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 the speed of light

page: 2
0
<< 1   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 7 2007 @ 12:14 AM
link   
lol, they used to say it's impossible to travel faster than the speed of sound too... they were quite sure of that one.

Regardless of what scientific data we have on the subject at the moment, it is unscientific to claim something possible or impossible until tested. Until it has been tested extensively, you can only claim that it is theoretically impossible.

I will remain unbias in this. As any self respecting scientist is SUPPOSED to do.




posted on Mar, 7 2007 @ 12:38 AM
link   
well i think that to begin with the even the best super computer is not desgined to measure anything faster than what we allready know to exist.

what if the speed of other cosmic elements is faster than the speed of light and we have not perceived them yet with our current abilities, even if they build a sensor capable of detecting this faster elements the computer might not even recognize if because it would be the equivalent of a flash going off while you're blinking, meaning that the pc would most likely just ignore it.

objects that move faster than we can see them howver can create impacts on somekind of sensor.

but the problem is how fined tuned does the pc have to be in order to read the data.

do you guys understand what i'm talking about?



posted on Mar, 9 2007 @ 01:49 PM
link   
I don´t see the problem with the speed of light.

If you exceed it then so what, it isn´t even linked to time as Einstein claimed imo.

In fact time doesn´t even exist its a human invention so your not late for work.


Like most thoeries, evolution included (apart from survival of the fittest) they are proved partly wrong eventualy.



posted on Mar, 13 2007 @ 05:27 PM
link   
If your on a plane going 500 mph and point a torch to front of the plane, is the light travelling faster than if you was on the ground with a torch?


x08

posted on Mar, 14 2007 @ 03:03 AM
link   

Originally posted by razor1000
well i think that to begin with the even the best super computer is not desgined to measure anything faster than what we allready know to exist.

what if the speed of other cosmic elements is faster than the speed of light and we have not perceived them yet with our current abilities, even if they build a sensor capable of detecting this faster elements the computer might not even recognize if because it would be the equivalent of a flash going off while you're blinking, meaning that the pc would most likely just ignore it.

objects that move faster than we can see them howver can create impacts on somekind of sensor.

but the problem is how fined tuned does the pc have to be in order to read the data.

do you guys understand what i'm talking about?


I definately do... I made a topic similar to your idea a while back, and had a long discussion about it~



posted on Mar, 14 2007 @ 02:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by T_Jesus
Nothing is faster than the speed of light in vacuum, bottom line.


Hogwash and that is easily proved if you cared to do 'the math' you 'believe' in.


There are many limits in nature, this is just one you'll have to accept.


Nature may very well have ' limits' ( a human being wont fall further any further when coming into contact with a ten mile thick steel beam ) but this is not one of them and i would love for you to attempt proving it in usual way.


Oh, and don't give me phase velocity either...it's not the same premise.


It's never 'the same thing' ( or true) when it contradicts what is 'believed' by those who 'believe' in 'maths' and 'science'.

And then your second post...


Originally posted by T_Jesus
My proof is in Maxwell's equations, where Einstein came up with the postulate...if you knew special relativity, then you'd know that's where Einstein drew his inspiration.


Maxwell's work allows for such a conclusions but does not require a absolute limit on the speed of light...


I suggest you also look up all of Einstein's SR equations and note what happens when v exceeds c.


The really insane thing is that it's argued that Photons have no mass or basically that they thus have no energy. How something that has no energy can exist is beyond me but that's the craziness that results when you want to believe in something despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary.


You'll notice that it can't happen. The proof is right there in mathematics, where it's usually always hiding...


You can not prove anything by mathematics that is not already assumed or observed in reality; it serves no purpose other than self deception if it's employed as you intend.


Unless you don't believe in math, of course.


People who 'believes' in maths are crazier than the most crazed religious fanatic on the planet. The day maths gets you in heaven or forgives your sins is the day it might be worth 'believing' in.

Stellar


[edit on 14-3-2007 by StellarX]



posted on Mar, 14 2007 @ 03:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by b3rgY
Photons move but not straight line as you thing. One particle of photon moves spiral path. From point A to point B you can detect C. But can you detect spiral patern velocity 3.14 * C and exponential groving speed.
CERN is in danger.



And that, in brief, is why there is no universal speed limit in LR – nothing ever happens to time itself, just to certain types of clocks attempting to keep time. Such clocks might malfunction or stop operating altogether at speeds at or above the speed of light. But there is no slowing of time to prevent reaching such speeds. And other types of clocks exist for measuring time unaffected by speed or potential, just as many types of clocks are unaffected by temperature.

One might immediately object that, in particle accelerators, the behavior predicted by SR is observed to happen as speeds approach c. No matter how much energy is added, the particles cannot be made to reach or exceed speed c. However, the same is true for a propeller-driven aircraft in level flight trying to exceed the speed of sound. The air molecules cannot be driven faster than the speed of sound; so no matter how fast the propellers are made to spin, the speed of sound can never be reached or exceeded. However, a force propagating faster than the speed of sound, or a continuous acceleration such as jet propulsion, could succeed where the propellers failed. In an analogous way, a force propagating faster than the speed of light, such as gravity [[ii]], should be able to drive a body to and past the light-speed “barrier”, even though forces such as those in particle accelerators are limited to propagating and pushing at light speed.

SR differs from LR by having two very general postulates. This first postulate of SR makes the Lorentz transformations reciprocal in that theory; i.e., they work equally well from any inertial frame to any other, and back again. So it has no meaning to ask which of two identical clocks in different frames is ticking slower in any absolute sense. The speed of light is independent of the speed of its source, as is generally true for waves in any medium. But the second postulate of SR makes the speed of light also independent of the speed of the observer, a feature unique to SR. In LR, neither inertial frame reciprocity nor the speed of light postulate holds.

metaresearch.org...


en.wikipedia.org...

The assumption that there is no 'information transfer' faster than light is just another lie perpetuated by those who are well served by doing so. The whole notion that energy can be tranfered ( Photons can not even exist according to this logic ) without a information/energy content is in my opinion quite patently ludicrous.

Stellar



[edit on 14-3-2007 by StellarX]



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 1   >>

log in

join