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 than C

page: 1
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 4 2005 @ 05:55 PM
link   
I know that Einstein made the statement thats its impossible to get to Lightspeed,but now that most of his ideas are getting a "second glance" at I was woundering if anyone knew any information about going faster than light. Since the idea of bending space seems to abstract right now, I was woundering if you could go faster than light. Not in the sense that you slow down light or something like that, but going faster than C. I know this sounds realy dumb but I really know very little on the subject. Also if there is no sites or anything about it I would like to hear some of the rational ideas. Also when I did a brief look over of the M-theory I noticed the idea of the 11th dimension. It's suppose to be like a torrent of energey or something I really didn't retain too much information off that read, so I would really appreciate if someone could post that video like the beatiful universe, or somethin along those lines!




posted on Jun, 4 2005 @ 07:04 PM
link   
The Theory of Relativity says you can't travel faster than c because as you approach that speed, your mass increases therefore it requires more and more energy to gain speed until you'd need an infinite amount of energy to finally get to the speed of light. You'd definitely need to "cheat" by using a wormhole or warp drive or something to appear to be traveling faster than the speed fo light even though you're not.

I think the video you are talking about is Nova's Elegant Universe available here: www.pbs.org....



posted on Jun, 4 2005 @ 07:16 PM
link   
What is it always see someone post here. To go faster than the speed of light you must break the bond between the speed of light and the mass of an object. Once mass is eliminated there is a potential of unlimited travel.

If Einstein were alive he surely would've updated his theory to account with quantum theory. That and newtonian law are flawed but still a good example of the workings of our physical world.

I'm not taking credit for any of these ideas again, just repeating what always get said.



posted on Jun, 4 2005 @ 07:19 PM
link   
THeory of relativity is not only based on that as you approach the speed of light your mass increased, but that any frame of reference you make is contrary to taht speed of light. That is where the entire theory puts the question in mind of can you travel faster than c. Picture you send light out into space, no matter what frame of reference you look at the beam of light from the constant is c. Let's take for instance space ship A. traveling 'backwards' from the source of the light and space ship B. traveling "forward" with the direction of the propagation of the light, both see the constant c. So, this also draws the question, what exactly is your frame of reference going to be if your traveling faster than the speed of light? Space itself is always moving, therefore do you use one spatial point of reference or consider all bodies of a solar system your inertial frame of ref.?



posted on Jun, 5 2005 @ 12:00 AM
link   
The trouble with traveling faster than C is that normal matter has been shown time and time again to follow the rules of relativity.

In particle accelerators atoms flatten out and get heavier and in fast jets or the space shuttle, atomic clocks diverge from ground ones.

SO to tackle the speed limit, you have to change the way you think of traveling, rather than moving through space, bend space, side step space, or leave it all together.

If you can come up with solid theories for any of these let me know.

While I don't believe in aliens (lack of proof) I do think its much more likely they aren't from other places in our universe, but rather overlapping ones according to Brane Theory (off shoot of M-theory).



posted on Jun, 5 2005 @ 09:05 AM
link   
Unless a person can dispute gamma ( 1/sqrt(1-v^2/c^2)) ... then there really isn't a rational idea.

I've heard alot of conceptual stuff, but nothing is backed up with experiments or mathematics. Einstein has both experimental and mathematical proof, so his theory is on a rather solid foundation.



posted on Jun, 5 2005 @ 09:34 AM
link   
First and foremost....

Einstien only expanded on ideas that were already out there. Maxwell, while doing his equasions in regard to electromagnetism discovered that electromagnetic waves spread from a source in a sphere in all cases. His equasions also showed this spreading had a constant speed. That constant speed, which was literally worked right from his equasions, happened to coincide with the speed of light. Later, these observations were confirmed in a fruitless attempt to quantify an ether.

Immediately, you can see a problem with a constant speed through all reference frames. It totally blew relativity theory apart. Einstien ONLY PRODUCED a way to understand how relativity, and reality could coexist (special relativity).

Just some additional things to think about. E=mc^2 is a well known equasion that was derived from special relativity. In his equasions, he figured out that there was a point where he could equate energy to mass. This equasion applicable in todays world. The atomic bomb, which was used, is a result of this equasion.

Furthermore, your second looks that you speak of are attacks at the theory. People for whatever reason are attacking it, rather than doing their physics and letting peices fall as they may. Einstien may be proven partially incorrect someday. However, this will come out in time, as our understanding of the world gets better.

