[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: starship-design: relativity
> Then someone had better tell JPL/NASA, who, according to Wallace, have
> using the c+v formula in their solar system calculations. Can someone
> this, please?
Where can we find some proof of this statement? What would NASA stand to
gain by lying about what measurements they use? The GPS uses calculations
based on General Relativity...and it works.
> The fact is, as I have recently been finding in many various readings,
> ideas, and their proponents, are regularly savaged by the scientific
> establishment. The general public is getting wind of this, and they tire
> scientific corruption as much as political.
Yes, new ideas are treated badly at first by a significant portion of the
scientific community. But the majority don't act like this. Unfortunately,
the ones who do make asses of themselves, proclaiming wild assumptions and
the like, such as Dr. Robert Park, to use him as an example, are the most
vocal. He may be in a high place, but his opinion is not true of the entire
scientific community. Most people don't demean others, and think they are
holier-than-thou-art with proud statements saying that FTL/gravity
control/interstellar travel/insert-your-favorite-topic-here is impossible,
and always will be. And most people don't say that their opinion is not
shared by the APS, but should be.
> Dogmatism is not an acceptable response; it merely signals that you
> are afraid of the question. I've been there, so I know.
Uh...when was I practicing dogmatism? By asking for experimental results
that back up Wallace's claims? If that's dogmatism, I've got a bridge in
Brooklyn to sell you...
> Now, roll up your mouse pad and stick it between your teeth, because I'm
> to make you bite down really hard.
There's no need to get uptight about this. I'm not angry, and you shouldn't
be either. Maybe you weren't...email is not good at conveying emotion.
> It seems to me that c+v makes sense of an otherwise obvious conundrum:
> say you have a light source which is receding from you at some
> velocity (or approaching, it doesn't matter). If, as relativity asserts,
> always travels _only_ at c, then the light reaching you has to actually
> its speed_ to be at exactly c when it reaches you.
I understand what you are saying. It does not make total sense to me
either. But it is like this: if you move an object at .5c, towards a
detector, the detector sees the incoming light to be travelling at 1.0c.
Why? It's just the way things are. Now, if you're aboard the object moving
at .5c, you measure the beam of light to be travelling outwards from
yourself at 1.00c. According to relativity, all unaccelerated frames of
reference are equivalent, and thus equally correct in their view of
reality. Now if you want to delve deeper, you get into a big mess of
metaphysics and such that is NOT accepted by the scientific community, and
as such, what I write below is my own personal speculation on what *might*
happen. I have no experimental proof to back it up, so don't take it as
gospel. It could be right, it could be wrong. That said...
Maybe what really happens is this: the object moving at .5c towards you
really doesn't send out a beam that goes 1.00c. Maybe the beam really goes
1.00c with respect to you, but only .5c with respect to him. .5c+.5c=1.00c.
The thing is, he sees the beam to be coming from his laser (or whatever
emitter) at 1.00c because of the effects of length contraction and time
dilation. But if you believe that, then you have to ask, which observer is
really at rest? Are you or is he? Then you have to go further and say that
one frame of rest is special: it is _really_ at rest, and everything is in
motion with respect to it. Why don't we teach this view? Because so far, no
one knows how to: A. Measure this supposed absolute reference frame, and B.
It would have to cover the predictions of general relativity, not just the
simpler special relativity. If faster than light signals are determined to
exist, then this will probably change the views we currently hold on how
constant the speed of light really is. But at this point, it is just
speculation, and not needed. The preceding was for thought provocation
> In other words, if a light
> source moves, _and_ c is always constant, then an observer _must_ see
But he _doesn't_ see this. He sees it to move at c.
This was not meant to flame...
--Kyle R. Mcallister