Feasable FTL travel

[Sabutai]

Another thing:

I thought about gravity and came to the following conclusion: Because of gravity being the weakest of the 4 fundamental forces and it reaching indefinatly it must be related to probability. Every mass attracts every other mass. One can either tell where a quantum particle is or how much energy it holds. Such a small mass has a probability field. This is the "near location" of it. Imagine a field that decreases in strenght to the exterior but never ends. It is less likly to be found farther away, but possible. Now imagine two probabilty fields. They would overlap as both are endless. The interesting thing is that their added probabilities for the location of a mass is larger in between the two than outside. So when they move, and they do allways, itll rather be in the direction of the other.

[unpossible]

Another thing:

I thought about gravity and came to the following conclusion: Because of gravity being the weakest of the 4 fundamental forces and it reaching indefinatly it must be related to probability. Every mass attracts every other mass. One can either tell where a quantum particle is or how much energy it holds. Such a small mass has a probability field. This is the "near location" of it. Imagine a field that decreases in strenght to the exterior but never ends. It is less likly to be found farther away, but possible. Now imagine two probabilty fields. They would overlap as both are endless. The interesting thing is that their added probabilities for the location of a mass is larger in between the two than outside. So when they move, and they do allways, itll rather be in the direction of the other.

i suggest you ask the ninja

[AF]

Sabutai have you read up?

One cant go back in time because space, mass and energy just dont behave like that.

Einstein himself said time travel backwards in tiem is possible and that everyday trillions upon trillions of aprticles go backward sint ime, infact some particles travel backwards in tim in the way we travel forwards, and from their perspective ti is us who're travelling backwards. Look at the diagrams with 1 dimension in one axis and time in another and you'll see what i mean.


It was also noted that if you took the mass of the sun, palced it into the shape of a hollow cylinder 2 miles long, and rotated it at a metre a second ro faster, then to the occupants of the innards of the cylinder , the outside world would be moving backwards. Of course that's silyl as it'd require allsorts of improbably thigns, like howto keep the cylidner shape or even creat eit or prevent yourself being torn apart by gravity.


Now for your second bit.

Gravity isnt really a force int eh way you describe it. Gravity on earth is nto because the earth exerts a gravitational force, instead think of ti as the curvature of space time caused by the mass and movement of the earth, and you moving because the space time you occupy is warped as a result, causing you to move, in this case towards the centre of the earth. This was proven recently by NASA who sent a satelite itno sapce to prove that the earth drags space around ti as ti spins. NASA palced 2 lead spheres in a weightless environment with no atmosphere, and if einstein was right over tiem the 2 balls should distance themselves from eachother,a dn they did.

However gravity has a lot more to it than just what i said. You'll have to ask colorblind for more specific things, like stuff about gravitons etc...

[Sabutai]

Einstein himself said time travel backwards in tiem is possible

He was wrong. Read Stephen Hawkings "A Brief History Of Time".

Of course that's silyl as it'd require allsorts of improbably thigns

You are right. This just doesnt happen. Moving back in time means undoing what is done. You may move back particles but timetravel is impossible.

And of course gravity is a difficult subject.

instead think of ti as the curvature of space time caused by the mass and movement of the earth

And how is this curvature created? It only becomes visible if something transverses this "curvature". It is an interaction between billions of particles, earth, and let's say light. The light is attracted and it seems as if space was deformed. The larger the mass the greater the "pull". Atoms are affected aswell. Each particle "has" its own time. Time flows slower because of the mass influencing it. Space is no object or anything alike. Space is not made up of particles! It has no form and can't really be warped. No crunshing of space, no whirling of it and no holes can be poked into space. "Nothing" can't be punched.

This was proven recently by NASA who sent a satelite itno sapce to prove that the earth drags space around ti as ti spins. NASA palced 2 lead spheres in a weightless environment with no atmosphere, and if einstein was right over tiem the 2 balls should distance themselves from eachother,a dn they did.

This doesnt contradict my theory. They are still in earths gravitational field. They semselves have only a minor field and don't affect eachother to much.

So why is gravitation so weak and why does it reach so far? The probability is so low and there's allways a chance for it to happen, anywhere.

