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: 4
0
share:

posted on Feb, 6 2007 @ 10:45 AM
Re: fan travelling > c

the reason you could not go faster than the speed of light using rotation is for the same reason as linear motion, because of inertia (mass) see this link.

Re: UFOs

Einstein said that objects with mass (travelling in space-time), could not go faster than c becuase it takes infinite energy to accelerate them. Massless particles, photons, gravitons always travel at c.

However space-time can be viewed as a medium analagous to an aether. I believe that aliens may have found a way of manipulating this medium this would change the value of c, still the maximum speed is c but c is now larger. This would be where new physics would apply allowing Einstein to still be correct, just not complete.

posted on Feb, 6 2007 @ 10:57 AM
No decent quantity of matter can go at light speed for "normal" space/time/gravity/matter, or even closely approach it. The energy requirements are too great. But the important word here is "normal". With our current physics, we don't even know what things like gravity, inertia, motion, space and time are yet. We can describe how they interrelate at macro level (general relativity), but not what they actually are at a micro level. The GR equations may emerge from lower-level phenomena. If "space" and/or "gravity" and/or "mass" could be altered somehow through other means that we don't know about yet, FTL might be possible. But for now, it looks pretty grim.

posted on Feb, 6 2007 @ 11:11 AM
I don't understand all of it and I want to read the other pages, hence a bookmark.

One question....Is light a wave or a straight line? If it is a wave, what would be the result of skimming the tops of the wave vrs. following the entire wave?

posted on Feb, 6 2007 @ 11:11 AM

Originally posted by AlphaAnuOmega
Here is what I don't understand as far as E=MC^2...why hasn't anyone been allowed to disprove it. You see in the news that people are almost there and someone disproves it. This theory isn't proven, hence the theory, so why believe it. Isn't that just a form of control??

I someone can disprove it, I would listen. But the implications of this theory and relativity in general are observed experimentally and in practice on a daily basis.

[edit on 2/6/2007 by Togetic]

posted on Feb, 6 2007 @ 11:28 AM

Originally posted by win 52One question....Is light a wave or a straight line? If it is a wave, what would be the result of skimming the tops of the wave vrs. following the entire wave?

Light is a sine wave, as is all electromagnetic waves.check this out.

posted on Feb, 6 2007 @ 11:29 AM
E=MC2 has been proven to be accurate to within 1/400,000 of 1%

scientists did an experiment in 2005 (100 years after the formula was published) and made the most accurate observations to date.

Every single experiment which has been carried out to date has proven Einstein to be correct. Bearing in mind we now have technology to test his theories when he didnt makes it even all the more amazing.

The latest experiment involves measuring the time dialation caused by the gravity of the Earth. Early indications are Einstein wins again! gotta love him

Someone needs to invent a warp drive for faster than light travel.

P.S the laws of physics as we know them are one reason why i think its very unlikely we are being visited by E.Ts

[edit on 6-2-2007 by yeti101]

[edit on 6-2-2007 by yeti101]

posted on Feb, 6 2007 @ 11:30 AM

posted on Feb, 6 2007 @ 11:36 AM

posted on Feb, 6 2007 @ 11:36 AM

Originally posted by Quasar

Originally posted by win 52One question....Is light a wave or a straight line? If it is a wave, what would be the result of skimming the tops of the wave vrs. following the entire wave?

Light is a sine wave, as is all electromagnetic waves.check this out.

This is half the story. The essence of wave-particle duality, which is a fundamental aspect of quantum mechanics, says that light acts as both a wave and a particle. You can treat it as a wave, or you can treat it as a photon, a particle.

posted on Feb, 6 2007 @ 11:52 AM
Right. Which is why the solar sail works.

posted on Feb, 6 2007 @ 12:02 PM
Hmm, does anyone have any good literature on ligh physics? I need to bone up on this, due to my limited knowledge...ie(highschool, and some college)...

posted on Feb, 6 2007 @ 12:20 PM
since i slept through hs physics, and skipped college physics to go rock climbing, can someone answer a few questions im too lazy to look up?

e=mc^2

is that e= m (c^2) or e=(mc)^2?

is m metric english that other (i forget) measure of "stuff"?

is c in metric or english?

posted on Feb, 6 2007 @ 12:21 PM

Originally posted by AlphaAnuOmega
Hmm, does anyone have any good literature on ligh physics? I need to bone up on this, due to my limited knowledge...ie(highschool, and some college)...

Stephen Hawking's "A Brief History of Time" is a good place to start.

posted on Feb, 6 2007 @ 12:53 PM
Once In a class in my University, I guest gave us 4 hours of high math , quantum mechanics, string theory and such and basically he told us that we are in diapers when it comes to explaining how this (emphasis in THIS) universe works.
He gave us a lot of info and from what I remember someone asked basically the same thing as in this thread, he told us that most probably our universe is a 5 dimension one that time and space (the 4 dimension is out of our observable realm) we can just extrapolate its existance due to some phenomena, he told us that sisnce our 3 dimesional wrld is folded in a 4 dimensions, a person or being able to "live" in the 4 dimension doesnt need to travel far to go from point A to point B and the revelance of the distance beetween A and B is meaningless to someone in that position, so Light speed or super fast speed are not required to go from here to lets say Andromeda.
We need a lonf time or a super fast ship to do it because our limitations in 3 dimensions, in 4 the travel would be almost instantaneous, and to do it man must learn more and learn how to access the 4 dimension to make long distance voyages feasible.

In fact he told us that ancient civilizations knew this and the way they got around that was, in a gruop of 8 persons who could project and see the universe outside the 3 dimensional realm. He was a U.S.A. uber professor that if i dont recall well had a Nobel nomination on his resume, and gave us this wonderfull papers...Ill try to look for them and post them here, simply Amazing....

