It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Thank you.

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

# Faster than the speed of light?

page: 2
0
share:

posted on Feb, 5 2007 @ 10:38 PM

Originally posted by razor1000
Riddle me this:
okay so lets say i got a ship that can go at the speed of light, now lets say i blow it up while at that speed since i'm allready going as fast as possible then i blow it up now wouldnt there be particles that would be accelerated past the speed of light by the explosion.
my theroy is this in simpler terms
ok i'm in a car and i got a paintball gun i'm going 30 mph and the gun fires at lets say 10 mph so what is the speed of the paint ball i'm no math wizzard but i'd say 40 mph since its allready traveling at 30 and getting that 10mph boost.
what everyone compares light speed to so far is like jumping off a falling elevator at the last moment

The explosion would require instilling more than infinite energy into the pieces to propel them faster than light. That is physically impossible. Of course, if you're going the speed of light, I'd say you're doing pretty good as it is!

posted on Feb, 5 2007 @ 10:38 PM

Originally posted by HaTaX
BTW, is this a theory for propelling a UFO to great speeds? Just wondering how this ties into the forum heading..
[edit on 5-2-2007 by HaTaX]

After looking at the other forum titles, I thought this would be the appropriate place to post this.

posted on Feb, 5 2007 @ 10:43 PM
When we understand the mechanics of "light speed" in the not too distant future (I hope), we'll understand why we can't travel at it.

posted on Feb, 5 2007 @ 10:46 PM

Originally posted by Doc Velocity
No, you can't exceed the speed of light, no matter what, according to Einstein's Theory of Special Relativity. Lightspeed is the absolute speed limit.

Now think of this... You have 2 starships backed up tail-to-tail to each other, and they both jump to lightspeed at the same time, starting from the same point in space, streaking away in exact opposite directions. Both travelling at lightspeed.

So how fast are they departing from one another? Twice lightspeed?

Nope. Even though they are both going lightspeed in opposite directions, they are still only departing from one another at lightspeed.

Why? Because you can't exceed the speed of light, no matter what, according to Einstein's Theory of Special Relativity. Lightspeed is the absolute speed limit.

Errr... let's clarify. c is not an achievable velocity for mass in special relativity.
So let's call it .99c, as in 99% the speed of light.
So both ships accelerate in opposite directions to .99c relative to their previously stationary position. Both ships would see the other moving away at (roughly) .9999c (I don't know the equation offhand to do this accurately and even if I did I'm not going to bother if I'm not being graded).

To visualize this properly there are some wonderful animations on the web that show how both space and time change to an observer traveling at relativistic velocities. As ship A looks back towards ship B he(yes, the ship is male) is not only looking backwards in space, but backwards in time.

Time dialation plays a part in these observable phenomenon, and it also helps explain how a ten light year trip would take far less time than ten years relative to the ships frame of reference if a velocity close enough to c were achieved.

Can a physics professor here either back me up or call me a tool or something. This is very difficult to understand let alone explain. And I'm probably all wrong anyway.

posted on Feb, 5 2007 @ 10:51 PM

Originally posted by Togetic
Basically, the universe says "Well, it needs to be observed as going at at c, because that's the law, but since distance and velocity are both fixed, and velocity x time = distance, then the only thing left to do is change time!" Blows my mind. Still does, years after learning that for the first time.

Yeah, makes me all giggly, too, thinking about the fringes of Quantum and Einsteinian Physics. Oh, but we can't have THAT! Why, if the universe can bend its own laws in order to enforce its own laws, then, Jeez, some scientists might perceive particles while some perceived waves, and meanwhile some would perceive both particles and waves, depending on the expected result — Why, the universe might validate any hypothesis we could conceive!

Man, what a mess it would be if we were all right.

— Doc Velocity

[edit on 2/5/2007 by Doc Velocity]

posted on Feb, 5 2007 @ 10:58 PM

Originally posted by Togetic
The really wacky part is that if two ships move away each at nearly c, then in a Newtonian model one ship would perceive the other ship as moving away at 2c. The really wacky and strangely elegant part is that if one of the ships were to send a photon to the other ship, the other ship would calculate it as traveling at c! Why do they get that measurement? It's because time actually starts to change. Basically, the universe says "Well, it needs to be observed as going at at c, because that's the law, but since distance and velocity are both fixed, and velocity x time = distance, then the only thing left to do is change time!"

Blows my mind. Still does, years after learning that for the first time.

