• SUPPORT THE SHOW AND ENJOY A PREMIUM PARACAST EXPERIENCE! Welcome to The Paracast+, eight years young! For a low subscription fee, you can download the ad-free version of The Paracast and the exclusive, member-only, After The Paracast podcast, featuring color commentary, exclusive interviews, the continuation of interviews that began on the main episode of The Paracast. We also offer lifetime memberships! Flash! Use the coupon code ufo20 to receive a 20% discount on five-year or lifetime subscriptions. And PayPal now accepts cryptocurrencies, such as Bitcoin, in payment. We also offer a second payment method for major credit or debit cards (which also includes Apple Pay and Google Pay), so act now! It's easier than ever to susbcribe! You can sign up right here!

    Subscribe to The Paracast Newsletter!

The Moon



Anaximander

Skilled Investigator
Angelo, I really believe that time cannot be slowed.

And that time travel is impossible.

But so do men with PhDs who are smarter than I.

If you read that link I posted, you'll read some of their work.
 

mike

Paranormal Adept
Hey Mike,

Einstein's theories aren't falsifiable. Relativity is bogus. Gravity lensing is bogus.

Time travel isn't possible and you cannot slow time.



More here: Einstein Was Wrong - Falsifying Observational Evidence Presented - a knol by Michael Suede

I also used to believe in Einstein's theories when I was younger. Time travel? Relativity? I feel foolish for ever believing these things. But then again, we didn't have the internet and couldn't readily access the better theories - It is hard to use occam's razor when you've got so little to use it on.

Did you read this article

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2010-09-24/time-passes-faster-the-higher-you-are/2272360

Time passes faster the higher you are



Researchers in the United States have for the first time shown that time passes faster the higher up you are.
In a curious aspect of Albert Einsten's theory of relativity, they show that someone living or working long hours in a top floor apartment or office will age more quickly than someone on the ground floor.
To understand this research, you first need to grasp an idea thrown up by Einstein more than 100 years ago.
In his theory of general relativity, Einstein predicted that a clock at a higher elevation would run faster than a clock on the planet's surface because it experiences a weaker gravitational force.
The theory has been proven before, using jumbo jets flown at high altitudes, but this is the first time scientists have shown the theory holds if you elevate one of the clocks by just 33 centimetres.
James Chin-Wen Chou, a research associate at the US National Institute of Standards and Technology and a co-author of the study published in the journal Science, says his team wanted to demonstrate that.
"We also want to show people that now clocks are at this precision level, that we can see such small time dilation and gravitational shift," he said.
 

mike

Paranormal Adept
Further, the satellites are in orbits high above the Earth, where the curvature of spacetime due to the Earth's mass is less than it is at the Earth's surface. A prediction of General Relativity is that clocks closer to a massive object will seem to tick more slowly than those located further away (see the Black Holes lecture). As such, when viewed from the surface of the Earth, the clocks on the satellites appear to be ticking faster than identical clocks on the ground. A calculation using General Relativity predicts that the clocks in each GPS satellite should get ahead of ground-based clocks by 45 microseconds per day.
The combination of these two relativitic effects means that the clocks on-board each satellite should tick faster than identical clocks on the ground by about 38 microseconds per day (45-7=38)! This sounds small, but the high-precision required of the GPS system requires nanosecond accuracy, and 38 microseconds is 38,000 nanoseconds. If these effects were not properly taken into account, a navigational fix based on the GPS constellation would be false after only 2 minutes, and errors in global positions would continue to accumulate at a rate of about 10 kilometers each day! The whole system would be utterly worthless for navigation in a very short time. This kind of accumulated error is akin to measuring my location while standing on my front porch in Columbus, Ohio one day, and then making the same measurement a week later and having my GPS receiver tell me that my porch and I are currently about 5000 meters in the air somewhere over Detroit.
The engineers who designed the GPS system included these relativistic effects when they designed and deployed the system. For example, to counteract the General Relativistic effect once on orbit, they slowed down the ticking frequency of the atomic clocks before they were launched so that once they were in their proper orbit stations their clocks would appear to tick at the correct rate as compared to the reference atomic clocks at the GPS ground stations. Further, each GPS receiver has built into it a microcomputer that (among other things) performs the necessary relativistic calculations when determining the user's location. Relativity is not just some abstract mathematical theory: understanding it is absolutely essential for our global navigation system to work properly

The fact is on board clocks on satellites, have to use an algorithm to keep in synch with clocks on the ground.
The article you linked references NASA's gravity probe B experiment which confirms Einsteins frame dragging theory,
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frame-dragging

which in inself shows that bubbles of space time can be dragged
 

exo_doc

Foolish Earthling
Hey Mike,

Einstein's theories aren't falsifiable. Relativity is bogus. Gravity lensing is bogus.

