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.

 

Faster Then Light Speed, Can We Do It?

page: 3
14
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 25 2016 @ 06:17 PM
link   
a reply to: chr0naut

True but keep in mind the speed of light is conditional to the metrics of the medium and even in a vacuum can be increased almost to instantaneouse propigation. Now if you have no mass, cause the two are interelated, how fast could you really go?




posted on Aug, 25 2016 @ 06:46 PM
link   

originally posted by: AlongCamePaul
Crack anti matter and you have FTL.

Crack superposition quantum theory and you have a blink drive, also know as instant teleportation throught the universe.

My mind tells me that anti matter does not exist in this universe but in an equal yet opposite parallel universe.

In order to harness anti matter one would first need to master black hole relativity in hopes of creatinh a stable worm hole into an anti parallel universe.

Any mass construct of an anti parallel universe brought back into a local parallel universe would in theory have anti gravitative properties. Since mass is a function gravity without gravity mass would equal zero.



We've 'had' antimatter since the positron was discovered by Carl D. Anderson in 1932.

Mass is not a function of gravity. Gravity is a function of the deformation of spacetime that mass causes. Mass and spacetime has to come first before gravity can occur.

Currently, mass is theorised to be due to the Higgs effect, which says that the energy of spacetime vacuum is given to massless particles, giving them mass. It is like nature seeking towards the lowest energy state possible.



posted on Aug, 25 2016 @ 06:57 PM
link   

originally posted by: BASSPLYR
a reply to: chr0naut

True but keep in mind the speed of light is conditional to the metrics of the medium and even in a vacuum can be increased almost to instantaneouse propigation. Now if you have no mass, cause the two are interelated, how fast could you really go?


"c" is a constant which is the MAXIMUM speed that light can travel at. The constant, 'c', is different from the rates that light might potentially propagate at. They call 'c' the 'speed of light' but it is actually more fundamental than that. It is the upper bound, or speed limit, for light. Light can go slower, as refraction and/or propagation through a Bose-Einstein Condensate shows.

You cannot violate the speed limit of 'c' because the very metrics of spactime distort to prevent it.



posted on Aug, 25 2016 @ 07:39 PM
link   
There might not be such a thing as a light speed barrier par se but one of time, whereas anything going faster than c, experiences time reversal, causing the appearance of a c barrier in our time frame. Even relativistic mass seems misunderstood...



The “famous formula E = mc2 ” and the concept of “relativistic mass” increasing with velocity, which follows from it, are historical artifacts, contradicting the basic symmetry of Einstein’s Special Relativity, the symmetry of 4-dimensional space-time. The relation discovered by Einstein is not E = mc2 , but E0 = mc2 , where E0 is the energy of a free body at rest introduced by Einstein in 1905. The source of the longevity of the “famous formula” is the irresponsible attitude of relativity theory experts to the task of explaining it to the non-experts. The notion of “relativistic mass” presents a kind of pedagogical virus which very effectively infects new generations of students and professors and shows no signs of decline. Moreover in the Year of Physics it threatens to produce a real pandemia.
link



posted on Aug, 25 2016 @ 10:38 PM
link   

originally posted by: Mousygretchen
a reply to: BlackProject


Ok so.."Faster than light" travel would actually be time travel. That is, traveling through a wormhole/space-time continuum/star gate.

Spot on mate



posted on Aug, 26 2016 @ 12:04 AM
link   
a reply to: chr0naut

Never said you can go faster than C. I said you can change the value of C to be much higher than it is. Cs value is what it is even in the vacuum due to a reason. A malleable reason. You can change the metrics of the vacuum and hugely increase C. So yeah your not going faster than your altered value of C. But your value if C may be 1000s of times faster than that of the rest of the universe.

If you dont follow its ok.



posted on Aug, 26 2016 @ 12:18 AM
link   

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: AlongCamePaul
Crack anti matter and you have FTL.

Crack superposition quantum theory and you have a blink drive, also know as instant teleportation throught the universe.

My mind tells me that anti matter does not exist in this universe but in an equal yet opposite parallel universe.

In order to harness anti matter one would first need to master black hole relativity in hopes of creatinh a stable worm hole into an anti parallel universe.

