AS the immortal known as Q, the universe works subtly but distinctively different for me than it does for your typical mortal.
Take for instance a tornado.
To humans, these things when they strike land are destructive forces which leaves a swathe of disaster in its wake.
To yours truly, not only have I accidentally created hurricanes such as Hurricane Katrina by cheering on the satellite views of these storm systems hoping for larger and more destructive storms just because it was entertaining to see the aftermath and the wind speeds….
But by and large, both of these storm systems originate as black holes and slide the matter sucked into them into alternate realities, many of which ‘bubble up’ as entertainment in ‘the real world’.
And you thought Alice in Wonderland was not real?
Silly, naive humans.
I suppose you are the type of beings who also thought the original radio broadcast featuring Orson Welles with the War of the Worlds wasn’t real either, or the moon landing was definitely real and there’s no rational basis to the supposition that it was faked.
What about a flat Earth?
Don’t tell me you’re still not familiar with the holographic universe concept and there are indeed flat versions of Earth out there…..
But I digress, narcissism creates its own form of science in the observable world and it doesn’t always make obvious sense to those on the outside, particularly those who believe in things such as balance, perfect order, and the truth.
Why is that?
Well, First of all – the truth from an egocentric perspective changes over time, and because this influences the foundation and structure of the very world around that which is making the choices, not only does the rule of law for man constantly change, but so does just about everything else at every level – up to and including the natural structure of the universe itself.
Here’s an example:
Years ago, I abhorred the use of recreational drugs. Accordingly, society around me followed my lead and created rules and laws in accordance with my distaste for those drugs. For me, the drugs represented a loss of control of my predictable world and mental faculties, and I flat out didn’t understand what I was seeing or experiencing which intensified emotions such as fear and anxiety.
But as I became more experienced with this thing called life, the same old world and it’s predictability became boring, so I found myself yearning for these emotions, and over time, the disdain I had for those recreational drugs dissipated as I realized they could serve as a conduit and avenue of discovery in a world where everything was known and quantifiable to introduce new possibilities into my life.
So 20 years ago. Where the recreational use of drugs absolutely happened. The laws have loosened up over time to make marijuana legal – as a direct result of my ‘vote’ to eliminate that law years ago, and police have adopted a more lenient and tolerable approach to drugs in general which basically does it’s best to maintain a positive community self image while at the same time permitting the use of illicit drugs as long as those drugs don’t openly threaten the integrity of the image of that society.
‘Exploration of the mind is permissible under self controlled conditions’ seems to be the adopted rule.
Something I myself always felt was fair to guarantee both individual choice in a semi-controlled manner with the support of the community while minimizing it’s erosion maintaining equilibrium between the two.
But as Q, it’s the science we’re talking about, right?
Over the next few years, scientists are going to be learning to do something previously thought impossible – which is – when you exceed the speed of light, much in the same way you exceed the speed of sound – SOMETHING will happen.
From a pilot’s perspective, when a vehicle exceeds the speed of sound, the aircraft will certainly be a little more difficult to control, but as once was theorized – the aircraft doesn’t ‘rip apart’… It becomes a little more difficult to control, sure, but what’s interesting about a vehicle breaking the speed of sound is that to an OUTSIDE observer listening and watching an aircraft break the speed of sound, it creates something called a sonic boom – where sound – in a literal sense is ripped from the aircraft and in a detached way will trail it.
I’ve heard it, and at slower speeds, you can still hear it starting to happen as anyone who has heard an aircraft pass very fast and low overhead hears the sound of that object well after the object’s passed over.
Light does the same thing.
If you take an object with a ‘warp capable engine’ – and its propulsive power is enough to exceed the speed of light, from within, in much the same way the first aircraft breaking the sound barrier were difficult to control which caused the rapid development of more and more sophisticated analog control mechanisms which could be used by the pilots to control the aircraft at faster and faster speeds, you will find at warp 1.0 (a space craft traveling at the speed of light) – that while controlling the craft is only a little more difficult than at slower speeds, to those within the space craft, there’s not a lot the faster than light traveler will see differently other than space moving by quicker.