Time travel isn't possible and you cannot slow time.



More here: Einstein Was Wrong - Falsifying Observational Evidence Presented - a knol by Michael Suede

I also used to believe in Einstein's theories when I was younger. Time travel? Relativity? I feel foolish for ever believing these things. But then again, we didn't have the internet and couldn't readily access the better theories - It is hard to use occam's razor when you've got so little to use it on.


Yeah...ummmm Anaximander, I really hope you are being sarcastic because that so-called paper is so full of misunderstandings and confused misgivings it had to be written by someone not knowing what they were talking about.

I mean, take the Twins Paradox example......both twins, knowing Relativity, would NOT expect to be the younger. One would stay on Earth while the other rode a ship at close to the speed of light.
Earth twin would KNOW he would age faster. Ship twin would KNOW when he got back to Earth his twin would be older. THAT'S why it's called a paradox.
 

Anaximander

Skilled Investigator
Hey guys look, I don't think many of you understand relativity. The number of people who understand it is relatively low.

It is easy to pretend to understand it and to go along to get along, but I don't do that. And I hope that if you don't truly understand relativity, you'll admit that. How many of you studied it at University?

There are other theories and models which are falsifiable and which far better account for the observations made of the universe. Cosmology does not need to include time travel, time dilation, dark matter, diamond planets, bending space, neutron stars, and whatever else they'll invent this year with our tax dollars.


Edit: Also wormholes. There is no proof of wormholes.
 

mike

Paranormal Adept
Understanding the theory is not necessary, the very fact that satellites need to adjust their onboard clocks to synchronise with clocks on the ground is an undeniable practical example of the reality of time dilation.
If the reality of time dilation wasnt factored into the workings of GPS sats, they would not work.
Perhaps you could give us an alternative explanation than time dilation, as to why they go out of synch.


Time Dilation Near the Earth
2
The modern theory of gravity, called the Theory of
General Relativity, developed by Albert Einstein in 1915
leads to some very unusual predictions, which have all
been verified by experiments.
One of the strangest ones is that two people will
experience the passage of time very differently if one is
standing on the surface of a planet, and the other one is
in space. This is because the rate of time passing
depends on the strength of the gravitational field that the
observer is in.
For example, at the surface of a very dense neutron star,
R = 20 km and M = 1.9 x 10
30 kg, so
T = t (1- 0.15)
1/2 = 0.92 t
This means that for every hour that goes by on
the surface of the neutron star (T = 60 minutes),
someone in space will see t = 60 / 0.92 = 65 minutes
pass from a vantage point in space.
T = the time measured by someone
located on a planet (seconds)
t = the time measured by someone
located in space (seconds)
M = the mass of the planet (kg)
R = the distance to the far-away
observer from the planet (m)
And the natural constants are:
G = 6.67 x 10
-11 Nt m2/kg2
C = 3 x 10
8 m/sec
The following problems require accuracy to the 11th decimal place. Most
hand calculators only provide 9 digits. Students may use the 'calculator'
accessory provided on all PCs and Macs.
Problem 1
- The GPS satellites orbit Earth at a distance of R = 26,560 km. If the mass
of Earth is 5.9 x 10
24 kg, use the formula to determine the time dilation factor.
Problem 2
- What is the time dilation factor at Earth's surface?
Problem 3
- What is the ratio of the dilation in space to the dilation at earth's surface?
Problem 4
- At the speed of light (3 x 108 m/sec) how long does it take a radio signal
from the GPS satellite to travel 26,560 km to a hand-held GPS receiver?
Problem 5
- The excess time delay between a receiver at Earth's surface, and the
GPS satellite is defined by the ratio computed in Problem 3, multiplied by the total
travel time in Problem 4. What is the time delay for the GPS-Earth system?
Problem 6
- From your answer to Problem 5, how much extra time does the radio
signal take compared to your answer to Problem 4?
Problem 7
- At the speed of light, how far will the radio signal travel during the extra
amount of time?
Space Math
http://spacemath.gsfc.nasa.gov
2
Answer Key:
Problem 1
- The GPS satellites orbit Earth at a distance of R = 26,560 km. If the mass
of Earth is 5.9 x 10
24 kg, use the formula to determine the time dilation factor. Be very
careful with the small numbers in the 9th, 10th and 11th decimal places!
Answer: ( 1 - 0.0084/2.65x10
7 m)1/2 =
( 1 - 3.1 x 10
-10) 1/2 =
(0.99999999969)
1/2 = 0.99999999984
Problem 2
- What is the time dilation factor at Earth's surface?
( 1 - 0.0084/6.38x10
6 m)1/2 =
( 1 - 1.3 x 10
-9) 1/2 =
(0.9999999987)
1/2 = 0.99999999934
Problem 3
- What is the ratio of the dilation in space to the dilation at Earth's surface?
Answer - 0.99999999984 / 0.99999999934 =
1.00000000050
Problem 4
- How long does it take a radio signal from the GPS satellite to travel 26,560
km to a hand-held GPS receiver?
Answer - Distance = 26,560 km x (1000 m / km) = 2.65 x 10
7 meters.
Time = Distance / speed of light
= 2.65 x 10
7 m / 3 x 108 m/sec = 0.088 seconds.
Problem 5
- The excess time delay between a receiver at Earth's surface, and the GPS
satellite is defined by the ratio computed in Problem 3, multiplied by the total travel time
in Problem 4. What is the time delay for the GPS-Earth system?
Answer - 0.088 seconds * 1.00000000050
= 0.088000000044 seconds.
Problem 6
- From your answer to Problem 5, how much extra time does the radio
signal take compared to your answer to Problem 4?
Answer - 0.088000000044 - 0.088 seconds =
0.000000000044 seconds.
Problem 7
- At the speed of light, how far will the radio signal travel during the extra
amount of time?
Answer = 3 x 10
8 m/sec x 4.4 x 10-11 sec = 0.17 meters.
This shows that Einstein's Theory of General Relativity is required to allow the GPS
satellite system to make precise measurements of the locations of objects on Erarth's
surface.

