Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.
 

Re: [forcefieldpropulsionphysics] The first fundamental question

Expand Messages
  • Robert Neil Boyd
    Here is my question: What are the topological, and other, properties of the physical vacuum which will make faster than light travel engineerable, and
    Message 1 of 9 , Feb 28, 2001
      Here is my question:

      What are the topological, and other, properties of the physical vacuum
      which will make faster than light travel engineerable, and survivable?

      Is there a method to accomplish this folding of space, that is realizeable,
      technically?

      I think that this work is being done now.

      See below for more comments.

      Jack Martinelli wrote:

       
      ----- Original Message -----
      Sent: Sunday, February 25, 2001 6:55 PM
      Subject: Re: [forcefieldpropulsionphysics] The first fundamental question
       OK.

      In many instances, we discover new things by
      exploring uncharted domains. What domains
      remain uncharted, regarding this topic?

      How about back-tracking (back to the old drawing board?)and or step-wise re-finement?
       

      Sounds good to me. Back to the drawing board. Assume nothing.
      Start over. Then compare results to what has gone before. Jack!
      I'm surprised at you! You're advocating empirical science! Oh,
      what shall become of us? ;-)

      Topological physics, temporal physics, and consciousness
      physics, would be my answer, and these are the
      realms I have been exploring.
      Can you put this into the form of a fundamental question?
      In addition, I am not
      compelled to agree with the standard view of
      physics, which I feel is flawed in fundamental ways.
      Ok.  This is a start.  How can you use this to discover betterphysical representations?
      Here then, is a starting point:

      How many kinds of force fields are there? Let us delineate these various fields, and their effects.
      For example, did you know that there is such a thing as "imaginary charge", which has physically
      measureable effects? See: Kleinert http://www.physik.fu-berlin.de:80/~kleinert/kleiner_re3.html
      Have you ever heard of the Fermi field? The spin field? The torsion field? What is orgone energy?
      What is "Life Force"? And on and on...Especially, the anomalies!

      You can go deeper than this.   e.g., what's energy? for one.
      Then we should examine the interactivities
      I wouldn't until I understood the things we represent with labels like "field".
      of these various fields with each other, with mass,
      with time, and so on. There are at least 13 discrete branches of physics, easily many more.
      The number of permutations and combinations of these 13 branches alone, taken two at a time
      gives us on the order 6,227,020,800 different interinvolvements between these fundamental branches
      of the physics. This number alone is enough to keep us well involved in the process
      discovering the operations of, this universe alone, for quite a long time I would say.
      See, for example, one of Keihn's recent works:  http://www22.pair.com/csdc/car/carfre75.htm
      I'm not sure I see the tie-in.

      Kiehn examined what I said regarding permutations and combinations of
      interinvovelments of the various branches of physics, and has proceeded to
      use this understanding to produce two important papers over the last two
      years, viewing just such interinvolvements. The above paper is one example.
      Kiehn is the first individual in the world to have taken advantage of this fact
      of interinvolvement.

      What is the origination of these various fields?
      Now this is a fundamental question.  Any ideas?

      Yes. The various forces have a purely topological origination.
      I have mentioned this before on this forum, along with a few
      supporting citations.

      What are the various kinds of transductions that are possible
      among the various forces, and mass, and time, and so on?
      What's mass?  What's time?(Ok, I see below)
      How do these various fields interact with the various
      other fields, and the physical constants of this particular
      universe? And what is the orgination of these constants?

      What is mass?
      What is energy? How many kinds of energy are there?
      What is time, and what causes it?

      How are we to explain and describe the "subtle energies",
      which Einstein was so fond of investigating? These energies
      have real and measureable physical effects, yet they are
      substantially ignored by the mainstream physics community.
      Why is that? Perhaps there is no existing approach which is
      capable to explain the subtle energies.

      What is the exact nature of the substructure of the various
      subatomic particles?

      What is the exact construction, and what are the properties of the physical vacuum?

      You see, the more you go on with these explorations, the more you know.
      And the more you know, the more you realize that you don't know. And
      the number and depth of your questions can increase without bound.

      So, instead of exploring greater complexity, explore simplicities.  This is where thelaws of physics lies.

      The truth is simple. The intellect is complicated, and wants to make everything else complicated.