There are ways to look at relativity with a decreasing speed of light as well. Though, I am not a formula expert, a decreasing speed of light, which I am sure is what you are referring to, may just mean that the speed of light number that maxwell and einstien used was not the speed of light, but rather a speed of something else that light travelled closely to.

You told us to be rational. Like T-Jesus said, einstien has both experimental and mathematical proofs. This is quite a strong foundation. I know the horrible issues with Quantum mechanics. However, maybe we just need another einstien to come along. Why? What did Einstien do? He took to theories (Maxwells and Relativity) which were incompatable by any means. He studied, and figured out how they worked together. Its time people start looking at things in a productive way rather than destructive.

So, rationally, we cannot travel faster than c. Even the theoretical particles that scientists have come up with that could travel faster than light could never be observed. They likewise would NEVER be able to travel slower than light. Permanently hidden behind the c barrier.





[edit on 6/5/2005 by Seapeople]



posted on Jun, 5 2005 @ 11:10 AM
link   
In order to travel faster than the speed of light, you need to have time count in imaginary numbers. Time doesn't do this, hence you can't travel faster than the speed of light.

3x10^8 m/s is the fastest anything can travel through space.

End of story.



posted on Jun, 5 2005 @ 12:18 PM
link   
A lot of times one finds that technology changes the nature of the question. You must ask yourself why you want to travel faster than the speed of light. Is it to travel elsewhere?

In that case, it doesn't matter that you can't (theoretically) travel faster than the speed of light. You could, instead, create a bunch of nanoassemblers and transmit structural (atomic) info faster than the speed of light (information can be transmitted faster than C), and assemble on the other side before you're done transmitting. This means that while you can't travel faster than the speed of light, you can transmit information/instructions to build a duplicate object on the other side and be finished before you're done transmitting all the information. This is as good, if not better, than traveling faster than the speed of light.

The only problem is having an assembler on the other side.



posted on Jun, 5 2005 @ 02:29 PM
link   
Quantum physics (sort of):
Faster than light has already been observed in quantum tunneling of photons.
Also, the way entangled atoms communicate across distances is faster-than -light.
Atoms have a probability wave. They have a probability of being elsewhere.
So, if there was a kind of field that could shape the probability wave of large objects, the objects would tunnel through space.



posted on Jun, 5 2005 @ 02:37 PM
link   


If Einstein were alive he surely would've updated his theory to account with quantum theory.


I doubt it. Einstein hated quantum theory, despite many of his ideas serving as it's foundation... In fact, this inability and unwillingness to agree with it, was one reason his later ideas were nowhere near his earlier discoveries.... Still though, one should never forget his place as one of THE greatest thinkers of our age, and indeed, all time.



posted on Jun, 5 2005 @ 05:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by StarBreather
Quantum physics (sort of):
Faster than light has already been observed in quantum tunneling of photons.
Also, the way entangled atoms communicate across distances is faster-than -light.
Atoms have a probability wave. They have a probability of being elsewhere.
So, if there was a kind of field that could shape the probability wave of large objects, the objects would tunnel through space.


Your talking about the holographic universe theory??

www.crystalinks.com...

"Aspect and his team discovered that under certain circumstances subatomic particles such as electrons are able to instantaneously communicate with each other regardless of the distance separating them. It doesn't matter whether they are 10 feet or 10 billion miles apart.

Somehow each particle always seems to know what the other is doing. The problem with this feat is that it violates Einstein's long-held tenet that no communication can travel faster than the speed of light. Since traveling faster than the speed of light is tantamount to breaking the time barrier, this daunting prospect has caused some physicists to try to come up with elaborate ways to explain away Aspect's findings. But it has inspired others to offer even more radical explanations."



posted on Jun, 5 2005 @ 07:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by Gazrok


If Einstein were alive he surely would've updated his theory to account with quantum theory.


I doubt it. Einstein hated quantum theory, despite many of his ideas serving as it's foundation... In fact, this inability and unwillingness to agree with it, was one reason his later ideas were nowhere near his earlier discoveries.... Still though, one should never forget his place as one of THE greatest thinkers of our age, and indeed, all time.


Didn't he say this about QM? "God doesn't play dice with the universe, He has a great plan that is not random" or somthing like that?



posted on Jun, 5 2005 @ 07:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by sardion2000

Originally posted by Gazrok


If Einstein were alive he surely would've updated his theory to account with quantum theory.


I doubt it. Einstein hated quantum theory, despite many of his ideas serving as it's foundation... In fact, this inability and unwillingness to agree with it, was one reason his later ideas were nowhere near his earlier discoveries.... Still though, one should never forget his place as one of THE greatest thinkers of our age, and indeed, all time.


