It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

travel faster than light?

page: 2
1
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 2 2004 @ 04:48 PM
link   
Yeah tachyons may be a thing o' the past. Under current string theory, do y'all think it possible to somehow "subvert" normal space and skirt through at hyper-relativistic speeds utilizing the "membranes" that supposedly divide the multiverses that string theory describes? Hmmmm.




posted on Dec, 6 2004 @ 07:24 AM
link   
This is kindove late but this is what have.
Ok guys this will clear up a bit,

F(x)=X / (X^2-4) WHEN -2



posted on Dec, 6 2004 @ 08:04 AM
link   
How would you know if you travelled faster than the speed of light, without light you wouldn't be able to see your speedometer



posted on Dec, 6 2004 @ 10:12 AM
link   
I think people are a little confused about this whole 'speed of light' thing. The speed of light IS absolute in it's particular reference frame. Think of space density as being unit marks of distant on a ruler. When space is denser, you will notice more marks of DISTANCE on the ruler than in a less dense space. With this in mind think of each mark as a 'mile' marker. No matter how many marks you place on that ruler(density of space), light will still not go any faster than 186000 miles per second(exactly 299792458 meters per sec). Now from an outside perspective, if you were in a MORE dense space than the ruler's location, the light would just LOOK like it was travelling faster than light. It's the ratio of tick marks on the ruler where the light is and where you are. Say your light experiment (location of ruler) is in a region of space that is say 10 units of space density, and you were in 100 units of space density. To you, light travelling at the ruler would LOOK like it was travelling 10 times faster than normal light.

Remember it just looks like it's going faster than light. That is all. You can play with the number's however you like, using the same 10-100 space density rule or one that you make up. If in the 10 units of density space a traveller was traveling at 1/10th the speed of light(18,600 miles per sec), from your reference space(100 density units) that same traveller would look to be traveling at the speed of light(186,000 miles per second). Real speed * Space Density Ratio(You/There or 100/10) so Apparent Speed = Real Speed * 100/10.

Anyways has anybody got any information on E=TC2? Of course it looks like E=MC2, but if correct, looks toooooooooooo much like the relationship between electric fields and magnetic fields. Any thoughts?

[edit on 6-12-2004 by n01ukn0w]



posted on Dec, 6 2004 @ 01:13 PM
link   
if its true that if you get to aproach light speed , mass will increase that can be used

mass curves space. it bends it .

gravity probe B has allready seen it and several other studies that the mass of our planet curves space like a golf bal on a piece of paper.
so if you create it and reach lightspeed or higher the mass you create will bend space and time..


but as I said on many occasions use a shield of gravimetric matrix and emit surten particles in it or use the shield acting as it is that particle which can go faster as light and then use the same way to interact with them so they are stimulated to go faster as light. directing the beamed interaction stream in to a surten part of the matrix will make it to go into a surten direction. for as you are go so fast you'll have the need to slow down. well that can be done by directing the interaction stream the opossite direction as you are going to.

other uses can be down like same shield configuration but then use quantum entanglement forcing particles to change or form or atract surten particles on to destination area so you entangle to them ( have to know if it is possible to form particles or so... if all particles trapped in the field or to entangle the field which is acting to be a surten particle to be entangled in an area. for as we have to know it is possible for a this field with all particles or the field acting as one large single particle to entangle to little or some particles.forcing the surounding particles to change or that the particles are filled up. or if the original particles hyjack with the other particles which wiil quantum entangle with particles which are there and that the lack of sufficient particles will be filled up with the orginal particles which hyjacked on with other particles which entangled and have been replaced by a duplicate because quantum entanglement will force the partical 1 his info to be passed on to partical 2 giving partical 2 the info in partical 1 so partical 2 becomes partical 1 and the other one will be distroyed in this process.



posted on Dec, 8 2004 @ 07:49 AM
link   


How would you know if you travelled faster than the speed of light, without light you wouldn't be able to see your speedometer


