The future is impossible
-
Under what gravity?
I wanna be a eunuchs developer! Pass me a bread knife!
What is gravity? The whole thing about not traveling faster than the speed of light is special relativity which is consistent from cosmological scales down to the quantum. Gravity bending spacetime and thus light was general relativity and falls apart at quantum levels. It's one of the least understood things in physics.
-
What kind of vacuum? No real vacuum has been actually observed, only approximations of it.
CALL APOGEE, SAY AARDWOLF GCS d--- s-/++ a- C++++ U+++ P- L- E-- W++ N++ o+ K- w+++ O? M-- V? PS+ PE- Y+ PGP t++ 5? X R++ tv-- b+ DI+++ D++ G e++>+++ h--- ++>+++ y+++* Weapons extension: ma- k++ F+2 X Never pay more than 20 bucks for a computer game. I'm a puny punmaker.
-
Johnny J. wrote:
It isn't?
Only in Alabama.
Johnny J. wrote:
They aren't?
See above.
Bad command or file name. Bad, bad command! Sit! Stay! Staaaay...
-
According to Wikipedia: An event horizon is the points at which the gravitational pull becomes so great as to make escape impossible, even for light. Light emitted from inside the event horizon can never reach the outside observer. So if black holes are believed to emit things, how would that work at slower than light speeds? Unless of course the emission never escapes the event horizon and it all happens within that shell.
Bassam Abdul-Baki wrote:
According to Wikipedia: An event horizon is the points at which the gravitational pull becomes so great as to make escape impossible, even for light. Light emitted from inside the event horizon can never reach the outside observer. So if black holes are believed to emit things, how would that work at slower than light speeds? Unless of course the emission never escapes the event horizon and it all happens within that shell.
If nothing can escape a black hole, why do they still emit x-rays?[^]
Bastard Programmer from Hell :suss: If you can't read my code, try converting it here[^][](X-Clacks-Overhead: GNU Terry Pratchett)
-
Bassam Abdul-Baki wrote:
According to Wikipedia: An event horizon is the points at which the gravitational pull becomes so great as to make escape impossible, even for light. Light emitted from inside the event horizon can never reach the outside observer. So if black holes are believed to emit things, how would that work at slower than light speeds? Unless of course the emission never escapes the event horizon and it all happens within that shell.
If nothing can escape a black hole, why do they still emit x-rays?[^]
Bastard Programmer from Hell :suss: If you can't read my code, try converting it here[^][](X-Clacks-Overhead: GNU Terry Pratchett)
-
No. It was known that people used to think the Earth was flat. Indeed Eratosthenes calculated the Earth's circumference more than 2000 years ago. At least the Greeks had drawn their conclusions from ships apparently disappearing behind the horizon and trying to measure and calculate the circumference would have been kindof pointless if they still had thought the Earth to be flat.
The language is JavaScript. that of Mordor, which I will not utter here
This is Javascript. If you put big wheels and a racing stripe on a golf cart, it's still a fucking golf cart.
"I don't know, extraterrestrial?" "You mean like from space?" "No, from Canada." If software development were a circus, we would all be the clowns. -
-
Eddy Vluggen wrote:
The speed of light is a known physical limit of the universe.
Quote:
"based on current technology and science knowledge I have".
:-D
There are two kinds of people in the world: those who can extrapolate from incomplete data. There are only 10 types of people in the world, those who understand binary and those who don't.
-
No. It was known that people used to think the Earth was flat. Indeed Eratosthenes calculated the Earth's circumference more than 2000 years ago. At least the Greeks had drawn their conclusions from ships apparently disappearing behind the horizon and trying to measure and calculate the circumference would have been kindof pointless if they still had thought the Earth to be flat.
The language is JavaScript. that of Mordor, which I will not utter here
This is Javascript. If you put big wheels and a racing stripe on a golf cart, it's still a fucking golf cart.