[AF]

In that case reading stephen hawkings book, which was written for the public, should take priority over principles of general and special relativity?

Many of the things we see today would not be possible if moving backwards through time was impossible.

Also space can be curved, warped, stretched, distorted by objects of mass, essentially the effects of gravity you feel are a direct result of that distortion, have you not seen how you can see behidn the sun slightly because of the gravitational afefct on the space acting like a lense and bending light that passes near?

Can you not see how space being distorted like that is a far easier and much mroe elegant solution than a grviational field in the classic sense of electromagnetic fields?

If you're correct then I will say the same of heat, I'll dictate that there are heat potential fields and that heat is just as fundamental a force as say the strong nuclear or electromagnetic.....

[Sabutai]

In that case reading stephen hawkings book, which was written for the public, should take priority over principles of general and special relativity?

LOL ignore him then...

Also space can be curved, warped, stretched, distorted by objects of mass, essentially the effects of gravity you feel are a direct result of that distortion,

I don't agree. In my oppinion we aren't pulled towards earth center beacuse of the warping of space. How can warped space force me toward earths center? How can space have any influence on objects?

how you can see behidn the sun slightly because of the gravitational afefct on the space acting like a lense and bending light that passes near?

Yes, the lightbeam is bended.

Can you not see how space being distorted like that is a far easier and much mroe elegant solution than a grviational field in the classic sense of electromagnetic fields?

I am talking about potentials and probabilties. I am sorry to have used the word field. That's not what i meant. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Potential

If you're correct then I will say the same of heat, I'll dictate that there are heat potential fields and that heat is just as fundamental a force as say the strong nuclear or electromagnetic.....

Heat is energy. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heat

[AF]

heat is not a fundamental force tho.

Lets say you're a small teddy bear on a sheet of paper.

The sheet of paper represents the space you occupy.

Lets say my hand is a big object.

My hand has more mass and thus draws the space towards it, represented by my hand pulling the paper. Look how the teddy bear moves with the paper! Thus the teddy bear is falling towards my hand!

Try using the analogy einstein used with the rubber sheet and the marbles. the marbles move towards the dip because of the distorted rubber sheet, thus the space it occupies is distorted which causes movement.

Using your theory, explain gravitational lenses, explain the results of the nasa experiments using the satellites, designed specifically to proove einstein correct whose results seem to confirm so.....

[SwiftSpear]

In that case reading stephen hawkings book, which was written for the public, should take priority over principles of general and special relativity?

Good lord man, were you born in a bubble? Hawkins wrote up many many papers before there were ever books. Both special and general relitivity have also been proved wrong (not wrong in the totalitarian sense, but wrong in the same way that newton's theory's were proved wrong by Einstein: proved to be innaccurate in some circumstances)

Einstein's theories really don't work at all on the quantum level, hence the need for string theory.

------

If we go to the marble theory Einstein proposed the force of gravity is not the warping of space but some sort of slide or roll action on a 4th dimention that we don't know much about. The marbles on rubber takes place in a 2 dimentional test feild, and we get force when we take into account a third dimention. Hence if we expound the scenario to 3 dimentional space mass causes us to roll or slide towards a heavy object on 3 dimentional space because in 4 dimentional space that object is exerting a displacement effect on space in both the third and 4th dimentions. Gravity is the slide along the 4th dimention, not the warp caused in the third dimention according to Einstein...

--------

Where did heat get brought into this? Heat is a property of matter that causes changes in the way it behaves on an atomic level. As far as I know heat works the way it does because of a large number of interactions and and reactions by various fundimental forces. I don't think heat can be thought of as the same thing as a fundimental force, but at the same time it can really never be discluded.

Fundimental forces are to small partical physics the same thing capabilities are to a car. A car can turn, a car can accellerate, a car can break, fundimental forces define the forces molecules exert on eachother, or in other words, thier capabilites. Heat is not an action, heat is a property. Heat to our car is either how much gas is in it or how fast it's going, depending how we're thinking about heat. The fundimental forces are constant retained capabilites for each atom model, heat is a variable property.

The fundimental forces are not energy, heat is energy.