      So, as you are perhaps pointing out, it's easy to have questions. It's not so
      easy to answer all these questions in any unambiguous way. So let's confine
      our search to field-type events which lead to net motions of mass.
      Why "motions of mass"?  How about just motion (and distance)?
      I answer the question with a question...Is there mass?i.e., Does anything weigh anything?
      Why is that? What can we do about it?
      Well, this is not so easy as it looks, on the surface. Where to start...
      There are an enormous number of interactions which shall result in
      a net relocation of mass. Which of these shall we focus our attentions on?
      I wouldn't worry about this yet.  I think that interaction is closely related to dynamics.I'd prefer to start with dynamics.

      Dynamics of what? Will your dynamics involve energy, mass, or time?
      Or something else, such as topological originations of such?

      I have focused on the foundational properties of the physical vacuum,
      as being the best focus of studies, in these regards, because, if we
      understand all of the qualities, properties, and constituencies of the
      vacuum, then it seems most likely that we will find our answer. For
      me, the basic question has been, "How is it possible to attain a faster than
      light transport of mass, which a living human being can survive?" In this
      regard, I have championed the folding of the 3D space in a 4D way,
      in analogy to the folding of a 2D paper plane, by an act in three dimensions.
      I don't know enough psa to even be dangerous.  But, why a topological approach? Besidesheuristic reasoning?

      Topology and geometrical algebras are foundational to our existence, our existence. Without the
      existence of these underlying topologies, we wouldn't even HAVE space. Of any kind. I think
      that topological studies are as foundational as you can get. The rest of it is a mere reflection of
      the underlying topology.

      This is being explored by several investigators, and it seems that this is
      do-able. An additional investigation is going along the lines of the conformal
      physics of Segal, and it is highly probable that these two courses of investigation
      will coincide. In fact, they already have. But the confluence is rather unexpected.

      I will do justice to the best current source of these investigations, by not revealing
      the name or the works, until this individual considers that the task has been
      completed, and publishes. Although I understand what is being accomplished,
      the mathematical skill required in this endeavor is way over my head.

      mine too.  But astrophyscial space is flat & three D.

      No, it is not three D.

      Moving a mass accross a galaxy faster than c,It seems to me this breaks a conservative law.

      How so?

      You can't have a momentum in one direction that isgreater than the sum of all momenta in the universe.

      What is the basis for such a statement?
      Mach's principle is invalid, and relativity is only valid
      to the boundary of light speed, and then, only for classical
      mass. FTL events can not involve relativity.

      There is no time paradox here, either. If we exceed light
      speed, we do not travel backward in time.

      If an assumption such as you have made above were true,
      that it woud require an infinite amount of energy to attain light velocity,
      wouldn't light, itself, be impossible?

      By definition of infinite energy? Fact: Photons have a measurable
      and finite amount of energy associated with them. Not an infinite
      energy per photon. And they travel at the speed of light in the media.

      If it took an infinite energy to attain photons, photons could never exist.
      Don't you see the paradox here?

      Infinite velocity means that we shall traverse an infinite distance
      with no time elapsed. Any velocity which is less than infnite
      shall involve time. But not time in the sense of relativity theory.

      That is, time has no relationship to light velocity, in these velocity domains
      between infinite velocity and c velocity. This property should be found inherent
      to the vaccum.

      I will leave you with the clue that this is not the only reality, nor is this the only dimension.
      In the meanwhile, have a look at Tony Smith's website and his explorations of conformal
      physics, and some very realistic and engineerable FTL engines, at:
      http://www.innerx.net/personal/tsmith/SegalConf.html , and at the works of
      Arkadiusz Jadczyk, at:  http://www.cassiopaea.org/quantum_future/jadpub.htm
      for some futher hints. And you might investigate a bit of Heim, while you're at it.
      See:  http://people.blinx.de/behemoth/protosimplex/px_heime.htm#Kindheit
      as was suggested by EagleHawk and Berkant. Also,  http://www.fuel2000.net/starsteps.htm
      has some rather interesting points.

      Best Wishes,

      Neil

    • Jack Martinelli
      ... From: Robert Neil Boyd To: forcefieldpropulsionphysics@yahoogroups.com Sent: Wednesday, February 28, 2001 3:04 PM Subject: Re:
      Message 2 of 9 , Mar 4, 2001
        ----- Original Message -----
        Sent: Wednesday, February 28, 2001 3:04 PM
        Subject: Re: [forcefieldpropulsionphysics] The first fundamental question

        Here is my question:

        What are the topological, and other, properties of the physical vacuum
        which will make faster than light travel engineerable, and survivable?

