[LordRaidis (OP)]

I've been pondering some things lately... perhaps you someone can help me with this. I have a some general observational comments as well as 1 single question I hope can be answered.


Comments:

Although I know I it's well known as a science "fact" that no matter what we do, mass cannot exceed the relative speed of light, I personally feel VERY deepely that we may start seeing concrete violations of this rule as space travel becomes more frequent and we, and we begin studying quantum "behavior" in zero-gravity relatively far away from the earth (quantum experiments conducted outside the roche radius of the earth's gravitational pull.) In fact, I have some serious questions about Einsteins "rule" due to the Hubble's observations which according to modern scientific theory, states the expansion of the universe is actually "speeding up". I'm not too sure weather I completely buy the whole "dark matter" concept where dark matter is just some mysterious expanding property of empty space.

I suspect this is whole "speeding up effect" is more due to the fact that our local group of galaxies, or whatever major cluster we are a part of has a relativistic gravitational roche radius aR = 2.456(pE/p)e1/3RE where (pE,/p)-- that is to say, the point where orbiting objects will either fall towards the center of the gravitational parent, or rotate away from it like the moon has been doing for billions of years (because it's elementary matter fell just outside this radius when it was formed.) I would suspect that light-energy would appear to travel at certain speeds based on this principal-- we already know gravitation has significant effects on how light appears to move.

What if this speeding-up effect only APPEARS so because of this special gravitation property? That is to say, if an observer were to somehow travel far beyond our absolute relative gravitational roche radius here in our galaxy/local group and finally reached the calculated distance outside of our original observation point were there is an exponential amount of empty space beteen us and the other galaxies, can one then deduce that if we reanalized the redshift effect of the original "expanding" portions of the outter-universe, that they would not appear to be speeding up anymore? Would our relative gravitational paradigm now change and actually appear to be moving at a "normal" speed again because of our new obervation point?

Aside from all my speculation, my more important question is:

Since according to relativety, matter cannot travel faster than light, I would imagine that the theory should actually formulate a EXACT maximum "terminal velocity" or an absolute maximum speed based on mass alone. Would an object of less mass be able of move at a higher absolute relative speed under the same relative conditions than a larger object would because less energy is required to get increace it's velocity? Say for instance, a spacecraft weighing 1 ton vs a craft that weighs 3 tons moving through space? Or perhaps if you had 2 object's of the same mass moving through outer space, you could get one to move even faster by making it more "aero/spacially-dynamic"???


"God does not throw dice."
-Albert Einstein

[gsmollin]

A Roche point appears between a binary system of gravitationally bound objects, such as earth-moon, sun-earth, or binary star systems. It is one of the Lagrangian points. At the Roche point, matter may fall towards either body. Therefor, the moon's orbit has always been beyond the earth-moon Roche point, by the definition. I believe the moon's orbital altitude increases as a result of tidal interaction with the earth.

I'm not sure how a Roche point works on non-gravitationally bound systems, such as between galactic clusters. I suspect the point expands to become a region where matter may go in either direction, or neither direction, depending upon its initial velocity.

The dark matter concept was invented to fill a hole where insufficient matter could be found to account for the gravity present within galaxies and clusters. Other explanations have been offered. Perhaps you are offering one of them.

If we moved far enough from our present location, we would see the Milky Way galaxy receding with a redshift. The other distant galaxies would also continue to recede.

Are you suggesting the redshifts we measure from distant stars are gravitational redshifts?

The mass "dilation" property of special relativity posits that the maximum terminal velocity of all matter and energy is c. Radiation travels at exactly c, in free space. Massive matter may attain c, in the limit, with an infinite energy input. Since this is a singularity point, it does not matter what the rest-mass starts out at. However, at speeds close to c, the energy input is still proportional to the rest mass, so a 3 ton object is still three times heavier than a 1 ton object. So, I think the answer is yes, a lighter object could move faster than a heavier object under the otherwise same conditions, such as the same energy input. However neither object can attain speed = c.

[tweener]

Well put gsmollin - thanks!

----
John - The Eternal Pessimist.

[LordRaidis (OP)]

quote:Originally posted by gsmollin



Are you suggesting the redshifts we measure from distant stars are gravitational redshifts?

Precisely.