http://www.nasa.gov/pdf/438289main_BH_Time_Dilation_Earth.pdf
 

Anaximander

Skilled Investigator
Understanding the theory is not necessary, the very fact that satellites need to adjust their onboard clocks to synchronise with clocks on the ground is an undeniable practical example of the reality of time dilation.

This can be accounted for without using relativity. The papers are all available for download.

• GPS clocks and all other phenomena that supposedly “proves” Einstein’s version of relativity can be accounted for better using steady state models of the universe. Lorentz’s model can well account for observations in a steady state universe. Physicist Tom Van Flandern lays out the evidence here. An alternative theory based on Lorentz’s work that accounts for why the MM experiment showed a null result, as well as all other aberrations, can be found here. Similarly, physicist Randal Mills has demonstrated predictive success with a model solely based on classical physics. The simplicity of these models and accuracy of their predictions merits further review. The models presented are predicated on closed form classical physics, which is the only type of model that is fundamentally tied to reality. [107][108][109]

Also, Gravity probe B didn't detect frame-dragging and LIGO failed to detect the gravity waves you probably believe in.

*I understand that I probably won't convince you that time travel is impossible or that gravity lensing is not real and that wormholes don't exist. It seems like an inefficient use of time to try to convince someone who believes in these things (and does so without understanding them) that they are wrong.

There is also the chance that you might feign willingness to reconsider your beliefs in order to monopolize my time, and this is probably more likely an occurrence than you being willing to change your belief in time travel, time dilation, dark matter, diamond planets, bending space, neutron stars and wormholes.
 

mike

Paranormal Adept
Also, Gravity probe B didn't detect frame-dragging and LIGO failed to detect the gravity waves you probably believe in.

.

http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/gpb/gpb_results.html

NASA's Gravity Probe B Confirms Two Einstein Space-Time Theories
05.04.11



NASA's Gravity Probe B (GP-B) mission has confirmed two key predictions derived from Albert Einstein's general theory of relativity, which the spacecraft was designed to test.

The experiment, launched in 2004, used four ultra-precise gyroscopes to measure the hypothesized geodetic effect, the warping of space and time around a gravitational body, and frame-dragging, the amount a spinning object pulls space and time with it as it rotates.

GP-B determined both effects with unprecedented precision by pointing at a single star, IM Pegasi, while in a polar orbit around Earth. If gravity did not affect space and time, GP-B's gyroscopes would point in the same direction forever while in orbit. But in confirmation of Einstein's theories, the gyroscopes experienced measurable, minute changes in the direction of their spin, while Earth's gravity pulled at them.

The findings are online in the journal Physical Review Letters.

