# Thread: Localised Space (and time)

1. Theoretically imagine that an area of spacetime is moving at 0.99c, we have no way to measure this (I understand relative perspectives here). What if those entites in that area of spacetime saw themselves moving normally. Could one move at 0.01c at all? Or would that speed seem to be relative to them? Could they (even though we cannot see it) move faster than light? And is it possible that to themeselves they are to themselves as we are to ourselves? If motion and time are relative, then there is no way to prove if this is possible or not, unless relativity is expanded.

I believe this idea is quite logical and may present an area to expand on relativity.

EDIT: That was my 2000th post.

2.

3. No because if from out reference frame, theirs was moving at 0.99c then time would be going slower for them as observed by us so they would in their own reference frame appear to be moving normally but to us they would be moving slower then they observed to be. It is simple Special Relativity. They would not measure themselves as going 0.99c but measure us to be going 0.99c whilst they were stationary.

4. That is my point. They can thus go faster than light relative to themselves relative to us, in theory.

EDIT: I know what I am doing is out stepping one toe out of relativity but I'm theorising so don't take my ideas to be based on relativity, I'm incorporating it, but it is not the core behind my theory.

5. But by doing that you are breaking the fundemental law that the speed of light is constant regardless of your reference frame. They aren't going faster than the speed of light in your reference frame, they aren't in theirs. Finally the first postulate of special relativity states that there is no preferred reference frame. Therefore you can't just "step" out of relativity...

6. I am aware of that, as I said I am trying to modify a currently existing theory, just as Einstein did. You can't break your perception of light speed as it is constant by SR's standards, I understand that. But even if you were to travel at 200c, you would still see light passing you at one c.

There is no way to tell if they are going FTL in our reference frame, they are not in theirs by their relative point. I'm bordering something strange here and I can see a flaw and that is why I am questioning. You may argue it is due to my mis-understanding of relaitivity, but the way I see it, if one does not see the walls of the box, one is not bound by them and can see out.

EDIT: And I am very grateful of your feedback and opinions, thank you very much for doing so .

7. But even if you were to travel at 200c, you would still see light passing you at one c.
Fundamentally wrong, how can you be travelling at 200 times faster than something that is travelling past you?

You would have to change the fact that the speed of light is constant.

To truely understand this you need to prefereably do a degree level course in special relativity - you will then understand why your arguments break down.

Obviously this is silly if you aren't already or going to do a physics degree so i suggest thoroughly researching time-dilation [photon clock], the twin paradox, lorentz equations, composition of velocities and mass energy equivilence.

The last two are probably the most important in explaining why it is fundamentally impossible to go faster than the speed of light.

8. I understand those relativity notions you mentioned. I know them already. C is constant correct? So even at 200c light would move at 1c. Fundamentally impossible yes but I am not being fundamental here anymore.

Physics and mathematics doctorate is one of my medium term goals. I understand what you are saying and can understand why you cannot see what I am trying to explain, and also understand that the current method cannot explain the idea behind my theory. Remember it is not all using the ground rules of relativity. What I am trying to theorise about too is not common and is hardly even observered naturally that is why is seems strange. But you must admit that we cannot stay focused on the same theory forever, it will develop and it is not perfect, therefore it can be adapted. If relativity is a box, I am peeking out of it .

Do you agree that new ideas have to be developed even if a current theory proves it wrong? Remember that Quantum theory and relativity do not agree completley either, but away they go. Am I ok to develop my ideas? Einstein knew little about what he was doing in terms of physics when he was at the patent office. Yet he developed his ideas, even if people disagreed at first.

I am a new and fresh mind that does not want to be bound by rules, as any youngster would, and that may appear brash, just as someone else was .

9. Ok... For one second lets say you can do it. What you will have to do, is prove that space-time doesn't exist, instead space and time are independent of one another and that there is an absolute reference frame.

A consequence of this is then explaining why the presence of mass (ie being in a gravitational field) distorts time when seemingly the two are independent (there is both experimental proof (in the recalibration of GPS satallite clocks) and theoretical proof (black hole event horizans).

In addition you would have to explain why atomic clocks based on random nuclear decays change when travelling at different speeds relative to a reference frame (clocks on a plane - see Hafele and Keating Experiment).

In addition to this you would have to disprove everything in relativity.

