# Federation Law of restricting cloaking device

Discussion in 'Trek Tech' started by Brainsucker, Sep 7, 2012.

Joined:
Apr 12, 2006
Location:
Still incorrect: in all reference frames, light always moves at 299,782 km/s, regardless of the velocity of the object that emits that light, regardless of the observer's relative motion.

That's Einstein's Postulate, the fundamental assumption of special relativity. You need to get your head around that for anything else to make sense.

It bears repeating that the photons arrive first only in the traveler's reference frame; they arrive second in the observer's reference frame. This theoretically allows for a causality violation, which is why FTL travel is sometimes assumed to be a form of time travel.

And I agree, like a lot of things in special relativity it seems very bizarre.

... in all reference frames. That means that no matter how much you accelerate, you cannot and will not ever encounter a photon that is not moving away from you at the speed of light.

Think about that for a moment. You just said above that the speed of light is the same in all reference frames, then no amount of forward acceleration can change the speed of light in your frame: If you're at .5C, light still moves forward at C. If you're at .9C, light still moves forward at C. If you're at 2C, light still moves forward at C.

This is because, as you said, the speed of light is a constant in all frames, and that means that TIME is variable. At FTL velocities your clock implicitly moves backwards and therefore your photons appear to be moving away from you while in other frames (whose clocks are moving forwards) those photons are moving towards you.

Velocity is a function of distance over time; that is, the distance to an object at T=0 plus the distance to that object at T=1, T=2, T=3, etc. it is not something you can measure against, say, the vacuum of space or the center of the galaxy and say "I am moving at X velocity." That would be a universal/all-encompassing reference frame, something that SR explicitly disavows.

I know that's confusing, and I know you're struggling with it. One thing that might help is to think of the dichotomy between, say, moral relativism and absolutism (the moral relativist claims that acceptable moral/ethical standards vary from culture to culture and that each culture's opinion of what is acceptable are equally valid). Relativistic physics is essentially the mathematical paradigm of PHYSICAL relativism: there is no such thing as objective truth, and there is no ONE answer for any particular question about velocity of time. It depends entirely on who's asking.

What do you think I've been doing for the past five days?

Last edited: Nov 20, 2012
2. ### blssdwlfCommodoreCommodore

Joined:
Feb 26, 2010
This pretty much sums up where you don't understand SR. If you're at 2C you are outrunning light IN ALL FRAMES. Until you are able to grasp this simple concept, none of your attempts at explaining SR are valid.

Joined:
Apr 12, 2006
Location:
I understand that just fine. The difference between you and me is that I actually understand WHAT THAT MEANS.

Answer this question before you pat yourself on the back for your superior understanding: in any given reference frame, how do you determine the velocity of an objective that is moving away from you?

4. ### blssdwlfCommodoreCommodore

Joined:
Feb 26, 2010
If you really understand WHAT THAT MEANS, then you'd abandon your line that a superluminal ship (AKA ship traveling Faster Than Light) would be able to look ahead, beyond the photons it is running into, with only Light Speed sensors.

Joined:
Apr 12, 2006
Location:
1) Since you do not seem to understand what a reference frame is, explaining this to you is pointless.

2) This is the second time I have given you the benefit of the doubt and the second time I have become convinced that you are simply trolling in order to save face and no longer care what's being discussed anymore. I will be more careful in the future.

6. ### blssdwlfCommodoreCommodore

Joined:
Feb 26, 2010
In other words, when you can explain it to me, you'll realize your mistake in thinking that photons which can only move at the speed of light in a vacuum can move faster than a superluminal ship. Speed of light in a vacuum is always the same across reference frames and because of that a ship traveling FTL will always outrun any photons it emits. If you could properly explain it, you would shoot down your own idea of a FTL ship being able to see forward with only LS sensors.

Look in the mirror. This is not the only time or thread (with me or anyone else) where I've seen you so fixated on winning your argument that you completely ignore any strand of logic. I won't call you a troll, though, since you appear to enter into these threads with the best of intentions. But you just don't know how to admit you've made a mistake.

Joined:
Apr 12, 2006
Location:
Yes, you're totally right, there's CLEARLY only one reference frame in the entire universe. I bow to your infinite wisdom.

8. ### UnicronContinuity SpackleModerator

Joined:
May 8, 2003
Location:
The Pyxis Unity
I think both of you can dial it back a bit. The whole discussion about FTL perception is suited for another thread, as this one's getting way off the rails.

9. ### blssdwlfCommodoreCommodore

Joined:
Feb 26, 2010
@Unicron - Will do