To an OBSERVER though, observing a craft that goes from 0 to light speed in a matter of seconds, what you will see isn’t that much different than the experience one might have with sound.
Like the trail of sound that follows a sound barrier breaking aircraft, a space faring space craft traveling at or above the speed of light will leave a trail of light, in what’s known as a warp trail, which is nothing more than a long streak of light until the light reflected off the surface of that space craft quits hitting the surface of that craft in a manner in which you’ll see that reflected light.
This appears not that much different than how a meteor might look when streaking into the atmosphere of a planet.
What’s important to understand about Faster-Than-Light travel, or FTL as it’s referred to is a couple things:
- Einstein’s equation of relativity – in full form is “e=mc^2 + pc^2”. In the friction-less vacuum of space – an object traveling at high velocity does NOT have resistance in the form of friction to reduce or erode the speed of an object. So what this means is – the ONLY thing accelerating and decelerating an object in space is the object itself.
It’s like driving a car, where unlike most cars that have resistance, as you push on the accelerator, it will always move faster than it was a moment before because there’s no natural forces resisting the acceleration.
And no, it’s not ‘cold in space’, and no you will not freeze instantly in space, it’s a vacuum – without temperature of any kind (temperature requires atoms which would create friction). Hollywood dramaticism at work there. Don’t believe they tell you.
So as the momentum of a space craft increases, the mass – by this equation’s definition will decrease in inverse proportion – to maintain equilibrium in this equation. All things being equal, as (p*c)^2 gets closer to e, the less mass there will be, which makes it important to understand what’s happening with the mass.
The hint was with the tornado and hurricane.
I’m going to wait for another time to explain this where those thoughts have clarified to find a better way to explain what I’m understanding.
- Einstein’s equation is relative to THIS GALAXY (The Milky Way) only, and there’s no guarantee it’s a measure of every other galaxy ‘out there’ – which by and large DO have different equations and.or methods for organizing information and forming realities.
For example. If you alter e=mc^2 to e=mc^55, there’s a galaxy ‘out there’ for that which may or may not look the same as ours. In some galaxies, there’s literally no governing equations. In other galaxies, the equations may look fundamentally different and abvsurd – even comical – compared to our own – take for instance the equations on the back wall of the “game” of Paper Mario:
So before one were to explore other galaxies, it would be necessary to overcome the mental and psychological resistance to believe there’s a single one size fits all equation for measuring and defining reality.
And for the geeky scientist and analytical types – figuring out and understand the equations and permutations for other galaxies might be… intriguing, and like Paper Mario, might also provide for some awesome entertainment options and idea possibilities?
Expanding Einstein’s equation even further: e(t)=(m*c(t))^2 + (p*c(t))^2, where t is the interval we’re observing.
Remember, Einstein’s equation is an OBSERVATIONAL equation for this universe.
I like to think about this from a camera’s perspective. In general when reducing the shutter speed for the lens of a camera, say from 1/300th of a second to 1/2000th of a second, less light is let in to the camera’s light detector, which results in a darker image. The aperture of the camera, otherwise known as the f stop – like the iris of a pupil – when adjusted larger will let in more light, which can create better lighting for faster exposure times, but there’s only so far the lens can open and only so much light to let in.
So when using Einstein’s relativity and taking samples leveraging various time intervals, what can be seen in an image may change dramatically creating different results based on the sample time period.
Personally. I’m suspecting it’s somewhere in here that one could effectively take pictures at different intervals in time – by altering the time intervals and scaling the resulting image’s spectra across the range the visible light spectrum.
For example. Let’s say we accumulated a great deal of information by sampling 5 seconds worth of information using Einstein’s relativity. If looking at it like one would look at a photo, it might be all white. But if you dilate/scale the visible light spectrum frequency (380 to 750 tHZ for visible light) in accordance with the time interval taken, and then recalculate that image….
My bet is you might see something remarkably different than the original image.
TIME has to be taken into account for all measurement equations….
Where I’m going with point 3 even I’m not sure at the moment.