In my first two years of my degree course in Physics the most remarkable thing I have learned is the concept of time. Or rather the lack of. I have come to terms (ish) with the fact that time is relative. There is no real time. It just doesn't exist. Don't believe me? What is time? Explain it? Its the separation of two events... in... er time. What it really is, is the separation in the detection of two events. But this is different for different observers so time really is just a view of our own reference frame.

As a short PS I'll just say that I don't believe that things can't travel faster than the speed of light. The laws of physics don't disallow it. They simply disallow matter from breaking the speed of light from this side of the barrier. It is perfectly plauseable that there are "things" that are the other side of the speed of light barrier which similarly cannot cross it. A really seriously wierd thought and again difficult to grasp because the laws of physics state that these "things" would be going in a state direction where entropy increases (ie the opposite to our own).

10. I'm not sure about the "mass bending space time thing". I think gravity is composed of particles, like the higgs boson, that are massless and can travel much faster than light (I forget where, but someone a while ago said that we know the speed of gravity...i'm not sure about that).

I did an observational study to prove this a while ago....

Think about it, if mass bends "space time", then would you say that regardless of the elements that compose it, that it would bend space all the same in a linear fashion? Well, I observed the contents of Jupiter, its gravitational field, and its mass; they do not match up. According to its weight, its gravitational field should be SIGNIFICANTLY stronger than what it is. Yet worlds that are more like our own (elementally) tend to have a similar weight to gravity ratio. Why would the act of bending "space time" based on mass care about what the mass is composed of? Guess what though, electromagnetic fields do care....I think gravity is an electromagnetic like particle (similar to the particles that magnets have) that like with magnets, is particularly prominent when generated from certain materials.

11. Originally Posted by 425 Chaotic Requisition
I am a new and fresh mind that does not want to be bound by rules, as any youngster would, and that may appear brash, just as someone else was .
I know this only too well. I remember a paper I did on relativity in high school which was a lot of half baked philosophy.

Anyway back to the physics:

There is a velocity addition formula.

V = (v1+v2)/square root (1+v1*v2/c^2)

thus with v1 =.99c and v2 = .99c, you get

V = (1.98c)/sqrt(1+.9801) = .999949497 c

Ok what this means is that if planet B is moving .99c with respect to planet A, then the guys on planet B can certainly move .99c with respect to their planet B in the same direction but that when they do so they will only be moving at .999949497 c with respect to planet A.

The thing to understand is that the speed of light is a lot like an infinite velocity. You can accelerate as much as you like but when you get close to the speed of light their is a distortion of time and space so that nothing seems to be moving relative to your position faster than the speed of light. Included in that distortion is a contraction of all distances in the direction you are going, so you can actually go anywhere as fast as you would like, but there are some pretty hefty prices in terms of time and energy.

So for example at .99c distances in the direction of your motion are contracted by a factor of 1/sqrt(1-.99^2) = 7, which means that although nothing ever moves faster than the speed of light, you still get to your destination as if you went about 7 times the speed of light. Pretty cool huh? Its like a warp velocity where you go faster than the speed of light by squishing space itself.

The price in terms of time is that although you can get to your destination as fast as you would like, people watching your spacecraft never see you going faster than the speed of light so for them you trip lasts a long time (in our example 7 times longer for them as it was for you). Thus if you go back, they will have aged considerably more than you have.

The price in terms of energy is very large. Just to accelerate to .99c requires 1/sqrt(1-.99^2) = 7 times the energy that would be produced if you converted your mass into pure energy. What this means is that you must convert at least seven eighths of your ship mass into pure energy to provide for your energy of motion -- just to conserve energy. But it is worse than this because you must also conserve momentum by expelling reaction mass to get a thrust.

12. Exactly right, and I'll add that you are only getting to a position quicker relative to a particular reference frame, you aren't actually going faster than the speed of light. The length contraction leads to time dilation so you are going slower than the speed of light.

A good example is the muon experiment. Muons travel at approximately the speed of light. When a number are measured at at a distance above the earths surface one can calculate the time it takes for them to reach the ground in terms of their mean half life, so can calculate how many on average reach the ground for every n that are measured in the sky. The actual number measured disagrees with classical mechanics though but if you put the number into lorenz equations then it can be shown that the number reaching the ground agrees with the fact that from a muon frame, the length is contracted considerably. They can conver the distance within the limits and the earth sees the muons frame as time-dilated so the half life of them ISN'T what is calculated in "earth" time.

http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu...ativ/muon.html

13. Don't muons have mass? I'm sure they do.

Also you know earlier when we said about relative areas of spacetime? How can we be sure if it is moving FTL or not seeing that it is all relative? Oh and also, when you go 200c, c is constant, so always passes at 1c no matter your own velocity right? So if we could go FTL, we can't say 'Oh relativity doesn't work anymore lets just throw all those notions out the window'. Granted it may not explain anything well anymore, but it's better of starting with a spark of light than nothing at all.

