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: 2
0
<< 1   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 8 2005 @ 07:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by Kano

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]


Yes.. im sorry i posted too many 0's, it was meant to be 169,000 times.

over the years i have collected as much info on aliens and secret gov't coverups as i could... under hundreds of pages of information, i dont remember every damn detail, but i do remember the interesting things. And one of the most dramatic was, that with antigravity technology Einsteins equations dont work...( atleast some of them). For example
E=mc^2 has a loop hole... it asumes that EVERYTHING has mass therefore nothing could exceed the speed of light because of the whole infinite mass thing. BUT with antigravity the surrounding an onbject, say a spaceship, could be made to SEEM like it has no mass or negative mass compared to the univerce. Now with that in mind, the spaceship could be accelerated to and past the speed of light relativly small amount of enegry. Infact with antigravity there are no more speed limits... you could go MANY MANY MANY times faster then light. SO that about as simple i could put it in laymans terms...

As for my above statement, it was the result of a calculation i did after reading a document on gray space ship, thats stated a gray ship traveled 62 light years in about 3 hours... you do the math.


[edit on 8-1-2005 by beyondSciFi]




posted on Jan, 8 2005 @ 08:12 PM
link   
Don't know about anyone else, but isn't there a major contradiction in the theory of Relativity?
Look at this:


Byrd
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


and then this:


djohnsto77
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


Now, if light has mass, how does light go at the speed of light? Someone please explain.


Right, thats my question. But I feel that this needs to be addressed:



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.


Now, there is a fundamental difference between a scientific Theory and a Law. A theory is exactly that, a theory.
It can be changed, amended or indeed proved wrong, but a Law has been proven to be the case and is accepted as the way things are.

Also, for those that want FTL, consider using Electromagnetic forces, these are far stronger than gravity (one of the universes weakest forces). If gravity can bend light/space time, imagine what an extremely powerful EM field can do....

Maybe the speed of light itself is relative to the space it is in, for example, around a star/planet, with an EM field and gravity, light may in fact be extremely slow, but outside in the less influenced void, it may behave competely differently. It would be like assuming all cars travel at 20 mph, just because you have measured the speeds of all cars on a 20mph limit road..... just a thought...


[edit on 8/1/05 by stumason]



posted on Jan, 8 2005 @ 08:57 PM
link   
Just a couple of points to throw into the fray.

I don't believe anything can fall into a black hole. Everything that gets close is shredded at the atomic level upon reaching the event horizon, and extruded as bursts of Gamma rays and quarks (not sure).

Einstein's calculations don't allow for the possibility that a vessel with a negative mass signature would be unbound by the light speed limit. Negative Mass could be achieved through anti matter, or quantum state interference. If you could image your spacecraft, grab the quantum copy and accelerate it to the destination FTL, you would have essentially teleported.

Everyone should keep in mind that science is a living, evolving creature that needs fresh blood with new perspective. Discouraging wild conjecture would be tantamount to suicide for the entire field. I understand that legitimate science suffers somewhat when cranks go around blowing their wind, but also believe me when I tell you that all of humanity would suffer if we stopped coming up with ideas. That said, I know the point of many of the rebutal posts here were looking for clarification, and documentation. That's a common echo around the world in the science community. Can you hear them.."Oh, to go one day without eight thousand emails explaining how wrong me and my five years of lab work are, Mr. unemployed truck driver who aced biology at the community college."

No lie, all the journals and research institutes are perpetually mobbed with requests for advice, 'breakthroughs', unformed theories, science fiction, everything under the sun. From fusion at room temperatures using potatoes, to migratory anomaly studies focusing exclusively on the Goat Sucker, and lots of perpetual motion. Sometimes, the stuff sent is legible, interesting, or even feasible. Rarely is it break through, usually it's just a mix of BS and SCI FI. Understand the plight of the people who read mail like that all day, every day. Scientists who feel morally obligated to stay up into the wee hours of the morning so they can finish reading all 375 pages of some guy named Vernon's theory on gas giant pertubations only to double check the numbers, bleary eyed and find them completely falsified. Hope Vernon had a good laugh.

Everyone should try and be a little more thoughtful of how their message is received. This is really in everybody's best interest, because without communication we would have no society. Free and open debate, without too much ridicule for the new senator on the floor, yes? And to the millions of new senators daily added to the internet, spend more time on considering the presentation you make, for your sake, and your reader's. I'm off the box now, okay..

Science evolves like everything else, give it time and don't rush it. What if scientists in Antartica find out tommorow, that you can open up a quark and get to the space behind. Say they find an energy signature, an anti proton, that attracts protons to create tiny exploding super heated welding lines between dimensions. Sort of like a micro laser. Complete conjecture, but given a few million bucks and some shiny tools, there's a bunch of us monkeys what can build flying machines! Just like the wizard of Oz man, we're a bunch of flying monkeys. I wouldn't put anything past us. Light speed awaits for the flying monkeys.

