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

Re: [forcefieldpropulsionphysics] The first fundamental question

Expand Messages
  • Jack Martinelli
    ... From: Robert Neil Boyd To: forcefieldpropulsionphysics@yahoogroups.com Sent: Wednesday, February 28, 2001 3:04 PM Subject: Re:
    Message 1 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

      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

      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? 
      Jack Martinelli
    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.