'No evidence' for extraterrestrials, says White House,....

[adoucette]

Yes.

And thus it's highly unlikely that the physics behind the inverse square law is going to be found to be wrong.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inverse-square_law

 

[Reiku]

Yes.

And thus it's highly unlikely that the physics behind the inverse square law is going to be found to be wrong.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inverse-square_law

You don't need to link these things, I know these things well.

Yet I cannot help you keep focusing on one thing and not broadning your horizons enough. Anyway, I am off to sleep. Good night adoucette.

 

[gmilam]

According to our understandings, superluminal speeds is possible. Where did you get that from?

That Einstein dude.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Faster-than-light

Under the special theory of relativity, a particle (that has rest mass) with subluminal velocity needs infinite energy to accelerate to the speed of light

And (obviously) infinite energy is not possible.

 

[river]

How come you don't know this already? If you have some notion aliens had to be involved because the task was too difficult for humans, the only reasonable way to come to that conclusion is to have studied the accepted method of construction in detail. You should then know that stone and copper tools were used by the masons of the age. But of course, this still doesn't answer why you single out the construction on the pyramids as being extraordinary, when you don't question the pillaging of the giant obelisks and their removal to other countries, by ancient Romans etc. Or why you don't marvel at the construction of Lincoln Cathedral, which became the largest structure on Earth, surpassing the Great Pyramid. Here's a picture from the inside of Lincoln Cathedral:

And the ascent inside the Great Pyramid to the burial chamber:

So, understand this,... the Cathedral is taller, and more decorative, a more complex shape, with bigger expanses than the Egyptians could engineer (go to Karnak and see how close the columns are together, then see the majesty of the vaulted arches in Lincoln). But you doubt humans could pile up a bunch of blocks, and smooth the outer and inner layers? But it's achievable to make vaulted arches, using no more than wooden scaffolds and rope? Don't get me wrong, the Great Pyramid is impressive, but simply because it is big. Visiting it, you understand the sheer effort it took to create, but it's not actually that complex.

you have proved nothing

copper is soft and any stone tool will not carve into diorite

simple as that

 

[Reiku]

That Einstein dude.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Faster-than-light



And (obviously) infinite energy is not possible.

Actually despite current popular belief, to say superluminal particles cannot exist is not entirely true under relativistic laws. Often it is said you cannot have a mass moving at that speed because it would require an infinite amount of energy. This is only partially true and not the whole story!

Relativity does allow for tachyons to exist so long as they did not begin with a real inertial mass and accelerated up to and over the speed of light. Now, this is a violation in relativity, but there is a loophole. So long as your particle has a negative mass squared and began their journey's above the speed of light then there are no laws of relativity violated.

Why do you think tachyons boomed when they were first hypothesized? It wasn't because of a general lack of understanding of relativity. Scientists were quite aware of the conditions set by Einstein's theory. Even the big hype of faster than light neutrino's recently kept saying it would be the end of Einstein's theory. Well, that actually depended on the conditions which allowed them to go that fast in the first place, so long as they did not accelerate up to and past lightspeed.

So you're wrong.

 

[adoucette]

Except you were discussing travel by Aliens and even if Tachyons exist (no evidence that they exist has been found) still aliens aren't tachyons, so they have mass, so Qmilam is right and once again you are wrong.

 

[Reiku]

Except you were discussing travel by Aliens and even if Tachyons exist (no evidence that they exist has been found) still aliens aren't tachyons, so they have mass, so Qmilam is right and once again you are wrong.

How am I ''wrong again?''

The other day I pointed atleast four different flaws in your understanding of the physics, and no he's not officially right with what he stated. And even if a biological entity could not move faster than light, there is still the question of making tachyon drives, so you YET AGAIN you fail to understand physics.

 

[Reiku]

What he stated was that something with mass coul not travel faster than light, which is a load of hoolah according to the laws of relativity. Suppose also that somewhere some race of beings were able to modify the alcubierre drive so that the laws of relativity did not need to imply using up more energy in the observable universe for superluminal speeds, you know, that drive you thought took massive amounts of time to get places? Well it is a matter of interpretation, theory and correct conjecture to be absolutely precise about whether it could not move at superluminal speeds, and yet that can be achieved even by tardyonic matter like ourselves.

 

[adoucette]

How am I ''wrong again?''

Because you were talking about aliens with mass, and when called on it answered with a hypothetical particle which has not been shown to actually exist.

The other day I pointed atleast four different flaws in your understanding of the physics,

Oh BS, you have not.

and no he's not officially right with what he stated. And even if a biological entity could not move faster than light, there is still the question of making tachyon drives, so you YET AGAIN you fail to understand physics.

