The Faster Than Light Issue

a reply to: Alien Abduct

I think you're on the right track.

a reply to: TheRedneck

Yeah. I see where you're going, and it's really cool how we're sort of converging on the same idea from totally different directions.

So, you know about ICP? As in the Insane Clown Posse? Yeah, I hate them too. But they have some funny lyrics, and as the meme goes "Water, fire, air and dirt, f'ing magnets, how do they work?"

As much as I hate to give credit to ICP, credit is due. That line is what started me down this path. I thought, well hell, there must be a reasonable explanation. From the mouths of babes, as they say.

I learned magnetism is ultimately a relativistic phenomenon. From the perspective of a charged particle in motion, a current(also charged particles in motion) appears to be more charge-dense if the current opposes a spatial component of motion of the observing charge, and vice-versa. In other words, currents of like charge of the same bias in parallel observe LESS of an opposing Coulomb force than do currents of like charge of opposite bias in parallel motion. This is referred to as a Z-pinch. Two parallel currents going the same direction attract one another,repel one another less than do two parallel currents going opposite directions repel one another.

Now, how could this be? It's because the information regarding the individual charge carrier's position is subject to relativistic time dilation. When the currents are opposite, the individual charge carriers' signals are more dense, because the the speed of light is invariant, and the individual signal sources(charge carriers) are closing distance with the observer charge. True, after the encounter node(point at which the charges are in closest proximity) charge density appears less dense, and there will be a measurable resistance to current in such a situation, a component of which would be the relativistic effect of lessening charge density after the encounter node.

But why is this important, you might ask? Well, as I'm sure you know, I'll tell you. Individual particles possess a quantum property known as magnetic moment, or spin. But if magnetism is a relativistic illusion, then what we're talking about is an electrostatic property of individual particles, measured from a reference frame independent of the motion of the particle. Perhaps it was an abuse of notation to label it spin, but as it turns out that's not far from the truth.

Lets look at light for a second: light is electromagnetic energy. It is a disturbance of the E and B fields, causing a self-propagating wave in spacetime. It moves like a wave, but once intercepted it acts like a particle. I propose the latter is merely a statement regarding the nature of matter, and not so much a bounding rule on the nature of light, but that might be a topic for another thread. Point is, light is a deviation in the E-field of the baseline space, resulting in a deviation from the B-field baseline, causing the E-field to bounce to the opposite extreme, causing the B-field to bounce to the opposite extreme, you get the picture. It's a transverse wave in the fabric of space, and propagates at the speed of light. I won't qualify that last statement because I think matter is simply little pockets of bound-up space, and light traverses matter at c, even though "spatially," from our perspective, it appeared to be delayed. It wasn't. It just had further to go.

SO, to support your supposition, I think that when you refer to energy "trapped" in an area of space, that energy is directly expressed in the binding of a region of space into a hyperdimensional structure, the simplest of which could be described as a 4-dimensional torus which, when viewed from our 3d perspective, looks like a sphere, or point particle. The weird thing about this sphere, or point particle, is that it has the ability to retain properties like magnetic moment and charge, no matter what direction you look at it from. For instance, if it were simply a 3d object spinning clockwise, when you change your perspective(not even touching the thing) 180 around the x axis, suddenly it's spinning counterclockwise. That's not what we observe.

Consider the torus structure, however(donut.) Such a structure could and would have a major axis spin(like a bicycle wheel) and a minor axis spin(like unrolling a condom) which, combined, would give both spin directions independent reference, irrespective to observer position. Further, it sets up the whole standard model of particle physics with respect to particles and antiparticles. In my model, particles and antiparticles are identical except for which direction the "condom rolls.'

So take that, Vatican! Condoms solved space travel.

originally posted by: Jabronie
a reply to: Peeple

Who is to say that life has to come from light years away? We still don't know what lies beneath the surface of several gas giants in our own solar system.

Very true...

Saturn has a sh#t ton of things about it that make it interesting...I started a thread about one of those things some time ago. I included a vid about the "sounds of Saturn"...very, very cool stuff!

Hexagon on Saturn

originally posted by: phishfriar47
My mind always wanders to black holes when we talk about light speed.

And heres what boggles my mind. Light speed is supposed to be the fastest observable movement in the known universe, until said light meets event horizon of mister black hole. Then gravity wins, and if light is unable to escape, then my meager little mind says that the opposite force must be equal to or even greater to not only stop light, but reverse its speed enough that it would be unable to escape the grasps of the black hole.

