OT: Infinite Energy, Atlantis, and other meme's

[Lazerus]

1. If the speed of light is a universal constant, then Black Holes must have a weight limit.

Where do you get this from?

As to light speeding up in a material, theory states lights speed can NEVER be exceeded. Ever. Anywhere.

No, it dosn't. It states the maximum speed of light in a vaccum can never be exceeded.

Yet if it is possible within a meterial, it is likely to be possible elsewhere, is it not?

No.

Though it is a simple matter of stating that of course elsewhere light will not be sped up; it's not going to enter the proper materials under the right circumstances. It's like a ball on a flat ledge over a hill; the potential for speed is there but it won't move until a force is enacted upon it.

Force cannot act upon light as it has no mass. Increasing a lights energy changes it's frequency, not it's speed.

2. Then explain a lovely little Quasar called 3C 273. Observed at a distance of about 660 Mpc's, the two "blobs" that compose it moved apart about 0.002" in 3 years. Calculating this distance shows that they moved about 10 times the speed of light over that time.

Can you cite a source for this?

3. Not entirely. It just means that FTL is possible simply by not moving faster than light, so even FTL-as-the-limit theorists can agree on such things.

If your not moving faster then light then it is not FTL.

4. Not so much lack of evidence. There is evidence but it's majorly ignored by the scientific community and remains uninvestigated. As to the conspiracy theory, Conspiracies are usually pointed out by an intent to cover up evidence more than evidence itself. I agree, there is little proof to its existance, (Except the existance of government documents that support their existance, repeated denials of the Freedom of Information Act concerning the existance of Aliens, government officials and military officers who request, but are denied, freedom from their Confidentiality agreements to talk on the subject, etc.) but still....

Well then, can you point me to some of this evidence? If there is as much of it as you say, surly you can provide a link to some.

[Axelgear]

1. If the speed of light is a universal constant, then Black Holes must have a weight limit.

Where do you get this from?

As to light speeding up in a material, theory states lights speed can NEVER be exceeded. Ever. Anywhere.

No, it dosn't. It states the maximum speed of light in a vaccum can never be exceeded.

Yet if it is possible within a meterial, it is likely to be possible elsewhere, is it not?

No.

Though it is a simple matter of stating that of course elsewhere light will not be sped up; it's not going to enter the proper materials under the right circumstances. It's like a ball on a flat ledge over a hill; the potential for speed is there but it won't move until a force is enacted upon it.

Force cannot act upon light as it has no mass. Increasing a lights energy changes it's frequency, not it's speed.

2. Then explain a lovely little Quasar called 3C 273. Observed at a distance of about 660 Mpc's, the two "blobs" that compose it moved apart about 0.002" in 3 years. Calculating this distance shows that they moved about 10 times the speed of light over that time.

Can you cite a source for this?

3. Not entirely. It just means that FTL is possible simply by not moving faster than light, so even FTL-as-the-limit theorists can agree on such things.

If your not moving faster then light then it is not FTL.

4. Not so much lack of evidence. There is evidence but it's majorly ignored by the scientific community and remains uninvestigated. As to the conspiracy theory, Conspiracies are usually pointed out by an intent to cover up evidence more than evidence itself. I agree, there is little proof to its existance, (Except the existance of government documents that support their existance, repeated denials of the Freedom of Information Act concerning the existance of Aliens, government officials and military officers who request, but are denied, freedom from their Confidentiality agreements to talk on the subject, etc.) but still....

Well then, can you point me to some of this evidence? If there is as much of it as you say, surly you can provide a link to some.

A few quick things:

1. Black Holes have to have a weight limit as eventually, if they become denser and denser, their rotation speed would exceed the speed of light. If this is true, they obviously cannot get any denser than a certain point or they would become light and disintegrate.

2. If something can have its speed increased past the speed of light in a medium, it means the speed of light is not a limit, only the regular speed light moves at.

3. Yes I can cite it. Page 592 of Chapter 25 in the third edition of Astronomy Today by Eric Chaisson of Tufts University and Steve McMillan of Drexel University. I'm afraid I can't, on first glance, find more info on the FTL speed, but there is an article in Wikipedia on it. If you can, find a local university and see if they have any copies of Astronomy Today in their library.

4. Not sure whether you want evidence of UFO's or evidence of a conspiracy so I'll try the latter then the former.

-Project Sign, which took an objective approach to it
-Project Bluebook, which took over about three years after Roswell, and takes a formal stance to discredit all people who report UFO's. Despite officially being closed, the department still recieves all reports of UFO sightings reported.
-A picture of a newspaper from Roswell, with a press release from the Air Base that was retracted a day later under orders from a higher ranking officer
-Another such article, this one with more information, clearly stating that it was a "Flying Disc" captured, and not a weather balloon.
-Eye witness accounts of Roswell

Now, I may be hitting it pretty heavy on Roswell but that's the majority of the conspiracy targets.

