Author Topic: Demonstrated FTL communication?  (Read 31062 times)

Online meberbs

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3096
  • Liked: 3379
  • Likes Given: 777
Re: Demonstrated FTL communication?
« Reply #60 on: 04/23/2020 06:44 pm »
Your relevance is a matter of opinion.  What's relevant one person might be garbage to another.
Threads have topics. You quite frequently post things that objectively have no relevance, and without even a single statement explaining why you think there would be relevance.

This means we obviously don't understand each other and I'm not sure that will change anytime soon.
The primary reason here is that you keep misusing terminology even after the correct definitions and terminology have been explained to you. If you insist on making up your own language where words have different meanings than what scientists use, then communication will remain impossible.

Even Einstein understood that there's a non-local change in the speed of light where is locally the speed of light is constant.  This is where the quote before somebody had something to say about Einstein mentioning the constancy of the speed of light and a constant gravitational field not a changing gravitational acceleration. Big the gravitational field changes the non-local speed of light changes but the local speed of light remains the same.   
You are again confusing things. Einstein probably looked at true variable speed of light theories but these didn't work out (I say probably, because wikipedia indicates that he did but the article is not well written and it is not relevant to confirm). In GR the speed of light is a universal constant, different apparent results when you measure measure things non-locally is essentially an illusion. It is true that that is what you measure, but what you measure is not what the speed of light is defined as, you are measuring something different.

I don't care about Harolds Religion.  I do about care about the relevance of what his paper had to say about space time.  Warptechs references him because it illustrates a point about general relativity.
No, he appears to reference him because he is unwilling to stick to reputable sources. Scientology is not a proper religion, but a cult. It has damaging, dangerous, and anti-science beliefs. If you look at the page I linked to, you will also see other evidence that Puthoff simply has done bad science.

He mentions a non-local change in the speed of light.  There are many other scientist who also point out the exact same thing.  I don't judge people and everything they do based on their religion.  rather I filter out what useful and throw away what I don't find useful. 
That last bit is basically cherry picking, and it is a great way to get results you want, rather than correct answers. Instead you should look at research done that actually follows the scientific method, and then not perform any cherry picking.

what's really irrelevant is you bringing in the vsl variable speed of light concepts which probably indicate a change in the measured local speed of light which may change over the eons.  the concept is just simple general relativity which also collapses into special relativity. 
No, VSL is an entirely different thing. The universal constant c is a universal constant in GR. VSL proposes that it is not a universal constant, however I have yet to see a VSL theory supported by data and rigorous analysis.

Now if you exist in a region where the non-local speed of light is slower than the rest of non-local speed of light then there is a possible non-local faster than the normal speed of the light.
This sentence is either incoherent or irrelevant. The number that matters is the universal constant c, which by definition is measured locally. If you go at  sufficiently high relativistic speeds, you could only age a few weeks on a trip to alpha centauri. This does not mean that you traveled 50 times the speed of light. That might be your average "proper velocity" but proper velocity mixes reference frames, and is not what anyone means when they refer to FTL travel. Your talk of "non-local speed of light" is simply you adding unnecessary confusion. Non-local measurements of the speed of light means that you are mixing frames, just like "proper velocity" mixes frames. There are times where it can tell you something meaningful. It is simply irrelevant when the question is FTL travel.

The speed of light can be defined as c equals 1 divided by the square root of the magnetic permeability times the electric permittivity or something like that.  Go look it up if you want to nitpick. 
That is the propagation velocity of electromagnetic waves. In free space it will be equal to the universal constant c "speed of light" since photons are massless as far as we can tell. But this equivalence breaks down as soon as you add materials.

In some materials when you modify the local dielectric it changes the speed of light in that material.  SpaceTime is also like a dielectric then you can modify it to change the non local speed of light but in doing so you modify the physical matter so that it measures a constant speed of light.
Again, this is not what has been measured in the lab. Electromagnetic waves travel slower than the speed of light when propagating through pretty much any medium, but the presence of such mediums has never affected the universal constant c itself in any experiment. (And there are many experiments where this would show up due to c being relevant to gravity in GR and the fine structure constant.)

I will try and make this simple
It is simple:
The speed of propagation of electromagnetic waves
and
The universal constant which limits how fast anything including energy, mass, and information can travel
are 2 separate concepts with separate definitions, and the first is only equal to the second in very special circumstances.

You keep complicating this by changing and mixing the definitions, and bringing in other irrelevant concepts such as "non-local speed of light" which you appear to have multiple distinct definitions for in just this one post.