"I don't know, extraterrestrial?" "You mean like from space?" "No, from Canada." If software development were a circus, we would all be the clowns.It was one of the early forms of DoubleThink. You had to believe and say that the Earth was flat as that was part of the one true infallible word of the State Religion. But you would also know that it was incorrect. See also 'The Emperors new clothes'.
-
Ygnaiih wrote:
I would be afraid to say any technological advance is impossible.
The speed of light is a known physical limit of the universe. It has little to do with what we can invent, and more with the limits that exisist in the universe.
Bastard Programmer from Hell :suss: If you can't read my code, try converting it here[^][](X-Clacks-Overhead: GNU Terry Pratchett)
I think you are missing the point. There are particles that travel faster than light. I believe we will be able to develop a warp drive. Where we either travel using another dimension, or we effectively fold space. It reminds me of a sci fi story where Battlestar Galactica Meet Star Trek. They were discussing how fast they travel. ST guys were "Oh, we top out at Warp 9". The BSG guys are like "No way. Faster than light? We can only do X speed". And ST laughs... Then they realize how far they traveled... And BSG asks "Oh, you are measuring your speed OUTSIDE of the warp field". Turns out BSG travels much faster. LOL The point being is that our limitations are based on our understanding. As programmers, we do this stuff all the time. Add a level of indirection or abstraction to get what we need. There was a show with Dynamic Window Tinting in the 1980s. My friends and I marveled and realized it was IMPOSSIBLE to tint glass on the fly, and let it untint. USING LCD crystals between the glass, it is available and has been for a while. THAT is when I learned. Guessing it is not possible is never a good guess. We are 3-D printing skin graphs, and soon ORGANS. We have amputees that can run faster than able bodied humans. We will eventually travel faster than light. At least relative to our current geometry.
-
I think you are missing the point. There are particles that travel faster than light. I believe we will be able to develop a warp drive. Where we either travel using another dimension, or we effectively fold space. It reminds me of a sci fi story where Battlestar Galactica Meet Star Trek. They were discussing how fast they travel. ST guys were "Oh, we top out at Warp 9". The BSG guys are like "No way. Faster than light? We can only do X speed". And ST laughs... Then they realize how far they traveled... And BSG asks "Oh, you are measuring your speed OUTSIDE of the warp field". Turns out BSG travels much faster. LOL The point being is that our limitations are based on our understanding. As programmers, we do this stuff all the time. Add a level of indirection or abstraction to get what we need. There was a show with Dynamic Window Tinting in the 1980s. My friends and I marveled and realized it was IMPOSSIBLE to tint glass on the fly, and let it untint. USING LCD crystals between the glass, it is available and has been for a while. THAT is when I learned. Guessing it is not possible is never a good guess. We are 3-D printing skin graphs, and soon ORGANS. We have amputees that can run faster than able bodied humans. We will eventually travel faster than light. At least relative to our current geometry.
Kirk 10389821 wrote:
There are particles that travel faster than light.
Last time I checked, there was no single particle universe faster than light.
Kirk 10389821 wrote:
I believe we will be able to develop a warp drive. Where we either travel using another dimension, or we effectively fold space.
That is correct; you are believing, which belongs to the realm of religion.
Kirk 10389821 wrote:
We will eventually travel faster than light.
Nothing that mass has will.
Kirk 10389821 wrote:
We have amputees that can run faster than able bodied humans.
Yes, but that does not mean that we will land on the sun, simply because "we have invented a lot". There are limits to what we can do, also in the future.
Bastard Programmer from Hell :suss: If you can't read my code, try converting it here[^][](X-Clacks-Overhead: GNU Terry Pratchett)
-
Lately I am seeing articles from Futurist who say that this or that is impossible. A good example would be faster than light speed travel. I'm old. I've seen everything from floor model radios to 98 inch flat screen TVs with Netflix etc. I would be afraid to say any technological advance is impossible.
