| Author |
Message |
D_Star
Lieutenant
Joined: 09 Oct 2004
Posts: 151
|
 Tue Dec 14, 2004 11:07 am Warp speed -again |
|
I dont know if this has been said before or not but -if the theory holds true, that as you travel at light speed or faster than light travel, time slows down, how come when Captian Picard leaves earth to go to, say, Vulcan, and then comes back, shouldnt earths time have "aged" more than the time on the Enterprise?
Also what does a warp field do? I once heard that it creates another dimension so that FTL travel is possible keeping Einsteins rule.
|
|
|
Hitchhiker
Rear Admiral
Joined: 11 Aug 2004
Posts: 3514
Location: Ontario, Canada
|
| Tue Dec 14, 2004 12:37 pm |
|
The Trek method of faster-than-light travel is rather interesting.
The warp nacelles on a starship create a subspace warp field. This essentially pushes the ship itself into "subspace", where the speed of light, or c is a lot faster than it is in our universe (about 300 000 km/s here). That way they can still accelerate to greater speeds without violating the laws of relativity. The same applies for subspace transmissions.
As for your first question (I'm answering this rather backward  ), it would only hold true if Picard was travelling at or below light-speed. Due to relativity, there are temporal distortions the faster you approach, but do not reach, light-speed. This is what Star Trek: The Magazine (Volume 1 Issue 21, January 2001) says:
| Quote: | | Traveling at high sublight speeds could cause convoluted relativity and synchronicity problems. To give a simplified explanation, the faster one travels, the slower time moves. This means that at speeds approaching light speed, an hour will take longer to pass on the ship than on Earth. Because the warp engines overcome many of the problems associated with Newtonian physics, this problem does not exist at warp speed. |
I'm somewhat curious about that passage itself. It doesn't offer any concrete explanation, and wouldn't they have to overcome Einsteinian physics, since we're talking about relativity here? 
So the answer is that the warp drive does not in fact propel the ship to speeds greater than light, it "fakes it".
|
|
|
Five - seveN
Rear Admiral
Joined: 13 Jun 2004
Posts: 3567
Location: Shadow Moon
|
| Tue Dec 14, 2004 3:35 pm |
|
That is very true. The whole subspace thing is made up by the writers, and there is a small change that such a thing exists, but that isn't important for now.
The concept of warp-drive could also be explained in another way: the nacelles bend the space-time continuum together in front of the ship and pulls/pushes it apart behind the ship. Thus, the ship seems to move forward, from a distance. It's as if the ship is surfing a space-time wave. However, the ship itself doesn't move, seen from its direct surrounding. Everything that happens is that space-time is bent, as I said before. This also means that the whole slow-time concept does not apply for warp-drive.
I hope that cleared it up a bit, 
|
|
|
lionhead
Rear Admiral
Joined: 26 May 2004
Posts: 4020
Location: The Delta Quadrant (or not...)
|
| Wed Dec 15, 2004 7:04 am |
|
Oh no, not that again.
For the abolute last time people; Going faster than the speed of light has got nothing too do with Time. Time does NOT have a speed!
-------signature-------
Never explain comedy or satire or the ironic comment. Those who get it, get it. Those who don't, never will. -Michael Moore
|
|
|
Hitchhiker
Rear Admiral
Joined: 11 Aug 2004
Posts: 3514
Location: Ontario, Canada
|
| Wed Dec 15, 2004 8:38 am |
|
| lionhead wrote: | | For the abolute last time people; Going faster than the speed of light has got nothing too do with Time. Time does NOT have a speed! |
No, but according to Einstein, space and time are irrevocably connected
The faster you travel, the more mass you gain as you approach the speed-of-light. This means that your effect on the curvature of space-time increases. Einstein's theory of Relativity states that the faster you travel, the slower time moves. Now, anything with a real rest mass that is not equal to zero will have an infinite mass when travelling at the speed of light--that's why the speed of light is supposedly never obtainable, because you could not have (and survive) infinite mass.
The only exception are particles that have a rest mass of zero. These are called luxons, and include photons and neutrinos (although the latter supposedly may have mass now).
Consider a third class of particles, tachyons. These particles would travel faster than light. In order to do this, their rest mass would be imaginary (not negative, imaginary ) in order to avoid violating the laws of Relativity. Tachyons would also have negative energy, so when they gain energy they slow down and when they lose energy they speed up.