Didn't he say this about QM? "God doesn't play dice with the universe, He has a great plan that is not random" or somthing like that?


I found a million different quotes that were along those lines but I am assuming that 90% were mis quoted. Heres the one that made the most sense and actually sound the same as what you said

"God does not play dice with the universe"-- Einstein

but this is something intersting

"God not only plays dice, but sometimes throws them where they cannot be" -- Hawking



posted on Jun, 7 2005 @ 08:00 PM
link   
That's always how I've heard it, The_Final. Einstein had big issues with QM. In truth, it's not random, we just don't understand the jump from probability to event.

Then again, he invented the cosmological constant, then threw it out.
We all make mistakes, he made three.



In a smiliar vein, there's an old adage: "Random number generation is too important to be left up to chance."



posted on Jun, 11 2005 @ 09:45 AM
link   
i was browsing around a couple days ago and ur thread reminded me of this great site, it shows a simple way to go faster than C

go here



posted on Jun, 11 2005 @ 10:07 AM
link   

Originally posted by Amorymeltzer
That's always how I've heard it, The_Final. Einstein had big issues with QM. In truth, it's not random, we just don't understand the jump from probability to event.

Then again, he invented the cosmological constant, then threw it out.
We all make mistakes, he made three.



In a smiliar vein, there's an old adage: "Random number generation is too important to be left up to chance."


I don't think that Einstein's "cosmological constant" was a mistake, new evidence seems to show that he was correct, even if he didn't know it or understand exactly what it was. here's a good read from: www.npl.washington.edu...


Contrary to what one might expect, general relativity a mass-energy for empty space produces a repulsive force instead of gravitational attraction. If a volume of gas expands or contracts, the mass density changes, producing a positive pressure that, in the simplest case, follows the Ideal Gas Law (p = nRT/v). However if a volume of mass-containing vacuum expands or contracts, the mass-energy density remains constant, and the pressure in this case is negative. The gravitational effect of this negative pressure overwhelms gravitational attraction of the mass and results in a net repulsive force. That force grows linearly with distance, becoming very strong at large distances and balancing the tendency of model universes to collapse. Einstein's introduction of WL thus made general relativity compatible with a steady-state universe




Posted by The_Final
"God not only plays dice, but sometimes throws them where they cannot be" -- Hawking


I thought Hawking's quote was :"God not only plays dice, but sometimes throws them where they cannot be seen.

I believe Einstein's "problem" with quantum mechanics was that QM had as much or more philosophy in it as it did real science(in his time especially).



posted on Jun, 11 2005 @ 11:37 AM
link   

Originally posted by Rren


Posted by The_Final
"God not only plays dice, but sometimes throws them where they cannot be" -- Hawking


I thought Hawking's quote was :"God not only plays dice, but sometimes throws them where they cannot be seen.

I believe Einstein's "problem" with quantum mechanics was that QM had as much or more philosophy in it as it did real science(in his time especially).



Sorry for the miss quote I must have copy pasted wrong or something..... if QM was more of a philosophy why didn't he attmept to prove it, or work on embracing it into his ideas? Although I have never understood where the idea of a string came. Whenever I look at a site they just assume that you know things about strings. Where did the original idea come from, that lil things that make up atoms vibrate and what not?



posted on Jun, 14 2005 @ 11:42 PM
link   
but in a 3D world you cant. I'm sure that light is manipulated even in the 4th dimension.

I have heard about compressing white light from using planets in a solar system. I guess ya somehow mix it through prizm-like quartz.

And you can do captain kirk star trek stuff, lol,



posted on Jun, 15 2005 @ 12:51 AM
link   
Just an idea here...

What if you had a wormhole or some such chamber travelling through the universe at the speed of light. Then, you have a second chamber inside the first one, and this second chamber is travelling at the speed of light relative to the first chamber. You can take this example ad infinitum. Each chamber would be travelling the speed of light relative to the chamber it is inside of. Thus, relative to the original reference frame of the universe, the subsequent chambers are travelling faster than the speed of light.

This just seems like one way you can logically go faster than the speed of light within the confines of the theory of relativity.

EDIT: I was just thinking, and I haven't taken physics or read the Relativity Theory in a long time.

Is the speed of light supposed to be a constant and absolute, therefore, not necessarily within the confines of the Relativity Theory?

If so, I wonder why, and what exactly his rationale was. Hmm, time to research I think.

[edit on 15-6-2005 by Jamuhn]



new topics

top topics



 
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join