flat assembler
Message board for the users of flat assembler.

 Index > Heap > 1,000,000 cogs perfectly aligned Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3  Next
Author
Borsuc

Joined: 29 Dec 2005
Posts: 2466
Location: Bucharest, Romania
Borsuc
Seeing that magnet example made me realize what this is about... or so I think.

What are you guys saying? That the magnetic/electric fields are instant? They also move with the speed of light. As does time.

I thought this was common knowledge among relativity. Sure if you say relativity sucks and is wrong, then at least make a thread about that. Why would this be any more special than "relativity is wrong, light can travel faster?"

Light is electromagnetic radiation and fields also. Why would an electric or magnetic field travel faster?

EDIT: To whoever said you can't add up speeds. That is correct, in relativity terms. Simply put, the "speed" is NOT LINEAR. It does seem linear when the speed is small.

Suppose on axis X is energy, and Y is speed. The relationship is NOT linear. Applying more energy may seem linear at lower speeds/energy combinations. But the more energy you apply, the more abrupt the function becomes. (I think the relationship is like 1/sqrt or something like that)

Essentially the speed will increase REALLY slowly once you get to a certain point, abruptly. You would require an infinite amount of energy to get the speed of light.

Code:
``` lim  = c
x->oo    ```
something like that.

Anyway the only "way" you can measure something, or rather a difference, going faster than light is if you have two objects going fast enough, faster than half the speed of light, travelling in opposite directions.

If you measure the velocity at which they are approaching one another, you will have a little above the speed of light. if they travel at c/2, then it will be exactly the speed of light.

But this is just for kicks, you still can't travel faster than light.
And no, "teleportation" does not cut it. That's not travel.

_________________
Previously known as The_Grey_Beast
05 May 2009, 21:28
revolution
When all else fails, read the source

Joined: 24 Aug 2004
Posts: 17279
revolution
Borsuc wrote:
EDIT: To whoever said you can't add up speeds. That is correct, in relativity terms. Simply put, the "speed" is NOT LINEAR. It does seem linear when the speed is small.
Borsuc wrote:
Suppose on axis X is energy, and Y is speed. The relationship is NOT linear. Applying more energy may seem linear at lower speeds/energy combinations. But the more energy you apply, the more abrupt the function becomes. (I think the relationship is like 1/sqrt or something like that)

Essentially the speed will increase REALLY slowly once you get to a certain point, abruptly. You would require an infinite amount of energy to get the speed of light.
It is not abrupt, it is exponential.
Borsuc wrote:
Anyway the only "way" you can measure something, or rather a difference, going faster than light is if you have two objects going fast enough, faster than half the speed of light, travelling in opposite directions.

If you measure the velocity at which they are approaching one another, you will have a little above the speed of light. if they travel at c/2, then it will be exactly the speed of light.
?? You mean if you "measure" two beams of light coming from opposite directions then it is 2c? The point of observation changes if you are the beam of light. This is what relativity is about. There is no fixed reference point to say that something is travelling at some known speed.

Last edited by revolution on 06 May 2009, 03:01; edited 1 time in total
06 May 2009, 02:08
Borsuc

Joined: 29 Dec 2005
Posts: 2466
Location: Bucharest, Romania
Borsuc
revolution wrote:
It is not abrupt, it is exponential.
I plotted the graph a really long time ago (I even forgot the formula) but it was pretty abrupt. Of course I don't mean discontinuous if that's what you're saying. But it's much more abrupt than a, let's say, exponential function or a polynomial of 2nd degree or maybe 3.

I remember it had something to do with 1/sqrt... that's kinda abrupt I think (division alone is abrupt around 0 ).

revolution wrote:
?? You mean if you "measure" two beams of light coming from opposite directions then it is 2c? The point of observation changes if you are then beam of light. This is what relativity is about. There is no fixed reference point to say that something is travelling at some known speed.
No I mean if you have an external view, and look at 2 objects approaching to each other. The velocity distance between them is like it moves twice their speed (of course). Example: if I walk towards you, an external dude will see me approaching you at the speed I am walking with. If you also walk towards me with the same speed, the external dude will see us approaching at speed*2.

And if our speed is greater than half the speed of light, then we'll approach each other (from external perspective) faster than the speed of light. But no, this doesn't have anything to do with faster than speed of light, like I said, it was just for kicks