Respond in opposition of my light speed monkey micro laser theory if you dare..



posted on Jan, 10 2005 @ 06:58 PM
link   
heres another piont

does the universe expand faster than the speed of light -proves again u can travel faster than light if it is

and if so what if you could travel faster than the universe expanding where would you go, another universe ????????

spooky



posted on Jan, 10 2005 @ 08:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by Rugoolian
heres another piont

does the universe expand faster than the speed of light -proves again u can travel faster than light if it is

spooky


I don't understand what your saying, are you making an assumption then using it as some sort of proof 'if its true'. Sorry if i'm mistaken, but that seems a bit pointless. Also when you say 'proves again', wheres the first proof? I dont mean to be negative, just curious.

As to what happens when you reach the 'edge' of the universe (which i assume is what you’re getting at). Obviously that’s unknown, however just think back to the days when a curved earth seemed crazy and it can only free up your imagination uh?



posted on Jan, 11 2005 @ 03:54 AM
link   
Faster than light travel would be real nice if we were able to harness the power it would require. As we know it all matter and light surrounding a black hole would just be sucked in. Would that hold true for light speeds above 128,00fps? Im just guessing that with higher speeds above light speed, that it would be able to escape the force of the black hole. Any other opinons please?



posted on Jan, 11 2005 @ 04:16 AM
link   

Originally posted by Byrd
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.


Umm are you sure Photons have mass. I'm pretty sure they are massless..

en.wikipedia.org...




Properties

All electromagnetic radiation, from radio waves to gamma rays, is quantised as photons: that is, the smallest amount of electromagnetic radiation that can exist is one photon whatever its wavelength, frequency, energy, or momentum. Photons are fundamental particles. Their lifetime is infinite, although they can be created and destroyed. Photons are commonly associated with visible light, which is actually only a very limited part of the electromagnetic spectrum. Photons have zero invariant mass but a definite finite energy. Because they have energy, the theory of general relativity states that they are affected by gravity, and this is confirmed by observation.


Anyway it is pretty much impossible to know wether we will achieve FTL travel or communication at this point in our development as we are still fairly primitive in terms of science(heck we havn't even figured out have Gravity works at the Sub-Atomic yet..) Einstein said you cannot exceed the Speed of Light in a vacuum that is all he said I believe, so it stands to reason that other types of mediums could slow down or speed up light.



posted on Jan, 12 2005 @ 09:01 AM
link   

Originally posted by Byrd
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


I doubt that photons have mass. The Particle Data Group puts that photon mass as smaller than 6*10^-17 eV. The mass of the lightest quark is between 1.5*10^6 and 4*10^6 eV. Even if photons have mass, which is not predicted by relativity, it is extremely small.

This is no problem. In general relativity every particle follows its geodesic, whether it has positive, negative or no mass. It just follows the straighest line through curved spacetime. Gravity still works.

[edit on 12-1-2005 by amantine]



posted on Jan, 12 2005 @ 11:08 AM
link   

Originally posted by Apoc
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.


I know the experiment your thinking of, but also can't remember the name.

The experiment was proven false as the scientist, or whoever tried to prove it, had made the assumption the tube was an entire SOLID structure. He did not look to see that even molecules do have space between their atoms.


E_T

posted on Jan, 12 2005 @ 02:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by amantine
This is no problem. In general relativity every particle follows its geodesic, whether it has positive, negative or no mass. It just follows the straighest line through curved spacetime. Gravity still works.
Yeah, just like Earth in it's orbit around sun... for Earth it's straight line because space itself is curved by sun's mass.
And everything which travels through space is affected by this curving of spacetime.



posted on Jan, 13 2005 @ 01:49 AM
link   

Posted by Aether
I know the experiment your thinking of, but also can't remember the name.

The experiment was proven false as the scientist, or whoever tried to prove it, had made the assumption the tube was an entire SOLID structure. He did not look to see that even molecules do have space between their atoms.


I doubt that a physicist would do something as dumb as that. Try reading his results on the experiment before you brand the guy a moron.

Gain-assisted Superluminal Light Propogation



posted on Jan, 14 2005 @ 01:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by stumason


Posted by Aether
I know the experiment your thinking of, but also can't remember the name.

The experiment was proven false as the scientist, or whoever tried to prove it, had made the assumption the tube was an entire SOLID structure. He did not look to see that even molecules do have space between their atoms.


I doubt that a physicist would do something as dumb as that. Try reading his results on the experiment before you brand the guy a moron.

Gain-assisted Superluminal Light Propogation



Ok that's a different experiment that has nothing to do with the one were talking about. The experiement that guy has the purpose of showing that refracting light somehow can gain a phase momentum which would assimulate a faster velocity. There's not much informatin on that page besides a couple of equations, so i can't interpret the finer details of the experiment.

Also, you shouldn't jump to the conclusion I was trying to insult or call the scientist (This guy obviously isnt the same one) a 'moron'

Don't have time to post it now, but i will dig and find the experiment i'm trying to explain



posted on Jan, 14 2005 @ 03:30 PM
link   
My wifes negative energy travels faster than light, I know it!!! Wait..there it goes! Fast I tell ya.



posted on Jan, 15 2005 @ 07:31 AM
link   
I'm surprised this wasn't mentioned in anyone's post about the speed of light but..a few years ago researchers in Chicago demonstrated their ability to exceed the speed of light by lasering some frozen cesium.

