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 » Astronomy and Astrophysics » Astronomy Misc
Site Map Home Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

WHAT IF FASTER-THAN-LIGHT TRAVEL IS POSSIBLE



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old September 23rd 11, 06:29 AM posted to sci.astro,sci.math
Pentcho Valev
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 8,078
Default WHAT IF FASTER-THAN-LIGHT TRAVEL IS POSSIBLE

Einsteiniana's fundamental absurdities - time dilation and length
contraction - are deducible from the single assumption that the speed
of light is independent of the speed of the light source. See pp.
12-16 in Chapter 11 in:

http://www.people.fas.harvard.edu/~djmorin/book.html
Introduction to Classical Mechanics With Problems and Solutions
David Morin, Cambridge University Press

So the hysteria around any faster-than-light travel established in
experiment or theory would be a red herring (that is, Einsteiniana
would continue to destroy human rationality) unless the assumption of
independence is refuted. Fortunately the Michelson-Morley and Pound-
Rebka experiments have UNEQUIVOCALLY shown that the variation of the
speed of photons is identical to the variation of the speed of any
material bodies, e.g. cannonballs.

Pentcho Valev

Ads
  #2  
Old September 23rd 11, 02:25 PM posted to sci.astro,sci.math
Pentcho Valev
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 8,078
Default WHAT IF FASTER-THAN-LIGHT TRAVEL IS POSSIBLE

http://www.phys.uconn.edu/~gibson/No...6_3/Sec6_3.htm
Professor George N. Gibson, University of Connecticut: "However, if
either the source or the observer is moving, things change. This is
called the Doppler effect. (...) To understand the moving observer,
imagine you are in a motorboat on the ocean. If you are not moving,
the boat will bob up and down with a certain frequency determined by
the ocean waves coming in. However, imagine that you are moving into
the waves fairly quickly. You will find that you bob up and down more
rapidly, because you hit the crests of the waves sooner than if you
were not moving. So, the frequency of the waves appears to be higher
to you than if you were not moving. Notice, THE WAVES THEMSELVES HAVE
NOT CHANGED, only your experience of them. Nevertheless, you would say
that the frequency has increased. Now imagine that you are returning
to shore, and so you are traveling in the same direction as the waves.
In this case, the waves may still overtake you, but AT A MUCH SLOWER
RATE - you will bob up and down more slowly. In fact, if you travel
with exactly the same speed as the waves, you will not bob up and down
at all. The same thing is true for sound waves, or ANY OTHER WAVES. If
you are moving into a wave, its frequency will appear to you to be
higher, while if you are traveling in the same direction as the waves,
their frequency will appear to be lower. The formula for the frequency
that the observer will detect depends on the speed of the observer -
the larger the speed the greater the effect. If we call the speed of
the observer, Vo, the frequency the observer detects will be:
f'=f(1+Vo/Vwave). Here, f is the original frequency and Vwave is the
speed of the wave."

Clearly the speed of the waves relative to the observer VARIES with
the speed of the observer in accordance with the equation:

V' = Vwave + Vo

which is in fact the fundamental equation of Newton's emission theory
of light:

c' = c + v

So if the waves overtake the moving observer "AT A MUCH SLOWER RATE",
then whether or not at CERN neutrinos travel faster than light does
not matter at all - special relativity is wrong anyway. If the rate at
which waves overtake the moving observer does not vary with his speed,
then, somewhat surprisingly, whether or not at CERN neutrinos travel
faster than light does not matter much again - fundamental effects
such as time dilation and length contraction are valid consequences of
the invariability in question.

Pentcho Valev

  #3  
Old September 23rd 11, 04:36 PM posted to sci.astro,sci.math
Pentcho Valev
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 8,078
Default WHAT IF FASTER-THAN-LIGHT TRAVEL IS POSSIBLE

Remember the martyr:

http://bryangwallace.dreamhost.com/s...ics/index.html
Bryan Wallace 1994: "On page 4 of the September 19, 1993 issue of the
Sunday Newspaper PARADE MAGAZINE, Carl Sagan wrote: "It would be
demoralizing to learn that our science is medieval." But by the
standards of the next few centuries, at least some of our present
science will be considered medieval, extraterrestrials or no
extraterrestrials. At the very top of the pile of medieval theories
will be Einstein's relativity theory that starts with the postulate
that for some undefined abstract mystic reason, the speed of light is
the same for all observers, no matter how fast they or an observed
object travels!"