This arguement only really works if you are traveling away from your speedometer at the speed of light (or faster if possible). That way, the light would never reach your eyes and it would appear frozen as you reach(or pass) the speed of light. In fact, if you could go faster than the speed of light, the speedometer would appear to move backwards, and it would appear that you would be slowing down because you would be seeing the speedometer as it looked before you het the speed of light, just catching up to the light as you passed it for the second time. If you and the speedometer were traveling at the same speed, you would still be able to see it moving because you are moving relative to it at the speed of 0.



posted on Dec, 8 2004 @ 01:39 PM
link   
so the possible reason for time standibg still when in hyperspace is because of the light does nt travel as fast to your point of reference.



posted on Dec, 8 2004 @ 03:02 PM
link   
IF tachyons move faster than light then by latching on to these particles how would you reach the speed of light ? Because before you latch on your acceleration is 0 and when you latch on your speed becomes n times of c. But according to Einstein your energy/ mass would have to be infinity to accelerate to c.
Also if a particle is present at velocity c or greater then its rest mass would be 0 and a particle with finite rest mass should not be able to acheive c velocity.
What about the probability waves like matter waves etc wouldn'tit be possible to define the object in a probability scale wrt time and then generate a probabilty wave which would travel at c or faster!

Whats more intriguing is that if we were to travel faster than light then wouldn't we travel back in time ? If a space ship starts today and travel faster than light then won't it reach back to its origin before it started ? how is that possible ??

This subject is too complex without some QED expert to guide the discussion.


Nox

posted on Dec, 8 2004 @ 05:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by IAF101
IF tachyons move faster than light then by latching on to these particles how would you reach the speed of light ? Because before you latch on your acceleration is 0 and when you latch on your speed becomes n times of c. But according to Einstein your energy/ mass would have to be infinity to accelerate to c.
Also if a particle is present at velocity c or greater then its rest mass would be 0 and a particle with finite rest mass should not be able to acheive c velocity.
What about the probability waves like matter waves etc wouldn'tit be possible to define the object in a probability scale wrt time and then generate a probabilty wave which would travel at c or faster!

Whats more intriguing is that if we were to travel faster than light then wouldn't we travel back in time ? If a space ship starts today and travel faster than light then won't it reach back to its origin before it started ? how is that possible ??

This subject is too complex without some QED expert to guide the discussion.


That's why tachyons are only THEORETICAL.

They don't exist (or if they did, we have currently no methods of verification).

Let me repeat myself, tachyons were created because of a WEAKNESS in String Theory. They were NOT the brainchild of String Theory.

String Theorists worked VERY hard to try and get RID of the existence of tachyons in their theory. It caused the MUCH stress.

Oh, and "probability waves" (or Schroedinger waves as they are really called) are NOT faster than light.

Nothing is faster than the speed of light, not even gravity waves. Which means if you're a light year away from an object, you won't even notice the gravitational ripple that would occur if the planet moved a bit until 1 year later.

[edit on 8-12-2004 by Nox]



posted on Dec, 8 2004 @ 05:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by surfup

Originally posted by Der Kapitan
Those particles you speak of are called Tachyons. Scientist are still looking for proof that they are real or just a cool idea.


Is this the one that come from the sun to Earth, and are real tough to find because very few actually reach Earth and those are real hard to find?

I thought we already have documented proof of these little things.

Surf

The particles to which you were referring are neutrinos, not tachyons...



posted on Dec, 8 2004 @ 06:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by Bondi
How would you know if you travelled faster than the speed of light, without light you wouldn't be able to see your speedometer


To use your analogy, people travelling on the Concorde SST would not have been able to hear each other talk, either. You see, it's all relative.


