Faster than light travel

[Uncle Fester]

So there are a couple of problems here.

I am certain there are heaps of them and thinking outside the box is eminent, yet I will try to address what I can.
It is only a train of thoughts

What are the relative masses at these multiples of C.
0, 0.5, 1, 1.5, 2, 3,4,5,6,7,8,9 and 10 ?

Lets us call them imaginary masses mi for now, the square of mi being -mi^2. I recall imaginary numbers in other fields of my trade
They may have gravitational influence on our mass, but other than that none,
I will get to that at the end of this post.

Next, how do you know which multiple of C you sit on?

Then if there is a hyperspeed existence, how does something get accelerated to 2C without passing through 1C ?

The reverse Universe never has been below C relative to our Universe.
If we can simply postulate that the fabric of our perceivable Universe was created after a big bang starting from a speed of zero
then what is zero speed and relative to what?
Postulating a Dark Universe that was created at 2C relative to us doesn't break the rule.

One created at any speed other than 2C would:

0 < Universe < C < Reverse Universe < 2 C

If the zero speed value for the Reverse Universe > 2C then it's range to decelerate to C would be more than C
If it were less then it would have to pass through C and also become visible to us and yeah, Kaboom.

In this thought model there can only be 2C as an assumed zero for a reverse universe.

Then there is the interaction of dark matter with real matter and other dark matter.
It can't interact gravitationally at >C.

A static gravitational field extends to infinity and does not propagate. Motion of an observer does not cause such a field to change
Only gravitational changes propagate (gravity waves) and are limited to the speed of light, well if I understand that correctly.

Then there is the small matter of 2C matter interacting with 2C matter travelling in the opposite direction.

Some thinking out side the Newtonian Box might be needed with these speeds.
If Dark matter is not visible to us then why should it's mass be.
We are not crashing into it and it seems to be everywhere evenly distributed in our close environment, passing through us so to say

[trash]

Lets us call them imaginary masses mi for now, the square of mi being -mi^2. I recall imaginary numbers in other fields of my trade

Ok, I'm on holidays, so I'm going to be a bit lazy and say, you're side stepping giving the answer for each.
I'm ok with complex numbers, but you're going to have to provide an answer for each, not a formula which doesn't work

A static gravitational field extends to infinity and does not propagate. Motion of an observer does not cause such a field to change
Only gravitational changes propagate (gravity waves) and are limited to the speed of light, well if I understand that correctly.

Don't worry too much about that, nobody really understand it correctly.

You've got two bites of the cherry there. A static gravitational field, yet gravity waves propagating. I'm seeing a conflict here.
Actually, I'm not even convinced gravity waves exist yet. The only evidence for them is theoretical at the moment, but attempts to detect them aren't working out too well.
I'm a little concerned by this because without gravitational radiation the only way things can "fall" into black holes is by Newtonian collisions, friction or Bremsstrahlung.
Matter has to lose kinetic energy in order to fall in.

Some thinking out side the Newtonian Box might be needed with these speeds.

Always. I'm prepared to entertain whacky ideas, though they need at least a seed of proof to get some momentum.

If Dark matter is not visible to us then why should it's mass be.

Because gravity and mass do interact. It's the only interaction of dark matter. If there was no interaction, then we would never be aware of it's existence.

We are not crashing into it and it seems to be everywhere evenly distributed in our close environment, passing through us so to say

It doesn't even interact with itself other than gravitationally. There's no other evidence for it even existing. No particles, no secondary radiation or even energy.

Have you noticed we haven't even given dark matter any sort of kinetic energy values. We look at a galaxy and what we really see is a blob of dark matter dragging a galaxy along with it.
The Galaxy is only 0.1 (10%) the mass of the dark blob.

I'll be back when my brain switches on in a couple of days. I need to smash it with some codeine this afternoon.

[tytower]

Looking at this they think gas is falling back in and stops but it seems obvious that matter blown out by each galaxies big bang has all fallen back in . After all there isn't any gas between galaxies floating around . Each galaxy holds it in and each galaxy is supposedly expanding away from each other

This is just the pattern expected if infalling gas sustains their star-forming careers, because this gas has little iron and therefore dilutes a galaxy's iron abundance; once the gas stops falling in, the iron abundance rises as exploding stars forge the element. The study finds that about 4 billion years elapse between when the gas stops falling in and when stars stop forming.

[trash]

Err, you're going to have to explain what you mean a bit better. It's a little hard to understand what you're getting at.

But there is gas in intergalactic space.
Don't confuse the local gravitational attraction of galaxies in their clusters and super clusters with the general expansion of the universe due to dark energy.

As for galaxies stopping star formation, if two of these dead galaxies collide then there will be a massive burst of star formation. It may be that galaxies like our own are still spawning stars because of recent collisions and one currently under way with the Sagittarius dwarf galaxy.

There are other factors like shock waves travelling through the localise galaxies that have start formation.
Dead galaxies is probably not a good description of the, rather they're dormant galaxies.

[tytower]

This one is for the nockers like trash and others who keep insisting their view is right and mine is not .

Stick this in your pipe and smoke it

[porkop]

wow over a year since the last post?

Have you been brooding all this time????

[trash]

This one is for the nockers like trash and others who keep insisting their view is right and mine is not .

That's the first correct thing you've ever said on this forum Tytower - your opinion isn't correct.

Stick this in your pipe and smoke it

Tytower applying the scientific method.

wow over a year since the last post?

And STILL no Tachyons??

Have you been brooding all this time????

I might have chosen the word fermenting

[porkop]

And STILL no Tachyons??


D

It's their nature. They are just STILL in the future!!!

[Tiny]

And STILL no Tachyons??

It's their nature. They are just STILL in the future!!!

