Fractal Time: Speed of Sound, Speed of Light

ok the only thing I can add to this maddness is

In reply to "the big bang being the most intense light source"
not to say that it never happened.....but it is still a theory
supernova is real and can be used to argue that quasars are not as intense
but you can't really argue the big bang because it may have never happened.....there are many theories for creation....with almost as much ground to stand on as the big bang....
anyway... this was a useless post and I just had to throw in my 2 cents or whatever
great topic though...I like reading things I don't know about....wow that's probably most things
 
iqbalgomar,

luminal analog to a sonic boom might look like.
Click to expand...

You might very well have such an analog if you put a ship in space and accelerate to some velocity very near c.

As Rainman has explained on other threads, the sonic boom is associated with an object's velocity as it travels through a fluid/gas and compresses it.

We think of space as a vacuum. Not a perfect vacuum but pretty close. Aside from all the fields that are present there are several hydrogen particles per cubic meter within our galaxy in interstellar space. In intergalactic space it is about 1 particle/cubic meter.

At low velocities this isn't a problem. But if we are traveling at near the speed of light that vacuum becomes a thin gas along the leading edges of the surface of our ship. We're plowing through almost 300,000,000 meters of space per second along our x axis and we probably have a cross section of several meters. We're striking billions of particles per second.

We're not only exceeding the speed of sound in the gas its possible that our velocity exceeds the speed of light for that medium (based on the Index of Refraction). We not only put out a rather silent sonic boom, we are putting out a very real and energetic luminal "boom." We begin to emit Cherenkov Radiation (the green glow in nuclear reactors caused by photons exceeding the speed of light in the reactor vessel's water).

So your luminal anaglog to a sonic boom would look "green".
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

PS:

Best make sure that your ship has some really trick shields.

Protons won't hurt you...usually. But if you are striking them at near the speed of light, given their new relativistic mass and momentum, your ship is going to start to melt.

You don't even want to think about hitting a grain of interstellar sand.

These are just the Newtonian effects (other than the relativistic mass for the protons in the hydrogen). The blue shift was mentioned above. Indeed, the interstellar photons are blue shifted WRT your ship. They begin to act like a fluid...and our ship reacts to them as it would react to a fluid...thermally.

A very close to the speed of light the universe itself begins to collapse to a single point directly ahead of you along your plus x axis. All that blue shifted light, meaning every photon in the universe, is condensed into a relativistic laser pointed at your nose.

Technnical note: Very, very trick shields are necessary.
 
Oh, ya, forgot about the tunnel vision. Well, guess it is a point then, or actually I do not know. Raintime is talking about fractals, but I guess it is just a trip of the imagination, although I seem to not have any imagination at this time. Then it be something like a black hole string out tunnel in the end, but what -- light laser.

Well, might as well be a laser head then!

The only way to warp is to beat light as it bends across space, and the straight-through shortcut is taken then and again according to a book it is not space travel but time travel.

Well then I wonder if quantum effects will take place someday with some form of -- shield -- call it I guess, but then the human would have to be in a protected field while all this energy form was taking place displacing space and time through/by these other means.

/ttiforum/images/graemlins/confused.gif
 
newbie,

You're probably correct. And even that will be hugely problematic...converting things (let alone people) into energy, somehow managing to make sense of a "mass" of energy and reassembling it in a form that retains the orignal. A cube of lead could probably suffer some flaws in the reassembly. Your DNA couldn't.

Even teleportation isn't all that useful. Or, at least, it isn't a quick fix. We send EM signals everywhere. It takes 8 minutes to send a signal to the center of the Solar system and that's still in our back yard.

The teleportation is instantaneous for the teleportee but the proper time is still limited to:

t>2s/c

(time of a round-trip is greater than twice the distance divided by the speed of light. Greater than because there is some time spent doing something at the other end).

for the people who teleport the person. They would experience the same amount of elapsed time from start to finish as it takes a photon to make the round trip. They don't get any relativistic time boost. If the trip is to a star fifty light years away they have to wait 100 years for the person to return.

But FTL? Huge problem. General Relativity is the very basis for the idea of time travel. General Relativity has never failed in a prediction and it incorporates Special Relativity.

When we accelerate an object that has mass we add energy. By adding energy we increase the velocity but we also increase the momentum of the object by:

p = mv where "p" is the momentum and "v" is the 3-vector velocity.

Momentum and inertia are bound together. High momentum is also high inertia. Inertia is the object's resistence to a change in the velocity vector.

We know from Special Relativity that an increase in velocity requires an increase in energy as given by:

E = m_0c^2/(sqrt(1-v^2/c^2) (the more complete form of E=mc^2 for an accelerated body)

Once you accelerate to close to the speed of light you run up against a "brick wall". You continue to input huge amounts of energy to get infinitely small increases in velocity. But that energy input is also mass input. Your momentum still increases by the given formula:

p=mv

Momentum is increasing hugely while velocity isn't hardly changing at all.