[edit on 12/8/2004 by centurion1211]



posted on Dec, 8 2004 @ 11:23 PM
link   
I think Einstein was wrong about some of his theories, I still think he was one of the greatest minds in known history, We have come to accept that in the beginnings of the universe shortly after the big bang space expanded faster than light than if you were to travel in a bubble of space with your ship inside, than that could work theoreticly, youd also not observe some of the effects speculated to come with near light speed travel.
Another would be hyperspace drive, from what I've read things ar not usualy the same in higher dimensions, so saying that there is no speed limit in higher dimensional space you could enter it and come out in the designated coordinates, the only way you could get lost is if you didnt know how fast you were going or where you started from.


Nox

posted on Dec, 8 2004 @ 11:26 PM
link   
I'd like to know why you think the matter traveled faster than light after the Big Bang.



posted on Dec, 9 2004 @ 05:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by Nox
I'd like to know why you think the matter traveled faster than light after the Big Bang.


I think he is referring to Alan Guth's theory of inflation - however, this applies to the very first microseconds after the big bang so there would be no spaceships around, to say the least


Nox

posted on Dec, 9 2004 @ 06:03 PM
link   
I think that's a slight misconception.

I think even Guth realized that such expansion does not violate the cosmic speed limit. Einstein correctly asserted that nothing in the universe could exceed light's speed, but even as the cosmos grew at faster-than-light speeds, no particle within it could ever win a race with a beam of light.

[edit on 9-12-2004 by Nox]



posted on Dec, 10 2004 @ 01:29 PM
link   
the "faster than light" disscusion is an war between quantic and einstein relativist theories



posted on Dec, 11 2004 @ 12:47 AM
link   
Somethng I recently read interested me and I thought I'd share it since it does have to do with light speed.
Say the speed of light is 100 mph now a train can reach a top speed of 99mph, if the train accelerated 5 mph than it would travel faster than light
but to the people in the train it would look like light is still ahead of it, so observation at FTL speeds would look like you werent exceeding light speed.



posted on Dec, 11 2004 @ 06:15 AM
link   

Originally posted by Nox
Einstein correctly asserted that nothing in the universe could exceed light's speed, but even as the cosmos grew at faster-than-light speeds, no particle within it could ever win a race with a beam of light.

[edit on 9-12-2004 by Nox]

Acctually Einstein said that nothing can accelerate to the speed of light . He says nothing about things already at c. If the universe expands faster than the speed of light then so must energy travell at faster than speed of light (because mass-energy relationship) without energy their can be no mass and vice versa, also neglecting that the zero point energy present outside the "defined" universe can be converted into mass randomly without any apperent stimulus to induce the trasnformation of energy into matter . The presumption that holds Einsteins theory together is that light has a constant speed in vacuume to observers in all inertial planes also Einstein does not consider gravity to be a force in it self but takes it to be as a pure geometric effect of curved space-time, not a force of nature that propagates. But in actuality this cannot explain the effects of various cosmic phneomena that exsist for example :
1)By explaining how the external fields between binary black holes manage to continually update without benefit of communication with the masses hidden behind event horizons. These causality problems can be solved without any change to the mathematical formalism of General relativity, but only to its interpretation, if gravity is taken to be a propagating force of nature in flat spacetime with the propagation speed indicated by observational evidence and experiments: not less than 2 x 10^10 c .Such a change would not require a change in the Lorentz transformations even though it would contradict Special relativity. But Lorentz transformations have never been distinguished seperately from Special relativity .