Any mass construct of an anti parallel universe brought back into a local parallel universe would in theory have anti gravitative properties. Since mass is a function gravity without gravity mass would equal zero.



We've 'had' antimatter since the positron was discovered by Carl D. Anderson in 1932.

Mass is not a function of gravity. Gravity is a function of the deformation of spacetime that mass causes. Mass and spacetime has to come first before gravity can occur.

Currently, mass is theorised to be due to the Higgs effect, which says that the energy of spacetime vacuum is given to massless particles, giving them mass. It is like nature seeking towards the lowest energy state possible.




Wow there are folks paid a ton of money by the military industrial complex(cause they actually gotta make things work in the real word even if undynamic thinkers with their head in a box disagree cause it doesnt match up with theories theyve been told. ) that think you standard model guys got the origen of mass and gravity fundamentally wrong and actually ass backwards.



posted on Aug, 26 2016 @ 01:24 AM
link   
a reply to: BASSPLYR

It is the "inverse relation of distance" bs that Newton proposed. Seems that every new advance needs math reworks.

Negate mass and C is meaningless is what is being said (for those not following on all the other threads). The F=MA goes out the window and the basic math has to be redone. Ben Rich said the same.

Why don't people listen to what they are told?? Same with most math/science... learn the old ways and repeat while never bothering to ask if it is right in the first place.

Thanks BP! It gets tough trying to explain things to those that do not... what... try?... no, uh, think outside the school box!



posted on Aug, 26 2016 @ 04:48 AM
link   

originally posted by: TEOTWAWKIAIFF
a reply to: BASSPLYR


Negate mass and C is meaningless is what is being said (for those not following on all the other threads). The F=MA goes out the window and the basic math has to be redone. Ben Rich said the same.

Why don't people listen to what they are told?? Same with most math/science... learn the old ways and repeat while never bothering to ask if it is right in the first place.

Thanks BP! It gets tough trying to explain things to those that do not... what... try?... no, uh, think outside the school box!
hey ive tried explain this very thing on ats over the years, but intelligence on ats is seriously lacking



posted on Sep, 13 2016 @ 08:22 AM
link   

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: BASSPLYR
a reply to: chr0naut

True but keep in mind the speed of light is conditional to the metrics of the medium and even in a vacuum can be increased almost to instantaneouse propigation. Now if you have no mass, cause the two are interelated, how fast could you really go?


"c" is a constant which is the MAXIMUM speed that light can travel at. The constant, 'c', is different from the rates that light might potentially propagate at. They call 'c' the 'speed of light' but it is actually more fundamental than that. It is the upper bound, or speed limit, for light. Light can go slower, as refraction and/or propagation through a Bose-Einstein Condensate shows.

You cannot violate the speed limit of 'c' because the very metrics of spactime distort to prevent it.


I was under the impression thAt the speed of light never changes and that refracted light going slower was due to the photons being absorbed and re emitted or something like that...(my brain can't seem to form the words I want to write).

Is refraction through a BE condensate different to refraction through regular solids?



posted on Sep, 16 2016 @ 02:31 AM
link   

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: AlongCamePaul
Crack anti matter and you have FTL.

Crack superposition quantum theory and you have a blink drive, also know as instant teleportation throught the universe.

My mind tells me that anti matter does not exist in this universe but in an equal yet opposite parallel universe.

In order to harness anti matter one would first need to master black hole relativity in hopes of creatinh a stable worm hole into an anti parallel universe.

Any mass construct of an anti parallel universe brought back into a local parallel universe would in theory have anti gravitative properties. Since mass is a function gravity without gravity mass would equal zero.



We've 'had' antimatter since the positron was discovered by Carl D. Anderson in 1932.

Mass is not a function of gravity. Gravity is a function of the deformation of spacetime that mass causes. Mass and spacetime has to come first before gravity can occur.

Currently, mass is theorised to be due to the Higgs effect, which says that the energy of spacetime vacuum is given to massless particles, giving them mass. It is like nature seeking towards the lowest energy state possible.



I am glad I came back to review the thread, I just want to disagree with you on a few points.