http://www.fileden.com/files/2008/8/...9-p361-367.pdf
RADAR TESTING OF THE RELATIVE VELOCITY OF LIGHT IN SPACE
Bryan G. Wallace, Spectroscopy Letters 1969 pages 361-367
ABSTRACT: "Published interplanetary radar data presents evidence that
the relative velocity of light in space is c+v and not c."
INTRODUCTION: "There are three main theories about the relativity
velocity of light in space. The Newtonian corpuscular theory is
relativistic in the Galilean sense and postulates that the velocity is
c+v relative to the observer. The ether theory postulates that the
velocity is c relative to the ether. The Einstein theory postulates
that the velocity is c relative to the observer. The Michelson-Morley
experiment presents evidence against the ether theory and for the c+v
theory. The c theory explains the results of this experiment by
postulating ad hoc properties of space and time..."

http://www.ekkehard-friebe.de/wallace.htm
Bryan Wallace: "There is a popular argument that the world's oldest
profession is sexual prostitution. I think that it is far more likely
that the oldest profession is scientific prostitution, and that it is
still alive and well, and thriving in the 20th century. I suspect that
long before sex had any commercial value, the prehistoric shamans used
their primitive knowledge to acquire status, wealth, and political
power, in much the same way as the dominant scientific and religious
politicians of our time do. (...) Because many of the dominant
theories of our time do not follow the rules of science, they should
more properly be labeled pseudoscience. The people who tend to believe
more in theories than in the scientific method of testing theories,
and who ignore the evidence against the theories they believe in,
should be considered pseudoscientists and not true scientists. To the
extent that the professed beliefs are based on the desire for status,
wealth, or political reasons, these people are scientific prostitutes.
(...) Einstein's special relativity theory with his second postulate
that the speed of light in space is constant is the linchpin that
holds the whole range of modern physics theories together. Shatter
this postulate, and modern physics becomes an elaborate farce! (...)
The speed of light is c+v. (...) I expect that the scientists of the
future will consider the dominant abstract physics theories of our
time in much the same light as we now consider the Medieval theories
of how many angels can dance on the head of a pin or that the Earth
stands still and the Universe moves around it." [Note: Bryan Wallace
wrote "The Farce of Physics" on his deathbed hence some imperfections
in the text!]

Pentcho Valev

  #4  
Old September 23rd 11, 10:30 PM posted to sci.astro,sci.math
Pentcho Valev
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 8,078
Default WHAT IF FASTER-THAN-LIGHT TRAVEL IS POSSIBLE

Einstein's 1905 light postulate:

http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/ "...light is
always propagated in empty space with a definite velocity c which is
independent of the state of motion of the emitting body."

Clearly faster-than-light travel (of neutrinos) and the light
postulate are perfectly compatible. That is, neutrinos' speed could be
ten times greater than the light speed but this would not prevent
light from being "always propagated in empty space with a definite
velocity c which is independent of the state of motion of the emitting
body". Insofar as the fate of special relativity is concerned, the
neutrinos-faster-than-light hysteria is a red herring par excellence.
Relevant scenarios threatening special relativity are those in which
the fact that the speed of light does depend on the speed of the light
source or the observer is noticeable in some way, e.g. takes the form
of a Doppler shift measured by a moving observer.

Pentcho Valev

  #5  
Old September 24th 11, 06:00 AM posted to sci.astro,sci.math
Pentcho Valev
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 8,078
Default WHAT IF FASTER-THAN-LIGHT TRAVEL IS POSSIBLE

http://www.pressherald.com/news/nati...011-09-24.html
"Challenging Einstein usually a losing venture, history shows. Betting
against Einstein and his theory of relativity is a way to go broke.
For more than a century, everyone from physicists to the Nazi Party –
which encouraged the publication of the tract "One Hundred Authors
Against Einstein" – has tried to find cracks in his work. And all have
failed. Some experimental results at first seemed to contradict
relativity, only later to be found to fit neatly with the theory
Albert Einstein loved for its simplicity and elegance."