Leadership equals wrecked ship. If you think you are leading my look behind you. You are alone. If you think I am leading you, You are lost.
-
Lately I am seeing articles from Futurist who say that this or that is impossible. A good example would be faster than light speed travel. I'm old. I've seen everything from floor model radios to 98 inch flat screen TVs with Netflix etc. I would be afraid to say any technological advance is impossible.
Leadership equals wrecked ship. If you think you are leading my look behind you. You are alone. If you think I am leading you, You are lost.
I'm so sad that the world is a mundane place, free of swashbuckling space pirates and magic wands. I've even apologized to my children that our world is so boring. Will we make significant strides in all branches of natural science? Sure, you betcha. Will we discover new physical laws that make miraculous new things possible in shirtsleeve environments? Kinda doubt it. Will we discover new chemical elements dilithium, unobtanium, and adamantium*, with miraculous properties? Not in this part of the universe. Will we explore the planets and maybe even the stars? I don't doubt it. Will we get there at Warp 8? Don't be silly. The really annoying thing about scientific progress is that it doesn't just tell us what is possible. It also tells us what is not possible. *What does it mean that my spelling checker doesn't mark dilithium, unobtanium, and adamantium as unknown words?
-
Let me see if I can explain this little theory I've been mulling over in my head since back when I was taking physics at my local university. First, I will start with your statement
Eddy Vluggen wrote:
come up with a theory where light goes faster
One of the central tenants of my idea is not to find examples of light deviating from it's set speed but to answer why does it always want move at that speed. What is it about the constant that makes it this way not just for light but all energy. So I started pondering the meaning of Einstein's famous equation and it's implications. e = mc2 implies that energy is a function of an interaction between mass and the constant. It implies that energy is irrelevant and only mass and C matter. Most of the widely accepted theories are rooted in this. If we switch things up, the equation takes on a whole new meaning. m = e/c2 implies that mass is a function of an interaction between energy and the constant. It implies that mass is irrelevant on only energy and C matter. More to the point, since energy is in a constant state of acceleration, the mass of a particle is a direct result of energy shedding velocity due to the C. The caveat is that if we could figure out what the universal principal is that causes all energy to shed velocity to make mass, we could figure out how to negate it, thus making faster-than-light travel possible. I may be off my marks but I've asked several physicists about this without a straight answer; even emails to NASA and FermiLab got me nowhere. The answer was always make up a mathematical model and prove it. It's the same exact model they have now just a different way of looking at it. Never did get anywhere with it so far. The only nice thing is that it offers an explanation for electron quantum jumping. I've got theories on gravity too but I can never get any help from physicists on that one either. Not even a suggestion on where to start.
if (Object.DividedByZero == true) { Universe.Implode(); } Meus ratio ex fortis machina. Simplicitatis de formae ac munus. -Foothill, 2016
The longer one practices physics, the more entrenched prevailing thought becomes. The "trap" of science is that eventually it becomes its very antithesis: a religion, one based upon perceived facts. The word "perceived" escapes notice, however, and the physicists become the acolytes of the "church" of science. Those acolytes then defend their religion to the death. Your new idea is heresy.
-
Lately I am seeing articles from Futurist who say that this or that is impossible. A good example would be faster than light speed travel. I'm old. I've seen everything from floor model radios to 98 inch flat screen TVs with Netflix etc. I would be afraid to say any technological advance is impossible.
Leadership equals wrecked ship. If you think you are leading my look behind you. You are alone. If you think I am leading you, You are lost.
Given enough time, the probability of any event occurring increases; and quantum mechanics is all about probabilities. One (current) theory is that the speed of light is not a constant; and that it was "faster" at the "beginning of time" (Big Bang) in order to balance Einstein's mass / energy equation when all there was was "energy". Does particle entanglement operate at the speed of light? Or is it "instantaneous"? Should be able to prove that at some point.