The reference to torpedo cavitation is about the same.  you can move a torpedo faster through the gas bubble in the water then you can move the torpedo through the water. 

There is another paper that was referenced that discusses extremely high energy waves in water in which the wave turns into a gas wave.  I think this is related to shock physics and might relate to highly energetic gravitational waves moving through space-time.  The gas wave can move faster than a sound wave moving through the water. 
"Has similar sounding words" is not a basis for 2 things being related. The physics of a shockwave in air or gas is dramatically different than the physics of gravitational waves. If you want to claim otherwise show the parallels using math. In particular the speed of sounds is not even close to comparable to the speed of light (the universal constant), which is an absolute and fundamental limit

Surprise surprise it all relates to faster than light signals.
Except what you said before this references nothing about FTL signals, this statement is a complete non-sequiter. Your logic appears to be "you can move faster than the speed of sound, so you therefore can move faster than the speed of light." This logic is simply invalid, since the speed of sound, and the universal constant c are fundamentally different, just as the propagation speed of electromagnetic waves is different than the universal constant c.

Offline dustinthewind

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 902
  • U.S. of A.
  • Liked: 313
  • Likes Given: 355
Re: Demonstrated FTL communication?
« Reply #61 on: 04/24/2020 02:07 am »
Your relevance is a matter of opinion.  What's relevant one person might be garbage to another.
Threads have topics. You quite frequently post things that objectively have no relevance, and without even a single statement explaining why you think there would be relevance.

What you don't get via your inflexibility in understanding is that they all tie in together.  Propellant-less propulsion ties into manipulating space time ties into the mach effect ties into the alcubiere warp drive, ties into non-local change in the speed of light in general relativity (which you don't seem to understand) and non-local faster than normal c is the negative mass needed to make ftl work while still not violating moving locally faster than light. 

Scientists have made many inventions from simple fundamental concepts which means a single simple fundamental concept can have lots of applications.  One subject can easily cross over into others but if they are connected then they are.  Science does not flourish under strict limiting of individual freedom of thought as should be obvious and it doesn't seem relevant if you don't seem to understand it, but I can't seem to help that because you don't seem to get it. 

Woodward understand the non-local change in the speed of light in General Relativity. 
Inertia and propulsion in general relativity: a reply to rodal
Quote from: James F. Woodward
...
In special relativity c is a simple constant. In general relativity c becomes a “locally measured invariant” because although the same number for the magnitude of c is obtained in all local tests, the value of c in non-local tests may differ from the local value. The commonplace example of this behavior is the speed of light near the event horizon of a black hole—as determined by a distant observer—tending to zero as the horizon is approached by the light. While c is a locally measured invariant, and G may be too
...
Rodal’s justification for making his assertion about the potential seems to be that the large potential due to distant sources can be treated as a constant, so space and time derivatives of that part of the potential vanish. But no part of the potential involved in the interaction can be treated as constant. As we will see in the next section where the work of Carl Brans is discussed, the locally measured Newtonian potential is a “locally measured invariant”—like the vacuum speed of light—and since locally measured invariants have non-local values that may differ from the locally measured value, space and time derivatives of locally measured invariants do not in general vanish.
Even gravitomagnetism suggests a non-local change in the speed of light with circular motion. 
Quote from: meberbs

This means we obviously don't understand each other and I'm not sure that will change anytime soon.
The primary reason here is that you keep misusing terminology even after the correct definitions and terminology have been explained to you. If you insist on making up your own language where words have different meanings than what scientists use, then communication will remain impossible.


you don't even specify the terminology your referring to.  Just accusations.  Not a lick of flexibility in understanding.
Quote from: meberbs