Changes in velocity are approaching the limit of zero while changes in momentum are approaching the limit of plus infinity.

That also means that inertia is also approaching plus infinity. You reach the limit where no matter how much energy you input to change the velocity you can't input enough to overcome the inertia that is resisting the change in velocity.

At exactly the speed of light the change in velocity is zero for an infinite input of energy; momentum then goes to plus infinity and inertia also goes to plus infinity. FTL can't be attained by any means of energy input, even an infinitely large input of energy, because inertia is also infinite.

This is the reasoning behind the speed of light being a fundamental and absolute limit.
 
Rainman,

Darby posted:
At exactly the speed of light the change in velocity is zero for an infinite input of energy; momentum then goes to plus infinity and inertia also goes to plus infinity. FTL can't be attained by any means of energy input, even an infinitely large input of energy, because inertia is also infinite.
Click to expand...

For the math purist in us all I admit that my statement is technically inaccurate. At the speed of light the squareroot statement in the denominator for the relativistic formula becomes:

sqrt (1-1/1) = 0

Thus we are left with the math statement:

mc^2/0...which is undefined because we are dividing by zero.


So for true accuracy we'll simply refer to a differential that is infinitely close to but less than the speed of light. Before we reach the speed of light we eventually get to a differential that indicates more energy input than is available in the entire universe. /ttiforum/images/graemlins/smile.gif
 
Darby said > (time of a round-trip is greater than twice the distance divided by the speed of light. Greater than because there is some time spent doing something at the other end).

Creedo interjects > This is subspace, so light adhearance, may not be a condusive genuninity of the equation?
 
I guess I have a question.....
I understand the whole infinite inertia "blocking" anything that retains mass from obtaining or breaching the speed of light....but what I don't understand is how something going faster than the speed of light is now time traveling and not space traveling....I've read about the theories but I still don't get the "justification" unless it is based on the principal that nothing can go faster than the speed of light, so if mathematicaly you reached your destination in less "time" than it would have taken you if you were traveling at the speed of light than you had to travel through time to get there because it is impossible otherwise....mathematicaly.....so is the definition of time travel based on a math equation? how would that logicaly put you back where you started...before you left....if your start point was also your destination....like a round trip...I somehow seriously doubt you could catch yourself leaving.....I also understand the wormhole effect...if the universe is on a linear plane and there is a "curve" to where you could take a short cut through a worm hole and end up on the other side of the universe having traveled a less distance in meters than it would normally take you to get there, it would "appear" as though you traveled faster than the speed of light...but again...is that supposed to mean you arrived in the past? or just relatively based onthe the mathematical equation as to how long it "should" have taken you....?

thanks for any replies
 
Hi Darby,
So for true accuracy we'll simply refer to a differential that is infinitely close to but less than the speed of light. Before we reach the speed of light we eventually get to a differential that indicates more energy input than is available in the entire universe.
Click to expand...
Your math and science for GTR and SpaceTime are impeccable. Of course, I agree with them and believe you have faithfully described the mathematical model of Einstein's description of SpaceTime, because that is (literally) how Matter in Motion is described with E=mc^2, along with its lightspeed-ratio corrected longer form that you have reviewed.

In essence, I agree that velocity (be it the velocity of sound or the velocity of light) is the primary metric that describes Energetic SpaceTime. But I just have a feeling there is a limitation in the view of Mass ("m"), and Intertia ("I") in both Einstein's and Newton's approximations of physical statics and dynamics. Here is what I mean:

We talk, correctly, about the "fabric of SpaceTime" and its direct relationship with the concept of Motion (velocity) which is how we define SpaceTime (i.e. Space/Time = Velocity, dimensionally).

What I don't hear us talking about is "the fabric of MassTime", for I believe one can make the mathematical argument that it is the Anti-Thesis(~) of SpaceTime.

To summarize: I have a mathematical description that agrees with, and expands upon, both Newton and Einstein. One of the foundations of this mathematical description is that what we call "Mass" is something different than "Matter". It is my belief that Matter can be described as a "dimensional fabric" that could be called MassTime, just as we all agree that Motion can be described as a "dimensional fabric" of SpaceTime.

I will try to describe the full 3x3 matrix model of Massive SpaceTime from a different perspective in my next posts to my "3 spirals" threads. It is tedious to describe in words, and I am not yet ready to share all my tensor math. But to describe it to you in other terms: I believe there is a progressive structure to the theories of physics from Newton and Einstein. One contains the other, and that means our next great theory of physics will end up containing both Einstein and Newton, as two concentric system metrics.

1) Newton describes the primary physical entity as FORCE, and how it varies as MASS times a second derivative called ACCELERATION.
2) Einstein describes the primary physical entity as ENERGY, and how it varies as MASS times a surface area defined by a first derivative called VELOCITY.
3) Our next great theory of physics will describe a primary physical entity that is at a higher level than Energy. It is my belief that we call that physical level INFORMATION. The physical equation for Information will be of the same "ma" or "mc^2" form as Newton and Einstein.

