FTL & Special Relativity

[master_q 0]

thxs 4 replay u truly are the data of these forum

ok how about this question u know when your in a plane or train that travels say 400mph and your walk up or down the plane or train (inside of course  ) at say 1mph u are actually travelling at 401mph and this way it is alot easily to travel at 401mph then to get out and run, now using this theory couldn't we adopt the same kind of method for space travel? (or cheating 2 get to light speed using a hell of a lot ships in ships)

 

...........................maybe i just being stupid again

--- Howling Mad Murdock

 

 

{NOTE: Because we are really now getting off of the topic of time travel and more into a topic of “FTL” I’m going to make a new topic about this and address this here.}

 

 

Unfortunately not . . . . .

 

It would not work

 

I can see your logic and in fact Galileo first developed the idea of a person being relative to a specific system. For example if I’m on the plane I’m relevant to that system. When I walk on the earth I am relevant to that system. And so on.

 

Galileo developed the equation v’=v+u (I’m posting this because it is an easy equation)

Let’s use your example . . . . .

I’m in a plane traveling at 400 mph and I appear to be walking 1 mph in my frame of reference. However, as you know I’m relevant to my system and from someone else’s frame of reference on earth I don’t appear to be traveling 1 mph, but I appear to be traveling 401 mph.

v’ = v + u

Where v’ is velocity prime (the velocity from an outside frame of reference that is relevant to its system)

v is velocity from my frame of reference in the plane

u is the velocity of the system that I am on (the plane’s speed)

v’ = v + u

v’ = 1 mph + 400 mph

v’ = 401 mph

 

Now that logic (and the equation) is ok. They usually will give you no problems, but yet again when we deal with speeds close to the speed of light, then we are talking about a whole different picture.

 

From my last reply to your questions I talked the Michelson-Morley Experiment.

Now if you remember what I said scientists were trying to figure out how fast the earth was moving relevant to the sun. They used the speed of light as a guide because they did not think that

One: the velocity of light does not get affected by the motion of the object that emits the light

Two: The velocity of light remains the same (or constant) in any frame of reference (or from any observer)

 

Because people did not that they thought that they could figure out the velocity of the earth relevant to the sun using the speed of light as a guide. But because the speed of light stayed the same and did not change at all during this experiment both speeds cross canceled each other resulting in the earth appearing to have no speed!

 

One thing you get out of this experiment is that the Galileian logic is false and your idea. The physicist used the basic logic of Galileian velocity transformations to try to compute the speed of the Earth, but in fact it is wrong. Light is a constant. Another thing you get out of this is called the beta factor. The beta factor basically (and stated simply) just shows the mathematical difference between classical physics (if it is Newton or Galileo) and relativity. Before relativity there were people here like Hendrik Antoon Lorentz (and a few others, but I’ll have to look up their names) that computed the beta equation. Later on Einstein used the beta equation and built up from that and really blew everyone’s minds away in the truth about motion, gravity, force, and so on.

 

Beta = (1- (v^2/c^2))^(1/2)

 

When trying to “cheat” and get around the FTL limitation (using the method that your are refering to). . . . .

 

Einstein (like I have stated) said that v’ does not equal v + u

It equals . . . .

v’ = (v + u) / (1 + ((uv)/c^2))

 

And in fact with the logic of using the concepts from what we can view or look at in an experiment like Michelson-Morley experiment we can deduce that trying to “cheat” on another playing filed will not work. We can also deduce by the math it self.

 

But I guess the question then becomes is v’ = v + u to any use to use? It is true that the equation does not work when we are dealing with speeds close to the speed of light, but when dealing with everyday problems the difference between this equation and the other would be so small it would never show up in an actual experiment (unless dealing with incredibly fast speeds).

 

(For any silly mistakes - sorry I typed it in a rush due to a current project that I am doing)

However I do expect that I will expand on this issue and your question even more in a few days when I have some more free time . . . I'll also give more some more direct support for what I’m saying using the concept and not really go to much in the math (unless you want me to).

 

Until Then . . .

 

 

Master Q

StarTrek_Master_Q@yahoo.com

[master_q 0]

I almost forgot:

 

(I just logged off and then it accrued to me that I forget to say a very important fact)

 

You can be in a ship in a ship in a ship, but you still are going to have to add and figure out v’. But with a system with multiple systems that you are relevant to - you still have to add all the v primes. Just in this case we could call it v double prime or triple . . . . .

 

One ship v’

Two ships v’ + another u = v’’ (v double prime)

. . . .. .

 

And so on

 

It still would not make a difference using that "cheat". But remember when we deal with our speeds close to light do not use our standard Galilean velocity transformation use the special relativity equation (v’ = (v + u) / (1 + ((uv)/c^2))).

 

And again you would have to find the summation (addition of all systems working together as one) of all of the transformations. You can’t just look at one main system because that system is on another system and so on. All those systems work together as one main “collective”. Yes, in a certain view I can see someone arguing with that due to a more general perspective with all of these systems, but in the specific perspective that we are looking at it fits completely.

 

 

Master Q

StarTrek_Master_Q@yahoo.com

[Howling Mad Murdock 0]

thxs for another very detailed reply .