_________________
Previously known as The_Grey_Beast
06 May 2009, 02:17
revolution
When all else fails, read the source

Joined: 24 Aug 2004
Posts: 17279
revolution
Coddy41 wrote:
I got lost there, what does that have to do with cogs?
It has nothing whatsoever to do with cogs, but it does relate to the FTL discussion. Do try to keep up with the discussion.
06 May 2009, 03:00
bitshifter

Joined: 04 Dec 2007
Posts: 764
Location: Massachusetts, USA
bitshifter
In America we call them gear's.
And the person who maintains their operation is called a gearhead, like me!
Hey, wait a minute, maybe thats why i have such hard time learning asm.

_________________
Coding a 3D game engine with fasm is like trying to eat an elephant,
you just have to keep focused and take it one 'byte' at a time.
06 May 2009, 04:52
dosin

Joined: 24 Aug 2007
Posts: 337
dosin
Well what you do is:

you take a particle of light
use the speed that each particle travels
inc the number of particles
each time..

one particle would reach the end at one time -but many particles inc the same speed would make it 1st

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

- -- --- ---- ----- ------ -------
-above is keeping it simple.

exponential - but align them to a linear state using a magnetic feild..

lol -

but cool topic
06 May 2009, 04:52
Borsuc

Joined: 29 Dec 2005
Posts: 2466
Location: Bucharest, Romania
Borsuc
dosin wrote:
Well what you do is:

you take a particle of light
use the speed that each particle travels
inc the number of particles
each time..

one particle would reach the end at one time -but many particles inc the same speed would make it 1st
I don't get it, to be honest
Sorry.

BTW bitshifter, nice signature
bitshifter wrote:
Coding a 3D game engine with fasm is like trying to eat an elephant, you just have to keep at it, taking it one 'byte' at a time.

_________________
Previously known as The_Grey_Beast
06 May 2009, 21:00
Borsuc

Joined: 29 Dec 2005
Posts: 2466
Location: Bucharest, Romania
Borsuc
Ok look, let me summarize this up, why I *think* (if I got it correctly) you (FTL advocates) definitely are wrong, at least as long as relativity is concerned. (of course it doesn't mean it's necessarily absolutely true).

You know sound right? It's like an atom passing 'information' to the neighbor, then the neighbor passes it to the next neighbor, and you have a propagating sound wave.

Right?

THINK: this doesn't happen in an instant, it happens with the speed of sound.

Ok, cool enough so far. Going back at the magnet example. What you see there is very similar, only that magnetic fields are involved in passing information.

Magnetic fields, or any other field, travel at the speed of light. They ARE NOT instant.

So in best case, the magnets would pass information (magnetic push) to the next one at the speed of light. Which makes it Light Travel. Not faster.

And finally:

Light is an electroMAGNETIC field radiation itself.

Saying magnetic fields or electric fields can travel faster than light is like saying light can travel faster than light. Circular logic LOL
06 May 2009, 23:17
bitRAKE

Joined: 21 Jul 2003
Posts: 2915
Location: [RSP+8*5]
bitRAKE
Science isn't done by assuming the conclusion. The speed of light is an axiom of relitivity theory. Using relativity to prove the speed of light is a circular argument. The accuracy of relativity gives great weight to the argument against FTL interactions at the scales where relativity is applicable.

Relativity means very little for interactions at the quantum scale - the scale where most modern technology operates.
Richard Feynman wrote:
… there is also an amplitude for light to go faster (or slower) than the conventional speed of light. You found out in the last lecture that light doesn't go only in straight lines; now, you find out that it doesn't go only at the speed of light! It may surprise you that there is an amplitude for a photon to go at speeds faster or slower than the conventional speed, c.
07 May 2009, 01:29
Borsuc

Joined: 29 Dec 2005
Posts: 2466
Location: Bucharest, Romania
Borsuc
But those 'amplitudes' average out to c eventually...
Relativity has been proven though -- not the light speed, but that speed isn't linear. And relativity has simple elegant equations to predict that -- it is only natural to assume they extrapolate on larger speeds. (this doesn't mean true but highly likely). Why complicate matters?

Also, relativity implies that going faster than light makes you travel back in time which leads to paradoxes...

_________________
Previously known as The_Grey_Beast
07 May 2009, 01:45
bitRAKE

Joined: 21 Jul 2003
Posts: 2915
Location: [RSP+8*5]
bitRAKE
Relativity has passed many, many tests on it - it is a great model of our observations. So, too has quantum mechanics. I don't think anyone here is trying to complicate matters, rather we are all exploring our collective understanding. The two theories don't fit together in any convenient way - is this complication of our making?