"(I) am amazed to see myself here rather than there ... now rather than then". ― Blaise Pascal
-
The longer one practices physics, the more entrenched prevailing thought becomes. The "trap" of science is that eventually it becomes its very antithesis: a religion, one based upon perceived facts. The word "perceived" escapes notice, however, and the physicists become the acolytes of the "church" of science. Those acolytes then defend their religion to the death. Your new idea is heresy.
It seems that perception is the key thought there. As I read about special and general relativity, one point was clear: everything you measure is based on your frame of reference. It seems like a lot of scientists took that and ran with it while they forgot that perception makes the measurement and not the other way around.
if (Object.DividedByZero == true) { Universe.Implode(); } Meus ratio ex fortis machina. Simplicitatis de formae ac munus. -Foothill, 2016
-
OriginalGriff wrote:
Only in Alabama.
By my experience, the heads are totally flat in Alabama, not the Earth.
The language is JavaScript. that of Mordor, which I will not utter here
This is Javascript. If you put big wheels and a racing stripe on a golf cart, it's still a fucking golf cart.
"I don't know, extraterrestrial?" "You mean like from space?" "No, from Canada." If software development were a circus, we would all be the clowns.Flatheads were mostly produced in Michigan by the auto makers and they were a popular design for their ease of maintenance.
-
Lately I am seeing articles from Futurist who say that this or that is impossible. A good example would be faster than light speed travel. I'm old. I've seen everything from floor model radios to 98 inch flat screen TVs with Netflix etc. I would be afraid to say any technological advance is impossible.
Leadership equals wrecked ship. If you think you are leading my look behind you. You are alone. If you think I am leading you, You are lost.
I just read the entire thread and what keeps coming back to me is this one fact that flaws most of the argument that is present here. That is that the basis of measurement used for calculating what may or may not be faster than light is in fact light itself. Anything that is faster than light we don't have a reliable means of measurement of to determine its movement if indeed it were passing through space at a rate greater than the speed greater than the speed of light. Perhaps the speed of dark is many times faster than the speed of light? We would never know because we would never have a way of determining that or if there were such a thing with the current state of our knowledge and technology. I'm never willing to say what we can't do or technology wise, short of those things that I consider the providence of God Himself. He's crafted us as wonderfully creative beings and their are very few limits to what we are capable of building or discovering.
-
Let me see if I can explain this little theory I've been mulling over in my head since back when I was taking physics at my local university. First, I will start with your statement
Eddy Vluggen wrote:
come up with a theory where light goes faster
One of the central tenants of my idea is not to find examples of light deviating from it's set speed but to answer why does it always want move at that speed. What is it about the constant that makes it this way not just for light but all energy. So I started pondering the meaning of Einstein's famous equation and it's implications. e = mc2 implies that energy is a function of an interaction between mass and the constant. It implies that energy is irrelevant and only mass and C matter. Most of the widely accepted theories are rooted in this. If we switch things up, the equation takes on a whole new meaning. m = e/c2 implies that mass is a function of an interaction between energy and the constant. It implies that mass is irrelevant on only energy and C matter. More to the point, since energy is in a constant state of acceleration, the mass of a particle is a direct result of energy shedding velocity due to the C. The caveat is that if we could figure out what the universal principal is that causes all energy to shed velocity to make mass, we could figure out how to negate it, thus making faster-than-light travel possible. I may be off my marks but I've asked several physicists about this without a straight answer; even emails to NASA and FermiLab got me nowhere. The answer was always make up a mathematical model and prove it. It's the same exact model they have now just a different way of looking at it. Never did get anywhere with it so far. The only nice thing is that it offers an explanation for electron quantum jumping. I've got theories on gravity too but I can never get any help from physicists on that one either. Not even a suggestion on where to start.
if (Object.DividedByZero == true) { Universe.Implode(); } Meus ratio ex fortis machina. Simplicitatis de formae ac munus. -Foothill, 2016
Sorry for the late response, but I'm still digesting your post :)
Foothill wrote:
One of the central tenants of my idea is not to find examples of light deviating from it's set speed but to answer why does it always want move at that speed.