 

ok try to cheat won't work, but what if we keep to the rules by using gravity. by this i mean if their was a way to create artifical gravity to sent a ship freefalling in the direction they want in space its speed would continue to build just like on earth but because its in space and not on earth no air resistence thus no terminal velocity, and in theory it should keep on going (as long as the energy is provided for the gravity)

 

..........i get the feeling that you are just goner give me another answer of how i am talking crap , well thank you for your answer this the only way i learn

 

btw what is your job i doubt with the level of detail that your are providing in your answers that you are fliping burgers

[master_q 0]

:( thxs for another very detailed reply  :) .

 

ok try to cheat won't work, but what if we keep to the rules by using gravity.  by this i mean if their was a way to create artifical gravity to sent a ship freefalling in the direction they want in space its speed would continue to build just like on earth but because its in space and not on earth no air resistence thus no terminal velocity, and in theory it should keep on going (as long as the energy is provided for the gravity)

 

..........i get the feeling that you are just goner give me another answer of how i am talking crap  :) ,  well thank you for your answer this the only way i learn 

 

btw what is your job i doubt with the level of detail that your are providing in your answers that you are fliping burgers  :blink:

I wish I read this earlier because this will take a long time to answer because this is a shift to general relativity and not special relativity.

 

General Relativity: gravity

Special Relativity: electrodynamics of moving bodies

 

 

(Force creates some kind acceleration . . . .)

 

“Free fall” is just the result of a force (the force of gravity) and in fact you can create this kind of fore by using the force normal. What I mean is you can have the feeling of gravity by accelerating in the ship.

 

But before I get to that it probably is best to first start out with an easy example.

Pretend that you are in Earth's orbit and you are in a rocket ship that is falling down to the Earth. As your ship is in free fall you physically jump up to fix something and as a result you are not going to touch the ground until the ship crashes. I guess the question that must be asked (and answered) is “Why”? The reason this is, is because you jumped up and are now accelerating at the same constant acceleration as the ship is.

 

Now pretend you are in a void in space away from any major source of gravity. Once again you are in your ship and you are accelerating upward at 9.8 meters per second squared. Before you start to accelerate, you are floating around in the center of your ship. Then as you push the buttons to accelerate, you fall down and hit the ground of your ship and you seem to feel gravity!

 

(The shuttle is going up and you are just floating in the middle until that ground hits your feet and you accelerate with it. This is the same when you accelerate downward in free fall due to gravity. But you do not have to be accelerating upward. You can accelerate in any direction and would feel the same effects.)

 

In this specific case you are accelerating at the same acceleration you would in free fall on the Earth (9.8 m/s/s). And as a result it would not feel different from walking on the Earth. If there is no window or anything to that nature in the ship, you could not physically tell the difference between the acceleration of that ship (and the effect of that to you) and that of gravity! They are equivalent! And so this is actually called the Equivalence Principal. It is the basic concept in general relativity.

 

That the basic thing, but from special relativity you know that there still is a limit. You can’t beat it. The only real way (besides some kind of wormhole and things to that nature) is by Star Trek’s idea of warp drive and subspace!

 

However, another approach I can take to your idea of creating gravity (and truthfully I don’t fully know where you are aiming at [- what approach]) is by again expanding on what the equivalence principal is. Basically if you take a flash light and turn it on during acceleration you can easily conclude that it would bend. Because we know that gravity and acceleration are equivalent we can say that light bends to gravity. This also implies some kind of geometry that governs this bending.

 

(If light bends due to gravity, then there must be some kind of geometry that is governing it. Because light is bending, it does not fit with regular Euclidian Geometry (because it is a curve ). So it must be Non-Euclidean Geometry.) A Non-Euclidean Geometry does not fit a Newton view of space as an a absolute. This bending has to be governed and comply with some standards. For example the geometry of a cube is our natural look at ‘space’ as three dimensional, but something like this does not comply with that perception (of light bending). We know that gravity & acceleration are equivalent and they are the cause of light bending. When we look at gravity we can now say that a light beam by Earth will bend because of Earth's gravity.

 

I’ll promise (unless something comes up) that I’ll finish this up and connect it to your question on Saturday. For your second question I actually work on computers as an engineer, but I can’t do one thing forever and I’ll bet that in five or six years I might become a professor. However, I do research on kinematical statistics in physics.

 

 

Master Q

StarTrek_Master_Q@yahoo.com

[master_q 0]

From making the connections of the equivalence principal, light, and special relativity you can reason out that gravity is a warping of the fourth dimensional space-time fabric or continuum. Gravity creates this, so the sun, planets, stars, . . . give off gravity which means it creates warps in the continuum. One way to view this in our three dimensional perspective is to think about a sphere. For example satellites are in orbit due to the sphere like curvature and the satellite is just rolling around because of this. Think of one of those charity coin collectors that are in the stores/malls were you drop the coin and it rolls round & round until it falls down the hole. It’s the same idea. From Newton, we learned that mass creates gravity. Every object gives off its own gravity. This can be applied here now that we know what gravity really is according to Einstein.

 

If somehow you just created gravity or artificial ones by means of just accelerating (that’s when your velocity or speed gets greater and greater), then you still have to go through the rules of both special relativity and general relativity. You can make connections between special and general. We know from special that the faster you go the more mass you will have. From general relativity we know that more powerful gravity means slower time. And so on. It is all just a big chain.

 

 

Master Q

StarTrek_Master_Q@yahoo.com