"Imagine the Earth as if it were immersed in honey. As the planet rotates, the honey around it would swirl, and it's the same with space and time," said Francis Everitt, GP-B principal investigator at Stanford University. "GP-B confirmed two of the most profound predictions of Einstein's universe, having far-reaching implications across astrophysics research. Likewise, the decades of technological innovation behind the mission will have a lasting legacy on Earth and in space."

GP-B is one of the longest running projects in NASA history, with agency involvement starting in the fall of 1963 with initial funding to develop a relativity gyroscope experiment. Subsequent decades of development led to groundbreaking technologies to control environmental disturbances on spacecraft, such as aerodynamic drag, magnetic fields and thermal variations. The mission's star tracker and gyroscopes were the most precise ever designed and produced.

GP-B completed its data collection operations and was decommissioned in December 2010.

"The mission results will have a long-term impact on the work of theoretical physicists," said Bill Danchi, senior astrophysicist and program scientist at NASA Headquarters in Washington. "Every future challenge to Einstein's theories of general relativity will have to seek more precise measurements than the remarkable work GP-B accomplished."

Innovations enabled by GP-B have been used in GPS technologies that allow airplanes to land unaided. Additional GP-B technologies were applied to NASA's Cosmic Background Explorer mission, which accurately determined the universe's background radiation. That measurement is the underpinning of the big-bang theory, and led to the Nobel Prize for NASA physicist John Mather.

The drag-free satellite concept pioneered by GP-B made a number of Earth-observing satellites possible, including NASA's Gravity Recovery and Climate Experiment and the European Space Agency's Gravity field and steady-state Ocean Circulation Explorer. These satellites provide the most precise measurements of the shape of the Earth, critical for precise navigation on land and sea, and understanding the relationship between ocean circulation and climate patterns.

GP-B also advanced the frontiers of knowledge and provided a practical training ground for 100 doctoral students and 15 master's degree candidates at universities across the United States. More than 350 undergraduates and more than four dozen high school students also worked on the project with leading scientists and aerospace engineers from industry and government. One undergraduate student who worked on GP-B became the first American woman in space, Sally Ride. Another was Eric Cornell who won the Nobel Prize in Physics in 2001.

"GP-B adds to the knowledge base on relativity in important ways and its positive impact will be felt in the careers of students whose educations were enriched by the project," said Ed Weiler, associate administrator for the Science Mission Directorate at NASA Headquarters.

NASA's Marshall Space Flight Center in Huntsville, Ala., managed the Gravity Probe-B program for the agency. Stanford University, NASA's prime contractor for the mission, conceived the experiment and was responsible for the design and integration of the science instrument, mission operations and data analysis. Lockheed Martin Corp. of Sunnyvale, CA designed, integrated and tested the space vehicle and some of its major payload components.

For more information about Gravity Probe B, visit:

http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/gpb/

and

http://einstein.stanford.edu/


A search for "gravity probe b confirms frame dragging"

http://www.bing.com/search?q=gravity+probe+b+confirms+frame+dragging&qs=n&sk=&form=QBRE

Gravity Probe B Data Confirms Frame-Dragging and Geodetic Effect in Support of Einstein’s General Theory of Relativity
http://www.lockheedmartin.com/news/press_releases/2011/0504_ss_GPB.html

Gravity Probe B confirms Einstein effects

By Jonathan Amos Science correspondent, BBC News One,

known as the geodetic effect, is the amount by which the mass of the Earth will warp the local space-time in which it sits.
The other, which physicists refer to as frame-dragging, is the phenomenon that sees the Earth twist local space-time around with it as it rotates.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-13286241

I dont know how you could state it didnt detect frame dragging, A search for "gravity probe b confirms frame dragging" will give you reference after reference that it most certainly did.
 

Anaximander

Skilled Investigator
I dont know how you could state it didnt detect frame dragging, A search for "gravity probe b confirms frame dragging" will give you reference after reference that it most certainly did.


Nope.

Read the report, they couldn't find any signs of frame-dragging until they decided frame-dragging must be what they were seeing in the data. A posteriori :

The final report issued by the Gravity Probe B team utilizes a hypothetical model to account for the effects of static build up induced error on the gyros. The raw data showed no signs of any frame dragging at all. Given that a purely hypothetical model was used to massage the data, the reports findings lack any definitive proof of frame dragging.


Hey you ever read dingle's question?

Some of you guys might like this one - it is a brain buster:

Dingle's Question:


University of London Professor Herbert Dingle showed why special relativity will always conflict with logic, no matter when we first learn it. According to the theory, if two observers are equipped with clocks, and one moves in relation to the other, the moving clock runs slower than the non-moving clock. But the relativity principle itself (an integral part of the theory) makes the claim that if one thing is moving in a straight line in relation to another, either one is entitled to be regarded as moving. It follows that if there are two clocks, A and B, and one of them is moved, clock A runs slower than B, and clock B runs slower than A. Which is absurd.


