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.

 

A piont to faster than light skeptics

page: 1
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 6 2005 @ 07:31 AM
link   
Faster than light travel is supposed to be impossible but how is it that with the likes of black holes up in space ,its a well known fact that light cannot escape a black hole meaning there must be a greater force pulling the light in thus making me more confused making me feel light speed travel must have sumthing above it




posted on Jan, 6 2005 @ 12:09 PM
link   
the aliens have faster than light travel FTL

its probably possible even to go Warp 50000000
but only civilizations that are like 30 billion years old can do that

just speculation


good points



posted on Jan, 6 2005 @ 12:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by Rugoolian
Faster than light travel is supposed to be impossible but how is it that with the likes of black holes up in space ,its a well known fact that light cannot escape a black hole meaning there must be a greater force pulling the light in thus making me more confused making me feel light speed travel must have sumthing above it


Oookay... without some basic astrophysics, it's hard to go into this in detail, but here it is in Quick And Simple terms:

Light is made up of particles called photons. Photons have mass (almost NO mass, but they do have some mass.) Anything that has mass can be affected by gravity.

So, light actually bends when it passes a huge planet (like Jupiter.) Jupiter doesn't actually "suck" light in, but it does deflect it slightly.

Black holes have such a high gravity well that they can slurp down whole stars bigger than our sun. When light gets near them, it bends. If the photons (light) get too close to the black hole (event horizon) they fall in and can't ever escape.



posted on Jan, 6 2005 @ 01:56 PM
link   
Just a point for what it's worth. I believe faster than light travel has been proven to an extent. I apologize not remembering the exact detail but essentially there is a quantum experiment were you can add photons to one end of a long tube and measure a response to this addition at the other end faster than than light could travel the length. I'll try to find the article.



posted on Jan, 6 2005 @ 03:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by Rugoolian
its a well known fact that light cannot escape a black hole meaning there must be a greater force pulling the light in


This is not the same as traveling faster than light tho. There are certainly energies that are greater than that of light. Heck, a wall can stop light, make it change direction and such. Its not a matter of there not being energies greater than light, its literally the speed that is the issue.



posted on Jan, 6 2005 @ 03:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by Apoc
I'll try to find the article.

Particles that are in a state of 'quatum entanglement' also communitcate with faster than light speeds. Nothing is actually moving between them tho, its a bit of a conundrum as far as i understand it .



posted on Jan, 6 2005 @ 03:27 PM
link   
Relativity wasn't saying it's impossible to go faster than the speed of light. The whole concept was it was impossible to cross the threshold. If you were going faster than the speed of light, you would always be going faster than the speed of light. If you are going slower than the speed of light, you'll always be going slower than the speed of light.

A theoretical example of something that is suspected may (very theoretical until the gravimetric wave detector is up an running) travel faster than the speed of light is gravity and gravitons. Einstein's whole premise was that to cross the C threshold (C is the constant for the speed of light) you would need an infinite amount of energy to move the smallest amount of mass. (E(energy)=M(mass)C(speed of light) ^2)

A way that extreme theoretical physicists are looking into for beating this barrier is to actually bend space time the way it's believed wormholes behave. If you could take space outside of earth and link it to space outside of Sirrus B, you could put through there at 5 miles per hour and be there in seconds. When we develop manageable space travel (less than 4 years to get to the nearest star), this will probably be the model used, though who can say knowing how technology has developed over the past 100 years.



posted on Jan, 6 2005 @ 04:14 PM
link   
well... the interesting thing is that the fastest speed that i have heard of is 169,000,000 TIMES the speed of light by a gray spaceship...



posted on Jan, 6 2005 @ 04:20 PM
link   
keep in mind
humans have been proving themselves wrong constantly for centurys

human belief is primitive and fallible at best

alien races billions of years old have Probably figured out how Easy it is to beat light speed

its atrocious and saddening to see that humans have not advanced enough to realize that OUR physicists and cosmologists are NOT 100% correct in their assumptions

just because they wrote it down and they are a professor at some university or an expiermental physicist at some institute
doesnt mean they are RIght

in fact; if you look at the history of Physics
they have been constantly rewriting it for centurys
they always "revise" thier calculations

new ideas always appear

i will wager there is a 100% chance that light speed can be broken
NOTHING is impossible

and i scoff at anyone who uses whatever fallible psudo-evidence to claim otherwise lol


so lets eat some cookies and be happy that one day soon humans will become enlightened and realize that nothing is impossible and soon we will be among the stars


