Can One Travel Without Actually Travelling

[sjastro]

Getting back to your original question the answer is no.

Now wasn't that easy.

Regards

Steven

[FredSnerd (Claude)]

Hey Carl/Mark, thanks for all that great stuff

I found this link to Wikipedia which has a segment on “the possibility” of travelling faster than the speed of light (SoL).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speed_o...nd_experiments

It seems that the experiments they have done and theories they have devised suggest that even if one can travel faster then SoL its only a shade faster. But I suppose that if it’s possible to travel just a shade faster then its possible to travel much, much faster (and it would have to be much much faster - 2 or 10 times faster for example is no where near enough).

You know this wormhole/Calabi-Yau thing is all pretty cute (ignoring for a moment that’s its also wild speculation – I mean has anyone ever really seen a wormhole outside of the back garden) but it seems a bit hit and miss to me. I mean if the closest exit point puts you within 1 billion light years of your destination are you any better off. I’d much rather explore the faster then SoL option myself.

As to the actual size of the universe, your right 10 billion light years is nothing. What was I thinking?

BTW I found this very interesting line in Wikipedia. They said “It is widely accepted that it is normally impossible for information or matter to travel faster than c for several reasons. One reason is that if an object were travelling faster than c relative to an inertial frame of reference, it would be travelling backwards in time relative to another frame”. BACKWARDS in time! That which they told us could never ever be done even if forwards in time was a possibility. I gots ta gets me one of these faster then light machines man.

[sjastro]

BTW I found this very interesting line in Wikipedia. They said “It is widely accepted that it is normally impossible for information or matter to travel faster than c for several reasons. One reason is that if an object were travelling faster than c relative to an inertial frame of reference, it would be travelling backwards in time relative to another frame”. BACKWARDS in time! That which they told us could never ever be done even if forwards in time was a possibility. I gots ta gets me one of these faster then light machines man.

Still it can't be done. It's just another way of saying that causality is violated for faster than the speed of light travel.

Steven

[FredSnerd (Claude)]

Originally Posted by sjastro

Still it can't be done. It's just another way of saying that causality is violated for faster than the speed of light travel.

Steven

So! I think its about time causality got violated. If Einstein did not violate the notion that the rate of time is fixed he would never have solved his problem in the electrodynamics of moving bodies. Don’t you see. Causality has already been violated because there are things that just cant be explained in traditional “causal” terms. That’s exactly what happened to Einstein. He was never going to solve his problem until he put under the microscope one of humanities most basic assumptions up to that time. So lets shake off our shackles and never ask the question ever again “What came first, the chicken or the egg?”. What caused the universe, what caused God. Maybe there just isn’t always a cause or maybe something may be caused by something that comes later. Its all up for grabs now as far as I can tell.

[sjastro]

Originally Posted by FredSnerd

So! I think its about time causality got violated. If Einstein did not violate the notion that the rate of time is fixed he would never have solved his problem in the electrodynamics of moving bodies. Don’t you see. Causality has already been violated because there are things that just cant be explained in traditional “causal” terms.

Causality is simply defined as the cause preceding the effect. By allowing time to be relative instead of absolute doesn't impact on the "arrow of time".

One of the consequences of time intervals being dependent on the motion of the observer is that causality is preserved. Otherwise the speed of light is dependent on the motion of the observer which leads to violations of causality.

Steven

[xelasnave]

We can travel to where we want when we want using that wonderful vehicle we call our mind... all of the trips offerred by unsupported ideas posing as theories entitle us to travel this way so enjoy the benefits of the age we live in where many tours are on offer...
Now will these trips ever happen in a tangible reality is not relevant as finally it is what the mind takes "home" that is the product of any trip so one can ask ..do we physically have to be there in order to say we have travelled someplace... I have never been to the USA but for some reason I feel I have learnt more about the place simply by thinking about what I am told is there via their "media"... in fact this question raises questions as to what is "reality" ... does one have to "be there" to experience reality...

However currently there is little hope of our species leaving the solar system and landing anyplace ...and so space travell may remain beyond us... and we are doomed to remain here until the place or us is no more.

I am smoking legal stuff and drinking mild coffee so my perceptions may be dulled (or enhanced) but how would I know it is for an outside observer to determine that side of things.

alex

[FredSnerd (Claude)]

Alex,

Are you sure your smoking legal stuff

[TrevorW]

What about trans dimensional interpolation in the space time continuum

[FredSnerd (Claude)]

Originally Posted by TrevorW

What about trans dimensional interpolation in the space time continuum

Nah I don't think he's smoken that. Its too hard to get.

[xelasnave]

OK all I cant think is that the red cordial is kicking in.
alex

[avandonk]

My test for all people who want to violate the inherent laws of the Universe is very simple.

Just give me the tattslotto results for the next ten weeks before they happen. This is an easy test surely for disproving that all the soothsayers, clairvoyants and other assorted charletans and deluded self appointed gurus are totally beneath contempt.

Then violating the laws of space and time should be a doddle!

The only trips I took in the sixties was to night school, to study Physics!

Bert

[TrevorW]

"It's beyond the laws of physica as we know it Jimmy"

[bloodhound31]

What if you were in your car doing the speed of light and you switched your headlights on? Would the light photons coming out of the headlights, travelling also at the speed of light, now be double that velocity?

[avandonk]

Originally Posted by bloodhound31

What if you were in your car doing the speed of light and you switched your headlights on? Would the light photons coming out of the headlights, travelling also at the speed of light, now be double that velocity?

No!

Bert

[Nesti (Mark)]

Originally Posted by bloodhound31

What if you were in your car doing the speed of light and you switched your headlights on? Would the light photons coming out of the headlights, travelling also at the speed of light, now be double that velocity?

Nope!

I believe...The light from the headlamps will be moving away from the car at LS. The observable universe from the car would be flat and time dilated as though it were traveling at LS. The photons would be moving at LS relative to spacetime and the car could not be seen by the photons anyway. To a stationary observer, the photons are moving at LS and the car a percentage less (not really sure how much...80% of LS or thereabouts???).

This is where Einstein said to put down your visualisation and just stick to the clocks at the photons, in [flat] spacetime and at the car.

[xelasnave]

I thought matter can never travell at the speed of light and if that is so how can we build an idea on an impossibility ... I think second guessing on an impossibility (if indeed my thinking is correct as to the limitation of speed of matter) can only give us impossible answers.

alex

[sjastro]

Originally Posted by xelasnave

I thought matter can never travell at the speed of light and if that is so how can we build an idea on an impossibility ... I think second guessing on an impossibility (if indeed my thinking is correct as to the limitation of speed of matter) can only give us impossible answers.

alex

Alex,

It's rare that I would agree with you on a topic like this.

Regards

Steven

[Nesti (Mark)]

Originally Posted by xelasnave

I thought matter can never travell at the speed of light and if that is so how can we build an idea on an impossibility ... I think second guessing on an impossibility (if indeed my thinking is correct as to the limitation of speed of matter) can only give us impossible answers.

alex

It's only a thought experiment dude....one which does not include a cat for once.

[TrevorW]

As science and ideas change so too does our preception of what and what is not possible,

the old addage IMO holds true in that "what humankind can conceive humankind can acheive"

This page has some very interesting articles with concepts and maths way beyond my level of knowledge

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Faster-...ipString_Drive

read and keep an open mind

[Jen]

Originally Posted by FredSnerd

Alex,

Are you sure your smoking legal stuff