Rodney skreiv:
> For last two years, I have been working on a theory for faster
> than light travel, and I have hit a brick wall. The theory is stupidly
> simple, so someone should have thought of it by now, but I can't find
> it mentioned anywhere in the scientific litterateur. At this point,
> the only way that this theory could be wrong is if Einstein was
> mistaken. This I think is unlikely.
I actually think it's pretty likely. Or more precisely, "incomplete".
Newton worked pretty well for a large set of cases, but we later
discovered there are edge cases where Newton gives completely wrong
answers.
It's perfectly plausible that there are edge-cases where Einstein is
also wrong, probably ones involving stupendously high energies.
There is however a MUCH more likely way that your theory could be wrong:
*You* could be wrong. It reeks of arrogance to discount this possibility.
> As an object with mass is accelerated, it's mass increases.
Nope. That depends entirely on who is observing it.
> The more an object is accelerated, the more mass it gains.
Again: Only for certain observers, indeed "acceleration" as such only
makes sense relative to some frame.
> I would argue that what is being seen is caused by another mechanism.
> An object is accelerated though the exchange of force carrying
> partials, or photons. As an object is accelerated, it begins to
> experience time dilation. This slows an objects ability to exchange
> photons, which become phase shifted from those from the accelerator
> The faster the atom is traveling, the fewer photons are in phase to
> accelerate it faster.
So what happens to the rest of the photons, the ones generated but then
-not- interacting with the object ? How does the object manage to
actually gain the energy from those photons (as evidenced by the fact
that you can get the energy used for acceleration back by letting the
object do work while decellerating) WITHOUT interacting with them ?
Sounds like you invented a nonsense "explanation" to cover for the fact
that you don't understand what is going on.
> In the above example, the atom is being accelerated by an external
> force, the accelerator. If instead of an atom, the object was some
> form of rocket, with it's own engines. Then the object would be acted
> on by an internal force. There would be no phase shift as the object
> is accelerated.
There is -zero- difference between your two imagined scenarios. If you
are pushing on the exhaust or the exhaust is pushing on you is simply a
question of which reference-frame you're choosing. And all are equally
valid.
> If such a vehicle was capable of 1G of acceleration
> at 0.01% the speed of light, then it would be capable of 1G of
> acceleration at 99.99%.
As experienced by the people in the vehicle, yes. This is about the only
thing in your entire post that you got right.
> This acceleration would continue until the
> vehicle reached the speed of light, where the time dilation would be
> infinite, and time would stop.
It never reaches that speed. It does not even get -closer- to that
speed, as seen from within the vehicle. From the perspective of the rest
of the universe they -do- get arbitrarily close to C, but never quite
reach it because they seem to accelerate less and less. Time-dilation
accounts for the difference.
If you're sitting in the vehicle, you conclude that you're moving 10m/s
faster than you did 1 second ago.
If you're observing from a frame where the vehicle is already moving
fast enough to experience time-dilation of 100, then the vehicle spent
100 seconds gaining those 10m/s.
> According to Einstein's theory of relativity, a body traveling at
> the speed of light would have infinite mass. Infinite mass in a
> finite area is the definition of a singularity, the heart of a black
> hole.
From the POV of the people on the ship, they gained no mass at all.
> According to my theory, once the body was at the speed of
> light, no force in the universe could effect it. In either case, the
> body would be incompatible with this universe. The body would form a
> wormhole and drop out of the universe, reemerging in another part of
> the universe.
What makes it more "compatible" with that part ?
> At 1G of acceleration,(9.8 meters per second, per second,) it would
> take a vehicle 354 days, 7 hours, 24 minutes, and 5 seconds to reach
> the speed of light.
True, if Newton was right. Unfortunately for you, we are well-aware that
his theories don't work for such speeds.
Eivind Kjorstad
|