As to UFO's, I don't know how reliable these are but...

Movies
Pictures
Descriptions and links

I'd say more but I must now go for dinner and a movie. Even if you don't take those seriously, have fun with them.

[Lazerus]

1. Black Holes have to have a weight limit as eventually, if they become denser and denser, their rotation speed would exceed the speed of light. If this is true, they obviously cannot get any denser than a certain point or they would become light and disintegrate.

No, it's not! I assume you mean that the accretion disk around the black hole would exceed the speed of light? Nothing can make matter exceed the speed of light, including gravity. It won't happen.

And where do you get this "become light" nonsense?

2. If something can have its speed increased past the speed of light in a medium, it means the speed of light is not a limit, only the regular speed light moves at.

NO!

The speed of light in a vaccum is a constant, sending it through a material slows it down. All the scientists are doing is stopping it from slowing down, which is not the same thing as speeding it up.

3. Yes I can cite it. Page 592 of Chapter 25 in the third edition of Astronomy Today by Eric Chaisson of Tufts University and Steve McMillan of Drexel University. I'm afraid I can't, on first glance, find more info on the FTL speed, but there is an article in Wikipedia on it. If you can, find a local university and see if they have any copies of Astronomy Today in their library.

I'm not doing your research for you on my vacation time. If there is a wiki article, link it.

4. Not sure whether you want evidence of UFO's or evidence of a conspiracy so I'll try the latter then the former.

-Project Sign, which took an objective approach to it
-Project Bluebook, which took over about three years after Roswell, and takes a formal stance to discredit all people who report UFO's. Despite officially being closed, the department still recieves all reports of UFO sightings reported.
-A picture of a newspaper from Roswell, with a press release from the Air Base that was retracted a day later under orders from a higher ranking officer
-Another such article, this one with more information, clearly stating that it was a "Flying Disc" captured, and not a weather balloon.
-Eye witness accounts of Roswell

Now, I may be hitting it pretty heavy on Roswell but that's the majority of the conspiracy targets.

As to UFO's, I don't know how reliable these are but...

Movies
Pictures
Descriptions and links

I'd say more but I must now go for dinner and a movie. Even if you don't take those seriously, have fun with them.

This is a debate strategy called "link proofing" and it's one of my pet peeves. In responce to a request for proof, you link me to a site with lots of information. In other words, your asking me to do your research for you: Read through it and explain why it proves your point.

Not gonna happen. What information do these contain that supports UFO's and why are they credable sources?

[Lazerus]

1. Black Holes have to have a weight limit as eventually, if they become denser and denser, their rotation speed would exceed the speed of light. If this is true, they obviously cannot get any denser than a certain point or they would become light and disintegrate.

No, it's not! I assume you mean that the accretion disk around the black hole would exceed the speed of light? Nothing can make matter exceed the speed of light, including gravity. It won't happen.

And where do you get this "become light" nonsense?

2. If something can have its speed increased past the speed of light in a medium, it means the speed of light is not a limit, only the regular speed light moves at.

NO!

The speed of light in a vaccum is a constant, sending it through a material slows it down. All the scientists are doing is stopping it from slowing down, which is not the same thing as speeding it up.

3. Yes I can cite it. Page 592 of Chapter 25 in the third edition of Astronomy Today by Eric Chaisson of Tufts University and Steve McMillan of Drexel University. I'm afraid I can't, on first glance, find more info on the FTL speed, but there is an article in Wikipedia on it. If you can, find a local university and see if they have any copies of Astronomy Today in their library.

I'm not doing your research for you on my vacation time. If there is a wiki article, link it.

4. Not sure whether you want evidence of UFO's or evidence of a conspiracy so I'll try the latter then the former.

-Project Sign, which took an objective approach to it
-Project Bluebook, which took over about three years after Roswell, and takes a formal stance to discredit all people who report UFO's. Despite officially being closed, the department still recieves all reports of UFO sightings reported.
-A picture of a newspaper from Roswell, with a press release from the Air Base that was retracted a day later under orders from a higher ranking officer
-Another such article, this one with more information, clearly stating that it was a "Flying Disc" captured, and not a weather balloon.
-Eye witness accounts of Roswell

Now, I may be hitting it pretty heavy on Roswell but that's the majority of the conspiracy targets.

