Test Question: What is faster than the speed of light, anything?

We could similarly also say that photons move at an indefinite velocity through a vacuum, but only propagate at the speed of light. The vacuum is not empty, you know. There have been some calculations attempting to quantify the vacuum energy, and one thing is certain that the energy density is far greater than common matter.

 

Expecting anyone to comprehend advanced Physics outside a lab...does not further debate in an internet forum.
It is admirable that you have a grasp on such issues...PM me if you will, but few here will get it, and it is now understood you are more informed than most...you rock!

 

I think a link would be useful, so that a curious bystander might understand what you're talking about. How is the vacuum defined? How is vacuum energy defined? How is energy density defined. What does "common matter" refer to?

 

Why'd they call it a millenium falcon? It looks nothing like a falcon. It looks like a clam. It should be the millenium clam.

 

The best way to explain this is.. Nothing is traveling through space. There's no such thing as space.

Everything is traveling through "space/time".. And everything travels through space time at the exact same speed.. That's you, me, this planet, and a photon. We all go the same speed. (c).

 

Not in a black hole... time slows.

And it is a falcon, because it is a fast bird of prey.

 

Time?

I was talking about movement through "space/time".. Do you mean to say that movement through space/time goes at a rate other than C in a black hole?

 

I thought one would not really say that light travels more slowly in water, but that it travels FURTHER in water. The funny spoon in the water trick is because it is bouncing off of all of the molecules in the water. Not that light has really slowed down.

 

That is quite deep. I think that the point is that it's just something that coincides within the dimensions, or in loose scientific terms, a function of space-time. Are you asserting that you agree with Einsteins view, or disagree with that which would also infer what? Are there 4 dimensions ? etc. ? I'm not fully grasping your point.

 

What the Hell is an Aluminum Falcon??? - Robot Chicken
http://www.snorgtees.com/aluminum-falcon

 

A couple of my exe's easily fit that mold so no points.. lol

 

A black hole is an impossible concentration of matter. It is the reverse of the Big Bang, which was an eruption out of the 4th spatial dimension. So the matter that overfills the black hole goes back to the 4th dimension.

 

The quantum leap proves that there is a fourth spatial dimension. Going from A to B without going through the space between A and B is displacement without motion, which is impossible within 3 dimensions. So there must be a fourth dimension of space.

This is obvious if you consider a quantum leap in 2 dimensions. Take the virtual 2 dimensional surface of the ocean. A submarine appears at A, then later at B, without ever appearing in between. That is because it dives into the next dimension at A and re-surfaces at B. Other phenomena discovered in the 20th Century are also impossible without a fourth spatial dimension. The fact that post-classicists are so authoritarian ought to make a thinking person suspect that they are wrong. Heisenberg, one of the heroes of the postclassical cult, became a Nazi. Post-clacks all squirm and dance trying to explain that this fact has nothing to do with the kind of science they practice.

Nothing can get back before it leaves--there's no dimension of time, so there's no locus in time for it to return to. If it exceeds the speed of light, it goes into 4D, where the maximum velocity is much higher; it is 6 light years a second. It has to get back from 4D after it leaves. The reason it ages more slowly is that is subject to different physical laws while it is in 4D. Compare it to "How long does it take food to rot?" If it is put in a refrigerator (= 4D), its rotting, which is equivalent to aging, slows down just like aging does at high velocities. Being at near light speeds will cause an object to go in and out of 4D. Having a high energy state will also do that.

 

The fourth dimension is time/space.

People who speak in absolutes about theoretical physics should never be trusted.

 

note to my fellow forum members; I would guess my opinion has already been said reviewed and bashed around but sorry I can not read near 700 replies… lol...eh?