On a related note, scientists in Australia successfully teleported a laser beam from one end of the lab to another just a couple years back...an experiment which has been successfully repeated several times..[rumour has it that they are now up to using particle solids and nano machines..and with some success I might add]

Thus the theoretical impediments to such things as faster than light travel have been disproved . Period. Skeptics wishing to maintain the old party line are advised to catch up with current physics.

-Sincerely
-Shai



posted on Jan, 15 2005 @ 07:48 AM
link   
www.answersingenesis.org...

I forgot to post this in my primary [above]..and will endeavor to source [back up] any and all claims made here in future with URL's to what i hope most here will find credible.authoratative sites.

Understand I am sskeptical by nature and analytical in my approach..having had to be over the years, especially in my dealings with suits and boots working the halls of power.

Here you will find details of Dr. Wiang's experiment, the one written up in 'nature' magazine 5 years ago..with follow-up from a physicist who takes the skeptical approach as well..but ends up proving Dr. Wiang right.



posted on Jan, 15 2005 @ 08:26 AM
link   
Shai,....tsk tsk tsk. You should really read about the whole breakthrough. The speed of light itself was not breached the only thing that exceeded the speed of light was the group velocity, its a completely different thing. Einstein said that the speed of light was absolute in a vacuum. He never said it was impossible in other mediums, just not in a vacuum. The reason one cannot go faster then light (in a vacuum) is because the faster you go, the more mass said particle gains, until finally it reaches a point of infinite mass thus it would require infinite energy to accelerate more, the only way to go FTL would be to create a field around an object that created a Negative Invariant Mass, so in this way the faster you go the more mass you LOSE. Not sure how accurate it is but it seems this is how the Star Treks "Sub Space Bubble" works. You would need a heck of alot of Negative Energy to accomlish that as well, and only the Casamir effect is know to create small amounts of energy.

Physists have been using Tachyons as a theoretical tool and it is a FTL particle. Look it up.

[edit on 15-1-2005 by sardion2000]



posted on Jan, 20 2005 @ 11:49 AM
link   

Originally posted by sardion2000
Shai,....tsk tsk tsk. You should really read about the whole breakthrough. The speed of light itself was not breached the only thing that exceeded the speed of light was the group velocity, its a completely different thing. Einstein said that the speed of light was absolute in a vacuum. He never said it was impossible in other mediums, just not in a vacuum. The reason one cannot go faster then light (in a vacuum) is because the faster you go, the more mass said particle gains, until finally it reaches a point of infinite mass thus it would require infinite energy to accelerate more, the only way to go FTL would be to create a field around an object that created a Negative Invariant Mass, so in this way the faster you go the more mass you LOSE. Not sure how accurate it is but it seems this is how the Star Treks "Sub Space Bubble" works. You would need a heck of alot of Negative Energy to accomlish that as well, and only the Casamir effect is know to create small amounts of energy.

Physists have been using Tachyons as a theoretical tool and it is a FTL particle. Look it up.

[edit on 15-1-2005 by sardion2000]


If you would take the time to study the implications of the zero-point field you would understand that the energy required is there and then some.
And again we are falling into the rtraps of 3 dimensional reasoning instead of multi-dimensional reasoning.
Let me oput it this way..until now the assumption is that we have to use some propellant force to send us faster than light into the reaches of space..and that is not at all how it is [assumed to be ] done by God's friendly forces above. The trick is to pull the object , the planet, the system you want to explore towards you.
remember the Niels Bohr/einstein argument about certainty and photons, quarks and such? You could know their velocity or know their position and rotation, but never both properties at once...and also how far apart do subatomic particles have to be before they do not act in tandem as part of a system?
This was based on the idea that by measurintg the rotation of a proton or photon over here..you could know that at that same moment its partner was rotating in the opposite direction..would this apply if the particles wewre removed by light years, and how could you check since it would take light years in real time to get to the other particle..
The problem is, that even though some of us claim to understanbd the theory we are still behaving as if distance = velocity ..a star is so many light years away, when einstein was trying to tell us that Time is a seperate and non constant variable which can be influenced by cosmic forces...leaving some other mechanism or force to be responsible for 'real time'signalling between huge distances.
Get It?
Enter the zero point field..pure, limitless energy, all around us which can be utilized to charge and tune ..or align onself with corresponding bodies in space, creating nearly instant crossover. Pulling the target towards us as opposed to pushing ourselves there.
And that would mean going in and out of phase so quickly that we would seem to be ghosts....and it would require a lot of gold dust treated ina certain way to make it possible;
www.inquiring-mines.com...

I post the link not as an authoritative source but one which I find to be most fascinating and worth a read.

Thanks again for responding
-Sincerely
-Shai



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 1   >>

log in

join