A positron is absolutely not anti matter. A positron is a opposite charge to the electron, which allows for molecules to achieve a lower more stable valence state. I stress to you the positron is not anti matter. Because the positron does not have a negative mass. it has an equal mass to an electron yet opposite charge.


Secondly, Mass, Volume, Density, regarding space time are all relative they are functions within each other. To say one is not a function of the other is a foolish accusation it all depends on your reference and what you're solving for.

We know what mass is..
We know the relationship between Mass and gravity with respect to distance. This is common physics. Mass has not been theorized since newton.



posted on Sep, 16 2016 @ 04:56 AM
link   

originally posted by: AlongCamePaul

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: AlongCamePaul
Crack anti matter and you have FTL.

Crack superposition quantum theory and you have a blink drive, also know as instant teleportation throught the universe.

My mind tells me that anti matter does not exist in this universe but in an equal yet opposite parallel universe.

In order to harness anti matter one would first need to master black hole relativity in hopes of creatinh a stable worm hole into an anti parallel universe.

Any mass construct of an anti parallel universe brought back into a local parallel universe would in theory have anti gravitative properties. Since mass is a function gravity without gravity mass would equal zero.



We've 'had' antimatter since the positron was discovered by Carl D. Anderson in 1932.

Mass is not a function of gravity. Gravity is a function of the deformation of spacetime that mass causes. Mass and spacetime has to come first before gravity can occur.

Currently, mass is theorised to be due to the Higgs effect, which says that the energy of spacetime vacuum is given to massless particles, giving them mass. It is like nature seeking towards the lowest energy state possible.



I am glad I came back to review the thread, I just want to disagree with you on a few points.

A positron is absolutely not anti matter. A positron is a opposite charge to the electron, which allows for molecules to achieve a lower more stable valence state. I stress to you the positron is not anti matter. Because the positron does not have a negative mass. it has an equal mass to an electron yet opposite charge.


Secondly, Mass, Volume, Density, regarding space time are all relative they are functions within each other. To say one is not a function of the other is a foolish accusation it all depends on your reference and what you're solving for.

We know what mass is..
We know the relationship between Mass and gravity with respect to distance. This is common physics. Mass has not been theorized since newton.



Antimatter does not have negative mass. It has negative charge.

Paul Driac wrote the definitive paper leading to the theorization of antimatter, way back in 1928 before any actual anti-particles had been observed. Dirac realised that there was a solution to both relativity and the Schrödinger wave equation that gave a solution of an anti-electron. This was later extrapolated in 1929 to include the possibility of a whole 'mirror' periodic table of anti-atoms and their anti-matter subatomic particles.

It is upon this concept of anti-particles existing in balance to all matter particles that supersymmetry hangs. Supersymetric particles dont have negative values of things we have not observed but the do have negative values of things where negative values have been observed (like with positive and negative charges).

Also negative mass (which has never been observed) implies negative energy (which may exist but has also never been observed). the annihalation of matter and negative matter would not release energy (like in a matter antimatter annihalation). It would be the annihalation of positive energy and negative energy, a net resultant release of nothing.



posted on Sep, 16 2016 @ 05:18 AM
link   

originally posted by: BASSPLYR
a reply to: chr0naut

Never said you can go faster than C. I said you can change the value of C to be much higher than it is. Cs value is what it is even in the vacuum due to a reason. A malleable reason. You can change the metrics of the vacuum and hugely increase C. So yeah your not going faster than your altered value of C. But your value if C may be 1000s of times faster than that of the rest of the universe.

If you dont follow its ok.

To change the value of C you have to change its current existing environment to adjust and allow a greater velocity. That would be changing the state of the universe itself, and while it's theoretical at the moment, it's not practical for a few hundred-thousand years at best.



posted on Sep, 16 2016 @ 06:39 AM
link   

originally posted by: Vector99

originally posted by: BASSPLYR
a reply to: chr0naut

Never said you can go faster than C. I said you can change the value of C to be much higher than it is. Cs value is what it is even in the vacuum due to a reason. A malleable reason. You can change the metrics of the vacuum and hugely increase C. So yeah your not going faster than your altered value of C. But your value if C may be 1000s of times faster than that of the rest of the universe.

