New here? I'm Roha — want a quick tour?
Nice! Want a quick tour of this page too?
New here? I'm Roha — want a quick tour?
Arches aren’t bad!
leads to causal paradoxes (such as, for example, an observer sending a signal to their own past).
Large Flying Immaterial Pink Elephants
However, modern science adheres to his old theory, doesn't it? And he didn't "say" it, but scientifically substantiated his theory, if you want to get technical.
I finally found an error in the Wiki. Our professor clearly proved that there is no such paradox in Special Relativity, because by the time the signal reaches its destination, the event has already occurred. Here.
However, modern science adheres to his old theory for some reason, doesn't it? And he didn't "say" it; he scientifically substantiated his theory, if you want to be precise.
The front one will reduce the distance between it and the destination point, and the rear one will perform the opposite function. Something like that.
What can you say about the expansion of the universe? After a certain point, it starts to expand at superluminal speed.
And this, by the way, is within the framework of General Relativity.
So, the space in front of the starship is shrinking, and the space behind it is expanding? Then it turns out that the space itself is moving, and not the starship) such a system is in Star Trek.
I don't quite understand. I think the idea is that in our frame of reference, two distant galaxies are moving away from each other at a faster-than-light speed. But it doesn't necessarily have to be the case in their frame of reference.
There must be some official basis, just like with the classic mechanics. Enshe couldn't have known EVERYTHING. The current scientific knowledge of the world is not accurate and complete. Who knows what other secrets will surface in the depths of the STO.
Besides, I already said that the existence of exotic matter has already been experimentally proven, so it's not such heresy. But the possibility of a warp bubble really makes you think. But I think there is a way out.
And what can you say about the expansion of the universe? After a certain point, it begins to expand at superluminal speed.
And this, by the way, is within the framework of General Relativity. Proof.
Even professionals (physicists, astronomers) often answer the question: "Can we observe a galaxy that is receding from us faster than the speed of light both at the moment it emits light and at the moment its signal is received on Earth?" - "Of course not!" Intuition based on special relativity (SR) kicks in, which one cosmologist aptly called "the shadows of SR." However, this answer is incorrect. It turns out that it is possible. In any cosmological model, the recession velocity increases linearly with distance. This is due to one of the most important principles - the homogeneity of the Universe. Therefore, there is a distance at which the recession velocity reaches the speed of light, and at greater distances it becomes superluminal. That imaginary sphere, at which the recession velocity is equal to the speed of light, is called the Hubble sphere.
"How is this possible!" the reader will exclaim. "Is special relativity wrong?" It is true, but there is no contradiction here. Superluminal velocities are quite real when it comes not to the transfer of energy or information from one point in space to another. For example, a sunbeam can move at any speed; you just need to place the screen on which it runs further away. SR "prohibits" only the transmission of information and energy at superluminal speed. And for the transfer of information, a signal is needed that propagates through space - the expansion of space itself has nothing to do with it. So, in our example with receding galaxies, everything is in order with the theory of relativity: they recede at superluminal speed only from the Earth observer, and relative to the surrounding space, their speed may even be zero.
Unfortunately, a spaceship does not fall under the definition of a non-informative object and is subject to the special theory of relativity, which in turn prohibits bodies with non-zero rest mass from moving at the speed of light.
Vayshan, please, formulate the Special Theory of Relativity (STR) for me. What you are so zealously defending is only a consequence applicable to the objects that people usually deal with. And the STR itself speaks of something slightly different. And it is also a special case of the General Theory of Relativity (GTR), also formulated by Einstein, and containing quite interesting things.
That's what fiction is for, though.
Sorry, but I was just referring to the wording. There isn't any in this quote. And in general, I was getting at the fact that speeds, high speeds, don't allow for Lorentz transformations due to the square root. And Lorentz himself came up with Lorentz transformations before special relativity, so the theory is a bit more complex there. And general relativity is even more complex.
The equations fit perfectly into Special Relativity, and it's obvious that light cannot propagate faster than approximately 300,000 km/s, and this was true even before any equations, which simply describe the process but do not explain it. Why is this speed the limit for photons and electromagnetic waves?