I unfortunately don't know what effect an object with imaginary rest mass has on the curvature of space-time, so I can only theorize that this is the effect that causes space-time to distort inward and essentially allow the tachyon to travel back in time. Perhaps someone else can answer that.
|
|
|
Five - seveN
Rear Admiral
Joined: 13 Jun 2004
Posts: 3567
Location: Shadow Moon
|
| Wed Dec 15, 2004 11:59 am |
|
And.. Where did your other username come from?
|
|
|
lionhead
Rear Admiral
Joined: 26 May 2004
Posts: 4020
Location: The Delta Quadrant (or not...)
|
| Thu Dec 16, 2004 7:01 am |
|
| Hitchhiker wrote: | | lionhead wrote: | | For the abolute last time people; Going faster than the speed of light has got nothing too do with Time. Time does NOT have a speed! |
No, but according to Einstein, space and time are irrevocably connected
The faster you travel, the more mass you gain as you approach the speed-of-light. This means that your effect on the curvature of space-time increases. Einstein's theory of Relativity states that the faster you travel, the slower time moves. Now, anything with a real rest mass that is not equal to zero will have an infinite mass when travelling at the speed of light--that's why the speed of light is supposedly never obtainable, because you could not have (and survive) infinite mass.
The only exception are particles that have a rest mass of zero. These are called luxons, and include photons and neutrinos (although the latter supposedly may have mass now).
Consider a third class of particles, tachyons. These particles would travel faster than light. In order to do this, their rest mass would be imaginary (not negative, imaginary ) in order to avoid violating the laws of Relativity. Tachyons would also have negative energy, so when they gain energy they slow down and when they lose energy they speed up.
I unfortunately don't know what effect an object with imaginary rest mass has on the curvature of space-time, so I can only theorize that this is the effect that causes space-time to distort inward and essentially allow the tachyon to travel back in time. Perhaps someone else can answer that. |
No no no. Einsteins theory is a flaw.
Just like a moving car and a Satellite orbitting earth Light has a speed. We all know that. Its probably the fastest thing we can see. But thats just it, or perception, our only way of seeing something is light.
But i hope we all know that if there si no light it doesn't mean there is something there. We can also feel, hear, smell and taste.
Now, remember when we went faster than the speed of sound? That sonic boom thing right? Now pretend that humans cannot see but only hear. Pretend that without visibility we create pictures in our head with hearing and touching. Eventually we might make object that go fast. Then the question would come up "How long will it take for a sound too go from 1 person too the next?". Eventually we might figure out the speed of sound. However. What would we think about going faster than it while that is the only thing that keeps us in reality? We would all probably think that you will travel through time since you will catch up with old sounds and hear them again.. See where i am going with this?
Not convinced? Alright. A different example:
If you look up in the sky, you see stars. I'm sure you know that the stars we see probably have stopped emitting light a long time ago yet light is still travelling between that star and our eyes. Pretend that at 1 star a intelligent species lives, capable of going 2 times (or more, doesn't matter) faster than light. Their star dies and they deside too head for earth, with 2 time the speed of light. They will catch up with the light from their star travelling towards our planet, if they would stop at one point and look back they will see their star as if it was still emmitting light. Going back is useless because when you get closer they will see their star die again only faster. once they reach earth they probably will be able too see their star up in the sky for a very long time, however. The star is still dead. If they would approach the star again even if they would go 1 million times the speed of light they will not see their star shining ever again.
So you see, going faster than the speed of light will not do anything. It might stretch out the object that is going that fast but that has got too do with light reflecting from the object and reaching our eyes. It would NOT stretch the object literally.
Need more evidence? Got an example of your own? I would be happy too explain.
-------signature-------
Never explain comedy or satire or the ironic comment. Those who get it, get it. Those who don't, never will. -Michael Moore
|
|
|
Hitchhiker
Rear Admiral
Joined: 11 Aug 2004
Posts: 3514
Location: Ontario, Canada
|
| Thu Dec 16, 2004 8:42 am |
|
You're assuming, of course, that reaching the speed of light is possible. How would you account that matter travelling at the speed of light would have infinite mass, thereby rendering light-speed travel (or FTL) possible, unless you could skip the light-speed part of getting to FTL. Only energy can obtain light-speed.
I like your second example better Yes, you are correct in stating that even if they were travelling at 1 million c in the direction of their home star, they would not see it "alive" again. That is true--if you do not travel back in time when going FTL. You have not convinced me that if you go FTL, you still don't go back in time.