If you dont follow its ok.


To change the value of C you have to change its current existing environment to adjust and allow a greater velocity. That would be changing the state of the universe itself, and while it's theoretical at the moment, it's not practical for a few hundred-thousand years at best.


Please describe how you came to the conclusion that the Universe has a none quantised "state".



posted on Sep, 16 2016 @ 07:21 PM
link   
Going back to the first post (which someone reposted on the previous page) it contains a brilliant example of how scientists talk absolute nonsense and get away with it. OK, so neutrinos can pass undetected through huge amounts of matter, meaning that planet Earth is effectively transparent to them, but the guy who's quoted goes on to say that this means they could be used for transmitting messages over very long distances (interstellar magnitude or more) without being blocked by obstructions.

Well, yeah, they could. But how would anyone receive such transmissions if neutrinos pass straight through everything including the matter from which the receiver is constructed?

Mind you, he's in good company. HG Wells committed the same error when he wrote The Invisible Man, because he didn't realise that being invisible would make you blind too (because your retinas would be transparent, so photons would pass through them instead of hitting them).

As for FTL travel opening the door to time-travel, my personal suspicion is that one day this is going to look as daft as the predictions that rail travel would suffocate passengers due to the windspeed involved. There might be something interesting that occurs at >c-speed, but it won't be time travel.

Time travel is impossible, because it means that the atoms that make up the time-traveller would be duplicated by taking them to a 'past' in which those atoms already existed.

The first law of thermodynamics is that energy can neither be created nor destroyed. Duplicating even one atom by sending it back to a time when it already existed would be creating energy. Therefore it absolutely and definitively cannot happen.

Unless the first law of thermodynamics is wrong...



posted on Sep, 16 2016 @ 08:19 PM
link   

originally posted by: Jukiodone

originally posted by: Vector99

originally posted by: BASSPLYR
a reply to: chr0naut

Never said you can go faster than C. I said you can change the value of C to be much higher than it is. Cs value is what it is even in the vacuum due to a reason. A malleable reason. You can change the metrics of the vacuum and hugely increase C. So yeah your not going faster than your altered value of C. But your value if C may be 1000s of times faster than that of the rest of the universe.

If you dont follow its ok.


To change the value of C you have to change its current existing environment to adjust and allow a greater velocity. That would be changing the state of the universe itself, and while it's theoretical at the moment, it's not practical for a few hundred-thousand years at best.


Please describe how you came to the conclusion that the Universe has a none quantised "state".

The universe per current laws must have an absolute state. That is how the constant is derived in the first place.



posted on Sep, 19 2016 @ 12:12 AM
link   

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: AlongCamePaul

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: AlongCamePaul
Crack anti matter and you have FTL.

Crack superposition quantum theory and you have a blink drive, also know as instant teleportation throught the universe.

My mind tells me that anti matter does not exist in this universe but in an equal yet opposite parallel universe.

In order to harness anti matter one would first need to master black hole relativity in hopes of creatinh a stable worm hole into an anti parallel universe.

Any mass construct of an anti parallel universe brought back into a local parallel universe would in theory have anti gravitative properties. Since mass is a function gravity without gravity mass would equal zero.



We've 'had' antimatter since the positron was discovered by Carl D. Anderson in 1932.

Mass is not a function of gravity. Gravity is a function of the deformation of spacetime that mass causes. Mass and spacetime has to come first before gravity can occur.

Currently, mass is theorised to be due to the Higgs effect, which says that the energy of spacetime vacuum is given to massless particles, giving them mass. It is like nature seeking towards the lowest energy state possible.



I am glad I came back to review the thread, I just want to disagree with you on a few points.

A positron is absolutely not anti matter. A positron is a opposite charge to the electron, which allows for molecules to achieve a lower more stable valence state. I stress to you the positron is not anti matter. Because the positron does not have a negative mass. it has an equal mass to an electron yet opposite charge.


Secondly, Mass, Volume, Density, regarding space time are all relative they are functions within each other. To say one is not a function of the other is a foolish accusation it all depends on your reference and what you're solving for.

We know what mass is..
We know the relationship between Mass and gravity with respect to distance. This is common physics. Mass has not been theorized since newton.



