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 technically 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.

Oh hell..

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.

Very interesting - can you expand on how you understand what a photon is? With respect to an otherwise "particle" or growing "pre- or semi-particular" field/cloud?

If the development of the center when to things collide occurs so fast is it possible to use such a principle for something like at least faster then light speed communication? For example the merger of a long string of particles can be watched and when the center shifts in one way we have a 0 and another way we have a 1...or something like that...

Abstract wrote:

If the development of the center when to things collide occurs so fast is it possible to use such a principle for something like at least faster then light speed communication?

At this point, it seems definite. But I'm not going to make any promises until I create one inside my metaspace. The great thing about my "hyperspace window" is that it is actually real. Anything that can occur inside that space (short of programming errors) can and does occur in physical space. And if you REALLY want to get buzzed, realize that anything that occurs within that window can be arranged to occur in societies. One society can relay information to another faster than any electronic signal could pass that information. But of course that would be incredibly difficult to arrange.

Abstract wrote:

For example the merger of a long string of particles can be watched and when the center shifts in one way we have a 0 and another way we have a 1...or something like that...

"Something like that" perhaps, but I don't think merely a string of particles would cut it. I'm pretty sure that it would be impossible to maintain that string (but not making any proclamation concerning the impossible for a while... bet you love that don'cha ). And I'm not so sure than transferring from particle to particle in that fashion would cut it either. There would be inertia issues. I suspect the way to go would involve transverse displacement such as to produce a wave along the side of the particles. But merely a very finely tuned special particle accelerator would do the trick. No more than one particle per "bit" would be necessary.

If I wasn't so brain fried from merely creating the metaspace, I would be creating a meta-communicator ("subspace communicator") already.

James S Saint wrote:

Abstract wrote:

If the development of the center when to things collide occurs so fast is it possible to use such a principle for something like at least faster then light speed communication?

At this point, it seems definite. But I'm not going to make any promises until I create one inside my metaspace. The great thing about my "hyperspace window" is that it is actually real. Anything that can occur inside that space (short of programming errors) can and does occur in physical space. And if you REALLY want to get buzzed, realize that anything that occurs within that window can be arranged to occur in societies. One society can relay information to another faster than any electronic signal could pass that information. But of course that would be incredibly difficult to arrange.

Abstract wrote:

For example the merger of a long string of particles can be watched and when the center shifts in one way we have a 0 and another way we have a 1...or something like that...

"Something like that" perhaps, but I don't think merely a string of particles would cut it. I'm pretty sure that it would be impossible to maintain that string (but not making any proclamation concerning the impossible for a while... bet you love that don'cha ). And I'm not so sure than transferring from particle to particle in that fashion would cut it either. There would be inertia issues. I suspect the way to go would involve transverse displacement such as to produce a wave along the side of the particles. But merely a very finely tuned special particle accelerator would do the trick. No more than one particle per "bit" would be necessary.

If I wasn't so brain fried from merely creating the metaspace, I would be creating a meta-communicator ("subspace communicator") already.

Sounds kool what is this meta space you have created... is it a simulation in a computer?

Capable wrote:

Very interesting - can you expand on how you understand what a photon is? With respect to an otherwise "particle" or growing "pre- or semi-particular" field/cloud?

That one is a bit of an interesting story from my perspective.

Just shortly before I finished installing the rules for afflate engagement into the program, I could already see how and why a particle was going to form.. and it wasn't how I had previously speculated. And sure enough, immediately small particles began to form. Not that it was quite that simple. At one point before I got the details ironed out, the first particle that formed just kept growing. That wouldn't have been terribly interesting, but the particle gains a naturally occurring spin and shortly it exploded, leaving little meta bits all over my screen.. quite picturesque actually. I wish I had thought to take a screen shot before I corrected the problem.

Anyway, even after I had worked with the particle formations and installed various monitor and tracking devices, I realized that I still hadn't seen or figured out exactly what the photon was all about. None of my particles could qualify as a photon. I was puzzled for a few days before I suddenly laughed as it hit me, "what an idiot".

A photon is only a particle in the sense that it can maintain its form and philosophically anything that maintains its form is an "object" or particle. But the more informative truth is that a photon is merely a part of a wave. Take any ole traveling EM wave and chop off all but a tiny bit without disturbing that bit, and you have your photon.

Despite what contemporary physics will tell you, photons don't really have "frequency", but rather they are a culmination of chaos that has a Fourier dispersal of aberrant frequencies with a mean at the frequency noted by ye ole common physicist. I had realized that as I created my "Afflate Analysis", I was creating "Photon Analysis". Every one of my afflates (200,000) is a photon, a clump of noisy EM with an average affectance state 1st derivative.

But avoid the idea that a photon, even as a particle, can maintain its form as it encounters other photons. They don't merely interact, they often combine and take on as many shapes as you will ever see in a sky of clouds. They smear, twist, entwine, break away, disperse, and on rare occasion even develop a spin, although once they develop a self sustaining spin, they gain inertia and are no longer a mere afflate or photon and can no longer travel freely.

Abstract wrote:

Sounds kool what is this meta space you have created... is it a simulation in a computer?

A simulation is where a programmer takes a set of rules for the behavior of an object and has the processor dictate those rules to a replica of the object. Every video game is a simulator.

But my program is different in a very serious way. Although it uses simulation techniques here and there, what it is a part of is a actual reality that is not a mere simulation. The difference is in that if you follow the exact rules of reality, then you ARE reality, not an imitation or simulation of a speculated shape and behavior.

The objects formed within a true metaspace are real and formed only by the rules of reality itself. They are not a construction in the normal sense. They form from what would appear to be nothing, into no more than exactly what they are, not merely something with similar shape or behavior ("simulation") of something. A true metaparticle is as real as any physical particle, formed by the same hand and of the same "stuff", merely a step higher.