As to UFO's, I don't know how reliable these are but...

Movies
Pictures
Descriptions and links

I'd say more but I must now go for dinner and a movie. Even if you don't take those seriously, have fun with them.

This is a debate strategy called "link proofing" and it's one of my pet peeves. In responce to a request for proof, you link me to a site with lots of information. In other words, your asking me to do your research for you: Read through it and explain why it proves your point.

Not gonna happen. What information do these contain that supports UFO's and why are they credable sources?

[Axelgear]

1. But it was originally thought by scientists that light cannot be affected by anything. Period. Black Holes changed this. As a friendly physics prof told me, "Black Holes are where the rules seem to break down. Under our current understanding of it, a Singularity should not be able to exist without a fundamental change of the Laws of Physics." I'm not well spoken in physics lingo so at this point I'm just reciting what I've been told by far more educated people.

2. Not true. I believe Wanderwolf has a link somewhere that has the article explaining it...

3. The Wiki article doesn't have much info on it. All it says is its location, its probable composition, etc. Not much useful data.

4. Sadly, as of late I've had a lot of trouble finding the names of the old Discovery programs that gave such information (It was about six months since I last saw them), and I don't remember names well...


For now, I'm gonna drop this though. You, like many, are set in your idea of the Speed of Light being unsurpassable. If you don't wish to try and find the proper reading material, don't bother. I just don't care anymore. Still, if you feel like it, find the book, read it, and find a logical answer for it. I look forward to your reply. For now though, I'm done arguing with you.

[MikeVanPelt]

"Relativity, Causality, and FTL: Pick any two."

Relativity is one of the most thoroughly verified theories there is.

It is an inescapable consequence of the Lorentz contractions that FTL -- irrespective of how it is accomplished, any means by which you can travel or send a message from point A to point B faster than light in a vacuum could have made the trip -- you can use that capability to travel or send a message backwards in time.

Maybe that's a feature. But though time travel lends itself to all kinds of really fun logic twisting in fiction, I don't think it can exist. (Then there's one of Niven's Laws -- if travel backwards in time is possible, people will, at some point, do so, and change the past. They will keep doing this until they have changed history into one in which time travel is never discovered. That is the only stable timeline.)

Maybe Relativity is wrong, or incomplete. But its predictions have all panned out, to a whole lot of decimal places. Any replacement theory would likely have the same speed limit.

2. Then explain a lovely little Quasar called 3C 273. Observed at a distance of about 660 Mpc's, the two "blobs" that compose it moved apart about 0.002" in 3 years. Calculating this distance shows that they moved about 10 times the speed of light over that time.

The theory I read way back when was that there was a quasar sending out an extremely powerful beam of radiation off-axis from its rotation, and that beam was hitting a nebula some long distance away, causing it to fluoresce. There's nothing saying such a spot cast by a beam can only move at light speed. That moving spot can't carry any messages.

[Kerry Skydancer]

Yep, that was it. The apparent superluminal motion wasn't an object - it was the equivalent of a searchlight beam projected on a distant screen. The beam sweeps at FTL, but no actual photons are acting oddly. Nor is matter moving anywhere close to lightspeed, let alone FTL.

Axel, you've just admitted you're repeating what you've been told. It's obvious that you don't -understand- what they're saying. Please listen when we try to explain things to correct your misunderstandings.

[Axelgear]

No, to some degree I understand it. I admit, however, my understanding could be greater.

[Shyal_malkes]

No. What your describing would require a fundamental change in the way the universe works. That's like saying "I want a particle that has negative mass" or "What would matter that violates conservation of energy be like?" I can't tell you, because if it exists, the laws of physics have gone out the window.

no, that's not what I'm going for. antimatter has reversed charges but isn't totally "anti"-matter because it still has positive mass, just different properties that cause it to react with normal matter to create positive energy.

I am not talking about an antiphoton, nor a photon with negative mass, I am asking if anybody has experimented with the idea before, even if said inverse photons don't exist, the attempt may cause matter to behave differently and that still would help in discovery of fruther laws.

I only asked a question, you don't need to go jumping down my throat about it. I never said that I believed that it really did exist and that I could proove it, I only asked if anybody had asked it already. I only wanted to know I'm not one of those people who takes an idea and will not drop it no matter how rediculous it is so you don't need to treat me as though I were one.

[Lazerus]

1. But it was originally thought by scientists that light cannot be affected by anything. Period. Black Holes changed this. As a friendly physics prof told me, "Black Holes are where the rules seem to break down. Under our current understanding of it, a Singularity should not be able to exist without a fundamental change of the Laws of Physics." I'm not well spoken in physics lingo so at this point I'm just reciting what I've been told by far more educated people.

