Navigation: LaesieWorks Identified Flying Objects Beyond lightspeed


Jump to:

LaesieWorks

IFO home
- Library
- My designs
- Theory

IFO shop


BEYOND LIGHTSPEED
Motion and Space might be very different from what we think.



Speed limit?
We could travel with the speed of light, if we turn ourselves into light, or if we send our information coded in light. That would be amazing. But as for traveling to other stars; it wouldn't be fast enough, because the nearest star is already so incredible far away: "Alpha Centauri" 4.37 light years away from our Sun. We have to find a way to travel much faster than light. They say nothing can travel faster than light. Is that true?!

A lightyear, what is that?
It's a distance. Light traveling from a light source, in vacuum space, is after one year, at a distance of one lightyear. Exactly how far that distance is, might depend on the condition of the space it's traveling through, if space can have a condition. In "empty" space, there is "nothing" to slow the light down or speed it up, that is the common assumption. The distance of a lightyear is now believed to always be 299792458*60*60*24*365.24 = 9460471451897088 meters.

Speed, what is that?
It's important to realize that speed is not a property of light or atoms. Speed is about how fast the distance between two is changing. A relative measurement.
So for example; it's false to say that an aircraft has a speed of 280 km/h. An aircraft can have a speed of 280 km/h RELATIVE to the ambient air, while at the same time having a speed of 220 km/h relative to the ground, and a speed of 560 km/h relative to an other aircraft coming head-on!

Light, what is that?
If light is a wave only, then space would have to be a medium, called "ether", because a wave needs a medium to travel through. One could have a speed relative to this medium, and the medium could give limitations to how fast light and atoms can move through it.
But if light is a particle, the particle can be the medium for the wave, and no ether is necessary.
Light has no mass, doesn't need to accelerate. Turning on a spotlight doesn't produce thrust in the opposite direction, so that proves it.

A particle, photon, an atom, what are these?
I'd say they're like a vortex in air; a lot of energy that moves in circles, or more accurately; mass that is being continuesly accelerated towards a center of less pressure. Question is; what is keeping the energy together? Is it pulled together or pushed together? If it is pushed together, then the pushing force must come from very high pressure ether, and our empty space believe is false. But space and light aren't equal to air, they have no mass, can't be compared well.
Free energy always travels with the speed of energy, it doesn't have to accelerate because it has no mass, that speed is its nature, is what it is. Going around in a circle doesn't result in tremendous acceleration G forces, because energy has no mass. So, the force pulling or pushing it towards the center doesn't need to be very powerful.

Space, what is that?
- Space is something; it's there. If it would be nothing, we wouldn't have to travel through it.
- "Empty" space is empty of atoms for sure, but what's space made of?


An experiment
In space, a blue laser's light pulse travels from a light source, to a piece of paper at a distance of 299,792,458 metres.
What can be observed?
- The light doesn't need to slowly accelerate to light speed, it starts at maximum speed.
- The laser gets no thrust from the light, thus light has no mass.
- The distance between the light source and the light pulse is growing.
- The distance between the paper and the light pulse is shrinking.
- The light doesn't lose it's energy while traveling.
- The light pulse arrives on the paper after exactly 1 second.

If at the same position there is a second light source, a red laser, moving in the same direction as the blue light pulse, but at 0.5x lightspeed relative to the blue laser, what will happen? Will the red light pulse go:
A) 1x lightspeed relative to its red laser, and
1.5 lightspeed relative to the blue laser, and
0.5x lightspeed relative to the blue light?
B) 0.5x lightspeed relative to its red laser, and
1x lightspeed relative to the blue laser, and
0x lightspeed relative to the blue light?
C) 1x lightspeed relative to its red laser, and
1x lightspeed relative to the blue laser, and
1x lightspeed relative to the blue light?
The most logical seems option A, but note there is a lightspeed of speed of 1.5 here. If space is a medium in which there is a speed limit for light and atoms, B would be the right answer. Answer C seems impossible because . But they, the scientist of today 2009, say "light always goes with the speed of light, relative to no matter what", and "nothing can go faster than light". To me this doesn't sound right.

If there's a rocket in a furthermore completely empty space (no stars or anything), what is the speed of that rocked? There's no way to tell. It blasts its engines, the craft is accelerated for 10 minutes, then the engines shut down. What is the speed of that rocked now? There's still no way to tell!
I think that anything that isn't accelerating by contact/conflict with other objects/forces, is at rest, even though it might have speed relative to other objects. Light is also at rest, while seemingly moving with the speed of light. Imagine this completely empty space again, with just one photon in it. What is the speed of this photon? There is no way to tell. It is vibrating and such, doing whatever photons do when they're alone, but as there is no contact/conflict with other forces, it's at peace. Until proven otherwise, I'd say objects don't move, the idea of objects in motion is an illusion. The only thing we can measure, is the amount of space in between two objects is changing. If it is impossible to tell what one object's absolute speed is, it is also impossible to know what the absolute speed of two objects are, even though we can measures how fast the distance in between is changing. Even one space with a billion objects, all with different relative speeds, are at rest/peace really, not moving, when not in conflict/contact.

