It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Thank you.

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

# Faster Then Light Speed, Can We Do It?

page: 4
14
share:

posted on Sep, 19 2016 @ 02:27 PM

I only wish we could get the important priorities straight.
That would make a world of difference.

posted on Sep, 20 2016 @ 02:36 AM

I agree analyzing and theorizing the universe is taxing on the brain. We are basically trying to rationalize that of which we can't see nor truly comprehend. (infinity)

The balloon model explanation is interesting, but in my opinion its flawed for 2 reasons.
First Its a two dimensional model. The two points on the surface of the balloon don't change relative to each other, but this completely ignores the expansion in the third dimension which allows us, the observer to see its curve. The two points have expanded from the center of the balloon and their coordinates are completely different with respect to time. Space-time being the 4th dimension.

posted on Sep, 21 2016 @ 09:17 AM

originally posted by: AlongCamePaul

I agree analyzing and theorizing the universe is taxing on the brain. We are basically trying to rationalize that of which we can't see nor truly comprehend. (infinity)

The balloon model explanation is interesting, but in my opinion its flawed for 2 reasons.
First Its a two dimensional model. The two points on the surface of the balloon don't change relative to each other, but this completely ignores the expansion in the third dimension which allows us, the observer to see its curve. The two points have expanded from the center of the balloon and their coordinates are completely different with respect to time. Space-time being the 4th dimension.

Hi there,
Yeah, where is a 'depth' in balloon model?

The only explanation I could come up with is this: First, balloon surface is not two dimensional, it is 1D. Now, to achieve 3D, imo, we have to imagine not one, but three 1D universes overlap and penetrate each other in perfect angles. In this scenario any physical object forms on intersection of three one dimensional planes. Any given point in 3D space-time where physical object present might be considered an overlap point. There you go -- 'depth', and it's a 3D construct now))

Now, my mind (not my physical body) is a 1D entity (non physical). Easy proof -- I can see 3D object only from one side at the time. To observe entire object I have to walk around it, hence the mind is 1D and can 'occupy' only one universe at the time where an object exists on intersection of three 1D universes (1D balloon surfaces) and my observing mind moves through all 3 dimensions (surfaces) as I walk around observing an object.

Another thing to point out that is based on the above: my mind is always a vintage point to the other 2 dimensions as I 'occupy' only one at the time and it makes me 'an outside' observer.

)))LOL there is my take on it.

cheers)

edit on 21-9-2016 by greenreflections because: (no reason given)

edit on 21-9-2016 by greenreflections because: (no reason given)

posted on Sep, 21 2016 @ 09:47 AM

originally posted by: AlongCamePaul
The balloon model explanation is interesting, but in my opinion its flawed for 2 reasons.
First Its a two dimensional model. The two points on the surface of the balloon don't change relative to each other, but this completely ignores the expansion in the third dimension which allows us, the observer to see its curve. The two points have expanded from the center of the balloon and their coordinates are completely different with respect to time. Space-time being the 4th dimension.

Yes, it's not a perfect analogy by a long chalk, but it illustrates a principle rather than a solidity. Physics has this way of explaining the ineffable with folksy figuratives. The best-known example is the 'rubber sheet' illustration of the curvature of space-time. This is used at every level of education to help people visualise what's going on. Here's an example from a university course: theory.uwinnipeg.ca...

The 'rubber sheet' example doesn't hold up to much inspection, because space-time isn't a 2D surface, so the 'denting' that is shown in the graphic is actually occurring in all directions at once. But that is hard to think about, so we take a 2D 'slice' for an analogy.

Similarly with the balloon example. It doesn't illustrate the actual universe, just the principle of expansion, which is that the two dots get further apart as the balloon inflates, but they aren't expanding 'into' anything. The same thing could be illustrated using dots on a rubber band being stretched the same way. And in my opinion, it probably should because the balloon parallel is a bit misleading, because it wrongly encourages people to think of a volume being filled and expanding (which is the opposite of the point it's trying to make).

posted on Sep, 21 2016 @ 04:44 PM

HI there,

Couple of notes regarding your post and some posts before, if I may.

Actually, first one is a question...why do you ascribe a surface as 2D object? This is wrong, imo. Just because on a sheet of paper you can move dots back and forth does not make it 2D. It is 1D. If you put second sheet of paper next to it under angle, you will have 2D manifold. And our famous xyz set up gives you true 3D. All of these can share fourth dimension -- time. It is common to all three planes.

