Relativity

[aramis]

It's a bypass through non-einsteinian space where relativity is different.

 

[Rev Round]

ha ha ... I thought so.... mind the potholes in the road tho'

 

[Icosahedron]

It is as I suspected all along: All viewpoints are valid but not all viewpoints are useful all of the time. Some facts are useless while some theories are more useful than the facts.

In science, all viewpoints are not valid. Only viewpoints that are disprovable and backed by evidence* are valid. Science is an assembly of therories. Those theories that have stood the test of time and are deemed unlikely ever to be disproven are termed Laws or Facts, depending on their nature.

*"The Earth is flat" is a disprovable theory backed by the evidence of a level horizon and is acceptable until disproven. "The Earth is a figment of an alien's imagination" cannot be disproven or evidenced and is not an acceptable scientific theory. "The Earth is round" is a theory currently held to be a Fact.

Scientific truth was once described to me as a sequence of ever-diminishing lies. When we are children, we are fed certain 'facts'. When we are mature enough to understand, we are told that these 'facts' are not quite right and the 'truth' is a little more complex. We are still children and we are still learning. You will not learn the Ultimate Truth in your lifetime -live with it.

So does the mass of a body increase relative to other masses approaching the speed of light? i.e. does the rest of the universe relatively lose mass?

The name 'Relativity' derives from the theory's statement that systems tend to look the same relative to any 'frame of reference'.
If you are in a fast ship, the rest of the universe sees you gaining mass from their POV. However, from your POV, the rest of the universe is travelling fast and it is the universe that gains mass.

Or does the mass of a body approaching the speed of light just turn into a small short lived black hole? ... and bang!

Quite possibly.

Seems to me the jump drive is not a faster than light technique of "moving" according to Travellativity. So what is it?

What Aramis said.

 

[Rev Round]

"The Earth is round" is a theory currently held to be a Fact.

You will not learn the Ultimate Truth in your lifetime -live with it.
What Aramis said.

The Earth is only round on paper. It is in FACT spheroidal. So balls to your "theory". :rofl:
"You will not learn the Ultimate Truth in your lifetime -live with it." < You speak for your self?

It is a fractal multiverse. All my carnations are here and now.

Not only are all view points valid they are utterly necessary.
Anything is a bigger set than infinite.

 

[aramis]

Many points of view, like the one that claims I am satan incarnate (Foster Bro's ex-GF who tried seducing me), are not valid. They may even be believed, but they are invalid.

The point of view that the moon is made of green cheese is invalid... there is no evidence leading that way, and lots contrary.

People who hold obviously invalid points of view have a special term: delusional.

Any point of view that is reasonably close to experimental norms is valid.

 

[Rev Round]

You left out deduction and logic.

"People who hold obviously invalid points of view have a special term: delusional."

Are they the only ones able to use that term then? Or are you under the illusion that they are? ( Yes i know a cheeky cheapy shot from me :rofl: )

All languages can describe the paradigm. It is just that, like different systems of measure, languages do not all coincide with the same level of detail. Rather like the inches on a yard ruler sometimes matching centimeters of a meter ruler. Some languages are able to describe the paradigm more or less accurately in greater or lesser detail. Linear thinking science has problems with experiments interfering with the experiment.

All in all and I 'n' I are fractal statements. If it were not a fractal multiverse there would be no change and that is absurd. Any good scientist will tell you there is no such thing as a closed system so there you are at the edge and at the very center of the universe.

All "Experimental norms" are faulty. The observer interferes with the experiment. Good job too or none of it/us/me would exist and that is absurd.

How many view points do you think I/we have? billions upon billions upon billions upon billions.... and all of that valid and necessary.

 

[Rev Round]

Maybe the thread can be renamed Total Relativity now?

 

[mike wightman]

All "Experimental norms" are faulty. The observer interferes with the experiment. Good job too or none of it/us/me would exist and that is absurd.

Always dangerous to start mixing quantum mechanics with relativity....

 

[Drakon]

There's never been time dilation calculations for beyond the speed of light because we know of no real world particles/objects that can move faster than that. The closer you get to c, the more your mass increases and the more time slows down realative to you. Theoretically, by the time you reach the speed of light, your mass and time frame would be infinite.

There is no real world way to calculate what you are asking.

So, I'm not sure if there's an easy way to do what you are asking and have everyone agree on it.

Might be better just to make it up for the sake of your game as a house rule.

Actually this is incorrect. One can calculate what the effects are, the problem is that the math does not allow one to understand what those calculations mean.

For FTL travel, under relativity, you end up with the square root of a negative number. What that specifically means in the real world, is unknown. Some have suggested that time moves backwards. Others have suggested that time moves in a right angle to "normal time" or swap dimensions with some other dimension. Which one? Who knows.

Square roots of negative numbers are undefined in mathematics, and that is the trouble with predicting what happens at FTL travel. Until it is defined in relativity, that problem will remain.

 

[DaveChase]

If you believe something to be true, is it?

This a question that is often used to teach individuals to debate Philosophy. Which in turn teaches them about circle logic.
It sounds like a bit of that is going on here in these debates. With out enough facts to break the circle it is hard to convince others that your point on the circle is the correct one.

Some of the agruements here sound like this question

If you have an empty box with nothing in it, what holds the oppisites apart from each other?