[edit on 6-1-2005 by muzzleflash]



posted on Jan, 6 2005 @ 04:45 PM
link   
An interesting little follow up. Einstein, in his declining, post-manhattan project, years spend most of his time trying to disprove relativity. He believed he was wrong, there was something that didn't fit, and was trying to figure out where he goofed, but he didn't live long enough to figure it out. So I agree with our last caller, Muzzleflash. Rock, rock on!



posted on Jan, 6 2005 @ 04:54 PM
link   
Theoretically, it is possible to travel from one spot in the univers to another way on the other side and get there faster than the speed of light. But you do not travel faster than the speed of light to accomplish this. It would require the energy of two sons at 4xSol to create a worm hole. The theory is there, but there is no way we could possibly test it. Travelling in this fashion will have to wait untill it is discovered how to harness and manipulate zero-point energy.



posted on Jan, 8 2005 @ 12:29 AM
link   
Sinse light has mass, it means it isn't travelling the fastest; an object with 0 absolute mass would travel faster than light, but an object with 0 mass is basically impossible. So far photons are the lowest massed particles known.



posted on Jan, 8 2005 @ 12:49 AM
link   

Originally posted by junglejake
Relativity wasn't saying it's impossible to go faster than the speed of light. The whole concept was it was impossible to cross the threshold. If you were going faster than the speed of light, you would always be going faster than the speed of light. If you are going slower than the speed of light, you'll always be going slower than the speed of light.

A theoretical example of something that is suspected may (very theoretical until the gravimetric wave detector is up an running) travel faster than the speed of light is gravity and gravitons. Einstein's whole premise was that to cross the C threshold (C is the constant for the speed of light) you would need an infinite amount of energy to move the smallest amount of mass. (E(energy)=M(mass)C(speed of light) ^2)

A way that extreme theoretical physicists are looking into for beating this barrier is to actually bend space time the way it's believed wormholes behave. If you could take space outside of earth and link it to space outside of Sirrus B, you could put through there at 5 miles per hour and be there in seconds. When we develop manageable space travel (less than 4 years to get to the nearest star), this will probably be the model used, though who can say knowing how technology has developed over the past 100 years.

Bang on! That's how I see it too. Speed doesn't matter here. It's the convergence of space-time at a particular point in space that is the issue. We could get to Vega within an hour at 10 kph if we can somehow merge the space at point A (exit) near Earth and point B (entry) near Vega. But this technology is probably thousands of years into the furure!! So in the meantime, let our scientists bang thier heads trying to go faster than light!!



posted on Jan, 8 2005 @ 01:23 AM
link   
1) Dude, whoosh.

Is there no way for people to think these days?

Just, what is it that inspires this to continue?

The whole "I know I don't know a lot, and that guy claims to know way more, and he says this, but I don't like this, so I'm gonna talk about stuff I know I don't know about (but he does) and tell him he's wrong because there's this huge glaring error I don't understand."

Who thinks that, then goes through with it? Do they just forego the whole 'thinking' bit, and just start saying "Science is wrong" at an early age? Gwah, pith and vinegar, I tells ya.

2) Muzzleflash, you can't keep doing that. I'm sorry, you're obviously not stupid - you've made that clear. You just don't know everything about it, and you're presenting the point that we don't know so we shouldn't make any claims at all. It sounds more sensible if left up to someone who believes it, something like "We're lying", or "Claiming Theories are truth" - but anyrate, the thing you can't keep doing is the following post structure:

General Statement of Congratulations!

Vicious attack at science!

Poorly backed up argument!

Vicious attack at scientists!

Poorly backed up argument!

Vicious attack on the way people think!

