# The Naked Scientists Forum

### Author Topic: Superlumina Paradox - Faster than light?  (Read 4117 times)

#### Gasparri

• Jr. Member
• Posts: 21
##### Superlumina Paradox - Faster than light?
« on: 06/09/2009 00:50:31 »

Spaceship A and spaceship B are identical. They are on a mission
to far space. They separate until they are 300,000 Km apart at
which point they lock course and maintain formation. To preserve
secrecy they communicate with each other with lasers using standard
Morse code. They begin their mission and accelerate to 99.9 percent
the speed of light. As they communicate a laser beam takes one
second to reach the other ship. During that same time the ships
have moved ~300,000 Km. This defines a square in space. Actually
a c^2. During it's journey the laser beam traversed the hypotenuse
of the square. The hypotenuse is a bit longer than a side of the c^2
and apparently the laser beams are quite happy to traverse it in
one second flat.

Now, before you get too excited over what you see as a flaw just
remember one thing, the space ships are at rest with respect to
each other, there is no violation. Relativity is preserved yet...
There's that darn hypotenuse thing.

Any suggestions? My brain has gone hypercritical trying to figure this one out.

#### lyner

• Guest
##### Superlumina Paradox - Faster than light?
« Reply #1 on: 06/09/2009 12:11:01 »
The hypotenuse doesn't exist  for the two ships - they will not 'observe' one. They are the same distance as ever, as far as they are concerned. They will observe c to be c using their local timing and distance measurements..
For a 'stationary' observer, the light will take an appropriate length of time to traverse the hypotenuse (which he will observe) and his observed time intervals between transmission and reception will also be modified by SR. He will also observe c to be c.

#### Gasparri

• Jr. Member
• Posts: 21
##### Superlumina Paradox - Faster than light?
« Reply #2 on: 06/09/2009 18:15:23 »
The hypotenuse doesn't exist  for the two ships - they will not 'observe' one.

Yes, they can only 'know' it's there.

They are the same distance as ever, as far as they are concerned. They will observe c to be c using their local timing and distance measurements..
For a 'stationary' observer, the light will take an appropriate length of time to traverse the hypotenuse (which he will observe) and his observed time intervals between transmission and reception will also be modified by SR. He will also observe c to be c.

I was expecting a space curve like a negative lens which would
shorten the hypotenuse to the proper length.

#### lyner

• Guest
##### Superlumina Paradox - Faster than light?
« Reply #3 on: 07/09/2009 11:10:29 »
When you say "know it's there" - they can deduce what the 'stationary' observer will see if they know his speed relative to them. They know he will see a hypotenuse.

#### Gasparri

• Jr. Member
• Posts: 21
##### Superlumina Paradox - Faster than light?
« Reply #4 on: 07/09/2009 21:40:02 »
When you say "know it's there" - they can deduce what the 'stationary' observer will see if they know his speed relative to them. They know he will see a hypotenuse.

None the less in true space the hypotenuse is there independent
of any observer. The conundrum is what is is. The path is virtual
so the answer must be virtual. Perhaps it's not space that's warped
but velocity that is curved into the Higgs field.

#### Vern

• Neilep Level Member
• Posts: 2072
##### Superlumina Paradox - Faster than light?
« Reply #5 on: 11/09/2009 13:26:20 »
Perhaps it is neither space nor velocity that is distorted. Perhaps it is as Lorentz suggested. Perhaps matter is distorted when it is forced to move relative to a special fixed inertial frame in space. We use material things in all of our measurements. The material things we use for measure are distorted by movement. Maybe their distortion due to movement is due to H. Ziegler's concept as he explained the Lorentz phenomena to Einstein in 1909. Matter must distort when it moves because of its composition.
« Last Edit: 11/09/2009 13:28:33 by Vern »

#### Gasparri

• Jr. Member
• Posts: 21
##### Superlumina Paradox - Faster than light?
« Reply #6 on: 13/09/2009 19:33:11 »
Perhaps it is neither space nor velocity that is distorted...
Matter must distort when it moves because of its composition.

Only under stress of acceleration, either G or g.

When there is neither G or g present the 'mass' is in stasis.
The condition of radiation is rather timeless and seemingly
devoid of real mass. Probably unhooked strings whose only real
option is to fall into the Higgs omni transverse and carry a
a tidbit of energy along at the universal constant of c.
Perhaps the whole universe vibrates at one wavelength of
somewhere around three hundred thousand kilometers. Odd length
that. Nonetheless there the damn thing is and outside of
fiddling with transfer delays in gasses and masses only
the Boaz Einstein condensates so far can fold space.

#### yor_on

• Naked Science Forum GOD!
• Posts: 11731
• Thanked: 1 times
• (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
##### Superlumina Paradox - Faster than light?
« Reply #7 on: 09/03/2010 21:38:05 »
Very nice one. if we assume A and B being at rest with each other and also assume that they are at a uniformly accelerating pace at f.ex one Gravitation, then the equivalence principle say that they will observe it just the same as if they both were on earth.

If we then assume an observer C at rest versus the place A and B once left (Mars:) somehow observing that signals journey through space, he should see it take a much longer path as the vectors would be different from his frame of observation. Not only that, it would also according to him take a longer time than that second those two ships would measure. So who would be right?

Both would be right. That's the new paradigm of relativity, that distances and time are relative the observer. One way to look at it is to assume a plasticity to SpaceTime, not only to time but also to the 'distances' in it. And what changes it is gravity/mass, and acceleration that then becomes equivalent to mass (relative mass/momentum).

There is a hidden 'gold standard' though. you can fit the observations to each other if knowing both frames observations, that as the 'distant observer' will observe the acceleration even if A and B would be inside 'black boxes' themselves, so assuming that his communication can reach them there will be a possibility to fit their observations into a whole. Well, as I see it.

And another thing, that light traveling the longer path, according to our 'distant observer'. Wouldn't it have a red shift too, as observed by that 'distant observer'?
« Last Edit: 10/03/2010 01:24:48 by yor_on »

#### The Naked Scientists Forum

##### Superlumina Paradox - Faster than light?
« Reply #7 on: 09/03/2010 21:38:05 »