I highly suspect that sometime in the near future, cosmologists are going to find more hard evidence that C(186,000mps) actually varies based on the gravitational field-- being that the force of gravity probably acts instantaneously (something Einstein refuted but never completely proved). In fact I believe the speeding up expension of the universe IS actually hard evidence of this fluxuation of C and that the dark matter theory is nothing more than an ad-hoc approach to covering up this fundimental flaw of having a C-constant in relativity. In the shapiro experiments where they measured the time delay of light coming from a quasar and crossing through jupiter's gravitational field amounted to a time delay of about (8.9)10-18 seconds which could mean that gravity does move faster than C. So in theory, there may be a parts of this universe where C is equal to say, 432,000 mps so then it's actually possible to move 186,000mps in a craft without breaking that pesky light speed rule. ;-)

Aside from this, I guess what my REAL question earlier was, according to formula, is there a way right now to determine an exect top speed of an object moving through a vaccume, based on relativity? Say for instance an object that weighs 3 tons can only move 101,452 mps or something like that for instance? As you lower the mass of something, that "fixxed" speed threshold can move up? An exact formula. Or do we even know?



"God does not throw dice."
-Albert Einstein

[LordRaidis (OP)]

Actually I didn't mean weight of an object-- I meant mass. So whatever a 3 ton earth weight equals in mass units.

"God does not throw dice."
-Albert Einstein

[gsmollin]

Ok, I understood that. A 3 ton mass weighs 3 tons on earth, at sea level. We convert a 3 ton mass to a 3 ton weight by multiplying by 32.2 feet/second_squared. British Engineering System - whew!

As I understand special relativity, the upper speed limit for mass-energy is c, in vacuo. So a 3 ton mass and a 1 ton mass may both travel assymptotically close to c. It requires 3 times the energy input to achieve a given speed for a 3 ton mass as compared to a 1 ton mass. The only part of this that is not intuitively obvious, is that both masses increase according to the mass transformation equation of special relativity.

As for light-speed being a function of g, I thought that had been disproved, even with laboratory experiments. Perhaps you are really referring to c being a function of time. It's been postulated that the fundamental constants have shifted over time, having had different values in the early universe, and explaining some of the big-bang problems away with that.

Dark matter, however, would not be a distant thing, it would literally be all around us. Most of it would be far out in space, because it's not supposed to be a clumpy thing, like ordinary matter, because it can't lose energy by radiation. I also suppose it can't form elements either, since electromagnetic binding forces hold atoms together, and nuclear binding forces hold the nucleuses togther, and quantum colo(u)r forces hold the quarks togther. So it doesn't come together and form solids, liquids and gasses. It would be largely a diffuse halo around a galaxy. Still, since gravity is pointing at the center of the galaxy, the density of dark matter should be greater right here in front of our noses than in those halos. If we could but perceive!

A few years ago, physicists did not know of any elementary particles that did not respond to the electromagnetic force. Then neutrons were discovered. Then particles that did not respond to EM and the strong force were discovered- the neutrino. (Apparently, the neutrino also lacks mass, but that has not been conclusively proven, and it is a contender for "hot" dark matter.) Is it now so far fetched to postulate particles that have mass, but do not respond to EM, weak, or strong forces? Or is it more like inevitible? I think it will be very interesting to find out.

[LordRaidis (OP)]

Ok, I think I understand what you are saying. So if you "energised" a 1 ton weight to move at 99.9% of C and you took that same energy to move a 3 ton weight it would, in theory, travel 33.3% the speed of C, right? To get the 3 ton weight to move respectively at 99.9% of C it will require relatively more energy in the system because it's collective mass hinders it from reaching C as easily as something with smaller mass?

As for the C being "fixed", I have real problems with that for one simple reason: ALL experiments testing the speed of light have 1 thing in common, they were all done within the earth's relative gravitaional field-- namely the Systeme International metre standardised in 1983 (over 20 years ago!!!) where lasers and caesium clocks made it easy to accuratley measure the speed of light on earth (299,792.458kps) and thus have adopted this as the absolute standard metre for all science. And it works out very well around the earth, and for what we do. Even if we were to conduct 10 million light experiments on earth, we are going to reach the same speed for all light no matter what.

