Achieving Faster than Light

I have often stated that absolutely nothing can ever travel faster than what we refer to as “the speed of light”. But just as a minor interesting note, there are actually 2 exceptions.

My meta-particle tracking program monitors for anything with gimbal velocities and anything traveling faster than light, primarily to help hunt down any errors in the program. Recently, I found it triggering yet I could find no error in the program. I investigated the equations over and over and was a bit puzzled as to how a particular particle could have a velocity greater than the max possible.

Well, as it turned out, a bit of a philosophical thought came to mind and revealed what was happening.

A particle’s location is defined by its center. By tracking its center, one knows at what velocity it is traveling. But in the case of particles, especially particles that are just beginning to form, an interesting effect takes place.

If a particulate is already traveling close to the speed of light, a common occurrence, and it runs up on a similar particulate running slightly slower, you would think the end velocity would merely be an average of the two. And it is… sortta. But what happens is that the two particulates merge into a single particle and guess what happens to the center of the first? Quite suddenly the center of the “particle” went from position A to position B (a particulate width distance away) almost instantaneously.

Of course the reason was simply that the particulate was still in a growth stage and as it grows, its center can outrun all of its constituents. Technically speaking, that really is the same as traveling faster than light. So it can be legitimately stated that a growing particle can, for a short time at least, travel faster than light. Of course, that time is in the range of fractional pico seconds, but still, it is an interesting note.

Then it occurred to me that every particle is actually growing and shirking at the same rate all the time and is thus stable. But what if I were to cause it to grow faster on one side and shrink faster on the opposite side? Again, as it turns out, for short times, that can actually happen and no doubt in space, it does happen.

The requirements for causing such an event involves a charge gradient which of course cannot continue for very long, but it could lead to much greater durations of exceeding the speed of light for non-growing particles than the growing particles mentioned before. And an ideal place to find such a naturally occurring situation would be the famed black hole. I can safely say, that some of the particles speeding into a black hole, especially one with a significant charge field, will in fact rush to their demise even faster than the light rushing along side of them. For how long that might be, I couldn’t venture a guess.

The shifting center would not actually add to the momentum of the particle, so no common energy equation theories get violated. The particle merely shows up at the destination and its demise before its photon partner.

…just an interesting observation.

Ah shit…

Very shortly after posting that OP, it dawned on me how one could theoretically keep a particle experiencing a positive gradient and thus continue to travel faster than light. It would be extremely difficult to arrange, but theoretically possible.

Let’s say you had an electron orbiting its nucleus and had the technical means to increase the charge (or mass) field in front of the electron while reducing it behind the electron. By arranging to do that sequentially, much like a stepper motor or an alternator, the field changing constituents would not need travel or change faster than light for the particle to never be able to catch up to the changing field in front of it. As the particle passes, the field in each location would be reduced back to a lower level.

The electron would be in a state of constantly growing more in front and shirking behind and thus its center would be shifting forward faster than its constituent mass could possibly travel. For as long as the device was operational and kept sync with the orbiting electron, the electron would achieve and maintain faster than light travel.

I really hate it when I outwit my own proclamations of impossibility… sigh

Continuing even further…

Again theoretically, a linear accelerator and relay could be arranged such that a particle could carry the information of an event in a straight line.

As the particle either traveled linearly itself, or relayed its effect to other particles inline, even though its own charge field could not grow faster than light such as to have affect as it passed, it could reach the end of a line and begin having its field effect upon the terminal detecting device before a photon had a chance to get to the detector.

Information traveling faster than light… gees… it must be bad news.

Why?! That only means you’re smarter than yourself. How many people can say that? Rejoice!

From what I gather, it looks like it all depends on the speed of gravitational propagation. If space can somewhat imitate the properties of solid matter such as inertia, elasticity, plasticity etc. that opens up a whole new area of spacial manipulation and brings Star Trek a little closer to home…

Why do I suspect that, a hundred years from now, folks will read the stuff we speculate about here and shake their heads in disbelief. How, they will ponder, could we be so fucking ignorant?!

Just as, a thousand years later, folks will be thinking the same thing about them.

Do you have ANY idea what kind of arguments that leads to inside ones head? It is like Dr Rodney McKay bunking with his twin.

Well, ye ole typical gravitational field (mass field) does in fact travel at the speed of light (one of my own revelations earlier in the project that I had thought probably impossible before hand). But if “space” emulates inertia, then it isn’t space any more and becomes ye ole Walmart variety BLACK HOLE. So I wouldn’t suggest playing with that one without serious helmet and knee pad play gear.