EDIT: This is becoming trivial anyway, you are simply stating the laws of SR over and over and over and how you have learned them yourself over time (). I mean no offense here, but seeing as you are only offering the inside of the box perspective, I cannot really learn anything from you nor vice versa. Please do not take that as an insult, for I do not mean to be insulting.

14. Yes they do they go at about 0.983c. Anyway...

The problem is that you've got it into your head that it might be able to go faster than the speed of light, but you aren't backing it up in any shape or form. Your just saying it might be possible because, well it just might, why not, who says it can't.

What we are doing are showing you well founded and experimentally demonstrated theory which says you just can't go faster than the speed of light from this side of the light speed barrier.

What you can learn from SR are the reasons it is not possible. You simply HAVEN'T understood the reasons, you are just saying that you will completely ignore SR and find a way which TSL can be surpassed.

15. I understand and know them, well. I don't see the need to describe how to pilot a plane using the method of making a cup of tea. I fully understand SR.

16. Originally Posted by 425 Chaotic Requisition
I understand and know them, well. I don't see the need to describe how to pilot a plane using the method of making a cup of tea. I fully understand SR.
Nonsense, don't be silly. When someone writes what they did as you did in your OP, they don't understand SR very well at all. You can have a master's degree in physics like I do and still not understand SR very well. Therefore when you say that you "fully understand SR" after writing a post like your OP, what you really mean is "I don't wan't to understand SR".

17. I just ran a simulation in my mind for an hour strait......I understand time dilation fully now. Its very interesting really....

Thanks for helping me understand it!

18. Originally Posted by mitchellmckain
Originally Posted by 425 Chaotic Requisition
I understand and know them, well. I don't see the need to describe how to pilot a plane using the method of making a cup of tea. I fully understand SR.
Nonsense, don't be silly. When someone writes what they did as you did in your OP, they don't understand SR very well at all. You can have a master's degree in physics like I do and still not understand SR very well. Therefore when you say that you "fully understand SR" after writing a post like your OP, what you really mean is "I don't wan't to understand SR".
I can understand somethingm but it doesn't mean I have to incorporate it inot a new idea does it? Come on, if I use a theory that blocks the reality of my developing theory, how can it thus develop?

19. Originally Posted by 425 Chaotic Requisition
I can understand somethingm but it doesn't mean I have to incorporate it inot a new idea does it? Come on, if I use a theory that blocks the reality of my developing theory, how can it thus develop?
I am not entirely unsympathetic. I told you about my half baked paper I wrote in high school, but it is important to understand the nature of modern science and to distinguish it from philosophical suppositions.

You can create your own natural philosophy if you like. But if you post it in a science forum under a science topic people are going to tell you that you have it wrong. Dismissing this and saying that you "understand all that already" sounds like nonsense and it definitely makes it sound like you have no interest in physics. If you are not interested in the physics you should post elsewhere.

If you want to set aside 100 years of physics, you should not only do so elsewhere but also preface what you say with something like, "Supposing Special Relativity is wrong..." for that at least might suggest that you understand SR enough that you know what you are suggesting contradicts it. Though to tell the truth, unless you really understand SR very well it is almost impossible to do this in a way that makes any sense.

Anyway, something like that will not do extremely well here if you expect it to be treated more seriously than something like, "Supposing we are all purple people eaters..." or start talking about God. Because that just isn't physics.

And to truly understand ANY topic in physics, this necessarily means that you can do the math, because that is WHAT PHYSICS IS - it is understanding the world through the use of mathematics. Take out the math and all you have is philosophy.

Now I love the kind of philosohy that studies the nature of reality, it is called metaphysics. I personally prefer to base the majoritiy of my ideas in this topic upon what I have learned in physics. But there is no rule in metaphysics that you must do this.

20. God i wish i could word what i thought like that.

 Bookmarks
##### Bookmarks
 Posting Permissions
 You may not post new threads You may not post replies You may not post attachments You may not edit your posts   BB code is On Smilies are On [IMG] code is On [VIDEO] code is On HTML code is Off Trackbacks are Off Pingbacks are Off Refbacks are On Terms of Use Agreement