Even if we were to relay signals to voyager at it's current distance and back, we would still arrive the same 299,792.458kps (perhaps slightly faster due to the signal traveling longer through the vaccume) based on estimated distance and relay time. The reason we will arrive at the same speed no matter how far voyager goes is that the EM signals are going to accelerate and decellerate by the same amount as they leave the earth and sun's gravitational pull and get transmited back again. In other words, it will take SLIGHTLY longer for the signal to cover the distance to reach voyager (while in the solar system's roche radius), but it will be relayed back SLIGHTLY faster because the light is being pulled in by the same gravitional force from which it "escaped".

Basically if we are going to get a completely accurate picture of the TRUE speed of C, we cannot use conventional methods using the earth as a relay point. We do this instictively because it's just the easiest way to test light. But if we are going to take efficient space travel in any seriousness, we need to seriously question this supposed "fixed" speed.

I think this ratio could be tested if we were to launch probes which could relay light signals back and forth to eachother in different patterns FAR away from the earth (or our solar system for that matter) and THEN send the speed data back to earth. These probes would have to contain some serious hardware in order to notice this very small dialation effect, but being far outside of the solar system's gravity will be key.

Given all this in mind, on a quantum level, I think we might find a VERY interesting symetry between gravity and the neutron.

"God does not throw dice."
-Albert Einstein

[gsmollin]

LR,

No, what I'm saying is that if one energized a 1 ton mass to move at 0.999c, the kinetic energy required would move a 3 ton mass at 0.992c. The mass transformation equation is anything but linear. Even a Newtonian calculation would report a speed for the 3 ton mass of 0.577c. The relativistic kinetic energy requirement to accelerate a unit-mass to .999c is 21.4c-squared, and the Newtonian requirement is .499c-squared, so you can see there is considerable mass transformation in special relativity.

You might want to study special relativity. There are many good books in the public library. You can also study on-line, since many gracious authors have published educational material that is public access. Here is a URL for one treatment: http://ffden-2.phys.uaf.edu/212_fall2003.web.dir/Eddie_Trochim/index.htm

Now when you start combining gravity with relativity, you are moving into general relativity, which is not an easy subject. I'll just let you study that on your own.

Cheers,
gsmollin

[LordRaidis (OP)]

Thanks gsmollin!!! I will definately use this information as a reference.

I am majoring as an artist/engineer and seem to have a natural talent for understanding general relativity. I have been completely emersing myself in general relativity and I plan on grasping it in it's purety so that I can use it as a combined metric tensor to devise a method for higher dimentional space travel. I am in the process of designing a craft which can move at hyperspeed by actually "riding" on each star's specific tidal gravitational frequency.

I envision a craft which will be cone shaped-- as it's rest energy/mass will remain relatively gravitationally neutral while moving toward it's selected binary star/solar system. It would pick up the star's light-energy and focus it into a point directly behind the thrusting chamber(s) to create forward motion. The premise is not unlike that of a hotair balloon, only that it's forward thrust will be accompanied by it's spin which will be carefully controlled. It will be controlled by outer transmitters that will relay electrical signals congruous to the binary system's gravitational frequency that it's heading toward- having further control of the speed.

Anyhow, I just wanted to bounce some ideas around in here and analyze that data as it comes back to me.

Thanks!

"God does not throw dice."
-Albert Einstein

[Peter_Boos]

I've got new ideas about light see here: newbielink:http://www.freewebs.com/boosp/4Dlight.htm [nonactive]

so where to start for your topic.
Well at first communication faster then light is possible.
Just read material about behaviour of entagled photons.
That problem of behaviour is now solved I believe in my url.
It's realy simple logic if you read the url.

Next thing would be could we travel faster then light.
Well for sure currently not, other particles might.
And why because they are not limmited to our 3 Dimensions.
What to us might be an enormus distance can be a short step in 4D.
So things can travel faster without conflicting going faster then light. Because they wouldn't use the inbetween 3D travel path.
They take a 4D shortcut. (to me 4D is not time as a dimension, it realy is an extra dimension after x-y-z-'extra').
So perhaps in 3D light speed is a limit, however why use 3D, as even entagled photons have a 4D way around it.

We are the flatlanders in a 4D-Light universe

[Raedon]

I'm going to assume when we pass on and loose ego and moving into a world where everything just is (no space/time) you get it all anyway.  Even if you are not "you" anymore.  

  What would be more interesting to me would be how to use "entangled particles" or whatever was seen doing something instantly as a way to move data instantly.  It seems even gravity could be used to communicate instantly if you could create it.. though that would cause havoc..


It is good to be alive! It's impossible I'm here but here I am.. and I rock!