It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

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

Thank you.


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


Help ATS via PayPal:
learn more

Einstein was wrong, E=mc2 does not prove we can not travel faster then the speed of light.

page: 3
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in


posted on Aug, 14 2015 @ 09:01 AM
You misunderstand the equation.. C^2 = MS^-1.

posted on Aug, 14 2015 @ 09:05 AM

originally posted by: Revolution9
a reply to: andre18

Even the OMG particle travels slightly slower than the speed of light. There is nothing faster than light we have discovered in the universe.


Theory is what Mr. E is basing all his work
In Theory there is something faster then light..

As our knowledge gains we will unlock doors only though of ....

posted on Aug, 14 2015 @ 09:12 AM
a reply to: Korg Trinity

Yes it's really funny because it's hard to believe reading what you wrote.
Do me a favour and explain me how the equivalence formula has anything to do with the energy needed to accelerate an object to C and how C is a limit because I'm not following you.

posted on Aug, 14 2015 @ 09:39 AM
I dont know if it has been stated here yet, the universe is expanding at greater than light speeds. And I have always said neither of Einsteins Theories of Relativity did it state that nothing can travel at greater than light speed. Einstein just used that as light appears to be constant in a vacuum.

posted on Aug, 14 2015 @ 10:03 AM
I believe what man thinks he knows of the laws of the universe is different than reality. We are sampling a very large space from a tiny spot within it, if even that is true.

posted on Aug, 14 2015 @ 10:16 AM
a reply to: andre18

Sorry. The premise of the OP is totally invalid.


Does this form make you feel better?

posted on Aug, 14 2015 @ 11:50 AM
a reply to: andre18

Ok so what I got from the op is that because the speed of light is a constant, then c2 can't exist? I think you are completely misunderstanding the formula, C is represented by a number, that number can be squared, there is no real world light being manipulated, just the number.

posted on Aug, 14 2015 @ 11:54 AM
What Einstein never thougjht to take into acount is one day we might be able to render a ship "massless" by making the weak force lose its grip on said object. Hence Breaking his restriction of nothing faster than light unless it has infinite energy.

posted on Aug, 14 2015 @ 12:54 PM
Einstein was wrong completely.

Or at least, limited in his perspective.

He was looking at 'RELATIVE PHYSICS', not FUNDAMENTAL PHYSICS. There is a big difference.

Relative physics exists within our little bubble.

It does not take into account the systems outside which pressurises our bubble. From which we receive our 'radiated' energy from beyond the speed of light.

There is actually two speed constants beyond what we call the speed of light that are 'relative' to the construct of our world.

We can't reach or go beyond the so-called 'speed of light' because its much like trying to force your way onto a busy subway car when everyone is getting off.

Those people getting off represent the energy forces entering our world.
edit on 14-8-2015 by SONOFTHEMORNING because: (no reason given)

posted on Aug, 14 2015 @ 01:04 PM
Also 'Mass' is the by-product of energy SLOWING from beyond the speed of light when it meets resistance in our atmosphere (what we call the speed of light).

These distortions stretching outwards from distributed centre of mass within a sphere, contribute to what we call 'gravity'.

Mass is not a primary consideration in equating energy. This is completely incorrect.

It is only relative (in Einsteins theories) because it can be directly correlated to the inward permeating systems of energy in this world.

Einsteins theory is actually illogically backwards, as to put mass against C2 to create energy, you require energy.

Therefore his equation only explains a definable relationship between energy and other factors, NOT how energy is created.

Sorry Einstein.

edit on 14-8-2015 by SONOFTHEMORNING because: (no reason given)

posted on Aug, 14 2015 @ 02:03 PM
I think I see what the OP is getting at, I could be wrong, it happens once in a while.

The way I understand it is given a variety of reasons that I will give a couple of examples of in a moment.
I have my doubts that the speed of light is a fixed constant.
Black hole is a nice example though not the best one, ya know not even light escapes, that means it must be changing the course of the the light and logic dictates a change in course also means a change in speed even if it is an infinitesimally small change. So being as C is no longer a constant than C must be a variable. What is to stop C2 from being C3? Eisenstein was brilliant, much more so than I for sure, but he was working without some much needed clarified data we have now, so he likely missed a detail or two. Hmm actually wasn't he the one who also proposed that space/time was a fabric and effected by gravity? Given that... light is effected by gravity and bends with it... how did he not notice that C could not possibly be a constant? Or maybe that was something he was still working on when he died. Cool stuff to think about though.