Even Einstein understood that there's a non-local change in the speed of light where is locally the speed of light is constant.  This is where the quote before somebody had something to say about Einstein mentioning the constancy of the speed of light and a constant gravitational field not a changing gravitational acceleration. Big the gravitational field changes the non-local speed of light changes but the local speed of light remains the same.   
You are again confusing things. Einstein probably looked at true variable speed of light theories but these didn't work out (I say probably, because wikipedia indicates that he did but the article is not well written and it is not relevant to confirm). In GR the speed of light is a universal constant, different apparent results when you measure measure things non-locally is essentially an illusion. It is true that that is what you measure, but what you measure is not what the speed of light is defined as, you are measuring something different.
See the below page which highlights absolute time and motion with respect to local space time as Galilean Space-Time allowing FTL
Although the one-way speed of light is not constant in general (ie. when expressed in an arbitrary reference frame), the mean-speed c of a round-trip is again constant [2], what is in accordance with all experiments (like Michelson-Morley a.s.o.). It should be emphasized again that there has been no experiment which determined the one-way speed of light [3], since this would require the possibility of synchronizing physical clocks by some other means than finite-speed signals. Thus, in fact, some "experimental proof" of the constancy of the one-way speed of light has not been given so far.
***
Although non-local effects are a constituent of quantum mechanics, most physicists still believe in the validity of special relativity, because EPR-like effects have not allowed to transmit information at superluminal speeds so far. Yet, EPR-correlations remain a mystery if local realism is assumed to be valid. Therefore, the possibility of superluminal communication (and thus FTL travel) has been acknowledged by various authors, eg.
...
Some Arguments in Favour of Absolute Time
...
Second, it is well known that one can define a universal time, which appears in cosmological models. For instance, general relativity leads one to the Robertson-Walker metric [11], which describes the long-range structure of our universe:
...
Which is the real space-time structure? Both Galilean space-time and Minkowski space-time have appeared to be valid physical concepts. However, the absolute generality of relativistic covariance is set into doubt by the following arguments:

    The time evolution of a quantum mechanical state has no covariant representation, because the "measurement process" cannot be described in a relativistically invariant manner.
    EPR-like effects seem to indicate non-local (superluminal) processes.
    It is impossible to construct a quantum time observable, so that no covariant 4-position operator exists.
    From a cosmological perspective the existence of a preferred reference frame appears to be natural.

It has been argued that a solution to these incompatibilities could be the reintroduction of absolute time to physics. Thus, the concept of Galilean Space-Time might be the correct one after all. Incidentally, there are active research groups trying to experimentally detect the existence of a preferred reference frame in this context.
...
Conclusion: If our universe has a Newtonian background, ie. if there is an absolute time underlying the space-time continuum, then there is no threat on causality by superluminal processes, because time travel and its paradoxes are excluded a priori. And thus, within this framework, faster-than-light travel is possible, at least in principle.
I also argue it solves the twin paradox problem and leaves a changing non-local speed of light.

Sorry but I don't have the time to bother with the rest of this right now.
Quote from: meberbs
I don't care about Harolds Religion.  I do about care about the relevance of what his paper had to say about space time.  Warptechs references him because it illustrates a point about general relativity.
No, he appears to reference him because he is unwilling to stick to reputable sources. Scientology is not a proper religion, but a cult. It has damaging, dangerous, and anti-science beliefs. If you look at the page I linked to, you will also see other evidence that Puthoff simply has done bad science.

He mentions a non-local change in the speed of light.  There are many other scientist who also point out the exact same thing.  I don't judge people and everything they do based on their religion.  rather I filter out what useful and throw away what I don't find useful. 
That last bit is basically cherry picking, and it is a great way to get results you want, rather than correct answers. Instead you should look at research done that actually follows the scientific method, and then not perform any cherry picking.

what's really irrelevant is you bringing in the vsl variable speed of light concepts which probably indicate a change in the measured local speed of light which may change over the eons.  the concept is just simple general relativity which also collapses into special relativity. 
No, VSL is an entirely different thing. The universal constant c is a universal constant in GR. VSL proposes that it is not a universal constant, however I have yet to see a VSL theory supported by data and rigorous analysis.

Now if you exist in a region where the non-local speed of light is slower than the rest of non-local speed of light then there is a possible non-local faster than the normal speed of the light.
This sentence is either incoherent or irrelevant. The number that matters is the universal constant c, which by definition is measured locally. If you go at  sufficiently high relativistic speeds, you could only age a few weeks on a trip to alpha centauri. This does not mean that you traveled 50 times the speed of light. That might be your average "proper velocity" but proper velocity mixes reference frames, and is not what anyone means when they refer to FTL travel. Your talk of "non-local speed of light" is simply you adding unnecessary confusion. Non-local measurements of the speed of light means that you are mixing frames, just like "proper velocity" mixes frames. There are times where it can tell you something meaningful. It is simply irrelevant when the question is FTL travel.

The speed of light can be defined as c equals 1 divided by the square root of the magnetic permeability times the electric permittivity or something like that.  Go look it up if you want to nitpick. 
That is the propagation velocity of electromagnetic waves. In free space it will be equal to the universal constant c "speed of light" since photons are massless as far as we can tell. But this equivalence breaks down as soon as you add materials.

