tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4637778157419388168.post7664449157128580638..comments2024-03-21T09:01:08.175-07:00Comments on Physics with an edge: Breaking the speed of light limit?Mike McCullochhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00985573443686082382noreply@blogger.comBlogger5125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4637778157419388168.post-79896182131560583092016-10-11T06:51:10.207-07:002016-10-11T06:51:10.207-07:00Ted. Your comment makes clear one advantage of MiH...Ted. Your comment makes clear one advantage of MiHsC: that the thing accelerating only needs to be the thing 'seen' to be, ie: matter. Whereas with dark energy you have to say that space itself is expanding and matter takes a ride, but space is not a measurable thing so this is unfalsifiable. Generally, MiHsC involves 'observables' which is a great advantage to a theory (relativity & QM came from a focus on observables, an principle started by Mach).Mike McCullochhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00985573443686082382noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4637778157419388168.post-46912440874679582142016-10-10T21:03:20.334-07:002016-10-10T21:03:20.334-07:00Old thread, but just found this via the link in th...Old thread, but just found this via the link in the Star Trek convention post.<br /><br />It seems to me that both the Dark Matter acceleration (of all of spacetime) and your MiHsC theories lead to the same residual acceleration of a near light speed object, and both rely on General Relativity to allow spacetime to expand with the accelerating matter so that special relativity is not violated (special relativity being an approximate solution to GR for small, flat regions of spacetime). The only difference is that in the Dark Matter model, matter is being "taken along for the ride" as dark matter causes the expansion, and in MiHsC, spacetime is expanding because of the minimum acceleration of matter.<br /><br />Of course, in the rest frame of the object, there is no problem with further acceleration. It's only in certain Lorentz shifted observer frames that the objects acceleration would appear to be limited.<br /><br />I like the MiHsC explanation better due to my distaste for the ad-hoc nature of "dark" thingies that make astrophysicists think that they don't have to solve problems with their theories. The MiHsC theory needs work, but is at least trying to be a complete theory, not a glorified fitting function.Ted Ripperthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09573421303645340339noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4637778157419388168.post-79975155588534640332015-06-03T06:02:45.124-07:002015-06-03T06:02:45.124-07:00I'm assuming that the Unruh radiation is emitt...I'm assuming that the Unruh radiation is emitted (just like Hawking radiation from a black hole) by a Rindler horizon that is moving in the same reference frame as the accelerated object, hence no Doppler shift.Mike McCullochhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00985573443686082382noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4637778157419388168.post-58109307252629441572015-06-03T04:27:32.437-07:002015-06-03T04:27:32.437-07:00Would the Unruh waves in front of the direction of...Would the Unruh waves in front of the direction of travel not be Doppler blueshifted to high energy and those behind redshifted, providing an asymptotic barrier preserving the lightspeed limit?Geoffhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07065848582219331473noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4637778157419388168.post-11821608168923082352015-02-08T03:01:43.369-08:002015-02-08T03:01:43.369-08:00Have been pondering this one myself. How do you im...Have been pondering this one myself. How do you imagine they manage to crack lightspeed though?qraalhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13436948899560519608noreply@blogger.com