The speed of sound in air at room temperature is about 340 m/sec. Both light and sound are energy, but unlike light however, sound does not contain specific particles through which it carries energy: sound is simply the audible vibration of particles. Therefore, the speed of sound varies by the amount of energy the particles have, which is related to temperature.
And a website:
http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/SpeedOfLight/FTL.html#21
|
|
|
lionhead
Rear Admiral
Joined: 26 May 2004
Posts: 4020
Location: The Delta Quadrant (or not...)
|
| Thu Dec 16, 2004 10:37 am |
|
I don't understand why going faster than light has go anything too do with mass? Light is not the energy that builds us. Light just gets created when a lot of energy and heat is builded up.
Could you explain what you think happens too your mass when you go FTL? Please, keep it simple.
-------signature-------
Never explain comedy or satire or the ironic comment. Those who get it, get it. Those who don't, never will. -Michael Moore
|
|
|
Hitchhiker
Rear Admiral
Joined: 11 Aug 2004
Posts: 3514
Location: Ontario, Canada
|
| Thu Dec 16, 2004 4:59 pm |
|
Mass and energy are linked, as determined by Einstein's equation: E=mc^2.
Consider the following: Bob is standing on Earth, watching a towel as it accelerates to the speed of light. To the towel, nothing different is happening save that everything seems to be going slower as it approaches the speed of light: the perception of time for the towel moves slower as it gets faster, in accordance with relativity.
To Bob, however, the towel is enduring some pretty weird changes. It is getting larger, because as time dilates, space must dilate as well (due to the inextricable linking between space-time).
I'm having trouble with this myself. I've asked my math/physics teacher at school and he gave me a brief explanation.
Okay, so if you accept that time moves slower as you approach the speed of light, then logically time would stop when you are at the speed of light, and then start moving backward as you travel beyond the speed of light. Once again, this is all depending on a frame of reference.
You are right in that for the aliens travelling back to their star at beyond the speed of light, they would not see their star shine again, because to the aliens it does not seem as if they are going back in time. However, to a casual observer watching the event, it would seem as if they aliens are arriving before the star even dies.
|
|
|
lionhead
Rear Admiral
Joined: 26 May 2004
Posts: 4020
Location: The Delta Quadrant (or not...)
|
| Fri Dec 17, 2004 7:03 am |
|
Alright. You stated that a towel would look like it becomes bigger when it goes faster than light. I agree, however, it does not change in reality. Only our eyes fool us that the towel gets longer.
I don't really agree that for the towel time appears too be slowing down. You see, what you see is what light reflects, if you go faster than light it will never reach you. So you actually will see light that has already passed you. Thus the past, but that only happens if you are very, very far away from your previous position (that happens pretty quick when you go faster than 300000 km/sec).
If the towel would look backwards then it would SEE time going backwards, but it isn't actually going backwards it just looks that way. When he looks at his front he SEES time going faster, but time isn't really going faster. He just sees what people on earth see over a couple of years. (read the star part again).
But then again, if you think SEEING the past or SEEING time going faster makes you time travel perhaps you are right. and Einstein too.
-------signature-------
Never explain comedy or satire or the ironic comment. Those who get it, get it. Those who don't, never will. -Michael Moore
|
|
|
Hitchhiker
Rear Admiral
Joined: 11 Aug 2004
Posts: 3514
Location: Ontario, Canada
|
| Fri Dec 17, 2004 9:06 am |
|
I think that's exactly what I'm saying. . . relativity is all about perception, and appearances, in relation to an outside observer. The towel itself isn't travelling back in time per se, but to Bob the towel looks like it would be going back in time.
And that's why tachyons can't physically exist (because they would have imaginary mass!) and can therefore only be virtual particles.
So warp drive is a theoretically possible way to "cheat" the light-speed barrier, because you aren't actually accelerating to or past c, but warping space. However, this would probably take a lot of energy, and I don't see us finding a way to manufacture and contain antimatter any time soon.
|
|
|
starnova
Commodore
Joined: 26 Aug 2004
Posts: 1544
Location: Commodore on the USS Farraget
|
| Sat Dec 18, 2004 2:02 am |
|
lol a towel going 300 k/m per second
|
|
|
Hitchhiker
Rear Admiral
Joined: 11 Aug 2004
Posts: 3514
Location: Ontario, Canada
|
| Sat Dec 18, 2004 11:01 am |
|
Muwahahaha more like 300 000.