Not necessarily; they are theoretically equally distributed thru time & so may be in the past or present, if they exist & if time exists.
Time as we know it is a concept man has put on the events known!

[porkop]

So, here is a question, Trash???

Do photons accelerate to the speed of light instantaneously?

Example.....

atoms, energy "injected" causing an electron to jump a valency level. when it returns to "rest" it releases the energy that was applied to it.

This as I understand it is in the form of electromagnetic radiation, light for simplicity.

If the atom was at "rest" and the light released was traveling at C, would it have accelerated to that speed or be released already at that speed???

Hope you got what I am trying to say.

[trash]

photons are still sub light

Yes, I understand what your saying porkop. What's the rest mass of a photon?

The acceleration doesn't actually exist. A bit like dropping a stone into a pond of water. The wave didn't accelerate, it just came into existence at that velocity.
The same with the photon. Remembering that the photon itself don't really exist. A photon is just our description of the electromagnetic force as a particle.

The same is applied to gluons, bosons and now gravitons. These particles, like photons only exist as our description of them because their various fields can be modulated (wave nature).

Don't worry if that doesn't make a lot of sense, that's quantum physics in general, not just my poor description of it

If you want to play with it in a newtonian sense, try this. If a photon's rest mass is zero and we impart a force upon it (from an electron) then F=ma
a requires an infinite acceleration. Opps, when we get infinites in physics it usually means we've made an error. Yet that's exactly what you implied happens. (of course suggesting this doesn't make sense). Instead E=mc^2 The photon's relativistic mass is a function of it's energy.

So even with a rest mass of zero, it still takes infinite energy to accelerate even one photon to the speed of light.

[allover]

im sorry i clicked the link to read this @ 1.13am now im going to wonder about the relativity of everything.

NS

Wont worry me as i don't have the intelligence to work it out

[porkop]

Wont worry me as i don't have the intelligence to work it out

whats scary is that I understand enough to keep me awake at night wondering what I dont know!!!!!!!

[trash]

It's the nature of a fertile mind porkop that you're thinking about it.

Worse is the thought that the next big theory is very simple and staring you in the face.
Like Gravity, it's so simple, we see it everyday and we understand and live with it. But we have no control over it, we can't manipulate it in any way.
Electro & magnetic and Strong Nuclear we use every day and can manipulate them to our will. Even the weak nuclear force we can make some use of.
But gravity, apart from pulling things apart and letting them go. It's a mystery.

And Dark matter, it's such a simple puzzle and there is even some evidence to suggest it's particulate in nature, and it's everywhere.
Yet despite being under my nose it's disturbing that we can't detect and describe it.

Actually, the best fit description at this point in time is; A particle with a large mass (greater than 10MeV) but with no charge, no magnetic moment and no volume.

The NFIno !

[gamote]

Just my two cents:

Photons have no mass... but they have energy. That is Plank's law: Energy is proportional to the photon's frequency. Microwave photons are less energetic than ultraviolet ones.

Then, gravitational forces can act on photons. The force won't accelerate the photon (it won't speed it up, but it can't bend its trajectory, that is called gravitational lensing). On the other hand, it can change its energy. If you shoot up a laser, the further up it goes the redder it gets, as it loses energy to the gravitational field.

Cheers

[gordon_s1942]

On the TV series Dark Matter, a 'New' faster than most is the technology called 'Blink' or 'Blink Drive' has been introduced.

It does as it says and enables objects from a pea to (unspecified) size to move from one place to another in the 'Blink' of an eye.

The devise used to do this incredible feat is on an odd shaped SMART card that sits in a suitably shaped depression in a standard size Laptop along with about 7 other similarly shaped 'Cards' or objects.

If I follow the limited explanation given so far on how this works, I gather its using Einsteins Theory of 'Bending' space so where you are NOW and where you want to BE are just a step apart and using this 'Blink Drive' enables you to simply move across no matter how great the two places are otherwise apart.
This explanation and understanding has now exhausted what minuscule Scientific knowledge I had and no further correspondence will be entered into. ( At least not until the next episode of 'Dark Matter')

[trash]

Then, gravitational forces can act on photons.

Have you noticed this is a one way street. Gravity affects the electromagnetic force.
But the electromagnetic force doesn't effect gravity.

So in a massive magnetic flux gravity isn't affected. An object will fall at the same.
The same is true for an object in an electrostatic field, though the electrostatic force has a reasonable amount of effect on most objects, but does not otherwise effect gravity in the field.
And if we use a radio field, like a microwave oven, again, gravity is not changed inside the oven.
We can also consider the weak nuclear force since it is unified with the electromagnetic force. Gamma rays or X-rays also don't alter gravity.
But the half life of isotopes is changed in a gravitational field. Gravity affects the weak nuclear force the same as electromagnetic.

[lsemmens]

So in a massive magnetic flux gravity isn't affected. An object will fall at the same

Does Emmett Brown, have anything do do with this?????



Sorry....

[gamote]

Have you noticed this is a one way street. Gravity affects the electromagnetic force.
But the electromagnetic force doesn't effect gravity.

Actually you are not quite right. Electromagnetic fields do affect gravity. In Einstein's equations of general relativity (not in Newton's equations), the energy of the electromagnetic field can cause a curvature of space time, which is what we typically call gravity. Mass is another form of energy, so it make sense that the electromagnetic energy can bend space-time. Of course, in order for the effect to be noticeable, you need an enormously energetic electromagnetic field. Such a field will start creating pairs of particles-antiparticles, which have non-zero rest mass, lile electrons and positrons.

In any case, from a purely theoretical framework, an electromagnetic field does affect the gravitational field... but usually very weakly.

[porkop]

I'm hanging for trashs reply