Nope, as you point out, a biological entity can't move faster than light.

 

[adoucette]

What he stated was that something with mass coul not travel faster than light, which is a load of hoolah according to the laws of relativity.

No, it's not a load of hoolah.

Suppose also that somewhere some race of beings were able to modify the alcubierre drive so that the laws of relativity did not need to imply using up more energy in the observable universe for superluminal speeds, you know, that drive you thought took massive amounts of time to get places? Well it is a matter of interpretation, theory and correct conjecture to be absolutely precise about whether it could not move at superluminal speeds, and yet that can be achieved even by tardyonic matter like ourselves.

Show where your alcubierre drive doesn't take massive amounts of energy to get to that speed and we'll talk.
Cause right now you have no idea.

 

[Reiku]

Because you were talking about aliens with mass, and when called on it answered with a hypothetical particle which has not been shown to actually exist.



Oh BS, you have not.




Nope, as you point out, a biological entity can't move faster than light.

So you don't understand tachyon drives... nor do you remember your errors the other day. I will go back and refresh your memory.

 

[Reiku]

Because you were talking about aliens with mass, and when called on it answered with a hypothetical particle which has not been shown to actually exist.



Oh BS, you have not.




Nope, as you point out, a biological entity can't move faster than light.

First you made the mistake that the alcubierre drive was funk because of the energy problems associated to superluminal speeds. I explained afterwards that a alcubierre drive does not need to move at superluminal speeds which solved the problem.
Then you assumed that the alcubierre drive took ''massive'' amounts of time to reach distant galaxies, which was a complete and utter load of nonesense because the alcubierre drive was did not violate any local laws.
Then you said something about the slingshot effect not having anything to do with the speed that the celestial object was moving at... Which was a load of rubbish again! Gravity assistance states that the spacecraft's velocity changes by up to twice the planet's velocity.

These were three noticable mistakes, not four I apologize. Three nonethless of a badly informed person.

 

[Reiku]

As for a tachyon drive, no one needs to really mention superluminal speeds, only that a tachyon drive would add kinetic energy to a spacecraft. So we could use the tachyonic fuel to get places.

John Cramer states:

''Consider the central problem of rocketry: how can one burn fuel at a high enough exhaust velocity to provide reasonable thrust without an unreasonable expenditure of energy. This is the dilemma that plagues our space program, and the solutions we have developed are not very good.


So let's consider a device that makes great quantities of E=0 tachyons and uses them as the infinite velocity exhaust of a "rocket". Within the constraints of the conservation laws of physics, we can make all the tachyons we want for free, provided we make them in neutrino-antineutrino pairs to conserve spin and lepton number. Momentum conservation is not a problem because we want and need the momentum kick derived from emitting the neutrino-antineutrino pair. This leaves us to deal with energy conservation


The paradox here is that with a high-momentum exhaust of tachyons produced at no energy cost and beamed out the back of our space vehicle, the vehicle would seem to gain kinetic energy from nowhere, in violation of the law of conservation of energy. The solution to this paradox (as can be demonstrated by considering particle systems) is that the processes producing the tachyons must also consume enough internal energy to account for the kinetic energy gain of the system. Thus, a tachyon drive vehicle might be made to hover at no energy cost (antigravity!), but could only gain kinetic energy if a comparable amount of stored energy were supplied.


How could we arrange for an engine to produce great floods of electron neutrino-antineutrino pairs beamed in a selected direction? All I can do here is to lay out the problems and speculate. Neutrinos are produced by the weak interaction, which has that name because is much many orders of magnitude weaker than electromagnetism. Neutrino production of any kind is improbable. On the other hand, in any quantum reaction process the energy cost squared appears in the denominator of the probability, and if that energy is zero, it should make for abig probability. The trick might be to arrange some reaction or process that is in principle strong but is inhibited by momentum conservation. Then the emission of a neutrino-antineutrino pair to supply the needed momentum with zero energy cost would make the process go. A string of similar atomic or nuclear systems prepared in this way might constitute an inverted population suitable for stimulated emission (like light, correlated neutrino-antinuetrino pairs should be bosons), resulting in a beam from a "tachyon laser" that might amplify the process and produce the desired strong beam of tachyons''

 

[Reiku]

And never when speaking about superluminal vecocities would I ever get mixed up with the idea tardyonic matter could violate it. I would never make such a mistake. You seem to be mistaken.

 

[origin]

As for a tachyon drive, no one needs to really mention superluminal speeds, only that a tachyon drive would add kinetic energy to a spacecraft. So we could use the tachyonic fuel to get places.