Better than having a piece of pocket fluff with infinite mass
|
|
|
lionhead
Rear Admiral
Joined: 26 May 2004
Posts: 4020
Location: The Delta Quadrant (or not...)
|
| Sat Dec 18, 2004 1:18 pm |
|
or toilet paper. (although, you wouldn't have too buy it anymore)
-------signature-------
Never explain comedy or satire or the ironic comment. Those who get it, get it. Those who don't, never will. -Michael Moore
|
|
|
EnsignParis
Lieutenant Commander
Joined: 07 Sep 2001
Posts: 257
|
| Mon Dec 27, 2004 5:33 pm |
|
| lionhead wrote: | | Hitchhiker wrote: | | lionhead wrote: | | For the abolute last time people; Going faster than the speed of light has got nothing too do with Time. Time does NOT have a speed! |
No, but according to Einstein, space and time are irrevocably connected
The faster you travel, the more mass you gain as you approach the speed-of-light. This means that your effect on the curvature of space-time increases. Einstein's theory of Relativity states that the faster you travel, the slower time moves. Now, anything with a real rest mass that is not equal to zero will have an infinite mass when travelling at the speed of light--that's why the speed of light is supposedly never obtainable, because you could not have (and survive) infinite mass.
The only exception are particles that have a rest mass of zero. These are called luxons, and include photons and neutrinos (although the latter supposedly may have mass now).
Consider a third class of particles, tachyons. These particles would travel faster than light. In order to do this, their rest mass would be imaginary (not negative, imaginary ) in order to avoid violating the laws of Relativity. Tachyons would also have negative energy, so when they gain energy they slow down and when they lose energy they speed up.
I unfortunately don't know what effect an object with imaginary rest mass has on the curvature of space-time, so I can only theorize that this is the effect that causes space-time to distort inward and essentially allow the tachyon to travel back in time. Perhaps someone else can answer that. |
No no no. Einsteins theory is a flaw.
Just like a moving car and a Satellite orbitting earth Light has a speed. We all know that. Its probably the fastest thing we can see. But thats just it, or perception, our only way of seeing something is light.
But i hope we all know that if there si no light it doesn't mean there is something there. We can also feel, hear, smell and taste.
Now, remember when we went faster than the speed of sound? That sonic boom thing right? Now pretend that humans cannot see but only hear. Pretend that without visibility we create pictures in our head with hearing and touching. Eventually we might make object that go fast. Then the question would come up "How long will it take for a sound too go from 1 person too the next?". Eventually we might figure out the speed of sound. However. What would we think about going faster than it while that is the only thing that keeps us in reality? We would all probably think that you will travel through time since you will catch up with old sounds and hear them again.. See where i am going with this?
Not convinced? Alright. A different example:
If you look up in the sky, you see stars. I'm sure you know that the stars we see probably have stopped emitting light a long time ago yet light is still travelling between that star and our eyes. Pretend that at 1 star a intelligent species lives, capable of going 2 times (or more, doesn't matter) faster than light. Their star dies and they deside too head for earth, with 2 time the speed of light. They will catch up with the light from their star travelling towards our planet, if they would stop at one point and look back they will see their star as if it was still emmitting light. Going back is useless because when you get closer they will see their star die again only faster. once they reach earth they probably will be able too see their star up in the sky for a very long time, however. The star is still dead. If they would approach the star again even if they would go 1 million times the speed of light they will not see their star shining ever again.
So you see, going faster than the speed of light will not do anything. It might stretch out the object that is going that fast but that has got too do with light reflecting from the object and reaching our eyes. It would NOT stretch the object literally.
Need more evidence? Got an example of your own? I would be happy too explain. |
 Einstein's theory has a flaw
You are wrong. Plain wrong. I think it's been explained well enough in this thread already. Try doing some reading instead of dismissing what every major physicist on the planet accepts as truth because it sounds weird to you.
|
|
|
EnsignParis
Lieutenant Commander
Joined: 07 Sep 2001
Posts: 257
|
| Mon Dec 27, 2004 5:36 pm |
|
| Hitchhiker wrote: |
I'm somewhat curious about that passage itself. It doesn't offer any concrete explanation, and wouldn't they have to overcome Einsteinian physics, since we're talking about relativity here?
|
Nah, it's still Newtonian. Einstein didn't pull e=mc^2 out of his ass. It's based upon centuries of research, which had originated with Newton.
|
|
|
Hitchhiker
Rear Admiral
Joined: 11 Aug 2004
Posts: 3514
Location: Ontario, Canada
|
| Mon Dec 27, 2004 5:41 pm |
|
Okay, I was confused on that part because it was Newton who was using "absolute time" instead of relative time. I know we're still using Newtonian laws of motion, I was just talking about his theories in relation to time and speed.
|
|
|
Link
Commodore
Joined: 07 Jun 2003
Posts: 1258
Location: Alberta, Canada
|
| Mon Jan 03, 2005 5:40 pm |
|
Oh, also, you are still assuming that Einstein's Laws are correct...