Second, unrelated note:
If you talk of the ball that is expanding then it is 3D with its surface being 1D. But honestly, about expansion...if celestial bodies seem receding from us in all directions, one can also conclude, that we are 'falling' leaving behind those objects. And the fact of 'expansion' accelerating, tell me what happens when you drop an object from an orbit? It will start to accelerate without the need of dark energy to speed it up. So, universe manifold can look like a funnel))) Of course, this will require a massive gravitational attractor...it is still better than dark energy thing)))

great posts) cheers)

edit on 21-9-2016 by greenreflections because: (no reason given)

posted on Sep, 21 2016 @ 05:08 PM

Howdy. Thanks for engaging with my fiddly posts, and for the encouragement. I'm new here and it really is appreciated.

I don't understand the second paragraph of what you've posted, but to be fair that might be because it is almost 11 o'clock in my time zone and my brain is winding down for the night. Could you rephrase it please, and I'll have another look in the morning.

Actually, first one is a question...why do you ascribe a surface as 2D object? This is wrong, imo. Just because on a sheet of paper you can move dots back and forth does not make it 2D. It is 1D. If you put second sheet of paper next to it under angle, you will have 2D manifold. And our famous xyz set up gives you true 3D. All of these can share fourth dimension -- time. It is common to all three planes.

A flat surface alone has two dimensions - width and length (x and y axes, if you prefer). The missing dimension (z axis) is depth (how far away from you (i.e., toward the distance) something extends).

In reality, even a sheet of paper has three dimensions, it's just that compared to its width and length the 'depth' of a sheet of paper is so small that we don't think about it. A true 2D entity doesn't exist in our 3D reality. But that's just a niggle. Let's continue with the adopted convention that paper is 2D.

Putting one sheet of paper above another (parallel surfaces, with a gap between them, like a sandwich after its filling has been magically subtracted) doesn't give you a 2D 'entity'. All it gives you is two separate 2D entities that aren't touching one another.

A 1D entity would have only length. That is, it would be a straight line of some distance, without width or depth. This entity couldn't exist in our 3D reality or in a 2D reality.

Time as a dimension is incredibly tricky to think about. Because we think of it as a surrogate spatial dimension, which suggests we might be able to travel freely within it if we only knew how. The best model (i.e., the only one that makes any practical sense at this moment in history) is the unified concept of 'space-time', because we cannot separate the time-dimension from the spatial ones (even though they aren't the same thing at all). As HG Wells put it, there is no such thing as an instantaneous cube.

For a really good guide to all the various weirdnesses that go into trans-dimensional thinking, I can strongly recommend Edwin Abbott's "Flatland", a book that is almost impossible to describe, but could be summed up very inadequately as 'Alice in Wonderland with Shapes Instead of Characters'. The hero is a circle, and lives in a 2D world populated by other 2D shapes, but one day he encounters an intrusion from a mystery shape that can change size at will... which sets in motion a really unpredictable plot. No spoilers. Great fun. (I'm not the author, he's long dead, it's just a personal favourite and a neglected work of genius).

posted on Sep, 21 2016 @ 05:17 PM

A 1D entity would have only length. That is, it would be a straight line of some distance, without width or depth. This entity couldn't exist in our 3D reality or in a 2D reality.

Exactly my point. Just follow what I said about xyz. Three dimensions made of three individual planes. You can put three sheets of paper to get 3D manifold..

About piece of paper in reality being 3D object -- ...you are off the topic to say the least. Piece of paper was an analogy and you did not have to bring it up, really.

And why you always say 'we'...Are you that guy from 'Ask me any question about physics'?
edit on 21-9-2016 by greenreflections because: (no reason given)

posted on Sep, 21 2016 @ 05:35 PM

That post made me furrow my brow. I think we might be talking about two different things but using the same words.

When you describe a piece of paper as 'one dimension' are you using the piece of paper to represent 'our dimension', as in 'the universe we inhabit'?

Because if so, that might explain this confusing conversation. When we say 'our dimension' we aren't referring to a topological dimension. It's the sort of informal usage we have in mind when we say 'creatures from another dimension'.

A plane surface definitely does have two dimensions, length and width. You can check any definition you like of what constitutes 'two-dimensional' and I guarantee you they will tell you the same thing.

