
4. recognize and acknowledge their own previous lack of skill, only if
they can be trained to substantially improve [their own performance].

Dunning later drew an analogy with anosognosia in which a person who
suffers a physical disability because of brain injury seems unaware of
or denies the existence of the disability, even for dramatic
impairments such as blindness or paralysis.

Dunning & Kruger & others concluded that the root cause is that, in
contrast to high performers, "poor performers do not learn from
feedback suggesting a need to improve".

-- Ehrlinger, Joyce; Johnson, Kerri; Banner, Matthew; Dunning, David;
Kruger, Justin (2008). "Why the unskilled are unawa Further
explorations of (absent) self-insight among the incompetent".
Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes 105 (105): 98-121.
  #20  
Old May 20th 21, 05:05 PM posted to alt.astronomy
palsing[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 3,068
Default Are We Alone ?

On Tuesday, May 18, 2021 at 8:39:08 PM UTC-7, Bast wrote:
palsing wrote:
On Tuesday, May 18, 2021 at 1:20:09 AM UTC-7, Daniel65 wrote:
R Kym Horsell wrote on 18/5/21 1:09 am:
In alt.astronomy Bast wrote:
wrote:
Amazing how the whole point of this thread continues to be missed,
that distances are FAR too great for any practical travel between
stars, even in the very unlikely event of traveling near light
speed, or of any communications. All experience so far has
confirmed this.
You mean,......SO FAR
It was not that long ago the same thought about being impossible was
said about beng able to travel at speeds of over 30 miles per
hour......
Until it happened.
If I have missed the point that some people willl always refuse to
believe that limits are only something thet has not been figured out
yet, then you are right.
Wait until we discover that light actually can travel faster than
"C", and it's medium is actually the "stuff" we now wrongly call
"dark matter".
...

Sounds a bit speculative.

We know the speed of light in a vacuum is faster than the speed of
light in a material with a refractive index 1.

But we also know the vacuum is nowhere near empty -- there are virtual
particles, mostly electron/positron paris, jamming around any photon
trying to motor along. If you had a "real" quantum vaccum then you
might find photons moved faster.
O.K., pick me, I'll ask the question that everyone's thinking!! (My
theory is ... "The only dumb question is the question that goes
unasked!!)

Doesn't a 'photon' have Mass?? If so, then how could 'a "real" quantum
vacuum' possibly contain a photon??
--
Daniel


A photon has no mass but it does have momentum. Recall that nothing
with mass can attain the speed of light.

https://socratic.org/questions/how-d...um-of-a-photon

There you go, BREAKING THE RULES again.
No mass, can not have any momentum. THAT is the rule, and has been for
decades

Funny how alll the rules of physics are total and unquestionable,.....until
somebody discovers something that doesn't fit, so a new rule gets made up.

Even the new 2020-21 rule that no mass is allowed for any photon, or any
other Christian. Churches are closed, Masses are outlawed.
Get with the globalist programs and quit thinking for yourself. Or the
Ministry of Truth thought police will come for you.


Your ignorance of freshman physics is showing again, Bast. Photons have momentum, just look it up. It is in every physics text ever written!
 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 03:59 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright 2004-2021 SpaceBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.