Even though we cannot currently prove them wrong, never means that they are right.
-------signature-------
Chance makes a plaything of a person's life.
|
|
|
Hitchhiker
Rear Admiral
Joined: 11 Aug 2004
Posts: 3514
Location: Ontario, Canada
|
| Mon Jan 03, 2005 8:24 pm |
|
| Link wrote: | Oh, also, you are still assuming that Einstein's Laws are correct...
Even though we cannot currently prove them wrong, never means that they are right. |
Indeed, but to completely assume that they are wrong would mean we have no basis for our fun debates anyway. Until we find something better than relativity and quantum mechanics, we might as well work with what we've got. I'm quite aware that all this could go out the window some day. For instance, Gravity Probe B is testing our understanding of relativity.
|
|
|
PrankishSmart
Rear Admiral
Joined: 29 Apr 2002
Posts: 4779
Location: Hobart, Australia.
|
| Tue Jan 04, 2005 11:58 am |
|
Allright i'm still a little new to all this physics stuff, but why would the energy needed to propell a craft increase as it appoaches the speed of light? Is there a 'drag' of some sort?
Say if a liquid rocket with an imaginary unlimited fuel supply was accelerating towards the speed of light, why wouldn't it just pass it? Would it get to the point where the rocket would be firing but just would not accelerate any faster? Like a car topping out at max speed?
|
|
|
webtaz99
Commodore
Joined: 13 Nov 2003
Posts: 1229
Location: The Other Side
|
| Tue Jan 04, 2005 12:15 pm |
|
The concept of the need of infinite energy to surpass C is based only on sub-atomic particles in accelerators. As the particle(s) approach C, the relative velocity between the particle and the the electo-magnetic field(s) which attempt to accelrate it approach 0, so it takes more and more energy to increase the velocity of the particle.
While I am not saying that Einstein is wrong, no test yet has been made with a macro-sized object which is propelling itself. The theory says it's the same, but experiments have often showed that theories are wrong.
-------signature-------
"History is made at night! Character is who you are in the dark." (Lord John Whorfin)
|
|
|
lionhead
Rear Admiral
Joined: 26 May 2004
Posts: 4020
Location: The Delta Quadrant (or not...)
|
| Tue Jan 04, 2005 4:01 pm |
|
| EnsignParis wrote: |
Einstein's theory has a flaw
You are wrong. Plain wrong. I think it's been explained well enough in this thread already. Try doing some reading instead of dismissing what every major physicist on the planet accepts as truth because it sounds weird to you. |
And you read what link wrote: Just because a theory is assumed right now, doesn't mean you have too believe it and i'm very, very sure the currently assumed theory isn't water proof. and i have just explained why.
-------signature-------
Never explain comedy or satire or the ironic comment. Those who get it, get it. Those who don't, never will. -Michael Moore
|
|
|
EnsignParis
Lieutenant Commander
Joined: 07 Sep 2001
Posts: 257
|
| Tue Jan 11, 2005 1:15 am |
|
I highly doubt that you are "very very sure" not even the top leading scientists are "very very sure" You may have a hunch, and you may be correct...but you are certainly not sure, unless you have figured this out all on paper and experimented with it...which I doubt.
|
|
|
lionhead
Rear Admiral
Joined: 26 May 2004
Posts: 4020
Location: The Delta Quadrant (or not...)
|
| Tue Jan 11, 2005 7:00 am |
|
Its pure logic. i don't need too experiment it. i just know einsteins theory can't be right.
-------signature-------
Never explain comedy or satire or the ironic comment. Those who get it, get it. Those who don't, never will. -Michael Moore
|
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2002 phpBB Group
Star Trek �, in all its various forms, are trademarks & copyrights of Paramount Pictures
This site has no official connection with Star Trek or Paramount Pictures
Site content/Site design elements owned by Morphy and is meant to only be an archive/Tribute to STV.com
|
Search
FAQ
Log in
