question is: are we sticking with Einstein?

Kipp-- to get maximum response to your query-- go to the opening page on the forum and start a new thread --type in the same wording as you have on your post here. The only people to see your query here are those debating this topic thus limiting your exposure. On a new thread you'll get ample help---Geo.

 

Kipp - you have missed the thread, I'm affraid.
We are discussing the fundamentals of warp drives here.

 

Using parallel universes

 

Yes and string theory I think everyone is stringing everyone along Kipp, sorry to be more specific go to the opening page click on boat design-on the left upper level you will see "new thread" hit that one and present your query--Geo.

 

Shouldn't this thread be move to the "Propulsion" section of the forum?

 

Time is a vector, i.e., has both magnitude and direction. Time = distance/speed. Since distance and speed are by definition positive, you cannot have negative time. You must continue your life at the same pace Einstein did.

 

A nice poetic touch there Frosty, but the great Scottish poet wasn’t born at that time. I’m not sure what Robert Stevenson’s middle name was or if he had one.

 

Small random point... not to nit pick and I've been out of the field for many years, but:

You may not have negative "speed", but you most certainly can have negative velocity and acceleration.

And again... not be a jerk here, but as you said, velocity = distance/time. Solving for time, you are left with distance/velocity, of which either one or the other (distance or velocity) can be negative.

Not saying the argument is wrong (God knows my arguments in the first couple posts were way out there and not resting on any math at all), but your point here is that velocity can't be negative. It can. Much of it has to do with your choice of coordinate system or... getting back to Einstein... inertial frame of reference.

 

H-
Don't confuse "the arrow of time" with time being a vector. Time is a dimension in fourspace. We say that vectors in fourspace have a time or timelike component. With respect to relativity's equations, there are many universes where negative time is meaningful and necessary. From a mechanical point of view, CB showed that you were inconsistant in your use of vector and scalar quantities.

 

Some of you guys may be able to answer a simple question for me. Our sun is in a vacuum..Heat kills a vacuum.. so what surrounds the sun???

 

Who is "We"? The entire physics community considers this to be a surprise and frankly, there's much disbelief until these experimental results. But outside of science fiction, there has been no little accepted in the scientific community that particles with mass can exceed c.

So yes, this is REALLY "new", especially to those with an interest in particle physics.

I have absolutely no idea what you mean by "elemental dynamics" - please elucidate!

 

Sounds like an urban legend to me. Do you have a source?

In Europe, it has been 25 centuries since educated people thought the earth was flat, if they even did before that. In fact, I'm not sure that there ever was a time in written history when educated people thought the earth was flat.

The number of people who have been killed over who has the right god is small compared to the number who have been killed over political power and resources. Back before Christianity became a world power, people thought nothing of invading the neighboring tribe and killing and enslaving everyone. The Greeks used to kill all of the men, enslave all the women, and **** all the boys. The Mongols used to take a city, have one mass **** and then kill everyone and burn the city to the ground before heading off to the next city. The Romans used to torture people to death in big arenas for the entertainment of the crowds. None of this had anything to do with religion.

The idea that mankind would suddenly turn into a better, more noble species without religion is so preposterous that it makes flat earthers look positively academic.

 

What do you mean by "Heat kills a vacuum"? I haven't heard that before.

 

Irrelevent - c is known. If the distance is measured correctly and the time between sending and receiving the neutrinos is accurate (I'm sure both are well examined over the last few years), then it's frankly quite easy to calculate the discrepancy they have shown.

 

Actually, just as with Newtonian physics, Einstein added what happens at relativistic velocities, IF these experiments are validated then we may simply be in a position to add to Einstein's equations in a similar way - in other words, adding expressions to predict what happens above c.

Or not!