Thanks for the post

posted on Aug, 14 2015 @ 02:05 PM

originally posted by: InverseLookingGlass
a reply to: andre18


If give that a huh?

posted on Aug, 14 2015 @ 02:28 PM
I believe that there are six ways that one can get from point A to point B faster than a photon through a supercooled vacuum; I will give you some hints to what goes on in my head:

1. Cannot travel faster than the speed of light relative to what?

2. Travel without moving.

3. When excited mass become energy.

4. The "laws" of nature can be rewritten by the mind as it was created by a mind.

5. The laws can be hacked.

6. There are backdoors left by the designer intentionally.


edit on 14-8-2015 by MerkabaMeditation because: (no reason given)

edit on 14-8-2015 by MerkabaMeditation because: (no reason given)

posted on Aug, 14 2015 @ 04:19 PM
Light travels at a constant, finite speed of 186,000 mi/sec.

Think atomic energy

186,000 squared is a big value

posted on Aug, 14 2015 @ 04:22 PM
a reply to: Willtell

Yes, big. 8.98755179 × 1016 m2 / s2

posted on Aug, 14 2015 @ 04:27 PM
I think it's possible to break light speed. I also think to do so you must be able to have full control of gravity. Which our primitive, type 0 civilization can't do yet. If it is truly impossible to break the light barrier, well hell the universe is going to be a lonely place.

posted on Aug, 14 2015 @ 05:16 PM
Einstein's theory of energy holds true for particles with a mass greater than zero.

However with that said, when there is zero mass or even better a mass which is negative (think anti matter) the equation reaches a point where Velocity reaches infinity as the speed of light reaches zero.

What I like to call a paradox, or quantum travel.

The photon is what we describe as a massless particle. This is your M=0 senario.

This is why a photon traveling at the speed of light requires 0 energy. An inherent function of our known universe.

Lets say we harness Anti matter and can sucessfully achieve an anti mass of -1. The theory then becomes inversely proportional where by any input of energy becomes an infinite velocity. We can check this by seeing that as velocity approaches infinity the speed of light approaches 0.

The thing about photons are they are actually not massless, they just have inconceivable mass to us thus far. If they were massless the speed of lite would be infinite and instantaneous meaning t=0 throughout the universe and instead of looking at a galaxy 500 thousand lightyears ago we'd be looking at them in real time. This is not the case.

Another point that proves photons are not massless is that even they cannot escape the gravity of a black hole, indicating even their minute mass must subcome to massive gravitational phenomenon.
Guess thats why they call them black holes.

In quantum physics we still don't understand how a particle can hop from one part of an element seemingly teleporting to another portion instantaneously while resuming its initial superposition.

I have a theory that anti matter is the cause of this. That anti matter is like an air bubble trapped in a viscus oil. Drop a marble in the oil and see that the marble will fall at some rate as it encounters the viscus fluid. However when the marble falls into the air bubble its rate of velocity increases exponentially as it falls through the air. Then back into the viscus fluid.

I believe out universe is a fluid filled with air bubbles. Once we figure out how to control and align these air bubbles we can quantum shift and tunnel through the universe.

Btw Einstein was and still is the smartest most dedicated man that ever lived. Either of his parents could have been gray aliens. Lol.

posted on Aug, 14 2015 @ 05:26 PM
a reply to: andre18

the reality E=MC2 is over my head in scientific terms!

but... I do believe that FTL is possible.. it just seems obvious some how.

At least i hope so!

posted on Aug, 14 2015 @ 06:23 PM
Don't forget frames, an object moving at speed of light might be considered at rest with the rest of universe travelling at the speed of light so why would the rest mass of an object increase with velocity? Guessing thats why some scientist suggest that kinetic energy is stored in spacetime itself not the rest mass of the object.

Many contemporary authors such as Taylor and Wheeler avoid using the concept of relativistic mass altogether:

"The concept of "relativistic mass" is subject to misunderstanding. That's why we don't use it. First, it applies the name mass - belonging to the magnitude of a 4-vector - to a very different concept, the time component of a 4-vector. Second, it makes increase of energy of an object with velocity or momentum appear to be connected with some change in internal structure of the object. In reality, the increase of energy with velocity originates not in the object but in the geometric properties of spacetime itself."[6]

edit on 14 8 2015 by glend because: (no reason given)

posted on Aug, 14 2015 @ 09:04 PM
Heavier-than-air flying machines are impossible.
- Lord Kelvin (1824-1907), ca. 1895, British mathematician and physicist possible combination of known substances, known forms of machinery, and known forms of force, can be united in a practical machine by which man shall fly long distances through the air...
- Simon Newcomb (1835-1909), astronomer, head of the U. S. Naval Observatory.

Sometimes it's best to remember that anytime we say something is absolutely impossible, history will be there to make fools of us...

top topics

<< 1  2    4 >>

log in