The null result of the Michelson-Morley experiment, for instance, at
first seemed to contradict the assumption that the speed of light is
independent of the speed of the light source (Einstein's light
postulate), only later to be forced by "later writers" to fit neatly
with the theory Albert Einstein loved for its simplicity and elegance:

http://www.pitt.edu/~jdnorton/papers/companion.doc
John Norton: "These efforts were long misled by an exaggeration of the
importance of one experiment, the Michelson-Morley experiment, even
though Einstein later had trouble recalling if he even knew of the
experiment prior to his 1905 paper. This one experiment, in isolation,
has little force. Its null result happened to be fully compatible with
Newton's own emission theory of light. Located in the context of late
19th century electrodynamics when ether-based, wave theories of light
predominated, however, it presented a serious problem that exercised
the greatest theoretician of the day."

http://www.amazon.com/Relativity-Its.../dp/0486406768
"Relativity and Its Roots" By Banesh Hoffmann
"Moreover, if light consists of particles, as Einstein had suggested
in his paper submitted just thirteen weeks before this one, the second
principle seems absurd: A stone thrown from a speeding train can do
far more damage than one thrown from a train at rest; the speed of the
particle is not independent of the motion of the object emitting it.
And if we take light to consist of particles and assume that these
particles obey Newton's laws, they will conform to Newtonian
relativity and thus automatically account for the null result of the
Michelson-Morley experiment without recourse to contracting lengths,
local time, or Lorentz transformations. Yet, as we have seen, Einstein
resisted the temptation to account for the null result in terms of
particles of light and simple, familiar Newtonian ideas, and
introduced as his second postulate something that was more or less
obvious when thought of in terms of waves in an ether."

http://philsci-archive.pitt.edu/1743/2/Norton.pdf
John Norton: "In addition to his work as editor of the Einstein papers
in finding source material, Stachel assembled the many small clues
that reveal Einstein's serious consideration of an emission theory of
light; and he gave us the crucial insight that Einstein regarded the
Michelson-Morley experiment as evidence for the principle of
relativity, whereas later writers almost universally use it as support
for the light postulate of special relativity. Even today, this point
needs emphasis. The Michelson-Morley experiment is fully compatible
with an emission theory of light that CONTRADICTS THE LIGHT
POSTULATE."

Pentcho Valev

  #6  
Old September 24th 11, 06:24 PM posted to sci.astro,sci.math
Pentcho Valev
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 8,078
Default WHAT IF FASTER-THAN-LIGHT TRAVEL IS POSSIBLE

My claim:

"Insofar as the fate of special relativity is concerned, the neutrinos-
faster-than-light hysteria is a red herring par excellence."

was not quite correct. It can be proved, although the proof is
somewhat complicated, that if a signal is faster than light, special
relativity predicts that an event (bomb explosion) occurs according to
one observer and does not occur according to the other:

http://www.people.fas.harvard.edu/~djmorin/chap11.pdf
pp. 41-42: "11.6. Train in a tunnel. A train and a tunnel both have
proper lengths L. The train moves toward the tunnel at speed v. A bomb
is located at the front of the train. The bomb is designed to explode
when the front of the train passes the far end of the tunnel. A
deactivation sensor is located at the back of the train. When the back
of the train passes the near end of the tunnel, the sensor tells the
bomb to disarm itself. Does the bomb explode?"

A much easier and more convincing proof of the contradictory nature of
special relativity is supplied by the so-called bug-rivet paradox:

http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu.../bugrivet.html
"The bug-rivet paradox is a variation on the twin paradox and is
similar to the pole-barn paradox.....The end of the rivet hits the
bottom of the hole before the head of the rivet hits the wall. So it
looks like the bug is squashed.....All this is nonsense from the bug's
point of view. The rivet head hits the wall when the rivet end is just
0.35 cm down in the hole! The rivet doesn't get close to the
bug....The paradox is not resolved."

Pentcho Valev

  #7  
Old September 24th 11, 08:50 PM posted to sci.astro,sci.math
Androcles[_64_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 125
Default WHAT IF FASTER-THAN-LIGHT TRAVEL IS POSSIBLE


"Pentcho Valev" wrote in message
...
| My claim:
|
| "Insofar as the fate of special relativity is concerned, the neutrinos-
| faster-than-light hysteria is a red herring par excellence."
|
| was not quite correct. It can be proved, although the proof is
| somewhat complicated, that if a signal is faster than light, special
| relativity predicts that an event (bomb explosion)

Such events are specifically excluded by the cop out:

"For velocities greater than that of light our deliberations become
meaningless; we shall, however, find in what follows, that the velocity of
light in our theory plays the part, physically, of an infinitely great
velocity."

You don't need to go through any mental bomb contortions, Einstein as
already masturbated and played the part, physically, of the world's
infinitely greatest ******.