OK... I know you follow that, Darby. So now let's see if we both recognize and agree upon a mathematical progression here:

F = m*a
E = m*c^2

What if I conjectured that the next equation in this sequence would be:

I = m*s^3

Where: "s" represents the zeroth derivative called POSITION or LENGTH. It is cubed for the simple reason that we live in a 3-dimensional (cubed) VOLUME representation of Space.

Force is proportional to Acceleration (to the first power).
Energy is proportional to Velocity (to the second power).
Information is proportional to Position (to the third power).

There's both a symmetry, and a geometric progression, in such a mathematical model, wouldn't you agree Darby? More in the other threads... but I think we need tensor mathematical models for the 3 different forms of "m" that are used in the above equations. Each description of "m" for each model is different from the description of "m" in the higher or lower level models.

RMT
 
I do not adhere to light, as being a principle-le part of what is being spoken of here, as I know that worm holes and shunting, subvert under-dimensionally.

So transported particles, do not fight the fabric of space-time.
 
I am forgoing any comments on the structure and function, of Rainman time's, mojo.

I have done some board work in the area of technical design and have envisioned a very complex mojo for RMT.

I think its in the back of the new graphics French and Swenson, under diagrammatic actions, put into CAD motion, which explains who when RMT gets his mojo going at a party, why its so formidable?

I don't think its so much in the pants."I mean he does wear a nice set of slacks"!?

However I think it is in the side view, when he is doing his thing to Latin music, where one has to calculate the quantity of mojoality, so that mojo-hairy can then be defined.

If one takes foot-pounds of force, placed on the dancing shoes, then the ability to slide on the floor, with each dance step, then the total output of a mojo derivative can possibly be attained.

Words of advice:(You cant get pregnant, if you do it standing up).
 
Fractal TIME - Matter IN Motion

Heh...
I am forgoing any comments on the structure and function, of Rainman time's, mojo.
Click to expand...
I always know I am on the right track when I get a rise like this out of Creedo.

Care to discuss my Information modeling equation, Creeds? You should know I have the math to back it up... /ttiforum/images/graemlins/yum.gif
Rains
 
Creedo,

Creedo interjects > This is subspace, so light adhearance, may not be a condusive genuninity of the equation?
Click to expand...

When I made the statement my assumption was that the person/thing was simply teleported....comverted into some form of EM radiation and beamed away and not sent through some form of wormhole or other unusual spacetime geometry. /ttiforum/images/graemlins/smile.gif
 
Re: Fractal TIME - Matter IN Motion

The first part of your primary equation is wrong.

You cant square root any light factors into what your doing here.

As a matter of fact, if I didn't know any better, I would say that your leading the audience, as any subspace mode of transportation, is looked upon as a caved factor.

So a square root wont work, its more like convoluted trigonometry.

*The mojo never directly speaks to the observer on the dance floor.

Its all more of less innuendo, that presumes that the viewer already knows.
 
But that energy input is also mass input.
Click to expand...

I agree with everything else - but this, I don't really understand and/or disagree /ttiforum/images/graemlins/tongue.gif

So for true accuracy we'll simply refer to a differential that is infinitely close to but less than the speed of light.
Click to expand...

But just because the math stops working there, doesnt mean there isn't an exception. Until we try to go faster and observe the results, it's a false statement to say that we can't go faster by inputing more energy beyond light speed.


For teleporters my money is on changing hidden variables instead of your matter and transmitting it ;-)
 
Yes, the equation for time travel is the same as the equation for space travel (the result sign I think is negative for one and postive for the other). In terms of going through space though, anything that beats the path that light takes in length (and since it is considered to be the fastest speed) then ends up not to be space travel anymore, but -- time travel (since light was beat).

Take a very fine mirror out a distance from the Earth, and it can see people and buildings on the Earth. Take this large mirror out a distance say of ten-lightyears. Now, the present light leaving the Earth will take ten-lightyears to get to the mirror. Also in that time, you are moving through time so now it is ten years later also for you. Now the light reflects off of the mirror and bounces back to your eyeballs taking another ten-lightyears to reach you again back on Planet Earth. Now also you have gone another ten years in time forward, and now you are 20 years in the future, but the image that bounces off of the mirror at that second, was the light from the Earth as it was -- when it began or from that past now moment of ten years ago. So now you are 20 years in the future, but the light you see is the Past light that reaches your eyes.

So, in a word, if space can be bent enough(even into a cylinder), then time travel will occur (because it reached there faster than light), and all that can be looked up on the Internet.

Thus this is one form of time travel, while others are thinking about another form of time travel perhaps, but still it is all about the same or relative.
 
Back
Top