 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> Which is exactly why light appears to "bend" around massive objects.
How does the theory deal with the light potentially having to go faster
than the speed of light (for example when the photons are aimed straight
at the centre of a massive object from afar)? If light always goes at
"c" relative to the local space, and the space is getting distorted,
this would appear to make the light go faster than "c" no?
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Am 21.10.2015 um 12:01 schrieb scott:
>> Which is exactly why light appears to "bend" around massive objects.
>
> How does the theory deal with the light potentially having to go faster
> than the speed of light (for example when the photons are aimed straight
> at the centre of a massive object from afar)? If light always goes at
> "c" relative to the local space, and the space is getting distorted,
> this would appear to make the light go faster than "c" no?
No, it would just reduce the distance the light needs to go.
(Also, mass tampers not only with space but also with time.)
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>> How does the theory deal with the light potentially having to go faster
>> than the speed of light (for example when the photons are aimed straight
>> at the centre of a massive object from afar)? If light always goes at
>> "c" relative to the local space, and the space is getting distorted,
>> this would appear to make the light go faster than "c" no?
>
> No, it would just reduce the distance the light needs to go.
>
> (Also, mass tampers not only with space but also with time.)
Just when you think you understand it! I thought I just had a vague
recollection of once reading a proposal for faster-than-light travel,
whereby space was distorted infront of and behind the object moving in a
certain way. But maybe it was Asimov that wrote it :-)
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Am 21.10.2015 um 17:04 schrieb Stephen:
I give up!
You win.
You have ground me down.
The best team won.
I owe you a drink.
(I'm just saying that you know. I am still right.) ;-)
--
Regards
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Am 21.10.2015 um 18:30 schrieb Stephen:
> Am 21.10.2015 um 17:04 schrieb Stephen:
>
> I give up!
> You win.
> You have ground me down.
> The best team won.
> I owe you a drink.
Here I was trying to convince you, and all I got is this lousy T-shirt...
> (I'm just saying that you know. I am still right.) ;-)
Of course. Aren't we all? :)
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Le 21/10/2015 17:00, scott a écrit :
>>> How does the theory deal with the light potentially having to go faster
>>> than the speed of light (for example when the photons are aimed straight
>>> at the centre of a massive object from afar)? If light always goes at
>>> "c" relative to the local space, and the space is getting distorted,
>>> this would appear to make the light go faster than "c" no?
presence of mass do not shorten the "distance". rather the opposite.
Think of it like liquid static water. presence of mass is adding jelly.
Now swim your way... it might be faster to go around the jelly than
going through it... even if the road would be pi/2 longer, at least for
some dense jelly spots.
btw, there is known experiment about travelling faster than light in a
medium (is that local space ?): it is possible, and it results in
Cherenkov radiation.
the void has the ior of 1, to go faster than light in void, you just
need to find "something" with an ior less than 1. The problem is
"just"... is there such white crow ?
>>
>> No, it would just reduce the distance the light needs to go.
>>
>> (Also, mass tampers not only with space but also with time.)
>
> Just when you think you understand it! I thought I just had a vague
> recollection of once reading a proposal for faster-than-light travel,
> whereby space was distorted infront of and behind the object moving in a
> certain way. But maybe it was Asimov that wrote it :-)
>
Might be tied to Roddenberry. You do not violate the rules of the speed
light limit in the fabric of the universe when you warp the fabric
instead of moving.
the saga ends with warp travel being limited due to the breaking of the
fabric caused by all the warping.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> btw, there is known experiment about travelling faster than light in a
> medium (is that local space ?): it is possible, and it results in
> Cherenkov radiation.
>
> the void has the ior of 1, to go faster than light in void, you just
> need to find "something" with an ior less than 1. The problem is
> "just"... is there such white crow ?
See my other thread "Random answer..." - AIUI ior less than one doesn't
actually mean the light travels faster than "c" through it, just the
peaks of the waves appear to move faster than "c" through it. It's
relatively easy to convince yourself that if the medium is generating
waves at the correct phase offset from the original source, when
combined with the source wave, it looks like the wave is going faster
than light through the medium.
>> Just when you think you understand it! I thought I just had a vague
>> recollection of once reading a proposal for faster-than-light travel,
>> whereby space was distorted infront of and behind the object moving in a
>> certain way. But maybe it was Asimov that wrote it :-)
>>
> Might be tied to Roddenberry. You do not violate the rules of the speed
> light limit in the fabric of the universe when you warp the fabric
> instead of moving.
>
> the saga ends with warp travel being limited due to the breaking of the
> fabric caused by all the warping.
OK it apparently has a name, but it seems unclear whether it is
physically possible to ever construct:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alcubierre_drive
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 10/21/2015 10:50 PM, clipka wrote:
> Am 21.10.2015 um 18:30 schrieb Stephen:
>> Am 21.10.2015 um 17:04 schrieb Stephen:
>>
>> I give up!
>> You win.
>> You have ground me down.
>> The best team won.
>> I owe you a drink.
>
> Here I was trying to convince you, and all I got is this lousy T-shirt...
>
A lousy T-shirt! (said in the voice of Dame Edith Evans.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oyuoUwxCLMs )
I offered to by you a drink, extending the cup of friendship. It might
even be possible to twist Dr. John's arm up his back to buy you the
second round.
I did understand you but don't agree with your conclusions.
>> (I'm just saying that you know. I am still right.) ;-)
>
> Of course. Aren't we all? :)
>
No. I was wrong once.
1972 if memory serves.
--
Regards
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Am 22.10.2015 um 17:44 schrieb Stephen:
> On 10/21/2015 10:50 PM, clipka wrote:
>> Am 21.10.2015 um 18:30 schrieb Stephen:
>>> Am 21.10.2015 um 17:04 schrieb Stephen:
>>>
>>> I give up!
>>> You win.
>>> You have ground me down.
>>> The best team won.
>>> I owe you a drink.
>>
>> Here I was trying to convince you, and all I got is this lousy T-shirt...
>>
>
> A lousy T-shirt! (said in the voice of Dame Edith Evans.
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oyuoUwxCLMs )
>
> I offered to by you a drink, extending the cup of friendship. It might
> even be possible to twist Dr. John's arm up his back to buy you the
> second round.
Too obvious: Brits + drink + cup = tea, certainly destined to end up on
my shirt while wrestling with Dr. John.
T-shirt, like I said. Lousy.
> I did understand you but don't agree with your conclusions.
>
>>> (I'm just saying that you know. I am still right.) ;-)
>>
>> Of course. Aren't we all? :)
>
> No. I was wrong once.
> 1972 if memory serves.
Nah, you're surely wrong there.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 10/22/2015 6:47 PM, clipka wrote:
> Am 22.10.2015 um 17:44 schrieb Stephen:
>> I offered to by you a drink, extending the cup of friendship. It might
>> even be possible to twist Dr. John's arm up his back to buy you the
>> second round.
>
> Too obvious: Brits + drink + cup = tea,
Cup? Nah! we drink straight from the bottle. Nae point in dirtying a glass.
> certainly destined to end up on
> my shirt while wrestling with Dr. John.
>
No worries. John prefers naked mud wrestling but don't worry. He is not
very good at it. ;-)
> T-shirt, like I said. Lousy.
>
>
As you will. I prefer woad.
>> I did understand you but don't agree with your conclusions.
>>
>>>> (I'm just saying that you know. I am still right.) ;-)
>>>
>>> Of course. Aren't we all? :)
>>
>> No. I was wrong once.
>> 1972 if memory serves.
>
> Nah, you're surely wrong there.
>
Don't tell my wife. She thinks that is when we got married.
--
Regards
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