If I learnt anything from programming is that all constants*) are variables. If C holds, then faster-than-light travelling would equal time-travelling.
Foothill wrote:
It implies that mass is irrelevant on only energy and C matter. More to the point, since energy is in a constant state of acceleration, the mass of a particle is a direct result of energy shedding velocity due to the C. The caveat is that if we could figure out what the universal principal is that causes all energy to shed velocity to make mass, we could figure out how to negate it, thus making faster-than-light travel possible.
Shedding velocity, or lacking velocity? And if you can vary the C, does that make faster-than-light travelling possible, or does it change the point at which energy 'solidifies' into mass?
Foothill wrote:
I may be off my marks but I've asked several physicists about this without a straight answer; even emails to NASA and FermiLab got me nowhere.
I'm just a programmer, never been to a university. From what I know, if some professional can give you a good explanation, they're usually rather fond of giving it. This forum is built on that premise :)
Foothill wrote:
It's the same exact model they have now just a different way of looking at it.
Doesn't mass come from the God-particle? I remember some 'yo mama so fat' yokes about it :rolleyes:
Foothill wrote:
Never did get anywhere with it so far. The only nice thing is that it offers an explanation for electron quantum jumping. I've got theories on gravity too but I can never get any help from physicists on that one either. Not even a suggestion on where to start.
Not a suggestion, but a request - jot it all down. Notes are better than nothing (which means loosing the train of thought), and notes become scripts after some time. First thing to do with an idea is to capture it on paper, so it can be transmitted and multiplied. If you can explain it in simpeler terms than academic speech then you'd have me as additional aud
-
den2k88 wrote:
Bloodlettings were known to be healthy...
Yes, but that was before we found the limit of our universe. Nowadays you'd need to be very convincing and stuff. It is also not limited to what we know, but what we can observe - has there ever been a particle observed that moved faster?
Bastard Programmer from Hell :suss: If you can't read my code, try converting it here[^][](X-Clacks-Overhead: GNU Terry Pratchett)
Heh. I'll cheat here. Some particles can travel faster than light, under centain conditions (see cherenkov radiation - Wikipedia[^]). I believe the limit we are all talking about here, is the speed of light in vacuo. Supposedly, the speed of light in vacuo is the fastest speed any information can travel. However that too has been debunked under certain conditions (EPR paradox - Wikipedia[^]). We've yet to observe any tachyons, that's true. But we'd yet to observe any gravitational waves up to last year as well (and we did). And the theory we have describing the world around us is just that: a theory. When it stops corresponding to reality, we don't (shouldn't, at least) try to change reality, we change (should, at least) the theory. The same way that the theory of relativity and it's imposed limit that no massive object can travel faster than the speed of light in vacuo, was a better approximation of Newtonian physics in the limit of very large speeds (i.e. it described phenomena that Newtonian physics couldn't), there may be some other theory that describes some exotic (yet unobserved) phenomena that occur in extremely large speeds, and where the limit of the speed of light is no longer applicable (though I can't think of any phenomenon that this has been observed so far) and that degenerates to relativistic theory for large speeds and to Newtonian theory for small speeds. Physics was in a similar position at the turn of the 20th century - there were just a handful of phenomena that had yet to be interpreted adequately by classical physics - one of them was the photoelectric phenomenon, and another one was the linear emission spectrum of gases. Yet these two gave birth to quantum physics, and a whole lot of new areas of research for more than a century. Relativity theory still has a few things not very well defined (naked singularities comes to mind). And the universe is a very big place, so we can't really say we have looked everywhere and there's nothing more to observe. I, for one, believe that we are still in for quite a few surprises in terms of exotic physical phenomena in the future.
Φευ! Εδόμεθ