You know, that wouldn't take much force. Light slows when it passes through any medium (like through water.) We don't talk much about how much force still water has though, do we?

Photons are massless. Since force equals mass times acceleration, you can't talk about the "force" needed to stop light in any reasonable way.
After all, we know how to stop light already - it's called shade.

Harte

a reply to: Zelun
Point particles aren't spheres.
Point particles have no physical dimensions.
So you can try and fold that idea into your theory.

Harte

originally posted by: Zelun
a reply to: TheRedneck

Nothing is stationary. The notion of a "standing wave" is relative. Energy is a vector. Energy doesn't exist without directionality. Instances in which energy is "stationary" are oscillatory, such as in the case of thermal energy.

Energy is not a vector quantity. It's a scalar quantity.

Harte

originally posted by: TheRedneck
a reply to: Zelun

And yet standing waves exist.

TheRedneck

Because he's wrong. A standing wave is self-referencing and so is not "relative" to anyone's position or inertial reference frame.

Harte

a reply to: Phage
11 dimensions in M Theory.
9 are spatial.

Harte

originally posted by: Zelun
a reply to: Phage

Don't forget the E and B fields ala Maxwell. Then there's the question of whether rotational motion can be considered distinct from translational motion. So you've got x, y, z, e, b, then rotational forms of each according to the right-hand-rule, then one time-like dimension t, for a total of 11. That's what string theory seems to come up with as well.

Scale can also be considered as a physical dimension.

Harte

a reply to: Zelun

I need to consider your post. There's a lot of information in there.

TheRedneck

originally posted by: Harte
a reply to: Phage
11 dimensions in M Theory.
9 are spatial.

Harte

I was talking about reality. Not fancy math.

Our good old 3d model works fine. Good enough for Einstein, good enough for me. Show me the equivalent of gravity lensing, evidence, in regard to M theory and it might get more support.

originally posted by: Harte

originally posted by: Zelun
a reply to: TheRedneck

Nothing is stationary. The notion of a "standing wave" is relative. Energy is a vector. Energy doesn't exist without directionality. Instances in which energy is "stationary" are oscillatory, such as in the case of thermal energy.

Energy is not a vector quantity. It's a scalar quantity.

Harte

Thank you for your consideration. Energy and mass are scalar quantities with respect to contemporary physics, but it seems to me that when we describe energy doing something interesting its tied to a vector quantity, such as with momentum. Now, in the context of my theory, the scalar quantity of charge is caused by a particular intrinsic motion of the structure of a particle, described as a vector.

With respect to your assertion regarding point particles, it is my understanding that zero-dimensional objects don't actually exist, but they are useful mathematical constructs for describing things like, say, the electron. I don't think anyone seriously believes electrons have no physical dimensions. Now, that's not to say that the interface between "flat" spacetime and the "bound" spacetime that we call the electron couldn't closely resemble a point particle in the classical sense, given a tangential intercept. That's not my current thinking, but I don't want to rule it out. I think they look like little obloid spheroids.

I'm pretty sure a standing wave is only standing from the reference frame of whatever resonant system is causing it. I think a non-inertial observer would see just a plain ol' transverse wave. But I could be wrong. Would you mind expounding?

Again, thanks for taking the time to consider my ideas.

best,
z

ETA: oh yeah, also, I'm not so sure about scale counting as a dimension because scale would need to be described for each dimension individually, unless we're talking about something like the metric expansion of space ala Hubble, but even then I believe it's observed to be more apparent in regions with less matter, so I just don't know. I don't think so. Scaling is an awfully simple operation in linear algebra, isn't it where we get the term 'scalar' in the first place?

originally posted by: Harte

originally posted by: phishfriar47
My mind always wanders to black holes when we talk about light speed.

And heres what boggles my mind. Light speed is supposed to be the fastest observable movement in the known universe, until said light meets event horizon of mister black hole. Then gravity wins, and if light is unable to escape, then my meager little mind says that the opposite force must be equal to or even greater to not only stop light, but reverse its speed enough that it would be unable to escape the grasps of the black hole.

You know, that wouldn't take much force. Light slows when it passes through any medium (like through water.) We don't talk much about how much force still water has though, do we?

Photons are massless. Since force equals mass times acceleration, you can't talk about the "force" needed to stop light in any reasonable way.
After all, we know how to stop light already - it's called shade.

Harte

Shade doesn't stop light. Shade is the absense of light. I'd like to read your thoughts on my last post if you have the time.

originally posted by: Harte

originally posted by: phishfriar47
My mind always wanders to black holes when we talk about light speed.