Dingle's Question was this: Which clock runs slow? Physicists could not agree on an answer. As the debate raged on, a Canadian physicist wrote to Nature in July 1973: "Maybe the time has come for all of those who want to answer to get together and to come up with one official answer. Otherwise the plain man, when he hears of this matter, may exercise his right to remark that when the experts disagree they cannot all be right, but they can all be wrong."


The problem has not gone away. Alan Lightman of MIT offers an unsatisfactory solution in his Great Ideas in Physics (1992). "[T]he fact that each observer sees the other clock ticking more slowly than his own clock does not lead to a contradiction. A contradiction could arise only if the two clocks could be put back together side by side at two different times." But clocks in constant relative motion in a straight line "can be brought together only once, at the moment they pass." So the theory is protected from its own internal logic by the impossibility of putting it to a test. Can such a theory be said to be scientific? --TB

http://www.ldolphin.org/vanFlandern/


---------- Post added at 05:24 AM ---------- Previous post was at 04:47 AM ----------

FYI, I want relativity to be real. And gravity waves too. Buzz Aldrin is working on gravity wave technology.

With quantum and high frequency gravity wave-based communications systems being developed, this would mean that time travel would be possible - at least for information.

A series of satellites communicating instantaneously could be used in conjunction with relativistic effects to allows us to see the future, to relay images back into the past. The further away from sources of gravity these probes or satellites got, the further back in time we would be able to send the data. Let's say five minutes.

If I believed in multiverse-theory then I would say that the future the probe saw wouldn't be our future, it would be the future of the universe running however (say 5) many minutes ahead as determined by relativity. And the probe that sent the data back to us would not be from our universe, but the one next to us five minutes ahead. But that doesn't matter because all the universes would be doing the same thing (ie, we send the data back to the past - actually the universe running five minutes behind hours - but we still receive data from the future because the probe in the universe next to us and five minutes ahead sends the data to back to us in our past. One endless circle jerk of infinity.)


So yeah I kinda want it to be real. This would give us such a military advantage. With enough bandwidth, troops in theatre could be told that they will be killed by an IED in two minutes and so they should take another route. Hell even a few seconds would make all the difference. People could be warned about disasters like tsunamis or tornadoes, fires, nuclear meltdowns, so many lives could be saved.

I want relativity to be real, but the proof just does not yet exist. Mind you I'm not saying it won't ever, just that it doesn't now. The development of instantaneous communications technology will allow us to test for and prove relativity. People won't be able to say it is not falsifiable when such technology comes into being.
 

mike

Paranormal Adept
There will always be those who propose different theorys, But we have experiments whos results are reported.
in adition to the gravity probe B experiment there is a another the lageos I and II ones

http://www.nasa.gov/home/hqnews/2004/oct/HQ_04351_time_drags.html

As The World Turns, It Drags Space And Time

An international team of NASA and university researchers has dramatically improved the accuracy of the first direct evidence that the Earth drags space and time around itself as it rotates. The measurements used the latest gravity models obtained from NASA's GRACE mission.

The researchers first measured the "Lense-Thirring Effect," predicted in 1918 using Einstein's theory of general relativity, in 1998 by precisely observing shifts in the orbits of two Earth-orbiting laser-ranging satellites. The team used additional observations of the same satellites, combined with a more accurate model of the Earth's gravity field, to yield the new measurement of the Lense-Thirring Effect.

The team was led by Dr. Ignazio Ciufolini of the University of Lecce, Italy, and Dr. Erricos C. Pavlis of the Joint Center for Earth System Technology, a research collaboration between NASA's Goddard Space Flight Center, Greenbelt, Md., and the University of Maryland Baltimore County.

"Our measurement agrees 99 percent with what is predicted by general relativity, which is within our margin of error of plus or minus five percent," said Pavlis. "This is a significant improvement over our 1998 measurement, which had an error margin of plus or minus 20 percent using the best gravitational model available at the time."

The researchers observed the orbits of the Laser Geodynamics Satellite I (LAGEOS I), a NASA spacecraft, and LAGEOS II, a joint NASA/Italian Space Agency (ASI) spacecraft.
The research, reported in the journal Nature, is the most accurate direct measurement to date of the Lense-Thirring Effect--a bizarre effect of general relativity, which predicts a rotating mass will drag space around it. The Lense-Thirring Effect is also known as frame dragging.