Antimatter does not have negative mass. It has negative charge.

Paul Driac wrote the definitive paper leading to the theorization of antimatter, way back in 1928 before any actual anti-particles had been observed. Dirac realised that there was a solution to both relativity and the Schrödinger wave equation that gave a solution of an anti-electron. This was later extrapolated in 1929 to include the possibility of a whole 'mirror' periodic table of anti-atoms and their anti-matter subatomic particles.

It is upon this concept of anti-particles existing in balance to all matter particles that supersymmetry hangs. Supersymetric particles dont have negative values of things we have not observed but the do have negative values of things where negative values have been observed (like with positive and negative charges).

Also negative mass (which has never been observed) implies negative energy (which may exist but has also never been observed). the annihalation of matter and negative matter would not release energy (like in a matter antimatter annihalation). It would be the annihalation of positive energy and negative energy, a net resultant release of nothing.


Negative mass does not exist in this universe! I agree! Because anti matter does not exist either. Which makes the complete assesment of the positron being anti matter completely false.

I will also agree that the net resultant of an anti-matter/matter run in would result in a net release of zero energy. Though im not sure how well thermodynamics 1st and 2nd law holds up within the entire confines of our universe.

Regarding the speed of light and how one could possibly circumvent its speed limit and in essence traverse a distance faster.

c = sqrt E/M
There are only 2 ways. Have zero net mass (or less), or an infinite and instant power source. Neither are feasable. Whats more probable and most likely to happen is the local manipulation of time-space. Without space time stops. Without time, space has no dimension, since all matter is entangled.

As Einstein put it "spooky action at distance"

If we could for instance decrease the nominal drag of space by say aligning quark matter in a linear fashion so that space is not as dense one could travel faster than c with mass and without the need for an infinite amount of energy. This would be a form of warping space and consequently time.


I have a question for you guys. What do you guys think the universe is constantly expanding into? Whats at the edge of the universe? I personally believe its an antiverse. An unequalled unbalanced equation sorting itself out through heat death or exothermic reaction.



posted on Sep, 19 2016 @ 12:33 AM
link   
a reply to: BlackProject

Lets say man one day does achieve the speed of light.

And hungry children still go to bed at night.

Live in poverty, sick and unclean.

Then can he even claim to be as bright,

as a gaw damn bubble gum machine?



posted on Sep, 19 2016 @ 08:06 AM
link   

originally posted by: AlongCamePaul
I have a question for you guys. What do you guys think the universe is constantly expanding into? Whats at the edge of the universe? I personally believe its an antiverse. An unequalled unbalanced equation sorting itself out through heat death or exothermic reaction.


As far as I understand it, the current model is that the universe isn't 'inside' anything, but the expansion is like drawing two dots on a deflated balloon and then inflating it. The two dots get further apart but the balloon doesn't fundamentally change shape (topographically speaking).

As for an anti-universe, surely this would have come into existence at the same time as our own (if you buy the Big Bang theory), and it would therefore be expanding in the opposite, er, direction. Hard to visualise but a sort of figure-of-8 universe dyad, positive in the top loop and negative in the bottom loop, with only a notional contact point between them. As such it wouldn't be 'outside' our universe, because the pair don't exist inside some external "universe+1", just separate from ours. We might infer things about it, but we couldn't visit it, even if we could survive contact with anti-matter.

This sort of stuff is fascinating, but it gives your brain cramps trying to resolve it into comprehensible terms.



posted on Sep, 19 2016 @ 02:10 PM
link   

originally posted by: randyvs
a reply to: BlackProject

Lets say man one day does achieve the speed of light.

And hungry children still go to bed at night.

Live in poverty, sick and unclean.

Then can he even claim to be as bright,

as a gaw damn bubble gum machine?


I see where you are coming from but this was not my original topic point. Poverty and hunger cannot be ignored because we all suffer a certain form of it. We all work for a living and if that stopped, we would be in hunger and poverty. I spent many years of my younger life in poverty and hunger for many nights, this is living in the UK. So sure the world is broken, I have to aim for the hopeful things in life in the hope that someday all things we wish for are solved.



new topics

top topics



 
14
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join