Quote:
Originally posted by Lord Innor@May 26 2004, 04:22 PM
Hmm, I've been around this forum for quite a while now, but for the first time I just have to reply, and that is because I just got to get my word in on this one!
Ok, here's the plain simple idea:
Lets say that you accelerate x to the speed of 0.9999C (then no one will be upset  ). In X we have Y, standing at the rear end of X. Then Y starts to move towards the front of X at the speed of 0.99999C (of cause the front of X is the end pointing in the moving direction). This way Y is moving faster than the speed of light compared to what is outside of X, yet both X and Y is acting within the law of known physics. By using enough "boxes", you could even move faster than the speed of light, without having an hour for you being years for some one not moving!
That's my little idea. The problem here would be to make... perhaps some kind a sphere around the spaceship, which would take the role of X so the spaceship could be Y moving at faster than light speed within.
If any one have a reason why this should not be possible... hit me  h34r:
|
Good thinking and a very valid theory untested so I am trying to think of a way to best test it.
Lets make the rocket very small so it is easy to accelerate to near light speed with just expending a little energy like found in particle accelerators accelerating protons to near light speed. Visualizing the proton splitting at near c both parts fly apart at some velocity determined by the amount of mass converted to energy in the release and one part goes back wards in the line of travel and one goes forward. Does the ones going forward add to the near light speed causing it to exceed light speed?
I do not know (hence the reason to do the experiment) as I am not a prophet or psychic or speculator but it seems very reasonable that it would or could exceed light speed as all relativistic velocity addition calculations I have seen to date cover only the particle going backward so it velocity calculates to less than the original particle. The case you point out of the mass moving at some velocity forward wrt the original ship velocity has not been calculated with Einstein' relative velocity addition rules. Those using the rules always set conditions other than you describe as it reinforces a preconcieved notion of a light speed limit for mass. I promise that if they did get a c + v value in relativity calculations they would see it as an error so they avoid those cases. I cannot abvoid all possible cases as I do not see a c + V value as any error as it happens often in relativity equations.
Quote:
http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physic.../velocity.html
Suppose an object A is moving with a velocity v relative to an object B and B is moving with a velocity u (in the same direction) relative to an object C. What is the velocity of A relative to C?
v
u -------> A
-------> B
C w
----------------->
In non-relativistic mechanics the velocities are simply added and the answer is that A is moving with a velocity w = u+v relative to C. But in special relativity the velocities must be combined using the formula
w = (u + v)/(1 + uv/c2)
If u and v are both small compared to the speed of light c, then the answer is approximately the same as the non-relativistic theory. In the limit where u is equal to c (because C is a massless particle moving to the left at the speed of light), the sum gives c. This confirms that anything going at the speed of light does so in all reference frames.
|
That does not confirm your case as they set the conditions different so it confirms only the calculations made under those concititons. Use your conditions and you get a reasonable C + V and confirm c + v.
In accelerator tests already run one only detects the statistical average velocity of average masses and it calculated to be very near light speed like .99999 c so the laws of probability predict one real mass would exceed light speed out of the thousands of particles accelerated; however there was no detector available on the experiment capable of actually detecting a faster than light particle if it did occur so the experiment is considered flawed for a FTL proof test
Therefore it's results and conclusions formed from the results misconstrued as a proof cannot be extrapolated to include all machines, as it provided energy from a frame at rest to objects increasing in relativistic mass tending to infinity as the mass tended to C then the energy required tended to infinity.
Back to what I do know and leaving for a moment particle accelerator machines and going to real rocket machines.
Rockets provide energy to the exhaust mass by converting mass to energy and instead of the energy being provided from a frame at rest it is provided from a inertial (moving) frame so a different set of equations must be used to determine final velocity thought the velocity of the exhaust is limited to light speed.
Well for my Mars engine and my faster than light engine I need only convert 1 part of the 900 tons of propellant and fuel out of each ten parts available to energy so I expect 10 % matter conversion.
I do not desire to convert 100% percent of the propellant to energy as there would be no propellant left for momentum transfer to the rocket.
I do not desire to increase the energy to increase the exhaust velocity to beyond .44 C as the relativistic effects are minimal. At twice that at a velocity Ve of .88 C the relativistic effects would be extreme so to increase the velocity of the exhaust I would have to increase the energy exponentially as it would be a relativistic mass requiring a relativistic energy increase to accelerate the exhaust mass with less than 1/2 the momentum transfered to the payload mass by doubling the exhaust velocity.
It is not always desirable to increase local efficiencies by reducing losses such as frictional ones. Example one can reduce friction in a car to a point, but many machines require friction to operate like a car and brakes. Where the rubber meets the road no friction would be just spinning the wheels.
If I reduced the friction of the body machine where my feet hit the road it would soon become like walking on wet glare ice and I would get nowhere.
The same engineering principals holds true for rockets using relativistic momentum and relativistic acceleration as rockets work on exhaust momentum transfered.
In case one I accelerate at a constant 1 g wrt earth for 356 days and I exceed light speed wrt the ship by warping time.
In case two I accelerate at 1 g wrt the ship and I exceed light speed wrt the earth by warping both space and time.
In case one the rocket man feels a initial artificial gravity gravity field of 1 g tending to zero as velocity tends to c wrt earth from relativistic time dilation effects.
In case two the rocket man feels a constant one g the entire trip.
In any case gravity warps both space and time, as visualized in the rubber sheet model with dents in the rubber sheet where mass such as planets are therefore in accordance with general relativity theory or Einstein's equivalence principal gravity and acceleration are indistinguishable and equal therefore artificial gravity acceleration like a rocket is like velocity relativistic and so acceleration is relativistic as
A'=A (gamma cubed) so in case two warping both time and space my rocket is doable with my current technology and the rocket will exceed light speed wrt the earth after a constant one g acceleration wrt the ship for 356 days wrt both the ship and earth for in case two both ship time and earth time are equal.-and that is not an exaggeration but just a little known and under appreciated fact of relativistic acceleration from general relativity applied to rockets.
now and thank you for your patience.