        Taking this one step further, we should ask about the nature of light-speed.  There
        are two things to address here:  the context & content.  And we should address these two
        ideas without any bias towards either.  I.e., we need both to make meaningful statements.
         
        So, for clarity & further discussion we need to agree on what or how we define a context
        that allows us to make statements about "the speed of light".  So, I'll propose my idea
        and then you can see if you can poke holes in it.
         
        I would, first of all, suggest that any statements we make about the structure and content
        of the universe be immediately verifiable.  Implying that whatever elaborations (within
        reason) we might make to our verification procedures will lead to some verifiable
        phenomena.  I.e., rather than build theory on the interpretations of measurement results,
        we build on the implications of a measurement theory. Ok, there I said it, my bias is
        towards measurement theory :),
         
        Note that there is a "topological" (point set algebra) implementation of measurement theory
        But I think a category implementation is also possible and probably the better choice since
        it can model a universe of both discrete & continuous objects.  I know very little about either
        category theory, or psa, but this is the direction I find myself being pulled in.  Someday I hope
        to be able to discuss "the speed of light" with these tools, but for now there are things we
        can discuss using the principle of verification.  And besides, the statements we can make
        at this level of detail are also more illuminating to lay people (the people who fund stuff like this)
        and students.
         
        Having said that, I'll propose a couple of definitions for "static" and "dynamic".  And we
        use these to discuss "the speed of light".
         
        static: that which does not change with respect to something else.
        dynamic: that which changes with respect to something else.
         
        Note that "something" should not be time.   Obviously it can be but, I think that time, as
        it has been used, implies some context that nobody (it seems) understands.  Which
        won't help us.
         
        Take "static length" for example.  To show that a length is a static length I have to have
        "a prior" static length to compare it with -- not possible.  Consequently I can only
        compare two lengths and determine that they are static only with respect to each other.
        Which implies that two lengths can be static with respect to each other and dynamic
        with respect to other lengths.  An interesting consequence of this view is that is can be
        said that the universe is not expanding -- matter is shrinking.  I.e., we just define the
        universe to be static and matter to be dynamic.  I.e., the universe is static with respect
        to space & matter is static wrt to matter, but matter is dynamic wrt space.
         
        I could go on more about this, but, before I do I think I should let you respond.
         
         
         
        ----- Original Message -----
        Sent: Sunday, February 25, 2001 6:55 PM
        Subject: Re: [forcefieldpropulsionphysics] The first fundamental question
         OK.

        In many instances, we discover new things by
        exploring uncharted domains. What domains
        remain uncharted, regarding this topic?

        How about back-tracking (back to the old drawing board?)and or step-wise re-finement?
         

        Sounds good to me. Back to the drawing board. Assume nothing.
        Start over. Then compare results to what has gone before. Jack!
        I'm surprised at you! You're advocating empirical science! Oh,
        what shall become of us? ;-)

        I'm an advocate of the scientific method.  I think the first step is to observe, and if I
        remember correctly, there are four others... hypothesize & test, revise and?  I've forgotten now.  what are the others?
        What is the origination of these various fields?
        Now this is a fundamental question.  Any ideas?

        Yes. The various forces have a purely topological origination.
        I have mentioned this before on this forum, along with a few
        supporting citations.

        I'm not sure I agree with you on this at the level of detail I'm talking about.  If I understand it
        well enough... doesn't topology represent fields as static structures?  I'm afraid I just don't buy
        into a simple static continuum.  & let me give you some references that argue for a universe
        of multiple continua (continuums?)
         
         
        So, instead of exploring greater complexity, explore simplicities.  This is where the laws of physics lies.

        The truth is simple. The intellect is complicated, and wants to make everything else complicated.

        Yep.  I agree 100%.
        So, as you are perhaps pointing out, it's easy to have questions. It's not so
        easy to answer all these questions in any unambiguous way. So let's confine
        our search to field-type events which lead to net motions of mass.
        Why "motions of mass"?  How about just motion (and distance)?
        I answer the question with a question...Is there mass?i.e., Does anything weigh anything?
        Why is that? What can we do about it?
        Weight requires a gravitational field.  If we can find out how a GF is formed maybe there are some
        new possibilities there?
         
        [...]
         
        In this
        regard, I have championed the folding of the 3D space in a 4D way,
        in analogy to the folding of a 2D paper plane, by an act in three dimensions.
        I don't know enough psa to even be dangerous.  But, why a topological approach? Besidesheuristic reasoning?