Oh you can bank on that one. For some of us, there is no need to wait…

Oh it is highly probable, short of a serious miracle, that there won’t be any “people” in a thousand years from now, not in the homosapian sense anyway. Homosapian is just too dumb as a species to survive it seems.

Based on your previous theories, spacial inertia makes sense. Suppose, for the sake of argument, we decide to suddenly materialize a planet in space. If the gravitational pull spreads through space at the speed of light (meaning it’s not instantaneous), that means that there’s a delay between the affect of the mass on the surrounding space and the occurrence of spacial curvature. This equates to the drag that occurs when a force is applied to an object. Inertia.

What kind of particles are you talking about? How are you monitoring them? What is a gimbal velocity?

Okay. You are using the word “inertia” slightly different than I use it, but yeah. And your example very much relates to what I do with my program. So that I don’t have to wait for a particle to accidentally form in the middle of my screen, I seed a particulate and let it grow into a full particle and during that process, it develops its mass and charge field much as you described.

Years ago, I thought of space in terms of a “field of reluctance” wherein it seemed reluctant to change and thus caused the noted phenomena relating to time and mass/inertia and charge attraction. Since then, I have adopted a different philosophical perspective wherein space is actually created by a “field of affectance”. The affectence field represents a much deeper understanding of exactly what is going on and lends itself to further analysis, which in this case finally led to a complete understanding of all of the fundamental relationships noted by contemporary physics along with additional refinements and revelations.

Two examples are the strong and weak forces. Jack (the name I give my program) reveals exactly how and why those forces exist. In effect the “strong force” turns out to actually be “no force”. The reason positive particles don’t repel away from each other in such close proximity is because the actual repulsion equation, slightly different than merely Q1*Q2 / (4πε0r^2) goes to zero when 2 particles are slightly over lapping. What is strong about it is that it is extremely difficult to get them separated to the point where they would begin to repel. I won’t try to go into here, but the reason for the “weak force” is far more interesting and a little surprising. Neither of their reasons were quite what I had speculated prior to developing the program although in the case of the strong force, I really should have foreseen that one…

Actually, I can’t tell you for certain which of the variety of physics defined particles I see and work with. RM uses different units of measure and trying to compare contemporary physics units of measure to RM units is about like trying to measure a fortnight in nanoseconds. I deal on the scale of somewhere in the neighborhood of fractional pico-seconds and pico-meters. The entire volume of my metaspace is probably on the order of about 20 picometers cubed. A single hydrogen atom would fill the entire screen. the calculations are done on a scale scale 4 times smaller, but I have the display zoom out so I can make sense of what I see. The program is already setup to allow for expansion up to about 50 pm cubed.

RM had to have its own units of measure as they are based on Definitional Logic, not comparative observations. RM uses units of “tacs” (Time for Affect to cause a Change) for time and believe it or not, “toes” for distance (Travel Of Effect). In one “tic” of the program clock, one pass of calculations, one tac is consumed and if nothing is impeding travel, one toe distance will be traversed by free radiation in the affectence field. So 1 tic = 1 tac = 1 toe (ain’t I clever ).

I don’t have a Rosetta stone to translate between RM and contemporary physics yet. That might take some doing and I very, very seriously need a break. So right now, I can guess that when a negative particle forms, it is an electron of -1ev and its counterpart would be the positron of +1ev .

In full view, a single “electron” takes up about a quarter of my screen, so I have to zoom out to allow space to see another particle and watch their interaction. Of course, what I see is really merely the numbers representing the field density within memory. I don’t “see” in the normal sense of light reflecting off of anything. My tracking monitor examines the field array for signs of particulate development and displays what amounts to field density numbers which I then filter out the background noise so I can see the particulate that the tracker has located and tagged. Originally I was over concerned about the spin qualities so I built the tracker to identify gimbal spin.

The “travel compensated gimbal vector”, tcgv, is merely the vector sum of the 3 axial spins compensated for travel. Later I found easier ways for the tracker to spot and reveal particulates. At any one time, depending on the ambient density, there might be from 0 to 50 particulates forming into particles. Fortunately I can control all of the elements required to limit how many particulates form and even what type. I can’t control their size or locations other than to merely have the program cheat and go interfere within the space. For investigation purposes, I “seed” a particulate by having the program inject “red matter” (just kidding). I have the program pre-assemble a particulate so that it will be located where I need it to be and have the velocity and charge I might need as it grows into a full particle.

What kind of instrumentation are you using to detect these fields?

Perhaps you missed this part, phyllo…