You are here:
Home Jack Sarfatti's Blog Blog (Full Text Display) Debate with Nick Herbert: Do we need warp drive?

See below how Einstein came to the right result for the somewhat wrong reason.

You miss my point Nick - time dilation ruins the trip - too many years pass back on Earth and by the time you return all your friends you left behind are dead. With warpdrive and wormholes and assuming Hawking is wrong about chronology protection we don't have that problem. UFO evidence suggests that we do not live in the boring universe without time travel, warp drive and dark energy wormholes. Slower than light drives do not work fine because of time dilation and also the huge energy needed to get anywhere interesting in short proper time on the ship that will be long proper time back on Earth.

On Aug 23, 2010, at 5:17 PM, nick herbert wrote:*You don't need warp driveto travel (subjectively) and returnfaster than light.Slower than light driveswill work just fine.*

On Aug 23, 2010, at 5:05 PM, JACK SARFATTI wrote:

The problem with special relativity is time dilation in the last case you cite below. With warp drive, and if chronology protection is wrong, then we can go home again and return to our original time after a trip to the edges of our observable universe and beyond sandwiched between our future and past horizons.

On Aug 23, 2010, at 4:52 PM, nick herbert wrote:

including the ends of searchlight beams and the intersection of closing scissors.

Nick Herbert

Nick Herbert

On Aug 23, 2010, at 3:18 PM, JACK SARFATTI wrote:

On Aug 23, 2010, at 1:52 PM, Erasmo Recami wrote:

P.S.:

ones with the lowest speed, instead of the largest speeds, as you can easily demonstrate), let me add a paper, attached here with as the

second (last) paper.

The 1st attachment contains the initial two (introductory)

chapters of our recent J.Wiley (2008) book on Localized

Waves (super- and sub-luminal)

Thanks for any attention from you and /or your correspondents

Yours

Erasmo (Recami)

On Sun, 22 Aug 2010, JACK SARFATTI wrote:

OK Waldyr, but as I read in a bit more detail you never claim actual superluminal energy transport or signaling in violation of traditional signal locality. You have a finite aperture space-time limit pulse with dispersion and the front is always limited to c it's only a central peak that is FTL for short time until peak catches the front where it is trapped - correct?

Begin forwarded message:

From: Erasmo Recami <Erasmo.Recami@mi.infn.it>

Date: August 23, 2010 1:46:46 PM PDT

To: JACK SARFATTI <sarfatti@pacbell.net>

Cc: Stardrive Forum <admin@stardrive.com>

Subject: Re: Waldyr Rodrigues's "Superluminal" X EM Wave (Dr. Quantum)

in my homepage www.unibg.it/recami , and in the review article on

X-shaped localized waves, that I want to put at your disposal, and at

the disposal of the colleagues you'll kindly contact.

Finite-energy solutions have been mathematically contracted,

and experimentally constructed, since MANY years, both as exact

solutions, and as mere approximate solutions by space-time

truncation (the big expert being Michel Zamboni-Rached)

In recent times we worked especially about localized solutions

not super- but subluminal (they are know to exist with any

group-velocities, from zero to infinity), and in particular

on the ones "at rest" (with static envelope) that we called

Frozen Waves, and promise to have the greatest applications ("Bracco Inaging" wanted to Patent them...)

I just came back from Rio de Janeiro

Regards,

Erasmo

================

On Sun, 22 Aug 2010, JACK SARFATTI wrote:

However, before we get too excited traditional retarded causality excluding both faster-than-light signals and faster-than-light propellant escape speeds is not violated it appears because Waldyr wrote:

superluminal electromagnetic X pulse? Our answer is no. Indeed, finite

aperture approximations (FAA) to exact superluminal X-like solutions of

Maxwell equations (which, of course have finite energy) have already been

produced [7,8]. However, these FAA are such that their peaks move with

velocity v > 1 but their front always moves with the speed of light. This

result has been predicted in [16,18] and is endorsed by the experimental

results of [7,8] as proved in [13]. Now, concerning the solutions we just

found, in order for them to be produced (by an antenna) as real physical

waves it is necessary to produce waves that extend in all the z = 0 plane

where the antenna is located for the time interval -T < t < T. Of course,

this is physically impossible because it would require that the antenna should

be an infinite one.

(iv) Besides the superluminal solutions just found, there are also finite

energy subluminal solutions (to be reported elsewhere). We must say that

even if the new superluminal solutions cannot be produced by physical devices

the only possible reason for their non existence in our universe is that

of a possible violation of the principle of relativity. Eventually these new superluminal

solutions may also find applications in the understanding of some

fundamental issues concerning the nonlocality problem in quantum mechanics

[21].

Finite Energy Superluminal Solutions of

Maxwell Equations

E. Capelas de Oliveira1*and W. A. Rodrigues, Jr.2+?

1 Institute of Mathematics, Statistics and Scientific Computation,

IMECC-UNICAMP

CP 6065, 13083-970, Campinas, SP, Brazil

2Department of Mathematics, University of Liverpool

Liverpool L69 3BX, UK

February 5, 2008

On Aug 22, 2010, at 9:18 AM, JACK SARFATTI wrote:

Begin forwarded message:

From: "Waldyr A. Rodrigues Jr." <walrod@mpc.com.br>

Date: August 22, 2010 3:22:29 AM PDT

To: "'JACK SARFATTI'" <sarfatti@pacbell.net>

Subject: RES: Yakir Aharonov's book Quantum Paradoxes - Note #1 (Dr. Quantum)

In your note you state:

Well, in the summer of 1997 I found some extraordinary sub and superluminal solutions of the free Maxwell equations. In particular I found a solution that can be at rest in a given inertial frame (there are infinite number of solutions of this kind, contrary to a famous Einstein statement...). In that solution E?B! One of my students called that solution the Jedi sword. You can see how I found that solution on page 16 and sequel (see Eq.(3.19)) the attached paper (upwlast1.pdf), which has been originally published in Found. Phys. 27 435-508 (1997).

In reading the paper take notice that I changed my mind concerning some issues discussed there, as it is clear from other papers I wrote on the subject and which are also attached here. I am preparing (since a long time ago) in my free time a book on the subject.

Best regards,

Waldyr