Quote:
Originally Posted by Ralph Sir Edward
What Relativity describes, it describes quite accurately. Whether it describes all aspects of reality, is another question. <shrug> For example, Newton hypothesized light to be a particle. More proved it to be a wave via the initial 2 slit interference test around 1800. Quantum theory has proven that reality (as best as we can currently measure) to be far more subtle than either viewpoint.
Question, are there subtleties to reality that Relativity that haven't taken into account? I merely mentioned a piece of mathematics inherent in the logic chain. It had been a dead letter for over a hundred years, because there was no way to alter the quantities in question. That has changed in the last 10 years (or so).
I merely point out an avenue of research that fits the mathematics and might have an interesting result, to a S/F writer.
(Finally, it allow you to have all three, assuming you define FTL as faster than C, the speed of light in an unmodified vacuum. It doesn't allow you to exceed the speed of light in the area of lower e0mu0, it would just speed up light in that region.
Riddle me this, if C = 1/ sq root (e0 * mu0), which is a boundary definition for Maxwell's equations, why can't you mathematically substitute 1 / sq root (e0 * mu0) for C in all relativity equations?)
|
As a side note, be aware that my site requires Javascript to make the menu work. The
link you read is page 33 of 64.
Yes, subtleties might avenue of research that fits the mathematics and might have an interesting result, to a S/F writer. But
as I point out, there is a better than 50% chance that pursuing that avenue of research will make matters worse with respect to the desires of an S/F writer.
And riddle me this, if one can come to a marvelous result by simply mathematically substituting 1 / sq root (e0 * mu0) for
C in all relativity equations, why have you not done so, published your results, and won the Nobel prize for physics? If it was anything so simple, some theoretician would have tried it decades ago.
This is still all beside the point that any FTL drive is the same thing as a time machine, and would thus
destroy causality (short of Parallel Universes, Consistency Protection, Restricted Space-Time Areas, Special Frames, or some related way of straining at the gnat but swallowing the camel)
It still all boils down to the S/F writer whining
"That meany Einstein and his relativity won't let me have my FTL drive!"