As for 'we' I meant 'fellow creatures inhabiting the same physical, three dimensional, reality in the same area of the universe'. Of course, if we're not in the same universe at all, then this would neatly explain our conversation up to this point.

posted on Sep, 21 2016 @ 06:29 PM

When you describe a piece of paper as 'one dimension' are you using the piece of paper to represent 'our dimension', as in 'the universe we inhabit'?

No. I was simply replying to the question as how it is possible to have 3D universe where the 'surface' of it is only 1D fat. Three sphere like, expanding into each other 'universes' overlap under 'right' angle forming 3D environment was my thought.

edit on 21-9-2016 by greenreflections because: (no reason given)

posted on Sep, 21 2016 @ 07:04 PM

originally posted by: greenreflections
Three sphere like, expanding into each other 'universes' overlap under 'right' angle forming 3D environment was my thought.

Well, I understood that sentence, at least.

Interesting concept, and I can see how it would work in theory. But the main trouble with it is that in order to explain one expanding universe (ours) you've conjured into existence three more expanding universes that overlap. So we are no further forward with the notion of expansion, and have actually complicated the definition of 'universe' by a huge degree, and we've just kicked the can down the road where there is three times as much to explain. Of course, if your idea was the truth, then we'd have to deal with that fact somehow.

Moreover, the consensus among physicists is that the extra spatial dimensions needed to explain various phenomena are at the micro- end of the scale, rather than the macro. Depending on who you listen to, and what sums they are trying to make 'work out', there are eleven, ten, nine, or six extra spatial dimensions tucked away at the atomic level.

When asked to explain why the micro-dimensions are not accessible from our universe, a physicist will tell you that this is because they are 'curled up'. If you then ask them to explain what 'curled up' means, they will become irritated and pretend to be too busy to answer you.

I am mathematically illiterate, but if you could solve with your three-brane theory the various problems that physicists are trying to solve with their mini-dimensions, then that would be impressive stuff indeed.

posted on Sep, 21 2016 @ 07:19 PM
Quantum communication is faster than light already. Assuming we can make teleportation-cloning computers with them, people will be able to send copies of themselves faster than the speed of light.

Bending space is also an interesting concept in travel, as changing the distance between two objects makes speed irrelevant.

posted on Sep, 22 2016 @ 06:11 AM
As if on cue...

This story appeared in today's Daily Mail. It's completely confused and the author doesn't understand what she's writing about. The headline writer doesn't understand it either, which is why the headline isn't supported by the story. But here it is anyway.

www.dailymail.co.uk... ml

Nine dimensions, very small, may be the reason that gravity is so weak, and (separately) black holes might lead to other universes. There's not much new stuff here apart from the CERN quotes, which are about various boring things they are researching at present (particle physics is a lot less sexy than black holes). All this is jumbled together in an incoherent way by the writer, but if you break it down into little bits it sort of makes sense. I'd like to have provided a better source, but I can't find one.

posted on Sep, 25 2016 @ 05:29 AM

originally posted by: audubon
Going back to the first post (which someone reposted on the previous page) it contains a brilliant example of how scientists talk absolute nonsense and get away with it. OK, so neutrinos can pass undetected through huge amounts of matter, meaning that planet Earth is effectively transparent to them, but the guy who's quoted goes on to say that this means they could be used for transmitting messages over very long distances (interstellar magnitude or more) without being blocked by obstructions.

Well, yeah, they could. But how would anyone receive such transmissions if neutrinos pass straight through everything including the matter from which the receiver is constructed?

Mind you, he's in good company. HG Wells committed the same error when he wrote The Invisible Man, because he didn't realise that being invisible would make you blind too (because your retinas would be transparent, so photons would pass through them instead of hitting them).

As for FTL travel opening the door to time-travel, my personal suspicion is that one day this is going to look as daft as the predictions that rail travel would suffocate passengers due to the windspeed involved. There might be something interesting that occurs at >c-speed, but it won't be time travel.

Time travel is impossible, because it means that the atoms that make up the time-traveller would be duplicated by taking them to a 'past' in which those atoms already existed.

The first law of thermodynamics is that energy can neither be created nor destroyed. Duplicating even one atom by sending it back to a time when it already existed would be creating energy. Therefore it absolutely and definitively cannot happen.

Unless the first law of thermodynamics is wrong...

The first two laws of thermodynamics (the zeroth and the first law) have never been disproven experimentally and in fact no-one has even thought up a valid alternate theory to 'prove' them against. They are unfalsifiable, and therfore, pseudoscience.