Call for upheaval, because no one knows anything!

General Congratulations!

Cookies!

-- See, you're happy, then REALLY ANGRY AND KILL SCIENCE, then happy again. I form good arguments and good logical points to say back to you, but then I'm thrown off by this whole "Its okay though, cookies!".

So now, I'll answer you in general, Muzzleflash.

We don't know. Science doesn't know.

Do you? No.

In comparison, who knows more?

Science.

Who should put forth the likely truths, for us to inspect and analyse, and attempt to prove?

The one who knows more.

Who is?

Science.

-- Don't go off on the "Its just a theory" - because you preface everything you say with 'this is just speculation but' - see, a Theory is like a gold medal. A real 'Scientific Theory' goes through years of tweaking and testing and observing and predicting, before it gains that name. It is a idea, a speculation, a hypothesis, a theory, a law. These 'Theories' have been challenged by hundreds and thousands of people, and whether people claim that the government is against them or that it's a Scientist conspiracy, their arguments are the ones with holes, and the 'Theories' are the ones that are closest to being right.

Are scientists 100% right? No. No one says that they are. They say that the likeliest case we know of is the one proposed by the guys who worked on it for their entire lives, instead of the one proposed by the guy who just heard someone on TV say something that made him think of something that he's sure defeats science.

Will science change? Yes. Yes it will, and quite a bit. Science doesn't change by one upstart guy who knows very little about the field coming in and yelling "YOUR ALL WRONG THIS IS HOW IT WORKS NOW K?" - It happens when a scientist or a group of scientists who know what's already set up look at it, find some acknowledged problems, and then come up with ways to mend the problems.

They don't try to find new problems - there's already enough normal ones. Theories that fix these require different trains of thought, that, when working, and applied to everything, change everything for the better. And that's when science goes through big changes. It's a bit of 'outside the box' thought to fix a well known problem, not a wacko 'kill science' thought to fix up a problem know one knows about.

I'm sorry to rant on you about this. I feel bad - because everyone else (or, most people) have held it in, and been polite, and known that you don't know quite how 'every other week' this kind of thing is.

The important thing is that you know none of us, (or, most of us) aren't angry, and don't hate you or your ideas, we just want to advance what we know, which is hard to do when we're catching a new person up every week. You'll learn, and benefit, and see what was wrong with your first thoughts, and then you'll be hanging around, and see someone saying "PHYSICS IS SO WRONG, THE BIG BANG DIDDN HAPPEN" - and you'll read it, and think "Wow, this guy doesn't really know a lot about physics" - and then see the flood of us treating him nicely, and that one jackass (Commonly me) ranting to hell.

It's all a fun rhythm by now.


Onto the fun stuffs.

3) Faster than Light Travel.

The thing brought up earlier, about light going faster and breaking the threshold, is commonly known as 'LightBounce' - you need 2 pulse generators, an oscillator, and about 200 meters of cord. Coaxial cable will do.

Line up the cords, connect generators at either end, and then put an oscillator in the middle or so, and fire one pulse generator, fire the other almost immediately after, so the second pulse hits the first, the second will strike the deteriorating first pulse and then its wave-pattern will change, and it will 'bounce' itself ever faster, capping off far, FAR higher than lightspeed.

In total, it costs about $500 US to get the materials together.

And, in the first post, while it didn't come across as well as it could have, he may well have been bringing up Einstein's trouble - that gravity appears to act at the speed of or perhaps faster than light, and that we have no good way to measure it. Black holes are places where gravity acts fast enough to pull light backwards and back into the hole - inferring that it may act faster. It was really just a misconception and a misunderstanding.


Woo, looong post! No hard feelings intended.


[edit on 8-1-2005 by Viendin]



posted on Jan, 8 2005 @ 01:32 AM
link   

Originally posted by muzzleflash
human belief is primitive and fallible at best
*snip*
just because they wrote it down and they are a professor at some university or an expiermental physicist at some institute
doesnt mean they are RIght


Very true, but the ones who are pushing the understanding of science and changing how we look at the universe are other scientists, not random people with no understanding of the concepts involved, who just want things to be possible.