That was never thought after General Relativity. Your friend is wrong or you misunderstood him.

2. Not true. I believe Wanderwolf has a link somewhere that has the article explaining it...

Then post it.

3. The Wiki article doesn't have much info on it. All it says is its location, its probable composition, etc. Not much useful data.

I'm still not hearing anything to back up your statements.

4. Sadly, as of late I've had a lot of trouble finding the names of the old Discovery programs that gave such information (It was about six months since I last saw them), and I don't remember names well...

Uh-huh. Sure.

For now, I'm gonna drop this though. You, like many, are set in your idea of the Speed of Light being unsurpassable. If you don't wish to try and find the proper reading material, don't bother. I just don't care anymore. Still, if you feel like it, find the book, read it, and find a logical answer for it. I look forward to your reply. For now though, I'm done arguing with you.

What amazes me is that your arguing with at least three people, one of whom is a physics major, and your sure your right because of some half-remembered TV shows and something a friend told you.

[Kerry Skydancer]

Major and teacher, in this case.

Shyal, we're trying to explain to you that you have misunderstood things that you thought were evidence for FTL. We do not, at this point, have any useful experimental evidence that General Relativity is wrong. We -certainly- do not have measurements of light exceeding speed 'c' in vacuum.

What we do have are two suggestive but disconnected bits of data; one is that quantum tunnelling appears to allow known positions of an electron separated farther apart than ct (a pseudovelocity of about 1.3c, if I remember correctly - but only when tunneling). The second is the anomalous behavior of Pioneer XI and the Voyagers indicating that gravity behaves ever-so-slightly differently than expected at near-interstellar ranges. Neither of these phenomena is enough to have produced any expectation that controlled FTL will be possible.

What the physics types are working on currently is a way to marry GenRel to quantum mechanics; until we can get the two theories to play nicely with each other, we'll have a problem dealing with this issue. Both theories are well established over part of the range of phenomena (GenRel at large scales, QM at tiny) but do not interface well. Until this problem is resolved by either the modification of one of the two or by a revised theory that explains the observations gathered to date and overwrites both, no useful discussion of FTL will be possible.

[BrockthePaine]

Until this problem is resolved by either the modification of one of the two or by a revised theory that explains the observations gathered to date and overwrites both, no useful discussion of FTL will be possible.

Einstein ruins all my fun

[Earl McClaw]

2. If something can have its speed increased past the speed of light in a medium, it means the speed of light is not a limit, only the regular speed light moves at.

Let's try this a different way...

General relativity refers to "the speed of light in a vacuum" - often simply put as "the speed of light" - and uses the term "C" for this value. This is the "speed limit". But in certain conditions, such as when passing through a medium, EMR (ElectroMagnetic Radiation - such as light) will slow down.

So what was discovered wasn't a way to speed up EMR, but a way to keep it from slowing down as much. It still doesn't go faster than C.

[Wanderwolf]

Since Axelgear appears to have misplaced my link:
Here it is; a paper from Harvard, specifying that the "fast light" is faster than c.

In other words, yes, they made light go faster than its recorded speed in vacuum.

Sakes, doesn't anyone else Google around here?

Yours truly,

The wolfish,

Wanderer

[J4N1]

Every rule in science is a subject to change, because when more information is made available, the theories are either adjusted, or abolished and replaced with something that works better and/or more accurately.

Theory or Relativity has been found imperfect, this is not a surprise, but as long as it keeps working we use it, it is not universal, so more research is required, but it works in some/most cases, so it doesn't need replacement, yet.

The greatest strength of science is that it changes with the information gained.

Science tells you how the world works, not why, for the why you can ask religion of your choice, the answers are plentifull, but proof non-existant.

[Kerry Skydancer]

Oh, fer pity sake.

A little knowledge is a dangerous thing, and too little is especially dangerous. That abstract doesn't say that they have measured velocities greater than c. It specifically states that they have measured group velocities greater than c. This is most emphatically not the same thing.

Group velocity is rather similar to the searchlight effect I mentioned above. Individual waves travel at c, or slower in a medium. The impact point against a border can move at greater than c due to sweep, or the speed of a nodal or antinodal point in an interfering wave pattern can move at different speeds than the individual waves. The interesting (or not so interesting) point about the whole business is that you still can't send information faster than c using this effect; it's just an interesting way of observing the interference patterns.

[Wanderwolf]

Er, Kerry? Allow me to point you to a suitable explanation. And no, I'm not arguing with your conclusion just giving you a better illustration:

Here's a Java applet to illustrate why the superluminal group velocity is illusory.