_________________
07 May 2009, 02:39
sleepsleep

Joined: 05 Oct 2006
Posts: 8903
Location: ˛　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣Posts: 334455
sleepsleep
the relationship between light year and time always confuse me in a sense that, how could they actually get associated?

if 1 light year (10 trillion km) just simply mean, distant.
if i travel from earth to planet X use 1 light year.
it just means i travel 10 trillion km at light speed. but upon reaching planet X, if earth passes 1 year, it means too i stay on the rocket for 1 year too.

idk, i always find the twin paradox ill logic.

one part that really make me curious is,
if FTL speed couldn't make any difference, why we assume light speed could?

in a twinkling of an eye, i am in planet x (which requires 10 light years to come from earth).
in another twinking of an eye, i came back to earth.

so, my friends' age around me plus 10 years?

if it wouldn't make difference in FTL speed, i believe it wouldn't make any difference too in light speed.
07 May 2009, 18:26
bitshifter

Joined: 04 Dec 2007
Posts: 764
Location: Massachusetts, USA
bitshifter
Some things cant be visualized to understand them.
Take for instance, a fourth, fifth, or sixth dimension.
Try to visualize what these dimensions look like, you cant.
But in a mathmatical formula we can use multiple dimensions.
So understanding something by calculation is quite different than seeing it.

_________________
Coding a 3D game engine with fasm is like trying to eat an elephant,
you just have to keep focused and take it one 'byte' at a time.
07 May 2009, 20:45
Borsuc

Joined: 29 Dec 2005
Posts: 2466
Location: Bucharest, Romania
Borsuc
sleepsleep wrote:
idk, i always find the twin paradox ill logic.
Ok here's a stupid visualization that helps newbies. (I've been there myself )

Imagine a TRAIN, with a head '>' and body (wagons) '-', for example:

Code:
`--->    `

suppose this train moves to the "right" of course, in this simplistic example (it actually extends everywhere).

Let's say you are '*' symbol:
Code:
`--->       *    `
it's obvious that the head will reach you first, right?

for example, after some time:
Code:
`--->*    `
and more time:
Code:
`-*->    `
goes through you, and after some more time:
Code:
`*  --->    `

whatever. This train travels with a constant speed, the speed of light, c. This train has a name. Its name is time.

Remember that the "train" extends in all directions in reality, BUT for the purposes of this discussion imagine that it only does in one direction -- to the right.

What happens if you start to travel to the right at c/2?

Suppose the train is at the following position, at t=1:
Code:
`--->  *    `
and, if you stayed still, at t=2, you would be in the following position relative to it:
Code:
`* --->    `
. However, if you start to go to the right at c/2 speed, you would be at the following at t=2:
Code:
`-->*    `
The train head hasn't gone through you yet because you go at c/2 in its direction, so it passes more slowly. It means time passes more slowly.

This is why going with higher speeds makes time pass slower, at least if someone externally looked at you (in other words, someone who sees the train normally).

Now suppose you WENT with c/2 and time passes twice as slowly, in comparison to those who are stationary. Right?

So after 6 minutes, time would pass 12 minutes for the others (in comparison to you) if you then "magically" communicate with the others (that is, some sort of teleporting the information/communication) you'll find this out.

Now there's no paradox involved -- after all, you are in a different part of the world (somewhere far) so it makes sense. Suppose you want to RETURN.

You go with the SAME c/2 speed. So after another 6 minutes you are back. Since now you are going 'in the opposite' direction of the train, time will pass twice as QUICKER to you than to them. So 6 minutes equal 3 minutes to them.

But here's the paradox. You've wasted 6+6 = 12 minutes in total, but they will have experienced the ORIGINAL 12 minutes + another 3 minutes during your return. So you're 3 minutes younger than your twin or in other words, you've travelled 3 minutes into the future.

_________________
Previously known as The_Grey_Beast
07 May 2009, 22:04
bitshifter

Joined: 04 Dec 2007
Posts: 764
Location: Massachusetts, USA
bitshifter
Thats a good way to put it!
I have another way also...

Lets say that you and i are standing in an open field
and there is approx 500 yards distance between us.
You are looking at me through a pair of binoculars.
I yell hello! at the top of my voice towards you.
The movement of my lips is going the speed of light.
And the sound of my voice is going the speed of sound.
Both are created at the same time, thus they are same age.
First you see my lips move through your optical lenses.
Later in time you hear what i had yelled to you.
From your perpective, the sound is much older than the sight.
I hope this makes sense to you