As far as I know, I have sitting on my desk the first and only true/real "hyperspace"/ "metaspace" window in human history, albeit crude at the moment, and in a state of disrepair half the time from me trying to add a mod or change something, then requiring anything from hours to weeks trying to hunt down what I screwed up.

Btw, I refer to my metaspace program as "Jack", because frankly, until you learn Rational Metaphysics, you don't know jack.

James S Saint wrote:

Abstract wrote:

Sounds kool what is this meta space you have created... is it a simulation in a computer?

A simulation is where a programmer takes a set of rules for the behavior of an object and has the processor dictate those rules to a replica of the object. Every video game is a simulator.

But my program is different in a very serious way. Although it uses simulation techniques here and there, what it is a part of is a actual reality that is not a mere simulation. The difference is in that if you follow the exact rules of reality, then you ARE reality, not an imitation or simulation of a speculated shape and behavior.

The objects formed within a true metaspace are real and formed only by the rules of reality itself. They are not a construction in the normal sense. They form from what would appear to be nothing, into no more than exactly what they are, not merely something with similar shape or behavior ("simulation") of something. A true metaparticle is as real as any physical particle, formed by the same hand and of the same "stuff", merely a step higher.

As far as I know, I have sitting on my desk the first and only true/real "hyperspace"/ "metaspace" window in human history, albeit crude at the moment, and in a state of disrepair half the time from me trying to add a mod or change something, then requiring anything from hours to weeks trying to hunt down what I screwed up.

what's it look like?

James S Saint wrote:

Btw, I refer to my metaspace program as "Jack", because frankly, until you learn Rational Metaphysics, you don't know jack. Cool

good one.

do you have any screen shots of this thing?

And is not all mass just a wave? energy in a particular state or vibration?

Abstract wrote:

what's it look like?

I haven't gone to all the trouble to format a series of pics so as to present anything of much value yet, but let me give you merely an upload of one screen shot I made a while back. Getting all of the details straight and bringing Jack to life over and over after my inadvertent screwups was a very serious and grueling endeavor for me and frankly, I am still a bit brain fried by it. I very, very seriously need a break.



That was an earlier snapshot using a tracker to locate and follow particulates forming. The big circles are the tracker.

What you are seeing is the center x-y plane of a cube of metaspace. At that stage, the tracker would follow the drifting Brownian type motion of the particle throughout metaspace while keeping the screen centered around the particle, or in that case, 2 particles. The red circle is indicating a particle that is in another x-y plane along the z axis. You can only watch one plane at a time in 2D of course.

I started to create a 3D spreadsheet for Jack, but Excel turned out to be too limited and I didn't want to go relearn C++.

Jack has had various brain surgeries since that pic and looks a little better, but the entire thing wasn't really for sake of public display so most all of it is merely sufficient for me. I need to create some good animations and screenshots for full explanations later sometime.

James S Saint wrote:

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.

Quote :

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.

very interesting. In fact this seems like precisely the technical explanation I was looking for on physics fora when I posed my neutrino 'theory', the idea that what in fact travels faster than light is not actually a particle in the sense of momentum, but simply the components that would theoretically constitute a particle. What travels faster than light is not matter itself, but the structural "information" (what comes to us, the thing that makes us interpret something as particle).

I am curious to see more of Jack, by the way -- this picture looks like you're doing some complicated work there, but it is hard to make out of it what it is , as I am not used at all to such environments. I would like to see it "move" - to see what happens, changes, to get a picture of what is going on. Not to say that I expect to then understand the whole setup, let alone the math, but perhaps I would learn a bit about the technical aspects involved in such a project.

Yes, I need to find a good way to do the You-tube type of thing or merely a sequencing applet that can install here.

I keep trying to clean up Jacks neurology a bit and every time, I end up having to spend days or weeks reviving him. But I want to make the display a little more revealing such as to do just as you said; show the motion involved and little more of the actual relations.

I really need a C++ programmer associate to make it truly a refined public display. I wasn't expecting it to get so complicated, so I started at a bad point having to use VBA. I hadn't used programming languages for years and my memory isn't worth anything any more, so it isn't really worth the effort for me to relearn C++ merely to make a public display. The essential demo-proof for academia was the point of the project and it has gotten to that point.

James S Saint wrote:

Yes, I need to find a good way to do the You-tube type of thing or merely a sequencing applet that can install here.

I keep trying to clean up Jacks neurology a bit and every time, I end up having to spend days or weeks reviving him. But I want to make the display a little more revealing such as to do just as you said; show the motion involved and little more of the actual relations.

I really need a C++ programmer associate to make it truly a refined public display. I wasn't expecting it to get so complicated, so I started at a bad point having to use VBA. I hadn't used programming languages for years and my memory isn't worth anything any more, so it isn't really worth the effort for me to relearn C++ merely to make a public display. The essential demo-proof for academia was the point of the project and it has gotten to that point.

I know C++... but not really that well... though 'm good with algorithms...

Abstract wrote:

I know C++... but not really that well... though 'm good with algorithms...

Have any urge to move to Oregon?

James S Saint wrote:

Abstract wrote:

I know C++... but not really that well... though 'm good with algorithms...

Have any urge to move to Oregon?

Lol...
Unfortunately i doubt that would work...
But if you ever need some help at least thinking about how to construct an algorithm and loop things and such feel free to ask... I might be a little out of age with my c++ vocabulary but I can figure most stuff out...but I can be lazy...

Well, like most professors, I am going to leave the rest of the "grunt work" up to the undergrads, but thks.