The Shalimar Treaty

[AngleWyrm]

As near as I can tell, the main argument against information travelling faster than the speed of light is that of causality. Most folks accept that effect cannot precede cause (in absolute time). Note how this is different from the assertion that time is relative. I tend to think that witnessing an effect before a cause does not necessarily violate causality. Like being struck by a bullet before hearing the gun go off. How is it different if we switch the media from sound to light?

Tom van Flandern has argued that the speed of gravity is much faster than light (like at least 200billion times c) in physics letters A 250. Steven Carlip argued against him in Aberration and the Speed of Gravity. Carlip accepts as a given that gravitic effects appear to arrive at earth from the sun much faster than the speed of light, even instantaneously. His argument against this effect is purely mathematical, and he suggests that some velocity-dependant factor in the formula almost cancels out the effects of propagation delay. He states other interpretation models are of course possible, but would cost the unity of the current mathematical model.

As for me, I've got my very own theory. It goes like this:
AngleWyrm's Gravitic Aether Pressure Theory.
Gravity is not an attractive force, it is a pressure experienced by all matter as it rushes "upward" through the aether. Aether is a sort of rain pressure/resistance that is the "downward" push that is imagined in the rubber-mat imagery, that causes things to roll downhill.

Hey, it seems to work for me

[Spoo]

AngleWyrm_2 said:I tend to think that witnessing an effect before a cause does not necessarily violate causality. Like being struck by a bullet before hearing the gun go off. How is it different if we switch the media from sound to light?

You CANNOT observe an effect before the cause, regardless of reference frame. You can be struck by a bullet before hearing it because the sound doesn't make the bullet hit you.

[AngleWyrm]

Spoo said:
You CANNOT observe an effect before the cause, regardless of reference frame. You can be struck by a bullet before hearing it because the sound doesn't make the bullet hit you.

Seeing the bullet exploding from the gun does not make the bullet hit you. Nor does observing the gunner shout "I will kill you now" and hearing the explosion that propelled the bullet. Observation of an event by an observer is something separate from the event itself.

I have clearly demonstrated a real and recordable instance of observing an effect before observing a 'cause'.

[douglas]

I don't know the exact equations for it, but you actually would observe a difference in the pulsar's frequency depending on your speed. Because you are moving away from it, each pulse would have a greater distance to travel to reach you, and so the observed period would increase by the time required for the light to cover the extra distance since the last pulse reached you. This increase in period is exactly linear with respect to your speed relative to the pulsar. The time dilation due to high speed movement is not linear, so it will generally not exactly cancel the doppler effect. There might be one particular speed where you would observe the same pulsar frequency as the stationary observer, but in most circumstances it would be different.

[AngleWyrm]

If I use the doppler effect of pulsar timings to measure my speed, then these two statements seem to indirectly conflict:

"As a result [of lower time figure], your measurement of light speed relative to yourself will come out exactly the same as the stationary observer's measurement of light speed relative to himself."

"The time dilation due to high speed movement is not linear, so it will generally not exactly cancel the doppler effect."

It would help if we had the formula used for this.
EDIT: Found a derivation of time dilation which is easy to read.

[Parasite]

Anglewyrm, I loved you link to the time dilation page. What a blast from my past. It was fun to go over the formulas again.

The Lorentz contraction is now believed to really be a rotation, but the formula is a bit more complex I believe.

Thanks all for an interesting read!

[AngleWyrm]

Here is a paper on Experimental Evidence of Near-field Superluminally Propagating Electromagnetic Fields
http://xxx.lanl.gov/ftp/physics/papers/0009/0009023.pdf

And here is an article on a light pulse that was seen leaving a gas-filled chamber before it even entered
http://physicsweb.org/articles/world/13/09/3.

It's pretty funny watching the media squirm, redefining words and making exceptions and calling doesn't count. Like the universe as we know it will topple. So? We've had Black Holes, Superstring foam (or whatever they call that), spatial distortions of curved space, intangible aether, ftl tachyons, Heisenberg uncertainty principle, frame dragging, increasing entropy, and many other phantoms. The universe as we know it is in a constant state of redefinition. Life will go on, new professors will be hired.

[Spoo]

AngleWyrm_2 said:
Here is a paper on Experimental Evidence of Near-field Superluminally Propagating Electromagnetic Fields
http://xxx.lanl.gov/ftp/physics/papers/0009/0009023.pdf

An interesting read, however the conclusions that the author draws are incorrect. Basically, the observed phenomenon is a superposition of waves that each travel at the speed of light. Within a quarter wavelength, the superposition itself appears to move at superluminal speed, however, no information travels superluminally. This paper explains it better than I can: http://www.grc.nasa.gov/WWW/bpp/pdf/Mojahedi-JPC.pdf
The main point being that special relativity remains valid.

And here is an article on a light pulse that was seen leaving a gas-filled chamber before it even entered
http://physicsweb.org/articles/world/13/09/3.

...Nowhere in this article does it say that relativity is wrong. The fact that relativity survives testing by this type of experiment only bolsters its correctness. Now, that's not to say that there won't be any corrections (or even replacements) to the theory sometime in the future. Believe me, if a physicist could disprove relativity, they'd be set for life. Nonetheless, if you believe the majority of scientists, relativity is essentially correct.

It's pretty funny watching the media squirm, redefining words and making exceptions and calling doesn't count.

Yes, the media often does this when reporting about science. This is bound to happen when simplifications are made to make the story easy to read. Take the second source you posted for example. Reading this, you might get the impression that scientists are "calling doesn't count" with regards to phase velocity being able to travel faster than the speed of light. The thing is, this was known all along. The article you posted even gives an example:

Nevertheless, velocities greater than c can be observed. Suppose a lighthouse illuminates a distant shore. The rotating lamp moves quite slowly, but the spot on the opposite shore travels at a far greater velocity. If the shore were far enough away, the spot could even move faster than light. However, this moving spot is not a single "thing". Each point along the coastline receives its own spot of light from the lighthouse, and any information travels from the lighthouse at c, rather than along the path of the moving spot. Such phenomena are described as the "motion of effects", and are not forbidden by relativity.

[Slick]

I thought this might be appropriately referenced here.

http://www.cnn.com/2005/TECH/science...eut/index.html

[narf poit chez BOOM]

The author of the Mageworld books (Does it say something about me that I can remember the series name but not the author name?) did something similair once. A certain publisher that had been labelled a 'vanity press' put out a statement saying that they rejected 80-90% of submitted material.

This author wrote a very general book script (Sometimes just a few sentences), got a bunch of other authers interested and had them all write out each chapter, seperatly and simultaneously. The result was submitted, accepted and *Published*. You could even buy it on Amazon, at the time I heard of this.

I've posted this elsewhere here if you want the full story. Probably in 'Jokes and Riddles', but I'm not sure.

* Edit: The book was submitted under the name of 'Travis Tea' and the 'book' was 'Atlanta Nights'. And here's the Amazon link to buy it:
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/AS...095302-6134538