Basically, the group velocity measures the change in the signal. Group velocity is thus distorted when the individual frequencies come into phase, creating a "ghost signal" that appears to travel ahead of the curve. It's like the optical illusion when a wheel reaches a certain speed and seems to be moving backward (negative group velocity).

Because it's just the combined effect of the frequencies, it can't actually exceed their signal velocity.

What made the effect newsworthy was that it's being achieved in standard fiberoptic cable with off-the-shelf components.

Thank you for the correction, Kerry.

So... care to comment on IBM's idea for using particle doubling effects in telecommunications?

Yours truly,

The fact-checking,

Wanderer

[Shyal_malkes]

what in the world gave anyone the impression that I was talking about anything that I thought was FTL?

I wanted to know if anybody had performed experiments to see if the energy I described existed or not and if it did what it's properties are, to heck with FTL! I think we're decades from anything like floating cars let alone anything faster then light.

why is it that when I describe something nobody understands?

personally (and I take my own opinion in this with a grain of salt) I think the effects will be that the inverse photon does exist and is produced during nuclear reactions (when the nucleus itself is traveling fast enough to produce it's own photons) I believe that these photons are rare enough that the energy lost producing them is minimal to the point that it either takes up the energy scientists have attributed to another theoretical (and yet to be proven) particle, or that it merely has been undetected up to this point. I believe it can interact with electrons in wierd ways. I believe that if all of the above is true then it will not travel at FTL but may assist us in studying the world so as to help us eventually achieve such.

I think we'll need to start artificially bending space with artificially generated gravity and anti gravity and causing a vortex within space before we actually achieve speeds in excess of C.

sorry if I sounded harsh.

[Wanderwolf]

Sorry, Shyal; I missed your original post.

In any event, a photon has no charge (according to observations), so a photon has no inverse; it does have two polarization states, but those affect vibration only.

Photons are absorbed in the production of antimatter, and emitted in the corresponding annihiliation. They're absorbed when an atom or nucleus jumps to a higher energy level, and emitted when the atom or nucleus drops to a lower energy level.

Photons, effectively, are a base particle; universal to both sides of the question.

Yours truly,

The fact-checking,

Wanderer

[Xellas]

I'm gonna reiterate several points here.

1: The speed of light IN A VACUUM is absolute. Light itself is a massless particle, and therefore cannot be accelerated by adding energy. Adding energy only shortens the wavelength of the light, in essence converting it to a higher energy form of EM radiation. Gravitational influence does not constitute adding or subtracting energy, as gravity (to the best of our understanding) is simply a deformation of spacetime caused by the effects of mass in the area, and does not involve transfer of energy in any way, shape, or form.

2: Black holes ARE possible, and the particles in accretion disks never exceed lightspeed, at least not in any observable area. As a black hole absorbs mass, the event horizon of the hole extends outwards. The event horizon is the point at which gravity is strong enough to pull light back. Therefore, the event horizion is the point at which gravitational influence is strong enough to halt a MASSLESS PARTICLE that is traveling at lightspeed. The event horizon is also the point at which all information becomes lost, so any conjecture of what happens within it is worthless as the rest of the universe will never 'know' about it. Any particle accelerated to faster than lightspeed by gravitational influence would have to be INSIDE the event horizion, and therefore could not be observed. Therefore it cannot break the laws of physics as we know them.

3: Like several others have said, simply saying "I have proof, but there's a conspiracy covering it up" isn't good enough to prove anything. The government acting odd about things isn't proof either... it could very well be that they are covering up nutjobs in order to maintain public order, or something equally innocent. You simply have no publically available, reliable proof, and therefore it must be doubted.

EDIT: Shyal, photons have NO CHARGE. They are electrically neutral, unlike protons and electrons, both of which have antiparticles. The only particles that have antiparticles are ones that have both MASS and a CONSTANT ELECTRICAL CHARGE. Ergo, light, which is MASSLESS and ELECTRICALLY NEUTRAL, does NOT have an antiparticle, or inverse, or whatever the heck you are talking about.

Also, antigravity does not exist. Gravity is the deformation of spacetime caused by the existance of mass in the area. For antigravity to exist, you would in effect have to have something of negative mass to exist. Since that is simply impossible, antigravity is also impossible.

Also, referencing microscopic wormholes, those may be possible, even provable. But a large wormhole that is travel-worthy would require some form of exotic matter to 'brace' the tunnel within, as it would be highly unstable. Most likely that matter simply doesn't exist.