So back th the topic we are in diapers and a lot of stuff is simply out of our scope and present technology... and yes in this 3 dimensional world an object with mass is NOT capable of exceding C.

posted on Feb, 6 2007 @ 01:02 PM

Originally posted by win 52
I don't understand all of it and I want to read the other pages, hence a bookmark.

One question....Is light a wave or a straight line? If it is a wave, what would be the result of skimming the tops of the wave vrs. following the entire wave?

This might help answer you question on light being as straight or wave I think that in most cases today's science is leaning toward it being of electromagnetic waves. Here's a link from some people who have a better understanding than most who moon light as astrophysics specialist

www.astro.virginia.edu...

posted on Feb, 6 2007 @ 01:16 PM

Originally posted by kix
a person or being able to "live" in the 4 dimension doesnt need to travel far to go from point A to point B and the revelance of the distance beetween A and B is meaningless to someone in that position, so Light speed or super fast speed are not required to go from here to lets say Andromeda.
We need a lonf time or a super fast ship to do it because our limitations in 3 dimensions, in 4 the travel would be almost instantaneous, and to do it man must learn more and learn how to access the 4 dimension to make long distance voyages feasible.

i can see this in a very mundane way...going to andromeda isnt a problem of speed, its a problem of human life span. if we could build a space shuttle well enough to last that long, and carry enough food etc, we could point it at a star and go...problem is a crews only going to live x years...and it will take many times x for the shuttle to get there.

thats why one of my personal fav theories on alien visitors is that they dont travel all that fast..they just live a really really really long time. whats a 2000 year space flight to a race that lives 500,000 years?

posted on Feb, 6 2007 @ 01:21 PM
Light is an electromagentic wave, but need not be sinusoidal.

Sines are mathematical representations, and are interesting for human purposes because (mathematical digression) sinusoidal waves are the elementary solutions to Maxwell's linear wave equations. In Fourier domain the wave equations turn from differential equations to algebraic (which is the point of the Fourier transform) and so can be solved exactly.

There are free-space (no charge) solutions of Maxwell's equations which are sinusoidal in time and space; these would be called "monochromatic plane waves" or something like that.

A laser (in the center of the beam) is the closest experimental approximation, but a laser's time series of output electric (or magnetic) field is not *perfectly* sinusoidal. There is a (comparatively small) random walk/drift in the phase of the sinusoid; the parameter in laser physics is known as the "decoherence length", which can be a few meters (longer is cleaner), meaning many billions of oscillations worth. Decoherence length of most other light is enormously shorter and the time series of the electric field is much more like a jagged random process with some kind of spectral density.

Light, as we currently actually understand it as quantum optics (creation and annhilation operators on the vacuum) is substantially more complex than the classical picture I described above but the classical picture does describe the correct physics at significant intensities and for wavelengths sufficiently big. (meaning bigger than atoms or electrons)

posted on Feb, 6 2007 @ 01:37 PM

Originally posted by Dr X
Re: fan travelling > c

Einstein said that objects with mass (travelling in space-time), could not go faster than c becuase it takes infinite energy to accelerate them. Massless particles, photons, gravitons always travel at c.

I am no physics (quantum or otherwise) expert, but I find the whole can't go faster then light thing hard to stomach. Here seems to be the 2 hold backs: energy and mass. These are the 2 things that hold us (or anything) back right? What if zero point energy was a reality and infinite amounts of energy WERE available? Would faster then light travel then be possible?

So back to the OPs device. If it had infinite energy and were constructed of some crazy kryptonian metal (I don't know where infinite structural strength would come from but lets go with it), and the center was set to rotate at light speed, wouldn't the tips be faster? There just doesn't seem to be anyway to get around that, anything away from the center would have to move at a faster rate of travel?

So I guess what I am trying to understand is if energy were limitless or infinite, would that break Einstein’s theory?

posted on Feb, 6 2007 @ 02:03 PM
watch :

AND Part 2

Watch Part 2, to jump to the part where he explains the galaxy clock

[edit on 6-2-2007 by whos_out_there]

posted on Feb, 6 2007 @ 02:32 PM
I haven't followed this thread but it reminds me of something I read a few years back that I have been chewing on ever since trying to get my head around it.

Timothy Ferris in his book "The Whole Shebang: A State-of-the-Universe(s) Report" Simon & Schuster 1997

On page 44 he writes:

[" In the expanding universe, redshifts are produced in an analogous but slightly different manner. Classic Doppler shifts arise from motions through space. Cosmological redshifts result from the expansion of intergalactic space itself. By keeping this in mind we can avoid lapsing into the parochial notion that galaxies are flying through static space, like shards of a bomb. The Universe should not be thought of as expanding "into" preexisting space. All the space the Universe has ever had has been in the Universe from the beginning, and the space is stretching. This perspective can also help us understand why the Special-Relativity rule that nothing can be accelerated to a velocities greater than that of light DOES NOT APPLY TO GALAXIES IN AN EXPANDING UNIVERSE. That rule is true in static space BUT expanding cosmic space can carry galaxies away from one another AT VELOCITIES GREATER THAN THE SPEED OF LIGHT. In the cosmological model that forms the centerpiece of this book—a vast, inflationary Universe of critical density— the Universe is said to have expanded initially much greater than that of light, and as a result most galaxies are so far away that their light has not yet come within reach of our telescopes."]

Now if I understand this correctly... the speed of light is a localized phenomena within galaxies but that hte galaxies themselves travel faster than light.

There should be an icon for scratching one's head.

[edit on 6-2-2007 by grover]

top topics

0