So, as there is no way to tell the absolute speed of anything, I see absolutely no reason for a relative speed limit.
Not the objects are in motion, only the space in between is.
This view might undermine the common believe that objects are in motion.
All objects are at rest/peace, when not in conflict with other objects/forces.

But then how to explain relative speed? If the objects aren't moving, then what is? The space in between is changing, that we can see even without complex measuring equipment. That is a large mental flip, to think it's the space moving, not the objects. Is this correct though?

Empty space. Two space shuttles. No relative speed.
One of the good old fashion space shuttles fires his stone age rocket engines for 5 seconds, "accelerates" during these 5 seconds, then keeps "flying" away -for ever. Assuming that both space shuttles still don't move, only the space in between keeps growing, what has happened exactly? What is the difference between the situation before and after the 5 seconds of acceleration? Did the condition/shape of the accelerated space shuttle's atoms or space change? Can we measure that? Am I not well informed, or is indeed the only measurable thing the growing distance of space in between?

Distance, what is that?
Distance might also be very different from what we think. I looks like it has been proved that electrons can be "entangled". Quantum entanglement. A particle split in two, where the two parts seem to still be connected, even when the distance is very large. If for example the one part is touched, it has an immediate effect on the other part that is say 4 lightyears away. What? Are they still connected?! Did the information travel much faster than light?!
How do we measure distance?
- With a ruler. Basically how many atoms fit between two.
- With sound & "time", relative to how many time units pass by before the sound returns.
- With light & "time", relative to how many time units pass by before the light returns.
If more and more atoms fit in between, or if a wave/particle needs more and more time to travel from the one to the other, we say the distance is growing.
But how solid is this measuring of distance? Imagine a small compressed area in space relative to a large expanded area of space. When measuring them, both will seem to have equal length, but that's because the tools we measured with were compressed or expanded also. I don't know if space can be compressed and expanded (I do hear taking about curved space), but if possible then distance is relative to the condition of space.
When wanting to travel extreme distance, better travel through relative more expanded space. If there is no such area available in front of you, find a way to create it.


Time, what is that?
Time is an illusion. There is only now. The future and past are part of the very useful virtual reality every human has. Have you even been in a time other than now? Case closed.
Things change shape by the energy in it. How fast things can change is depending on the speed of energy, and the speed of energy is depending on the condition of space (IF there is a variable condition of space possible).
So, if two space ships travel a different path, and some day they meet again, and their clocks are out of synch, there has been no time travel mystery taking place. There clocks have simply been running at different speeds, caused by the different conditions of space one their paths.


Doppler effect
With sound in air: The measured frequency of sound depends on the relative velocity between the source and the observer. Moving towards a sound source will increase the frequency, and moving from a sound source a lower frequency. You know the sound effect of a fast car train or aircraft passing by: iiiieeeaaauuuwww (not sure if I spelled that correctly).
With light, it's the same: The measured frequency of light depends on the relative velocity between the source and the observer. Moving towards a light source will cause a blueshift, and moving from a light source a red shift.
All frequencies shift, and a different part of the electromagnetic spectrum becomes visible. Visible to the human eye are the wavelengths of about 380-750 nm, or 790–400 terahertz. When starting to accelerate towards a light source, first the invisible infra red becomes visible red, and the violet becomes invisible ultra violet.



MISTAKES IN AIR
The reason I write about mistakes with air here, is that similar mistakes could happen when talking about: light, energy, space, gravity, mass, and such.

People speak of high and low pressure areas, as if they are opposites, while both are actually positive pressure areas. Better to speak about higher and lower pressure areas. Correct = "This area has less pressure, relative to that area".

False = "The lower pressure area is sucking the air in". Air doesn't suck like that. Molecules can pull on other molecules, but that's an other story. Correct = "The air is pushed towards the area of less pressure".

False = "Fast air is of lower pressure, relative to slow air". This one is false because speed isn't a property of air. Speed is telling how fast the distance between two is changing. Speed has nothing to do with the pressure of air. Acceleration is of influence on pressure, but that's an other story.

False = "There is no pressure in this air-tank, it's empty". Is wrong because there is air in that tank, and it's pressure is about 10332 kgf/m?
There is no pressure difference between the air inside and outside, but there is pressure, and it's pretty high pressure also.

False = "Air weighs nothing".
Nop. Air has mass: Standard air at sea level = 1.225 kg/m?

False = "He's spinning air". Is wrong because air might seem to spin, but as mass doesn't want to accelerate unless it is forced to do so, the air is actually being continuesly accelerated towards the center of the spin. The force doing that is the atmospheric pressure, pushing the air towards the center, which is an area of less pressure.



====

Where there's energy, motion, there can be vortexes.


this page, not ready yet, as many


Giesbert


Back to top


Back to index