Well, IMO, nothing is FTL, nothing that has mass and exists in ordinary space. There are things that would seem to be faster than light like the inflation of the universe in its early stages or if space could be warped or folded to an observer an astronaut passing through a shortcut in folded space would appear to be extraluminal (generally speaking its geek talk for faster than light). That said nothing that has mass in ordinary spacetime (the local temporal universe or space) can exceed the speed of light.

reva

 

I don't agree. When veiwing stars or as in your example two galaxies you are looking at two light sources that have already arrived here after travling many light years. Also it seems you are confusing prespective etc with acual travel. Nothing 'travles' (moves) from one star or galaxey when you shift your vision from one to another. Its the same thing as looking at one hand then the other. I will say that the member that mentioned quntaum entanglment or spookey action at a distance may one day be proven or used to telapored things with mass (instead of masless information) instantaneously over even a billion light years, but that technology is more than likely many millions of moons in the future.

 

Sigh. I said nothing about actual travel. I said the locus of your attention moved. This is not a material object, and suffers no speed limit.

The point in space you are looking at moves from one star to another. You are confusing movement with travel.

Again, I will mention the point where scissor blades meet, and therefore where the cutting is done. Take two very long blades and imagine they are like scissors. That "cutting point" can easily move faster than light. Notice that neither blade is doing so, no particles of any kind are doing so. Only the point where cutting occurs is moving at that speed.

Whether you wish to consider the change in location of that point as "travel" is up to you, but I think it clouds the issue. That definable location is moving faster than light. When you sweep your view across the sky, the point you are viewing moves far faster than light. If you want to call this "perspective", I don't mind. It is a "thing", we use it, we have a word for it, and it can exceed the speed of light.

 

But it's not. Your eyes move and the photons hit your eyes. You are not actually seeing anything beyond your retina.

 

But I wasn't talking about photons. I was talking (over and over and over and over and over and over, but it never penetrates) about a hypothetical point in space. And that point can move as fast as our imaginations can think of it moving.

Did you understand the illustration with the scissors? Did you understand what was moving? Did you understand that what was moving had NO particles, it was merely the description of a point.

 

Maybe it'd penetrate if you weren't wrong?

 

You almost have it. If it DID penetrate, you'd understand. So that's why I asked if you understood the point about the scissors, and could answer the question about what exactly is moving when the cutting point moves. And if you had understood, you could have answered the question. If you had even TRIED to answer the question, you might have understood as well. But I realize that accusing others of being wrong is a lot easier than thinking for yourself.

 

Your imagination doesn't go anywhere. It's all in your head. It doesn't go faster than light. It all goes very much subrelativisitic speeds. Measured in just dozens of metres per second. Try again.

 

Not only are nerve impulses sub-relativistic they are subsonic (slower than sound which is around 700+ mph at sea level. The speed of sound varies depending on altitude, because the air pressure effects the sound wave progress. I was surprised when I first learned how slow nerve impulses were! They can move at speeds as high as 330 feet per sec (in myelinated fibers) to as slow as two miles per hour. The figures I quote should be fairly accurate but not 100% exact by any means. Lets say my error should not be more than + or - 10% lol. That is unless my sub-geezer memory and 90’s vintage education is faulty! Still the velocity of the fastest nerve singles are snail slow compared to the speed of light the ie; 0.9 - 89.41 m/s.

reva

 

I might have a soultion if we can do thought experiments as Einestine called them. In theory, rather in thought experiment I can think of something that could go faster than light. What about two parallel ’poles’ that are infinitely rigid of an infinitely stable mass (can not gain or lose mass) and infinite hardness. The poles are a half meter apart, the diameter being small enough to hold in each hand of an infinitely strong man. Lets say the length of the poles are hundreds or thousands of light years long. Ok, we are ready for a corny solution for an object(s) that would exceed light speed. We request the strong man to move the poles apart, one in one direction the other in the other direction. The tips of the poles would exceed light speed immediately, if the poles were not of stable mass the mass would increase as the ends approached light speed. Hey come to think of it only one pole would be needed! I was thinking of the bit about light speed being relative to an observer I believe it would work either way wouldn’t they or it?


reva

 

I asked about the scissors. Twice. You have ignored this both times. I'm not surprised, of course.