Interestingly, the later thermodynamic laws have been tested against alternate theories and have been redefined to reflect the new findings.

posted on Sep, 25 2016 @ 09:31 AM

The first two laws of thermodynamics (the zeroth and the first law) have never been disproven experimentally and in fact no-one has even thought up a valid alternate theory to 'prove' them against. They are unfalsifiable, and therfore, pseudoscience.

You don't have to come up with a complete theory in order to replace a law of thermodynamics, all you have to do is to show that the law is wrong. And one straightforward way to do that would be to build a functioning perpetual motion machine. Which obviously no-one has yet managed to do. So the first law is in fact falsifiable, even if it has never actually been falsified (two different things).

posted on Sep, 25 2016 @ 01:52 PM
On light, through my couple decades deep thinking on a theory of everything have arrived at a very simple and novel understanding:

The closer something travels the speed of light, the slower time stalls and at which when light speed is reached, as such subject becomes light as much as time becomes moment or omni-all. When we can understand that moment is the only existence, that past is had and future is not yet, we can begin to understand how ways of accessing the moment can become our gateway to all information, and perhaps in someway be our access to change our position of space without moving, if not physically, at least with our minds. One method of this is through scrying light. I find I have to take my glasses off (I'm near sighted) and it has to be flickering light...I can access information from the moment and gain insight in areas of what I don't know.

posted on Sep, 25 2016 @ 04:35 PM

originally posted by: audubon

The first two laws of thermodynamics (the zeroth and the first law) have never been disproven experimentally and in fact no-one has even thought up a valid alternate theory to 'prove' them against. They are unfalsifiable, and therfore, pseudoscience.

You don't have to come up with a complete theory in order to replace a law of thermodynamics, all you have to do is to show that the law is wrong. And one straightforward way to do that would be to build a functioning perpetual motion machine. Which obviously no-one has yet managed to do. So the first law is in fact falsifiable, even if it has never actually been falsified (two different things).

Perpetual motion mahines are fiction. Until one can actually produce a perpetual motion machine, it cannot falsify an assumption based upon vast evidence.

It may be possible that the first two laws of Thermodynamics could be falsified at some future date. Currently, they aren't and are, therefore, right now, pseudoscience.

posted on Sep, 25 2016 @ 06:19 PM

originally posted by: chr0naut
Perpetual motion mahines are fiction. Until one can actually produce a perpetual motion machine, it cannot falsify an assumption based upon vast evidence.

"Perpetual motion machine" is just shorthand for "free energy device."

If the first law of thermodynamics is wrong, then it is possible to produce energy from nothing. So as soon as we can make something that creates more energy than it uses, we will have proved that the first law really is wrong.

It may be possible that the first two laws of Thermodynamics could be falsified at some future date. Currently, they aren't and are, therefore, right now, pseudoscience.

Hmm. This isn't quite right. The fact that evidence to falsify the 1LOT hasn't showed up yet doesn't mean 1LOT is unfalsifiable. It remains possible to falsify it - by building a free energy device.

"Falsifiability" is like "fertility" - a woman might be completely fertile and never have a baby. In the same way, something might be falsifiable and never be falsified.

posted on Sep, 25 2016 @ 07:09 PM

You might find victor klimovs work on quantum solar cells intetesting. Hes a guy over at los alamos' nanospectroscopy department

posted on Sep, 27 2016 @ 07:19 PM

..and have actually complicated the definition of 'universe' by a huge degree?...

Yah, I know. It was a brief comment, but funny thing was when I read 'universe' right now, it echoed in me like 'uni' and 'verse'. I thought of universe as unity of verses (versions). Time (arrow of time) is common to all monoverses and is a driving factor behind space-time volume increase acceleration...))

where there is three times as much to explain.

You explain only one, the rest you won't need to figure out individually. But seriously, I have no clue.

cheers)

posted on Oct, 1 2016 @ 05:18 PM

I think 3D manifold can be described as 'apparent'? Was it part of brain evolution that isolated only 'relevant' dimensions out of say eleven? Or eight?

Here I mean that each 'universe' combined with other similar 'universes' form a geometrical base frame where all physical QM events take place.

Space-time might not even be something 'physical' in direct sense. There might be a volume forming mechanism which forces matter to assume shape.

Side note:
11D object to me will look like a 3D because my mind is capable to register and isolate relevant only three out of eleven dimensions perspectives.

edit on 1-10-2016 by greenreflections because: (no reason given)

top topics

14