- Tupolev
- |
- Honorable Member
I'm going to drop some things because this is just too bulky. Anyhow:
Posted by: Venator82
It means Time might not exist, although many physicists disagree with this notion, however they have no reason to back it up, and it seems they simply want time to exist because it can explain things more easily, and they take the lazy route.
My interest is piqued. What would a model of the universe that does away with the concept of time actually look like?
Funny, last time that happened, we "knew" the Earth was definately flat, and that theory was supported for much longer than the theories you are using for support. It is no different.
And the flat Earth theory was actually reasonable so long as you lived in a small region mapped on a very large sphere. In that sense, flat Earth theory has not been "disproven" so much as generalized, in the same sense that special relativity generalizes Newtonian mechanics to situations with nonnegligible relative velocities.
The other, larger issue with your example is that the moment a capable scientist came up with a plausible way to put the flat Earth theory to the test, way back thousands of years ago, it was shown to be false. Furthermore, SR became popular not because it was some cool thing but because competing theories such as ether theory began to look iffy and nonsensical in light of observations of the time; early SR theorists had to fight for it.
Teleportation and similar thingies would not allow handwaving of relativity. The effects don't happen simply because of the movement itself, but happen anyway based simply on the idea of an object being at specific positions at specific times in various frames of reference.
It is not teleportation. It is movement through a dimension that lacks time, and like I said above, without time if something exists it must be doing something and cannot be doing something else at the same time as there is no way for it to be in two places at once.
If time exists, then yes it can, but Slipspace has no such thing.
It doesn't really matter what slipspace has, though. If special relativity holds in real space under regular conditions, then the causality issue pops up. Again, my argument is not dependant on what happens to the spacecraft and what it experiences in the interem. If it is at Earth at t=0 and at Centauri at t=1 in Earth's frame of reference, then regardless of what happened between t=0 and t=1, there is a frame of reference such that the craft exists at Centauri prior to its launch, as long as SR holds in real space.
Our local Galactic Supercluster is moving at Faster Than Light speed due to the energy released from the Big Bang,
I was under the impression that we were moving FTL relative to far-off objects because of expansion of space itself, not because of the big bang's explosive energies. And also that that relative motion has no bearing on the casaulity breaking aspects of FTL travel according to SR in a localized sense.
Ever heard of Cherenkov radiation? It's radiation given off by objects moving at FTL, and we detect it.
This is a confusion of definitions. Cherenkov radiation is given off when objects move faster in a given medium than light waves travel in that medium. It has nothing to do with objects moving faster than c.
Neutrinos? Sometimes they move FTL.
Hmm. I've heard there's been some wonky research into those particles, but I'm not familiar with it. A quick google and wikipedia search only informed me that, supposedly, some neutrinos were measure moving at slightly over c, but not such that they were definitely moving at greater than c given confidence bounds.
Sounds interesting.
Other stuff:
Posted by: LoneRanger 521
Isnt FTL travel impossible due to the universal speed limit of Light? E =MC2.
Example. Say ur in a car traveling At the speed of light,.. you turn on your headlights... What happens?
Cars can't travel at c. Let's suppose for arguments sake that the car is travelling negligibly below c in some frame of reference. Then, from the car's frame of reference, the light will travel at c away from the car, like it would for a car at rest. In the frame of reference where the car is travelling at some speed just below c, then in this frame of reference the car will be travelling at just below c and light will be travelling at c.
Furthermore:
Same as Say ur on a train traveling at the speed of light you get up from your seat and start walking up the train. Are you walking faster than the speed of light?
Let's make a similar assumption, that in some reference from the train is travelling slightly below c. In the train's frame of reference, the person will be seen walking at some velocity v, just as if the train were at rest. In the frame of reference where the train is moving just barely below c, the train would be seen at almost c, and the person on the train would appear to be moving faster than the train but still below c (no matter how fast they were moving).
These phenomena occur because speed in SR is not directly additive.