In some materials when you modify the local dielectric it changes the speed of light in that material.  SpaceTime is also like a dielectric then you can modify it to change the non local speed of light but in doing so you modify the physical matter so that it measures a constant speed of light.
Again, this is not what has been measured in the lab. Electromagnetic waves travel slower than the speed of light when propagating through pretty much any medium, but the presence of such mediums has never affected the universal constant c itself in any experiment. (And there are many experiments where this would show up due to c being relevant to gravity in GR and the fine structure constant.)

I will try and make this simple
It is simple:
The speed of propagation of electromagnetic waves
and
The universal constant which limits how fast anything including energy, mass, and information can travel
are 2 separate concepts with separate definitions, and the first is only equal to the second in very special circumstances.

You keep complicating this by changing and mixing the definitions, and bringing in other irrelevant concepts such as "non-local speed of light" which you appear to have multiple distinct definitions for in just this one post.

The reference to torpedo cavitation is about the same.  you can move a torpedo faster through the gas bubble in the water then you can move the torpedo through the water. 

There is another paper that was referenced that discusses extremely high energy waves in water in which the wave turns into a gas wave.  I think this is related to shock physics and might relate to highly energetic gravitational waves moving through space-time.  The gas wave can move faster than a sound wave moving through the water. 
"Has similar sounding words" is not a basis for 2 things being related. The physics of a shockwave in air or gas is dramatically different than the physics of gravitational waves. If you want to claim otherwise show the parallels using math. In particular the speed of sounds is not even close to comparable to the speed of light (the universal constant), which is an absolute and fundamental limit

Surprise surprise it all relates to faster than light signals.
Except what you said before this references nothing about FTL signals, this statement is a complete non-sequiter. Your logic appears to be "you can move faster than the speed of sound, so you therefore can move faster than the speed of light." This logic is simply invalid, since the speed of sound, and the universal constant c are fundamentally different, just as the propagation speed of electromagnetic waves is different than the universal constant c.
« Last Edit: 04/24/2020 02:48 am by dustinthewind »
Follow the science? What is science with out the truth.  If there is no truth in it it is not science.  Truth is found by open discussion and rehashing facts not those that moderate it to fit their agenda.  In the end the truth speaks for itself.  Beware the strong delusion and lies mentioned in 2ndThesalonians2:11.  The last stage of Babylon is transhumanism.  Clay mingled with iron (flesh mingled with machine).  MK ultra out of control.  Consider bill gates patent 202060606 (666), that hacks the humans to make their brains crunch C R Y P T O. Are humans hackable animals or are they protected like when Jesus cast out the legion?

Online meberbs

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3096
  • Liked: 3379
  • Likes Given: 777
Re: Demonstrated FTL communication?
« Reply #62 on: 04/24/2020 06:41 am »
Skipping the first part since it is baseless ad hominem, nonsensical statements that demonstrating misunderstandings of GR on your part, and a diversion into talk of Woodward including equating something based on sound math and standard GR (the Alcubierre drive) with his flawed theory, which isn't based on standard GR. Why Woodward's statements in general are wrong should be and has been covered in the relevant thread.

Quote from: meberbs
This means we obviously don't understand each other and I'm not sure that will change anytime soon.
The primary reason here is that you keep misusing terminology even after the correct definitions and terminology have been explained to you. If you insist on making up your own language where words have different meanings than what scientists use, then communication will remain impossible.
you don't even specify the terminology your referring to.  Just accusations.  Not a lick of flexibility in understanding.
Could you please actually read my post? (Even if you don't reply to everything at least read it rather than claiming I don't say something that I do.) I gave specific definitions on the differences between the universal constant c, and the speed of electromagnetic wave propagation. I also pointed out that you seemed to use "non-local speed of light" to mean multiple different things. And clarified that such measurements (for whichever definition of non-local speed of light you pick) are never what people mean when they refer to FTL, with an example for clarification.

In the past (but irrelevant right now) a common example has been your misuse of the term "effective mass" I have explained that one to you a number of times, and you have never acknowledged it.

Changing what words mean every other sentence as you do is not "flexibility" it simply prevents meaningful communication.

See the below page which highlights absolute time and motion with respect to local space time as Galilean Space-Time allowing FTL
It has been long since demonstrated that the predictions of special relativity which differ from Galilean relativity hold true (time dilation, etc.) This means that the whole page is a big compare and contrast between 2 things when we already know which one is right.

The link provides misleading information, avoiding saying the actual conclusions of several things to give the appearance of a question. For example it insists on assuming "local realism" and discussing the relevant implications, when the Bell's inequality tests have disproven local realism. This does not point to contradictions in the theory like they claim but to the falsehood of their assumption. While quantum gravity is a problem as they say, nothing else in the page is discussing GR, and QED combines special relativity and quantum perfectly well.