So thats another experiment whos results according to the scientists confirms frame dragging.

I can postulate the moon is made of green cheese and post reasons why this is so on the internet, but if samples brought back from the moon say otherwise, then the experiments results have to trump the theory.

The consensus is frame dragging is real, einstein predicted it, and two experiments confirm it.

You are free to believe what you like, but the point needs to be made that that view is not backed by the results of the experiments, or the consensus opinion of the scientists involved.

I suppose there will always be some who insist the world is flat, despite all the evidence to the contrary

Having said that, i personally dont think the speed of light is the limit, i think you can go faster
 

Anaximander

Skilled Investigator
Mike,

You cannot go faster than the speed of light. That is silly john lear-style talk.

Right?

Consensus and all that says it is. Consensus - you can't beat that.

http://www.nasa.gov/centers/goddard/news/topstory/2003/1212einstein.html


*Hey, you should go to a site called 'jref forum' and tell them about your light speed idea, they really like talking about that sort of thing. You can even use your real name there.

---------- Post added at 01:20 AM ---------- Previous post was at 01:06 AM ----------

On account of this is a moon thread, I've got some moon news from the wikileaks cables.

It seems there are talks with the Russians about building a moon base:


DEPT FOR EUR/PRA, OES/SAT NASA FOR O'BRIEN E.O. 12958: N/A TAGS: TSPA [Space Activities], PREL [External Political Relations], OREP [U.S. Congressional Travel], RS [Russia; Wrangel Islands] SUBJECT: CODEL ROHRABACHER EXPLORES FUTURE PATHS OF U.S.-RUSSIAN SPACE COOPERATION SENSITIVE BUT UNCLASSIFIED. PLEASE PROTECT ACCORDINGLY. ¶1. (SBU) SUMMARY: Congressman Dana Rohrabacher discussed potential areas of U.S.-Russian space cooperation with Russian officials in Moscow May 30 to June 2. The Russians were receptive to the Congressman's proposals for a joint mission to the Moon. Energiya Space Corporation President Vitaliy Lopota suggested a joint mission to Mars instead of the Moon, and Rohrabacher agreed to study the costs and risks of such an endeavor. Russian officials shared the Congressman's concerns about the need to establish an international partnership to track, detect and divert "Near-Earth Objects" such as meteorites, asteroids and comets, from collisions with the Earth. Russian officials also raised with the Congressman the draft Framework Technology Safeguards Agreement, the Sea Launch program, and the use of the Soyuz spacecraft for travel to the International Space Station. END SUMMARY. ----------------------- Planning a Moon Mission ----------------------- ¶2. (SBU) Congressman Rohrabacher discussed U.S. plans to establish a manned base on the Moon in separate meetings with Energiya Space Corporation President Vitaliy Lopota and Sergey Shishkarev, Chairman of the Duma Transport Committee and head of the Parliamentary Working Group on Aviation and Space. Noting that Russia had been a reliable and trustworthy lead partner on the International Space Station (ISS), Rohrabacher invited Russia to join the United States in establishing a joint base on the Moon. While the United States and Russia should play the lead role, other governments, such as the EU, could also participate in such an endeavor. Rohrabacher warned that China had its own Moon ambitions that were not necessarily in either Russia's or the United States' interests. ¶3. (SBU) Shishkarev agreed the United States and Russia should join forces for a Moon base, given the complexities of such an endeavor and the synergies that could be achieved by a meaningful partnership. Shishkarev noted that the partnership would need high-level political support on both sides to be successful. ¶4. (SBU) Rather than a moon mission, Energiya President Lopota felt that the United States and Russia could more effectively work together on a joint manned mission to Mars. Lopota proposed establishing within the next 15 years a manned orbiting presence around the Red Planet and robotic exploration of the surface. In Lopota's view, a Mars mission would be a more significant step forward in space science and exploration than establishing a manned Moon presence. After a manned Mars orbiting presence was established, Lopota suggested that the United States and Russia could plan a mission to the Moon from Mars. ¶5. (SBU) Rohrabacher stated that he would discuss a potential U.S.-Russian Moon partnership further with NASA Administrator Michael Griffin. He also said he would ask NASA to prepare a cost and risk assessment of a joint Mars mission and see how that cost-benefit analysis compared with a Moon mission.

http://www.cablegatesearch.net/search.php?q="moon+base"&sort=1
 

mike

Paranormal Adept
And yet one of the articles you yourself provided states

No one has paid attention yet, but a well-respected physics journal just published an article whose conclusion, if generally accepted, will undermine the foundations of modern physics--Einstein's theory of relativity in particular. Published in Physics Letters A (December 21, 1998), the article claims that the speed with which the force of gravity propagates must be at least twenty billion times faster than the speed of light.