[unpossible]

heat is nothing, a made up word, just like nice. energy is real. heat is relative...normally associated with the kinetic/themral energy of systems but only really makes sense when you're talking about large numbers of atoms/particles so you can have pressures and temperatures defined.

[AF]

The fundamental force known as heat as fundamental as the strong nuclear was discovered by "sarcastic AF", when "sarcastic AF" discovered the "sarcastic fundamental heat", he used is to confabulate sabutai.

As far as I was aware from everythign I've read what i said was what i knew, however i had not known the specifics or further theory of string theory adn so on, so if you'd link to point me further on I'd be happy to read and learn ^_^.

I take ti I was correct that space can be distorted then? Just that that isnt the major cause of gravity, though those nasa satellites suggested it could cause movements, I guess it isnt enough to pull me downwards at 9.8ms^-2. Anyways thats the view I was told to accept while reading quantum mechanics books that covered relativity and quantum mechanics, upto quantum probability where ti explained schroidingers cat, and the everret vs copenhagen interpretations (the cat is in all states untill observed versus there are multiple universes for each state the cat is in and the outcome of your observation determines which universe you're in)

[SwiftSpear]

"String theory" isn't very describable with my background on physics. Mathimatically quantum mechanics and Einsteins relitivity theories just don't work together. In relitivity if you want to know where something is going to be next you put in numbers and you get a result, in quantum mechanics you never get a result, you just get a probability. The two theories innately don't work. If you use relitivity for quantum problems you will simply end up wrong, if you use quantum mechanics for relitivity problems you end up beliving that your object will most likely be in the right place unless it magically dissappears before that point in time.

String theory is supposed to bridge that gap, but I have yet to see any feasable math ever come out of it that didn't contain arbitrary values, and from a theoretical standpoint, because of those arbitrary values it just can never be proven. I wouldn't know where to start to try do describe it in plain english, wikipedia would probably be better then I could be. It has something to do with strings intersecting our plane of being from another dimention (or 20?) and the resonating frequencies of those strings doing... something or other... There in lies the problem, without a mathimatical definition the concept is very difficult to intellectualize logically, and there is no mathimatical definition because they all have at least 1 arbitrary value.

[Soulless1]

Well AFAIK the very basics are that most string theories have something do to with vibrating standing waves on multi-dimensional strings - with the nature of the vibrations affecting the way we perceive things in our 3 dimensions. Since we can't see the extra dimensions (either because they are curled up too small or because we just can't interact with them at all) we only see part of the picture.

People say how string theory having 11 (for most versions) dimensions is weird, but surely even general relativity requires at least 1 additional spacial dimension; since all 4 known dimensions are 'bent' by acceleration, there has to be a direction for them to bend *into*...

[Drone_Fragger]

So.. Are you saying this would effectively increase the speed of light around the craft?

[Maelstrom]

They said that a few posts ago. Now they are arguing ove how many dimentions String Theory uses. Off topic FTW!

[SwiftSpear]

They said that a few posts ago. Now they are arguing ove how many dimentions String Theory uses. Off topic FTW!

It's sortof relevent. The model proposed by the paper here is valid to einsteinian physics models, but people brought up that it likely doesn't work at a quantum level. Therefore a discussion about the difference between quantum physics and einsteinian physics is to the point, and string theory is the culmination of that discussion.

Soulless: the real problem with string theory is that there are working mathimatical models for many many different numbers of dimentions. The dimentional number seems very abitrarily decided. You can argue that "most people think it's 11 dimentions" but that's really not how physics works. Most people don't say that earths gravity pulls objects at aproximately 9.8 meters per second accelleration, it either does or it doesn't. The math is either right or wrong, it can't be probably right for physics.

[Soulless1]

Soulless: the real problem with string theory is that there are working mathimatical models for many many different numbers of dimentions. The dimentional number seems very abitrarily decided. You can argue that "most people think it's 11 dimentions" but that's really not how physics works. Most people don't say that earths gravity pulls objects at aproximately 9.8 meters per second accelleration, it either does or it doesn't. The math is either right or wrong, it can't be probably right for physics.

Yes I realise there are lots of different models using varied numbers of dimensions and different maths. I also know that none of them can be proven (or really disproven) at the moment so it doesn't really matter which you look at. I was just saying that many of the models out there use the number 11