        Topology and geometrical algebras are foundational to our existence, our existence.

        This is probably a semantic distinction, but I'd say that topology & algebra are languages we can use to represent the
        structure & content of the universe.  The existence and structure of the universe have never depended on any symbol
        system (our invention).  But I agree that if the universe didn't have the structure and content that it does, which we can
        describe with algebra & topology, we wouldn't be here.  (Probably what you meant to say?)

        Without the
        existence of these underlying topologies, we wouldn't even HAVE space. Of any kind. I think
        that topological studies are as foundational as you can get. The rest of it is a mere reflection of
        the underlying topology.

        This is being explored by several investigators, and it seems that this is
        do-able. An additional investigation is going along the lines of the conformal
        physics of Segal, and it is highly probable that these two courses of investigation
        will coincide. In fact, they already have. But the confluence is rather unexpected.

        I will do justice to the best current source of these investigations, by not revealing
        the name or the works, until this individual considers that the task has been
        completed, and publishes. Although I understand what is being accomplished,
        the mathematical skill required in this endeavor is way over my head.

        mine too.  But astrophysical space is flat & three D.

        No, it is not three D.

        Moving a mass across a galaxy faster than c,It seems to me this breaks a conservative law.

        How so?

        The universe cannot have a net velocity, acceleration, jerk, etc..  If you sum over all dynamics wrt every possible frame
        of reference the result must be 0.  Take this sum and move one vector (any one) to the "0-side".  The single vector must
        always be equal in magnitude and opposite  in direction to the other side.  Move a second vector out of the sum & over
        to the other side.  The sum of these two vectors must be equal & opposite to the rest of the universe.  Now, I can't prove
        this but, I think that the velocity of a single object (ala Democritus) can only be the speed of light.  I think, though, that I can prove
        that the sum of a single motion vector (constrained by all other motions) & a reference vector yields the Lorentz
        transform for the time coordinate.  Wana see? :)
         
        You can't have a momentum in one direction that is greater than the sum of all momenta in the universe.

        What is the basis for such a statement?
        Mach's principle is invalid, and relativity is only valid
        to the boundary of light speed, and then, only for classical
        mass. FTL events can not involve relativity.

        1.  Mach's principle is correct.  It just needs to be updated.  It needs to consider that the context of motion
        is larger today than it was in the 1800's.
        2. FTL phenomena can involve relativity, just not with the 1905/1915 assumptions Einstein had made.
        3. Don't assume that the universe is a container. (There is a reason for pursuing a background-free
        metric.)

        There is no time paradox here, either. If we exceed light
        speed, we do not travel backward in time.

        If an assumption such as you have made above were true,
        that it would require an infinite amount of energy to attain light velocity,
        wouldn't light, itself, be impossible?

        Energy is not the constraint.  Net motion is (non-clasical).

        By definition of infinite energy? Fact: Photons have a measurable
        and finite amount of energy associated with them. Not an infinite
        energy per photon. And they travel at the speed of light in the media.

        If it took an infinite energy to attain photons, photons could never exist.
        Don't you see the paradox here?

        There is no paradox.  After a few more exchanges I think you'll understand why, or at least
        why I think there is no paradox.

        Infinite velocity means that we shall traverse an infinite distance
        with no time elapsed. Any velocity which is less than infnite
        shall involve time. But not time in the sense of relativity theory.

        This sounds to me like you're confusing measurement, numbers & geometry. 

        That is, time has no relationship to light velocity, in these velocity domains
        between infinite velocity and c velocity. This property should be found inherent
        to the vaccum.

         

        I'm not sure I follow...
         
        If objects are not point-like (as seems to be the case) as M-theory, or loop QG seem to say, then we
        can ask how big these objects are?  In 1944, in his book "The Evolution of Physics", Einstein hinted
        that it is entirely possible that there is no distinguishable characteristic that we can use to say where
        a particle stops & its field begins.  I.e., it is conceivable that a particle/field is 'infinitely large" (meaning
        as large as the unbounded universe).  if this is the case, then it is also conceivable that "instantaneous"
        action at a distance is possible -- so long as the net change in the universe is 0.  So, it is even
        conceivable that two identical objects might be able to exchange positions in the universe without
        violating any of the laws of physics.  FTL Teleportation? 
         
        Regards
         
        Jack Martinelli
      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.