Originally posted by beyondSciFi
well... the interesting thing is that the fastest speed that i have heard of is 169,000,000 TIMES the speed of light by a gray spaceship...

If you are going to make ridiculous comments like that one at least back them up with something (though I have no idea what). You cant just go around posting any old fiction and expect to get away with it.

[edit on 8-1-2005 by Kano]



posted on Jan, 8 2005 @ 01:50 AM
link   
Didn't you guys forget about the whole expanding to the size of the universe bit. Einstein stated that theory, and of course he is human and humans make errors, but do we even want to try it if there is a possibility of him being right? I mean, in an attempt to travel to the nearest star we could end up blowing us all to hell. Or imploding us all to hell w/e, my point is I think we should make sure he wasn't right before we even start thinking up how to accomplish FTL travel. Please correct me if this information has already been proven wrong.



posted on Jan, 8 2005 @ 02:12 AM
link   
faster than light travel is possibel. withought a doubt. light is just a wavelength (with photons of course)... but basically my view on it is that light , like sounf ahs a frequency. when the frequency of light has been surpassed, you will ahve something faster than light, and the matter would then cease to be light.

here is an example (slowest to fastest frquencys)

1. sound - A (440 Hz)
2. (something here.. between light and sound.. X-ray,and some others)
3. ultraviolent LIGHT - 400 MHz
4. visible LIGHT(all colors on specrum 400- 800 MHZ)
5. Infa-red LIGHT]
6. and then the other stuff that comes after we can vibrate them molecules fast enough



posted on Jan, 8 2005 @ 11:20 AM
link   
Ivanglam, I think you may be getting confused between different forms of radiation. Sound is just varying air pressure, when you hit something it sends out a pulse of high pressure (the air being forced outward), this will take different paths (straight through the air, bounce off objects etc) and send towards you a load of pulses with different amplitudes. These are picked up by your ear producing that bang noise you hear.
Electromagnetic radiation is a different phenomenon.
This encompasses radio, microwave, infrared, visible light, ultraviolet, x-ray and gamma rays.
All of these frequencies travel at the speed of light, that is why high frequencies have proportionally low wavelengths, freq * wavelength gives the speed of light.
From this can you see that the electromagnetic spectrum goes far beyond the frequencies of visible light?
It is actually said to stretch from 1Hz or so up to 10^24Hz, visible light of between 10^14Hz & 10^15Hz is just around the middle.
This is not really a good introduction however if you are interested in learning more take out any university physics book from your local library.
Hope this helps.


[edit on 8-1-2005 by Procrastinator]



posted on Jan, 8 2005 @ 11:29 AM
link   
As your velocity approaches that of light, your mass increases so it needs more and more energy to increase to your speed, therefore right before reaching the speed of light, it would take an infinite amount of energy to get you to that level, so light-speed travel is impossible by conventional means. However some type of time-space warping so that you are not actually traveling faster than light but appear to do by your travel time may be possible.


E_T

posted on Jan, 8 2005 @ 02:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by Procrastinator
This is not really a good introduction however if you are interested in learning more take out any ‘university physics’ book from your local library.
Hope this helps.
Yep... or actually books of ordinary school should be enough to give much information.
But not these books.

"Apparently" faster than light travel would be really posible, it just requires bending space and wormhole.

Imagine that sheet of paper (or more exactly surface of it) is space, now make two dots to different ends of paper which present our solar system and let's say one of Alpha Centauri... naturally shortest distance between them is direct line so draw that to paper.
In this case we can imagine that it presents distance between us and Alpha Centauri, meaning distance is ~4 LYs.
Now bend that paper to twofold so that dots are on top of each other and use needle to punch hole through paper so that it goes through both dots
That line in paper between dots is still line of sight/shortest distance between places in our space but now measure distance between dots using that hole in paper representing wormhole, as you can easily guess distance through that is much much shorter.
So if ship would go throught that even with slow speed it would look as it crossed speed of light between origin and target while someone would observe it from outside ship/wormhole.



new topics

top topics



 
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join