I got into a good conversation with my father tonight, which is why I posted this. I have had this idea for awhile, but I have always contradicted myself once we start talking relativity. He says theres no way to reach the speed of light. But relative to us sitting in our house, the speed of light is C. Take into account the speed of the earth rotating on its axis, plus the revolution around the sun, plus the revolution around the black hole in the center of our galaxy, plus however fast our galaxy is travelling through space, how fast are we going?

posted on Feb, 5 2007 @ 11:00 PM

Originally posted by Sunsetspawn
Errr... let's clarify. c is not an achievable velocity for mass in special relativity.
So let's call it .99c, as in 99% the speed of light. So both ships accelerate in opposite directions to .99c relative to their previously stationary position. Both ships would see the other moving away at (roughly) .9999c

Or... When we look in the rear-view mirror, the other ship is still there, apparently stationary or near stationary. Why? Because at .99c, we can't quite outrun the light still reaching us from the other ship. From our perspective, it's still parked back there behind us, and we to them. We're perpetually seeing the other ship as it appeared at the moment before departure, only very slowly moving away from us.

Wow. More brain candy.

— Doc Velocity

[edit on 2/5/2007 by Doc Velocity]

posted on Feb, 5 2007 @ 11:01 PM

Originally posted by i_want_to_believe
I understood that Einstein left a "loop hole" in his theory & that is where worm holes come in. I heard some Harvard scientist say that on a documentary.

Wormholes would still cause either an FTL travel or communications paradox, because everything is relative to the frame of reference.
With FTL travel you could stop an event that happened in another frame of references but has not yet happened in your own.
Then did the event happen, or didn't it?

FTL travel may only be possible if the universe has an ABSOLUTE frame of reference, but so far that is not generally accepted.

Who knows, it might be true though. Perhaps a wormhole jump would cause your ABSOLUTE velocity to be reset to zero. This way, the universe might change slightly around you, but it would prevent you from being able to stop an event that already happened, yet hadn't happened as obseerved by you.

Jesus, I'm talking circles around myself.

Can someone please verify my nonsense.

[edit on 2/5/2007 by Sunsetspawn]

posted on Feb, 5 2007 @ 11:04 PM

Originally posted by Doc Velocity
Or... When we look in the rear-view mirror, the other ship is still there, apparently stationary or near stationary. Why? Because at .99c, we can't outrun the light still reaching us from the other ship. From our perspective, it's still parked back there behind us, and we to them. We're perpetually seeing the other ship as it appeared at the moment before departure, only very slowly moving away from us.

Wow. More brain candy.

— Doc Velocity

The light still reaching us from the other ship still moves at c even as observed from our .99c velocity. Light always moves at c no matter how you observe it

posted on Feb, 5 2007 @ 11:19 PM

Originally posted by Sunsetspawn
The light still reaching us from the other ship still moves at c even as observed from our .99c velocity. Light always moves at c no matter how you observe it

Right, and we're doing .99c, not quite the speed of light. So we're looking back at photons that are just overtaking us at .01c... We're moving along like a slow photon in a stream of slightly faster photons, so we're still seeing the other ship as it appeared a moment before and then after departure — from our perspective, the other ship is not hauling ass, but seems to gradually recede.

— Doc Velocity

posted on Feb, 5 2007 @ 11:40 PM
Oooo oooo ooo
I just smoked a cigarette and had a eureka moment. I'm not reading anything above this until I post.
The light traveling from behind a ship traveling at .99c is catching up at .01c, however, due to time dilation, that light is observed as moving at c. And light moving towards the front of the ship which should be observed at 1.99c is also observed moving at c, due to the time dilation.

Wow, in so many words I just said that time is relative to the speed of light. And in other relevant news, the Japanese just bombed pearl harbor.

I'm an idiot.

posted on Feb, 6 2007 @ 12:02 AM
Since both ships are travelling at .99c away from the point that they both left from, when you look back to the other ship, you should see an extremely blue tinted, if not invisible (ultraviolet), distorted image of the other ship.

Good stuff, goodnight.

Q

posted on Feb, 6 2007 @ 12:36 AM
if Einstein was alive still...dont you guys think he would of updated his theories? Just a thought...I am no expert.

posted on Feb, 6 2007 @ 12:49 AM

Originally posted by angelslayer
if Einstein was alive still...dont you guys think he would of updated his theories? Just a thought...I am no expert.

Einstein continued Galileo's work, who continued Copernicus's work. Today, I believe Stephen Hawking is next on the list, continuing Einstein's work.

If only we had the Egyptian, Mayan, Incan, and Atlantian knowledge...

posted on Feb, 6 2007 @ 01:02 AM

Originally posted by Quasar
Say you have a large motor in space, like your ceiling fan, with "fins" that project extremely far out away from the motor. There is a capsule with a seat in it close to the motor, that can run on a track from the motor out to the edge of the "fin." If this was long enough to accelerate you to the speed of light, (670,616,629.2 mph) would it be possible to fling you out faster than the speed of light?