John Cramer states:

''Consider the central problem of rocketry: how can one burn fuel at a high enough exhaust velocity to provide reasonable thrust without an unreasonable expenditure of energy. This is the dilemma that plagues our space program, and the solutions we have developed are not very good.


So let's consider a device that makes great quantities of E=0 tachyons and uses them as the infinite velocity exhaust of a "rocket". Within the constraints of the conservation laws of physics, we can make all the tachyons we want for free, provided we make them in neutrino-antineutrino pairs to conserve spin and lepton number. Momentum conservation is not a problem because we want and need the momentum kick derived from emitting the neutrino-antineutrino pair. This leaves us to deal with energy conservation


The paradox here is that with a high-momentum exhaust of tachyons produced at no energy cost and beamed out the back of our space vehicle, the vehicle would seem to gain kinetic energy from nowhere, in violation of the law of conservation of energy. The solution to this paradox (as can be demonstrated by considering particle systems) is that the processes producing the tachyons must also consume enough internal energy to account for the kinetic energy gain of the system. Thus, a tachyon drive vehicle might be made to hover at no energy cost (antigravity!), but could only gain kinetic energy if a comparable amount of stored energy were supplied.


How could we arrange for an engine to produce great floods of electron neutrino-antineutrino pairs beamed in a selected direction? All I can do here is to lay out the problems and speculate. Neutrinos are produced by the weak interaction, which has that name because is much many orders of magnitude weaker than electromagnetism. Neutrino production of any kind is improbable. On the other hand, in any quantum reaction process the energy cost squared appears in the denominator of the probability, and if that energy is zero, it should make for abig probability. The trick might be to arrange some reaction or process that is in principle strong but is inhibited by momentum conservation. Then the emission of a neutrino-antineutrino pair to supply the needed momentum with zero energy cost would make the process go. A string of similar atomic or nuclear systems prepared in this way might constitute an inverted population suitable for stimulated emission (like light, correlated neutrino-antinuetrino pairs should be bosons), resulting in a beam from a "tachyon laser" that might amplify the process and produce the desired strong beam of tachyons''

Well thats just super, too bad there is zero evidence that such a particle could exist. You might as well postulate the use of angel power to drive star ships.:shrug:

 

[gmilam]

Actually despite current popular belief, to say superluminal particles cannot exist is not entirely true under relativistic laws. Often it is said you cannot have a mass moving at that speed because it would require an infinite amount of energy. This is only partially true and not the whole story!

Relativity does allow for tachyons to exist so long as they did not begin with a real inertial mass and accelerated up to and over the speed of light. Now, this is a violation in relativity, but there is a loophole. So long as your particle has a negative mass squared and began their journey's above the speed of light then there are no laws of relativity violated.

Why do you think tachyons boomed when they were first hypothesized? It wasn't because of a general lack of understanding of relativity. Scientists were quite aware of the conditions set by Einstein's theory. Even the big hype of faster than light neutrino's recently kept saying it would be the end of Einstein's theory. Well, that actually depended on the conditions which allowed them to go that fast in the first place, so long as they did not accelerate up to and past lightspeed.

So you're wrong.

Read the whole thing.

although special relativity does not forbid the existence of particles that travel faster than light at all times (tachyons).

However, we're talking abut biological lifeforms and spaceships - not particles which may or may not exist.

 

[Reiku]

Well thats just super, too bad there is zero evidence that such a particle could exist. You might as well postulate the use of angel power to drive star ships.:shrug:

Zero evidence, where have you been this year?

There is evidence, as I speculated four years ago here at this place that the neutrino is a tachyon particle.

 

[Reiku]

Read the whole thing.



However, we're talking abut biological lifeforms and spaceships - not particles which may or may not exist.

I am well aware of the rules of relativity.

 

[phlogistician]

I am well aware of the rules of relativity.

So why do you attempt to reconcile loopholes that allow theoretical particles to exceed C, with real ones that cannot?

 

[Reiku]

So why do you attempt to reconcile loopholes that allow theoretical particles to exceed C, with real ones that cannot?

I can reconcile particles which do not violate relativity but still move at superluminal speeds.

Never, not once have I purported to an alien civilization physically moving faster than light, (and that even includes the Alcubierre Drive) as that expands and contracts space, it does not move the aparatus.

The importance of tachyons will be the major breakthrough of propulsion I predict, just like I predicted the Neutrino was a tachyon four years ago. Fair enough, further tests may find the neutrino is not a tachyon, but that will not rule out tachyons completely. Some field theories in physics, especially in string theory actually require tachyon fields.