in addition

A
Light that travels faster than the speed of light
From Science Blog

team of researchers from the Ecole Polytechnique Fédérale de Lausanne (EPFL) has successfully demonstrated, for the first time, that it is possible to control the speed of light – both slowing it down and speeding it up

A brilliant young physicist João Magueijo asks the heretical question: What if the speed of light—now accepted as one of the unchanging foundations of modern physics—were not constant? Magueijo, a 40-year old native of Portugal, puts forth the heretical idea that in the very early days of the universe light traveled faster—an idea that if proven could dethrone Einstein and forever change our understanding of the universe. He is a pioneer of the varying speed of light (VSL) theory of cosmology -an alternative to the more mainstream theory of cosmic inflation- which proposes that the speed of light in the early universe was of 60 orders of magnitude faster than its present value.
http://www.dailygalaxy.com/my_weblog/2008/04/faster-than-the.html


Faster-than-light (also superluminal or FTL) communications and travel refer to the propagation of information or matter faster than the speed of light. Under the special theory of relativity, a particle (that has mass) with subluminal velocity needs infinite energy to accelerate to the speed of light, although special relativity does not forbid the existence of particles that travel faster than light at all times (tachyons).
On the other hand, what some physicists refer to as "apparent" or "effective" FTL[SUP][1][/SUP][SUP][2][/SUP][SUP][3][/SUP][SUP][4][/SUP] is the hypothesis that unusually distorted regions of spacetime might permit matter to reach distant locations faster than it would take light in the normal or undistorted spacetime.

Raymond Y. Chiao was first to measure the quantum tunnelling time, which was found to be between 1.5 to 1.7 times the speed of light.
The physicists Günter Nimtz and Alfons Stahlhofen, of the University of Cologne, claim to have violated relativity experimentally by transmitting photons faster than the speed of light

And its all relative (no pun intended)

Universe is at least 150 billion light-years in diameter. For comparison, its age is estimated to be about 13.7 billion years.

It is possible to travel faster than light. You just wouldn't travel faster than light.
Seems strange, but by manipulating extra dimensions with astronomical amounts of energy, two Baylor University physicists have outlined how a faster-than-light engine, or warp drive, could be created that would bend but not break the laws of physics.
"We think we can create an effective warp drive, based on general relatively and string theory," said Gerald Cleaver, coauthor of the paper that recently appeared on the preprint server ArXiv.org
The warp engine is based on a design first proposed in1994 by Michael Alcubierre. The Alcubierre drive, as it's known, involves expanding the fabric of space behind a ship into a bubble and shrinking space-time in front of the ship. The ship would rest in between the expanding and shrinking space-time, essentially surfing down the side of the bubble.
The tricky part is that the ship wouldn't actually move; space itself would move underneath the stationary spacecraft. A beam of light next to the ship would still zoom away, same as it always does, but a beam of light far from the ship would be left behind.
That means that the ship would arrive at its destination faster than a beam of light traveling the same distance, but without violating Einstein's relativity, which says that it would take an infinite amount of energy to accelerate an object with mass to the speed of light, since the ship itself isn't actually moving.
The fabric of space has moved faster than light before, says Cleaver, right after the Big Bang, when the universe expanded faster than the speed of light.

http://news.discovery.com/space/warp-drive-spaceship-engine.html

The Alcubierre drive, also known as the Alcubierre metric, is a speculative, but valid solution of the Einstein field equations. It is a mathematical model of a spacetime exhibiting features reminiscent of the fictional "warp drive" from Star Trek, which can travel "faster than light", although not in a local sense.
In 1994, the Mexican physicist Miguel Alcubierre proposed a method of stretching space in a wave which would in theory cause the fabric of space ahead of a spacecraft to contract and the space behind it to expand.[SUP][1][/SUP] The ship would ride this wave inside a region known as a warp bubble of flat space. Since the ship is not moving within this bubble, but carried along as the region itself moves, conventional relativistic effects such as time dilation do not apply in the way they would in the case of a ship moving at high velocity through flat spacetime relative to other objects.