And heres what boggles my mind. Light speed is supposed to be the fastest observable movement in the known universe, until said light meets event horizon of mister black hole. Then gravity wins, and if light is unable to escape, then my meager little mind says that the opposite force must be equal to or even greater to not only stop light, but reverse its speed enough that it would be unable to escape the grasps of the black hole.

You know, that wouldn't take much force. Light slows when it passes through any medium (like through water.) We don't talk much about how much force still water has though, do we?

Photons are massless. Since force equals mass times acceleration, you can't talk about the "force" needed to stop light in any reasonable way.
After all, we know how to stop light already - it's called shade.

Harte

I'm really glad you brought this up. So consider a simple glass prism. Classic, Newton experiment showing how light's incidence with matter "bends" or refracts its path. But when it emerges from the region of higher matter density, it resumes it's original speed. In other words, the incidence of matter in its path did not "rob" the light of energy, at least not significantly. Upon exiting the prism, the light speeds right back up to whatever the surrounding air/temperature allows, albeit on a discrete angular deflection depending on the thickness of the prism per photon. It's almost as if travelling through the thicker part of the prism represents a significantly longer path distance for the incident light, much longer than the difference in physical distance. I think its actually exactly that. Not almost.

originally posted by: Alien Abduct

originally posted by: Harte

originally posted by: phishfriar47
My mind always wanders to black holes when we talk about light speed.

And heres what boggles my mind. Light speed is supposed to be the fastest observable movement in the known universe, until said light meets event horizon of mister black hole. Then gravity wins, and if light is unable to escape, then my meager little mind says that the opposite force must be equal to or even greater to not only stop light, but reverse its speed enough that it would be unable to escape the grasps of the black hole.

You know, that wouldn't take much force. Light slows when it passes through any medium (like through water.) We don't talk much about how much force still water has though, do we?

Photons are massless. Since force equals mass times acceleration, you can't talk about the "force" needed to stop light in any reasonable way.
After all, we know how to stop light already - it's called shade.

Harte

Shade doesn't stop light. Shade is the absense of light. I'd like to read your thoughts on my last post if you have the time.

A black hole is the absence of light too.
My roof stops sunlight quite well.
Don't know about yours.

a reply to: TheRedneck

I truly appreciate your consideration, and greatly anticipate your critique. I'm not afraid to be wrong. I'm afraid of being right and unheard.

best,
z

originally posted by: Zelun

originally posted by: Harte

originally posted by: Zelun
a reply to: TheRedneck

Nothing is stationary. The notion of a "standing wave" is relative. Energy is a vector. Energy doesn't exist without directionality. Instances in which energy is "stationary" are oscillatory, such as in the case of thermal energy.

Energy is not a vector quantity. It's a scalar quantity.

Harte

Thank you for your consideration. Energy and mass are scalar quantities with respect to contemporary physics, but it seems to me that when we describe energy doing something interesting its tied to a vector quantity, such as with momentum. Now, in the context of my theory, the scalar quantity of charge is caused by a particular intrinsic motion of the structure of a particle, described as a vector.

With respect to your assertion regarding point particles, it is my understanding that zero-dimensional objects don't actually exist, but they are useful mathematical constructs for describing things like, say, the electron. I don't think anyone seriously believes electrons have no physical dimensions. Now, that's not to say that the interface between "flat" spacetime and the "bound" spacetime that we call the electron couldn't closely resemble a point particle in the classical sense, given a tangential intercept. That's not my current thinking, but I don't want to rule it out. I think they look like little obloid spheroids.

I'm pretty sure a standing wave is only standing from the reference frame of whatever resonant system is causing it. I think a non-inertial observer would see just a plain ol' transverse wave. But I could be wrong. Would you mind expounding?

Again, thanks for taking the time to consider my ideas.

best,
z

ETA: oh yeah, also, I'm not so sure about scale counting as a dimension because scale would need to be described for each dimension individually, unless we're talking about something like the metric expansion of space ala Hubble, but even then I believe it's observed to be more apparent in regions with less matter, so I just don't know. I don't think so. Scaling is an awfully simple operation in linear algebra, isn't it where we get the term 'scalar' in the first place?

scalar (adj.) "resembling a ladder," 1650s, from Latin scalaris "of or pertaining to a ladder," from scalae (plural) "ladder, steps, flight of steps" (see scale (n.2)). Mathematical sense first recorded 1846.