I also argue it solves the twin paradox problem and leaves a changing non-local speed of light.
There is no paradox in the "twin paradox" it is an unfortunately misleading name (and called a paradox because people who don't understand special relativity and do the calculations wrong think there is a paradox). The resolution to it can be determined by simply applying relativity correctly, you don't actually need GR. In the standard situation, one twin accelerates mid way through to turn around and meet up with the other. It is this acceleration that differentiates the 2 and makes that twin younger.

Before making assertions about which of us doesn't understand relativity, try doing a search on this and learning something:
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/how-does-relativity-theor/
(Note that while it calls pointing to the acceleration "misleading" it is the acceleration which differentiates the 2 which they do agree with , since "leaving a reference frame" is done by accelerating. They are correct though that it is not the act of acceleration that directly causes the difference in age.)

There is a thread somewhere about resolutions to FTL paradoxes. There are basically 2 options that were come up with and I am not convinced they are actually different in practice. The basic one is that if there is a basic underlying universal reference frame, and all FTL is always forward in time in that frame, which is what your link seems to suggest. However, it does not provide any test for the existence of such a frame. All existing experimental data matches with relativity. If there were a universal frame that means there would be a way to measure your velocity relative to it, such as the Michelson-Morley experiment attempted to do. Not only has no such frame been found but no one even has a testable hypothesis proposing one that is actually consistent with existing experimental data.

Offline dustinthewind

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 902
  • U.S. of A.
  • Liked: 313
  • Likes Given: 355
Re: Demonstrated FTL communication?
« Reply #63 on: 05/07/2020 03:37 pm »
..
I stand corrected in thinking that vsl theories were related to light changing over the eons.  Must have been something else I read.  I was correct that even Einstein understood the non-local variability in the speed of light however.  It was Einstein that was formulating the vsl theory of the speed of light in 1911.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Variable_speed_of_light

Quote
Einstein's updated proposals (1905–1915)Edit

Albert Einstein went through several versions of light speed theory between 1905 and 1915, eventually concluding that light speed is constant when gravity does not have to be considered[5] but that the speed of light cannot be constant in a gravitational field with variable strength. 

« Last Edit: 05/07/2020 03:42 pm by dustinthewind »
Follow the science? What is science with out the truth.  If there is no truth in it it is not science.  Truth is found by open discussion and rehashing facts not those that moderate it to fit their agenda.  In the end the truth speaks for itself.  Beware the strong delusion and lies mentioned in 2ndThesalonians2:11.  The last stage of Babylon is transhumanism.  Clay mingled with iron (flesh mingled with machine).  MK ultra out of control.  Consider bill gates patent 202060606 (666), that hacks the humans to make their brains crunch C R Y P T O. Are humans hackable animals or are they protected like when Jesus cast out the legion?

Online meberbs

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3096
  • Liked: 3379
  • Likes Given: 777
Re: Demonstrated FTL communication?
« Reply #64 on: 05/07/2020 04:47 pm »
..
I stand corrected in thinking that vsl theories were related to light changing over the eons.  Must have been something else I read.  I was correct that even Einstein understood the non-local variability in the speed of light however.  It was Einstein that was formulating the vsl theory of the speed of light in 1911.
In none of your previous posts that I can tell did you claim that VSL is the speed of light changing over time (and I don't know what just "light" changing over time would even mean), you instead made incorrect conflations of VSL with effects such as time dilation in GR. The true constant c changing over time would be a true VSL theory. You appear to still be asserting the same thing you were before about "non-local" things, without defining how exactly something can be measured non-locally.

Your excerpt from wikipedia leaves out important context that I already addressed:

You are again confusing things. Einstein probably looked at true variable speed of light theories but these didn't work out (I say probably, because wikipedia indicates that he did but the article is not well written and it is not relevant to confirm). In GR the speed of light is a universal constant, different apparent results when you measure measure things non-locally is essentially an illusion. It is true that that is what you measure, but what you measure is not what the speed of light is defined as, you are measuring something different.
And to emphasize it again: That wikipedia article is poorly written, especially around that part. I can't be bothered to do the research required to properly re-write it, but it at least has the main point that any attempt Einstein made at VSL theory did not match experimental data.

Tags:
 

Advertisement NovaTech
Advertisement Northrop Grumman
Advertisement
Advertisement Margaritaville Beach Resort South Padre Island
Advertisement Brady Kenniston
Advertisement NextSpaceflight
Advertisement Nathan Barker Photography
1