Spoiler:

Nothing. Because once you define something it exists.

And that is what holds the oppisite sides apart. No matter what else you use to describe how it is done by science that answer is how it done with words.

Dave Chase

 

[Drakon]

I was looking to play around with a quick-n-easy rule that at least seems somewhat plausible (like an author writing a sci-fi novel).

Of course it can't be true. We don't believe FTL travel is possible at this stage in our understanding.

But...what if it was? Would there be time dilation effects?

Interesting to ponder...

First off, see http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/gr-qc/pdf/0411/0411096v1.pdf
It seems that there is hope to, while not bypass relativity, to find a work around, to achieve meaningful FTL.

The time dilation effect is not mentioned on either this paper, or any other I have seen. It appears, (and this is supposition and analysis on my own limited part) that it is assumed that one week in a warp bubble, means a week outside the bubble for the rest of the universe. No dilation unless you are sub light.

This paper http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/gr-qc/pdf/9907/9907019v1.pdf tells you what it looks like from the bridge.

 

[Drakon]

Newton's laws of motion - wrong.

Um... no.
Sorry, Newton was not wrong. He made one slight error, one understandable at his time. He assumed that space-time was flat, Euclidean. They did not have as good an understanding of non-flat geometry as occured later in history.

An object in motion still continues its motion in a straight line, unless operated on by an outside force. The only modification that Einstein added was how you define the word "straight" If the space-time is flat, the lines are straight. If this underlying manifold is curved, then that line curves, as a response to this underlying geometry.

Newton's laws of motion are still an accurate description of the universe, with one rather minor change, the shape of the space-time manifold. Almost everything else about Newton's work is assumed by General Relativity.

 

[Drakon]

As for the "Its just a theory", here is my two credits.

All a theory is, is a verbal or graphical, MENTAL Model of how the world outside that skull works. We develope theories so that we can predict the outcome of our actions. Do we build our warp drive this way? or that way? How big do we make control rods on a nuclear reactor? What rocks do we dig for to build our tools?

If a theory matches reality, we say it is "true, or proven" that there is a match between our mental model and external reality of the real world. They cannot be and never were intended to be the same. One is merely a description of the other.

Right now, General Relativity is the best description we have to date. It's predictions have a pretty high result rate, it has passed every date to date. It is not how the world works, it is how our mind thinks it works. We have reason to keep it, until something better comes along.

 

[aramis]

Right now, General Relativity is the best description we have to date. It's predictions have a pretty high result rate, it has passed every date to date. It is not how the world works, it is how our mind thinks it works. We have reason to keep it, until something better comes along.

No, it's passed every macroscopic test to date, not every test...

QM and GR are not playing nice yet; the GUT or TOE is still not yet a done deal.

QM breaks down above the atom, and GR below the molecule.

 

[sandmanninja]

String Theory - it could tie them together and make them play nice.

 

[aramis]

String Theory - it could tie them together and make them play nice.

but it has harmonics issues that posit certain issues that make some extraordinary predictions, and rattle a lot of nerves...

(An intentional pun... the mathematics, however, are similar to musical harmonics, but in 11+ dimensions rather than 4....)

 

[Rev Round]

You only have to spin round in your chair and observe the "straight" lines of the limits of your box shaped room and you can see the curve in spacetime.

So the abstract is real just like the rest of it. (of course!)

Can fractals exist in a non fractal universe?

Dimensionality varies from macro to micro? Their (the macros and micros) numbers of dimensions are not whole numbers.

Singularity exists in the abstract and is no less real for that. How much information is directed towards "your" singularity? The same singularity which is everywhere and the same one we all share.

Which cannot be nothing but can be no thing (not spacetime) its opposite being anything. Which is what Hawkins and his mate calls it. No thing is pregnant with anything.

Just be careful how you unfold your universe. Anything is inevitable
Let there be light humour.

 

[sandmanninja]

but it has harmonics issues that posit certain issues that make some extraordinary predictions, and rattle a lot of nerves...

(An intentional pun... the mathematics, however, are similar to musical harmonics, but in 11+ dimensions rather than 4....)

Did you see the "Universe" episode about Alternate / Multiple Universes?

 

[aramis]

Did you see the "Universe" episode about Alternate / Multiple Universes?

yeah... 23 dimensions? the mind swims amongst them... :rofl:

 

[mike wightman]

Um... no.
Sorry, Newton was not wrong. He made one slight error, one understandable at his time. He assumed that space-time was flat, Euclidean. They did not have as good an understanding of non-flat geometry as occured later in history.

An object in motion still continues its motion in a straight line, unless operated on by an outside force. The only modification that Einstein added was how you define the word "straight" If the space-time is flat, the lines are straight. If this underlying manifold is curved, then that line curves, as a response to this underlying geometry.

Newton's laws of motion are still an accurate description of the universe, with one rather minor change, the shape of the space-time manifold. Almost everything else about Newton's work is assumed by General Relativity.

I love it when people take quotes out of the context in which they were expressed.

My point is/was that Newton's "law" isn't a law at all - ok it works 99% of the time. But because it does fail and relativity is needed then it can't be considered a law.

Which was to prove the point that science can only describe and model. Explanation of fundamantals is just a neverending grind of new hypotheses that get better at describing and modelling.

Of course Newton wasn't wrong - but he wasn't right either