Online Etymology Dictionary

If you view a standing wave in a separate inertial reference frame, you will see one part of the wave red shifted and the other part blue shifted - both by exactly the same amount. But those shifts don't affect the resonance between the two waves. There will still be nodes and antinodes.

Regarding scale as a dimension, if you consider the other four, and want to arrive at an event in that coordinate system, the scale matters a great deal. Just like making a wrong turn puts you in a position of not arriving at a selected event, having the wrong scale can put you in a position of not arriving at that event.

It's just a similar idea, not really a recognized dimension - except when they try to explain away where the other 5 dimensions are that M Theory requires. Then it's all about the scale.

Harte

originally posted by: Zelun

originally posted by: Harte

originally posted by: phishfriar47
My mind always wanders to black holes when we talk about light speed.

And heres what boggles my mind. Light speed is supposed to be the fastest observable movement in the known universe, until said light meets event horizon of mister black hole. Then gravity wins, and if light is unable to escape, then my meager little mind says that the opposite force must be equal to or even greater to not only stop light, but reverse its speed enough that it would be unable to escape the grasps of the black hole.

You know, that wouldn't take much force. Light slows when it passes through any medium (like through water.) We don't talk much about how much force still water has though, do we?

Photons are massless. Since force equals mass times acceleration, you can't talk about the "force" needed to stop light in any reasonable way.
After all, we know how to stop light already - it's called shade.

Harte

I'm really glad you brought this up. So consider a simple glass prism. Classic, Newton experiment showing how light's incidence with matter "bends" or refracts its path. But when it emerges from the region of higher matter density, it resumes it's original speed. In other words, the incidence of matter in its path did not "rob" the light of energy, at least not significantly. Upon exiting the prism, the light speeds right back up to whatever the surrounding air/temperature allows, albeit on a discrete angular deflection depending on the thickness of the prism per photon. It's almost as if travelling through the thicker part of the prism represents a significantly longer path distance for the incident light, much longer than the difference in physical distance. I think its actually exactly that. Not almost.

Wasn't it already pointed out to you that black holes don't "rob" light of its energy either?
In fact, my roof does a better job of robbing light of its energy. That's one reason attics are insulated.

Harte

a reply to: Harte

No need to be dismissive. You know very well that shade is different than singularity. What comments have you on AA's prior post? Here, let me get it for you:

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Perhaps this reality is the physical construct of a number of "building materials" we call dimensions. Spacetime itself appears to be multidimensional. Layers of dimensions together give the illusion of a physical universe. Take away some of those layers and your reality will cease to appear physical.

(AA, if I snagged the wrong post, I apologize.)

In your place, I'd point out that dimensions are merely degrees of freedom, and it's not clear that individual dimensions exist independent of one another. Einstein made a pretty convincing case for xyz+t being all one interrelated thing called spacetime. Maxwell made a pretty convincing argument that the e and b fields are mutually reliant, and the work of these people(and many more, no doubt) resulted in the unification of the strong and weak nuclear forces, and the electromagnetic force, leaving only gravity left to be unified. Recently some signals of a Higgs particle were detected at the LHC(giving credence to the idea that gravity can be unified with the rest of the fundamental forces) and here we stand. The building materials aren't the dimensions. The dimensions are how we measure the building materials.

That's not to say that if one looks for something hard enough, they won't find it. The Higgs particle detection is troubling to me because confirmation bias. I know we're talking about professional statisticians, published ones, even, but when you want something bad enough, you find it. I don't think any 'particle' mediates the gravitational force. Hell, I don't even think "photons" mediate the electromagnetic force. It's fantasy, shrouded in mathematical formalism, predicated on the direction "shut up and calculate." Yes, it gets the right answers, but it doesn't reveal the truth. The ontological basis of what it is we're calculating.

AA, you're absolutely right to think about how higher dimensions look to lower-dimensional lifeforms. That's the right kind of thinking toward awesome answers. Harte...I'll just quote you:

A black hole is the absence of light too.
My roof stops sunlight quite well.
Don't know about yours.

No. No...my roof is shingles. Not black holes...unless you agree with me that matter displays properties consistent with nearly-closed timelike curves.

a reply to: Harte

If you view a standing wave in a separate inertial reference frame, you will see one part of the wave red shifted and the other part blue shifted - both by exactly the same amount. But those shifts don't affect the resonance between the two waves. There will still be nodes and antinodes.

This is a special case which only applies when the angle of incidence between reference frames is perpendicular. Any degree of "skew" or lateral motion results in an observed transverse wave.

ETA: and with a perspective which is orthogonal.