  #8  
Old September 25th 11, 01:57 PM posted to sci.astro,sci.math
Pentcho Valev
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 8,078
Default WHAT IF FASTER-THAN-LIGHT TRAVEL IS POSSIBLE

Einsteinians devise idiotic red herrings in panic and despair:

http://www.thestar.com/news/world/ar...neutrinos?bn=1
"Damn those neutrinos. (...) "All of our understanding of cosmology
and subatomic matter - everything will have to be revised," says Neil
Turok, director of the Perimeter Institute in Waterloo, among the
world's leading centres for research in theoretical physics. "We will
have to work out everything all over again." (...) "If this experiment
is right," says Turok, "from one point of view, the particles would
have gone backward in time." In such a universe - one that permits
chronological movement in reverse - it might also be possible for the
consequences of an action to precede the action itself, and you don't
need a PhD to be troubled by that. "That's kind of at the root of
this," says Turok."

Pentcho Valev

  #9  
Old September 25th 11, 08:07 PM posted to sci.astro,sci.math
Pentcho Valev
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 8,078
Default WHAT IF FASTER-THAN-LIGHT TRAVEL IS POSSIBLE

The solution to the *train in a tunnel* problem is on p. 57 in David
Morin's text:

http://www.people.fas.harvard.edu/~djmorin/chap11.pdf
p. 57: "Yes, the bomb explodes. This is clear in the frame of the
train... (...) We can, however, also look at things in the frame of
the tunnel... (...) Therefore, the deactivation device gets triggered
before the front of the train passes the far end of the tunnel, so you
might think that the bomb does not explode. We appear to have a
paradox. The resolution to this paradox is that the deactivation
device cannot instantaneously tell the bomb to deactivate itself. It
takes a finite time for the signal to travel the length of the train
from the sensor to the bomb. And it turns out that this transmission
time makes it impossible for the deactivation signal to get to the
bomb before the bomb gets to the far end of the tunnel, no matter how
fast the train is moving. Let's show this. The signal has the best
chance of winning this "race" if it has speed c, so let's assume this
is the case..."

It can be rigorously proved that, if the deactivation signal's speed
is higher than c (e.g. neutrinos faster than light are used), the
signal does get to the bomb before the bomb gets to the far end of the
tunnel. So special relativity predicts that the bomb explodes in the
frame of the train and does not explode in the frame of the tunnel.

Pentcho Valev wrote:

My claim:

"Insofar as the fate of special relativity is concerned, the neutrinos-
faster-than-light hysteria is a red herring par excellence."

was not quite correct. It can be proved, although the proof is
somewhat complicated, that if a signal is faster than light, special
relativity predicts that an event (bomb explosion) occurs according to
one observer and does not occur according to the other:

http://www.people.fas.harvard.edu/~djmorin/chap11.pdf
pp. 41-42: "11.6. Train in a tunnel. A train and a tunnel both have
proper lengths L. The train moves toward the tunnel at speed v. A bomb
is located at the front of the train. The bomb is designed to explode
when the front of the train passes the far end of the tunnel. A
deactivation sensor is located at the back of the train. When the back
of the train passes the near end of the tunnel, the sensor tells the
bomb to disarm itself. Does the bomb explode?"

A much easier and more convincing proof of the contradictory nature of
special relativity is supplied by the so-called bug-rivet paradox:

http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu.../bugrivet.html
"The bug-rivet paradox is a variation on the twin paradox and is
similar to the pole-barn paradox.....The end of the rivet hits the
bottom of the hole before the head of the rivet hits the wall. So it
looks like the bug is squashed.....All this is nonsense from the bug's
point of view. The rivet head hits the wall when the rivet end is just
0.35 cm down in the hole! The rivet doesn't get close to the
bug....The paradox is not resolved."

Pentcho Valev

  #10  
Old September 25th 11, 08:19 PM posted to sci.astro,sci.math
Androcles[_64_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 125
Default WHAT IF FASTER-THAN-LIGHT TRAVEL IS POSSIBLE


"Pentcho Valev" wrote in message
...
| The solution to the *train in a tunnel* problem is on p. 57 in David
| Morin's text:

Your mental wanking is pointless.





 




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

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Device Makes Radio Waves Travel Faster Than Light! Double-A[_3_] Misc 24 July 20th 09 06:42 PM
Device Makes Radio Waves Travel Faster Than Light! Warhol[_1_] Misc 8 July 7th 09 04:22 AM
Device Makes Radio Waves Travel Faster Than Light! BradGuth Misc 4 July 2nd 09 08:39 PM
Device Makes Radio Waves Travel Faster Than Light! Double-A[_3_] Misc 0 July 2nd 09 02:31 AM
Celestia & faster than light travel [email protected] Amateur Astronomy 6 August 25th 05 07:17 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 10:54 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2022, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2022 SpaceBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.