Indeed frame dragging is an important concept in this idea, the idea that you drag a bubble of spacetime faster than light, the ship inside this bubble doesnt violate the speed of light

All the math here

http://earthtech.org/publications/davis_STAIF_conference_2.pdf

Abstract
. The canonical form of the Alcubierre warp drive metric is considered to gain insight into the mathematical
mechanism triggering the effect. A parallel with the Chung-Freese spacetime metric is drawn to demonstrate that the
spacetime expansion boost can be considered a 3 + 1 on-brane simplification for higher dimensional geometric effects. The
implications for baryonic matter of higher dimensional spacetime, in conjunction with the Alcubierre metric, are used to
illustrate an equation of state for dark energy. Finally, this combined model will then be used to outline a theoretical
framework for negative pressure (an alternative to negative energy) and a conceptual lab experiment is described.

INTRODUCTION
What if it were possible to cover vast interstellar distances in arbitrary short periods of time? What if one could
fabricate an Deus ex Machina that could be employed to accomplish such a goal? What would this machine look
like? How would an engineer or physicist go about the process of fabricating such an apparatus? All daunting
questions to be certain, but there are some potential answers - at least
theoretical ones anyway.
The notion of inflation is fairly well known in the literature and has some common acceptance in its most current
form evolved from Guth’s original model. It is this mechanism that motivated Alcubierre (1994) to construct a
metric that employed inflation to allow an observer to traverse vast distances in arbitrary times by riding inside a
‘warp sphere.’ The benefit of employing inflation is that one never violates the speed of light locally, one merely
rides space itself to achieve the desired result of getting to Alpha Centauri in less than four Earth years. Now time
for some bad news. The Alcubierre model requires negative energy, which is obviously not your typical gardenvariety
matter that you can pick up at the grocery store in the boson/lepton aisle. It is this requirement that relegates
Alcubierre’s model, in its original form, to simply being a toy mathematical construct.
All hope need not be lost - yet. The principal author has done some follow-on work with the original metric to put it
into canonical form (White 2003). In this form, it is easier to see what may really be responsible for the space
expansion/contraction. In the metric’s canonical form, to be discussed later in this paper, one can see that the boost
is the driving phenomenon acting on an initial velocity. The space expansion/contraction is a dependent effect, sort
of like a space drag around the traveling warp sphere space. That still leaves the negative energy issue to be more
formally addressed. It is this issue that will be tackled in this paper by means of comparison with higher
dimensional metrics and the canonical Alcubierre metric.
 

Anaximander

Skilled Investigator
And its all relative (no pun intended)


We live in exciting times. There is a very good chance that relativity will be proven in our lifetimes.

Not just through observations which may or may not be attributable to it's effects, but to the point where I won't be able to say it isn't falsifiable (this is of course contingent on the development of ftl communications technology, be it quantum or hfgw based). Of course it will be gravitational time dilation that is tested for, but that would prove relativity.

The internet debates probably won't end though.... You'll always have the hold-outs waving around their closed-form classical calcs and aether.

What do you think of m-theory?



“Unthinking respect for authority is the greatest enemy of truth.” - Einstein (The Authority on Relativity)


I think he would have wanted us to explore these things for ourselves and come to our own conclusions, as opposed to believing him because he was Einstein. I bet he'd be happy that people are still coming up with ways to test his ideas.
 

mike

Paranormal Adept
I dont automatically assume Albert was right about everything, (i dont think the SOL is the limit for example)
Frankly it cant be if our data about the size and the age of the universe are correct, as the fabric of space would have to have moved master the the SOL in order for the numbers to add up

I do think the gravity probe B experiments and lageos I/II experiments confirm frame dragging.
I read hawkings brief history of time in the late 80's and managed to get my head around string theory, M-theory is a logical extension of that, but high order maths gives me a headache.
 

Anaximander

Skilled Investigator
Frankly it cant be if our data about the size and the age of the universe are correct, as the fabric of space would have to have moved master the the SOL in order for the numbers to add up


Yeah, that's an issue. I've read various theories that try to account for it and I am not satisfied by any one in particular.

Is there anything that you think has potential to account for this expansion? Any paper you like?

Edit:

Shit, I think we killed this moon thread.
 

mike

Paranormal Adept
The two scenarios that come to mind are, our data is wrong, that we are only seeing a portion of the universe, and assuming its the totality.
The other is simply that the energy of the big bang was so great, it pushed matter out faster than the speed of light.
 

Decker

Administrator
Staff member
Well Boys, for what it is worth ... "What in hell does this have to do with the Moon??!!"

LOL

Decker

PS I am still scratching my head on those last several posts ...
 

mike

Paranormal Adept
Lol, i ported this to another thread yesterday Don, but the short version is, i posted that the moon might have been placed in orbit with the possibility of a null time field being used.
The physics discussion was born of that.



sex-equation.JPG
 
Top