2) By determining the experimental evidence for non-locality in quantum physics, the dark matter issue in cosmology. The basic fact that all gravitational interactions between bodies in all dynamical systems have to be taken as instantaneous is in itself completely unacceptable to anybody. That would mean that "action at a distance" phenomena to be true but that is simply absurd. Moreover for a body to act at a distance instantaneously it would mean that the body would be able to transmit its effet at infinite speeds but tht is impossible as infinite velocities would mean infinite energy or infinte mass but all bodies which exhibit gravitational effects on another do not posses infinite mass or energy.
3)The introduction of gravitational delay can also be calculated with orbital computational software as to produce a change in the angular momentum of the bodies and the destruction of the theory of conservation of angular momentum which is again unacceptable but this cannot warrant the fact that the gravitational effect in one case is taken to be as infinte velocity [Newton's Universal Law] and in another [General Relativty] it iis taken to have a velocity of c. This does not satisfy logic as both assumptions are not the same as the speed of light is NOT infinite nor can be considered so in orbital computations. yet the speed of gravity is not infinite because While current observations do not yet provide a direct model-independent measurement of the speed of gravity, a test within the framework of general relativity can be made by observing the binary pulsar PSR 1913+16. The orbit of this binary system is gradually decaying, and this behavior is attributed to the loss of energy due to escaping gravitational radiation. But in any field theory, radiation is intimately related to the finite velocity of field propagation, and the orbital changes due to gravitational radiation can equivalently be viewed as damping caused by the finite propagation speed. Thus if propagation speed can be calculated then it proves that speed is not infact infinite.

One of the most obvious and compelling reasons that gravity is infact much faster than light is in the case of Black holes. The question is How can black holes have gravity when nothing can get out because escape speed is greater than the speed of light? yet, the gravitational pull from this is never diminished but only increases with the increases in its mass density[as more mass is consumed by the black holes] also is the fact that if we assume gravitrons to exsist then they must escape the Black holes at speeds much greater than that of light so this may be taken as a sign that gravity is infact faster than light and yet not infinite. I refuse to accept the argument that a black hole is just a very curved portion of space-time and there is "no need" to communicate this information to the rest of the universe, because it is "already there", this not expalin that the virtual Bosons en masse can be detected and measured[Quantum theory of gravity may not exsist at present but its properties can easily be understood] also this means that if a Black hole disappeared suddenly then the effect of its gravity would still exsis t but how is this possible as their is no cause but their is effect ?
The argument on this may arise when you say that as the particles are virtual they are allowed to vary their properties beyond the accepted physical laws so as to satisfy the properties of various phenomena such as gravitrons accelerate beyond the speed of light till the event horizon and then slow dow to c to propagate further - this is again unacceptable as how can such a variation exsist and what effect does the event horizon provide for the particle to change their velocities so drastically.
The other very basic questions are :
Why do total eclipses of the Sun by the Moon reach maximum eclipse about 40 seconds before the Sun and Moon's gravitational forces align? How do binary pulsars anticipate each other's future position, velocity, and acceleration faster than the light time between them would allow? Why do photons from the Sun travel in directions that are not parallel to the direction of Earth's gravitational acceleration toward the Sun?
Also hteir is the question of the lack of abberation of gravity on the orbits of various bodies. If gravity were a simple force that propagated outward from the Sun at the speed of light, as radiation pressure does, its mostly radial effect would also have a small transverse component because of the motion of the target.
www.ldolphin.org...

[edit on 11-12-2004 by IAF101]


Nox

posted on Dec, 11 2004 @ 06:25 AM
link   
And how exactly does all of what you've written prove me wrong?

I basically said that "Einstein asserted that nothing could move faster than the speed of light."

I didn't make any mention that nothing can be AT the speed of light. Obviously, photons (with their 0 rest mass) DO move at the speed of light.

I am well aware that gravity under Einsteinian theories is a curvature of space time, but it is much easier to talk about gravitational "forces" between objects, because it is much simpler for laymen to comprehend.



posted on Dec, 11 2004 @ 06:37 AM
link   

Originally posted by Nox
I am well aware that gravity under Einsteinian theories is a curvature of space time, but it is much easier to talk about gravitational "forces" between objects, because it is much simpler for laymen to comprehend.


That's not what I'm saying
- Gravity is not just a curvature of space-time as all the effects of gravity cannot be explained by only this assumption and gravitational waves infact travell faster thatn light and not at the speed of light c as you said in a previous reply to my post !!




top topics



 
1
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join