Since sitting on the edge of this fin would exert you to some rediculous g-forces.

To my understanding, the Theory of Relativity states that it is close to impossible to achieve the thrust needed to propel you faster than the speed of light. What if the thrust was centrifugal force? I'm pretty sure that the speed at the tip of the "fin" would be some exponential from the speed of the rotor, but it could work, wouldn't it?

Gonna crunch some math...

In a manner of speaking, that is the mechanism behind a specific theory of time travel.

It was proposed that you can use a black hole to accelerate with the use of it's infinite gravity, coming up in a loop, around the singularity, and fling yourself at FTL.

It occurs to me that if a track were built around a singularity, or other superdense object, like a neutron star or white dwarf, you might be able to get the same results with a craft placed, ready to be flung from the track. The track could be strategically maneuvered to use that same gravity to accelerate, and fling craft off at those same light speeds.

Just kind of taking your very workable theory and combining it with another.

posted on Feb, 6 2007 @ 01:18 AM

Originally posted by IeatALIENS
It occurs to me that if a track were built around a singularity, or other superdense object, like a neutron star or white dwarf, you might be able to get the same results with a craft placed, ready to be flung from the track. The track could be strategically maneuvered to use that same gravity to accelerate, and fling craft off at those same light speeds.

Just kind of taking your very workable theory and combining it with another.

To get back on subject. That seems like a lot of work to travel at light speed and beyond. These UFO's supposedly travel that fast without having to slingshot around heavy objects.

Has the technology that Tesla and Einstein experimented with, such as the Philadelphia Experiment, been improved on? That was some pretty amazing stuff. Electromagnetics is the key.

Can you alter gravity with electromagnetics? I recently saw a mythbusters episode where they tried to prove antigravity, and it got busted hard.

It has to exist, we just have yet to find it.

posted on Feb, 6 2007 @ 01:55 AM

Originally posted by Quasar

Originally posted by IeatALIENS
It occurs to me that if a track were built around a singularity, or other superdense object, like a neutron star or white dwarf, you might be able to get the same results with a craft placed, ready to be flung from the track. The track could be strategically maneuvered to use that same gravity to accelerate, and fling craft off at those same light speeds.

Just kind of taking your very workable theory and combining it with another.

To get back on subject. That seems like a lot of work to travel at light speed and beyond. These UFO's supposedly travel that fast without having to slingshot around heavy objects.

Has the technology that Tesla and Einstein experimented with, such as the Philadelphia Experiment, been improved on? That was some pretty amazing stuff. Electromagnetics is the key.

Can you alter gravity with electromagnetics? I recently saw a mythbusters episode where they tried to prove antigravity, and it got busted hard.

It has to exist, we just have yet to find it.

Sorry, I thought we were using "proven" science.
If we are going to go outside that realm... I would imagine that different types of UFO's are using several types of "transport systems". I say transport systems, because I have a feeling that we will eventually find out that there is much more to what they do, than just anti-gravity and speed. We are probably, at least some of the time, seeing types of teleportation, extradimensional jumps, interdimensional jumps and bending space.

posted on Feb, 6 2007 @ 01:58 AM
If I remember correctly, we can't travel as fast as light, but we can go faster than it if somehow we miss the intermediate stage of the speed of light, c.

Another bit in my memory somewhere, doesn't a certain constant to do with the electromagnetic force change (albeit very slowly), which affects the speed of light?

posted on Feb, 6 2007 @ 02:17 AM

Originally posted by Quasar
Say you have a large motor in space, like your ceiling fan, with "fins" that project extremely far out away from the motor. There is a capsule with a seat in it close to the motor, that can run on a track from the motor out to the edge of the "fin." If this was long enough to accelerate you to the speed of light, (670,616,629.2 mph) would it be possible to fling you out faster than the speed of light?

No, it doesn't work that way.

To my understanding, the Theory of Relativity states that it is close to impossible to achieve the thrust needed to propel you faster than the speed of light. What if the thrust was centrifugal force?

It's all still acceleration, whether it's in a straight line or a curved line.

But how about this for your next science question: When you play laser beam on the wall with the cat, the tip of the laser beam can travel as fast as you can change the angular momentum, right? As you pivot the laser beam, the speed of the dot on the wall can be very fast. If you had a huge laser beam and was able to reflect it off planets several light years away, could the speed at which the dot of the beam moves from planet to planet ever travel faster than light? After all, you'd only have to move the beam a fraction of a degree here on Earth for the dot to travel light years across the deep sky.

Heh.

posted on Feb, 6 2007 @ 02:48 AM
OK what about the infinite improbability drive? Yes it's fictional but such a creation would be quite unbelievably handy!

Infinite improbability drive

new topics

top topics

0