_________________
Coding a 3D game engine with fasm is like trying to eat an elephant,
you just have to keep focused and take it one 'byte' at a time.
08 May 2009, 11:58
Borsuc

Joined: 29 Dec 2005
Posts: 2466
Location: Bucharest, Romania
Borsuc
Yes. It's what I call that information has a finite speed, and if you see my post in the other thread, I think why time exists. Because information is not instant, be it light or sound.
08 May 2009, 21:18
Xorpd!

Joined: 21 Dec 2006
Posts: 161
Xorpd!
revolution wrote:
sleepsleep wrote:
if we to align 1,000,000 magnets inside a tube like picture?
then if i push the first one, would the last one fire out like bullet?
No. If it did then you have made a perpetual motion machine. You are trying to break "conservation of energy", a well established law of physics.

The mistake in your analysis lies in your failure to take into account the energy expended in assembling the configuration of magnets. With a few neodymium magnets and steel balls you can make a little Gauss rifle that actually does accelerate the output ball relative to the input ball.
10 May 2009, 17:38
revolution
When all else fails, read the source

Joined: 24 Aug 2004
Posts: 17279
revolution
How would you intend to keep all the magnets so close together before the first push? The picture as shown had no mechanism for keeping everything in place can one assume they are at rest? I had assumed that there was only friction to hold then in place (and this would correspond to only a small magnetic field strength). Maybe that was my wrong assumption, to take the drawing at face value as shown?
10 May 2009, 18:00
windwakr

Joined: 30 Jun 2004
Posts: 827
Location: Michigan, USA
windwakr
Is this real?
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-chat/2062115/posts
Quote:
Two photons can be connected in a way that seems to defy the very nature of space and time, yet still obeys the laws of quantum mechanics.

Physicists at the University of Geneva achieved the weird result by creating a pair of ‘entangled’ photons, separating them, then sending them down a fibre optic cable to the Swiss villages of Satigny and Jussy, some 18 kilometres apart.

The researchers found that when each photon reached its destination, it could instantly sense its twin’s behaviour without any direct communication. The finding does not violate the laws of quantum mechanics, the theory that physicists use to describe the behaviour of very small systems. Rather, it shows just how quantum mechanics can defy everyday expectation, says Nicolas Gisin, the researcher who led the study. “Our experiment just puts the finger where it hurts,” he says. The study is published in Nature

I've seen something like that on Discovery channel before....but on Discovery they claimed to only be able to do it over a few inches.

_________________
----> * <---- My star, won HERE
11 May 2009, 01:55
Borsuc

Joined: 29 Dec 2005
Posts: 2466
Location: Bucharest, Romania
Borsuc
Entanglement is not communication. Entanglement is only valid if you look AT BOTH of them. And looking at both of them REQUIRES information travel, light travel communication.

It is like encryption. Suppose you generate a random seed, and share it with me ("entangle" the two seeds). You and me will then have this key and go on different ends of the Universe.

I run the seed once and predict that after X number of usage (random function), the seed will be 0. (if it's a pseudo-random function that changes seed on usage)

I know that after Y number of usage in YOUR seed, the seed will also be 0. Hence I know your outcome.

Is this FTL? Not kinda.

It really isn't that weird, as far as I understood it at least. Suppose you have "quantum states" instead of "random seed", which are entangled. Then we go to opposite ends of the Universe. This 'state' is random and has a 50% chance to be in A and 50% to be in B (this is for simplification purposes).

I then examine it and it falls on A. Then, I know that in YOUR case, it will 100% fall on A, not 50%. But you don't know that, because you haven't communicated with me, which requires light-speed communications.

_________________
Previously known as The_Grey_Beast
11 May 2009, 02:23
 Display posts from previous: All Posts1 Day7 Days2 Weeks1 Month3 Months6 Months1 Year Oldest FirstNewest First

 Jump to: Select a forum Official----------------AssemblyPeripheria General----------------MainDOSWindowsLinuxUnixMenuetOS Specific----------------MacroinstructionsCompiler InternalsIDE DevelopmentOS ConstructionNon-x86 architecturesHigh Level LanguagesProgramming Language DesignProjects and IdeasExamples and Tutorials Other----------------FeedbackHeapTest Area
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3  Next

Forum Rules:
 You cannot post new topics in this forumYou cannot reply to topics in this forumYou cannot edit your posts in this forumYou cannot delete your posts in this forumYou cannot vote in polls in this forumYou can attach files in this forumYou can download files in this forum