Scientists Confirm Faster than light travel is actually possible, page 4

privacy

Pages: << 1 2 3 4 5 6 >>
ATS Members have flagged this thread 30 times

reply posted on 19-12-2007 @ 10:22 AM by deadangel23

Being a Trekkie and all, If I can recall I believe that is exactly what the Warp field around the Starships do. They manipulate Sub-space around the craft in order to "Bend" the rules of Relativity in order to travel faster than light. Amazing...yet another Sci-Fi that is coming to life.

reply posted on 19-12-2007 @ 12:21 PM by memoir

While spoodily's claims are rather steep, there's nothing unbelievable about them. It's completely common for hollywood to research the matters they are presenting, it helps with the whole suspension of disbelief (as in, there's only so much disbelief your typical viewer can and will suspend). We've also seen, many times over, a radical sci-fi claim or theory eventually come to light in truth (sometimes it's a spotlight, sometimes it's a reflection).

Birchtree's claims are the most unfounded. By claiming that you know the only science possible that could be a proof of spoodily's theory, you are claiming to know everything that could not be a proof. Some day (provided we don't blow ourselves up), humans will create technology that we humans (today) cannot even conceive. We've already done this this century... well, last century. The fact of the matter is that we have no fact of the matter. What general theory of relativity allows and prohibits, it only does so in theory based upon what us self-glorified monkeys can conceive.

Tell me, what is gravity? Point me to the solid factual, we know for certain beyond any doubt reasonable or unreasonable 'this is what gravity is'. Matter bends space time and therefore we have gravitation? Maybe, maybe not. So in order to achieve faster than light speed, changing space time becomes more important than our own velocities. What if the explanation is something completely non geodesic? What if you discover a way to just hop off your path and be where you are? My point is, if you can't prove the things that define our rules, than you can't disprove the possible exceptions to our rules.

All of us are here for one reason or another (by here, I mean at ATS). Many of us have seen something that we cannot explain, but which has led us to ask questions. Some of us have seen things that make us know (not necessarily who or how, but at least what). I have not seen a single shred of decent UFO/Alien evidence on this site since I joined. But I have my own account and what I saw defied both Newton's and Einstein's rules. Who's was it? No clue. What was their intention? No clue. But I saw what it did, and nothing our science can 'prove' can explain how it did what it did. So I keep looking and I remember that despite all the science I understand and can put to the test and prove to myself, I've already seen it disproved.

[edit on 19-12-2007 by memoir]

reply posted on 19-12-2007 @ 12:56 PM by birchtree

reply to post by memoir

My friend my unfounded claims are based on the physics of michu kaku and Hawking, some of the most advaced physics teachers in the world

I am not closed minded in the least and know that I do not know it all, that is why I asked for further explanation....so far none besides the theory of has been given, but everyone is accepting it based on "I have seen it" I have seen it too, in a sci fi movie.

We are talking science, physics and cosmolgy, which I am not the least ignorant to. Albeit I am not a professional. Science is based on what can be observed or proven and not faith in the claim of something on lets had least have a theorem equation or a little more in depth discussion on HOW it is done .

-Is there a drive, if so what is the power base?
-How is it that the STC is being warped around said vehicle or device.
-I talked with a top ranking student of Physics he says this is far beyond what is capable today, so where was it seen (not exact location) military, research institute, space lab. You know give me a bone here (if you can)
so my puny unfounded mind can follow further.

I am most willing to listen to further explanation. You are right I find it hard to beleive what is being said here..Educate me don't mediate me.

[edit on 19-12-2007 by birchtree]

reply posted on 19-12-2007 @ 01:58 PM by memoir

My concern is that you state that because nobody can scientifically explain what's been seen, then it must not have been seen. Because we humans can't recreate it, it must not have happened? Am I misunderstanding you? I'm not ruling out that I am not.

I am no stranger to physics. I am no stranger to Hawking or Einstein. I don't know what drives these crafts. I don't know what kind of fuel they use. I don't know how it bends the space time continuum - I don't even know if it does. According to our best guess at how this all works, though, it must do just that. I never thought to shout to it, "You there, dear sir!! Could you take the time to explain to me, in great detail, the method by which your craft navigates these skys?" And I don't think if I had, anybody (or thing) would have humored "'Ello guvna! Of cou'se we 'ill!"

If I'm misunderstanding, please let me know. And actually, I'd rather not derail this topic any futher - though I fear I'm only perpetuating yet another train wreck.

Spoodily's theory's aren't far off from the OP and my guess is his/her theory is based somewhat on this science since the idea is no fresher than that Wendy's cheesburger I had for lunch.

With all respect.

reply posted on 19-12-2007 @ 03:35 PM by yahn goodey

reply to post by Spoodily

thanks spoodily for making it sound so simple---really i mean it-----i have the hardest time to try and figure complicated things out and you make it look so easy----i'm a tad jealous-----not to mention awkward---last time i jerked out the table cloth from under the dishes---they all travelled with the cloth------got to keep on trying ?

reply posted on 19-12-2007 @ 03:59 PM by yahn goodey

reply to post by memoir

not a shread of evidence to support alien craft? sorry i disagree----i have seen strange objects in the sky----my wife one night in 2000 september9 woke up to bright lights outside our bedroom window and looked out into the fields behind our house and saw a hughmongous disc hovering in the air with lights all the colours of the rainbow flashing from it.not just what we have witnessed---1000's of others--and the pictures taken of them flying and crashed discs/pictures we have seen---and radar trackings-------they are something---not nothing-----but if they are time travellers or aliens or G-Ds angels how will we know till they tell us?i've seen so many "crazy" things that i'm now willing to believe just about anything--that might not make sense to some others with no experience---yet

reply posted on 19-12-2007 @ 04:37 PM by Freelancer

memoir, you indeed have that clear insight of thought..

Too often many bestow upon others greatness of insight, yet offering wisdom as reflections of others. Perhaps I am wrong, perhaps not.

"A new scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and making them see the light,
but rather because its opponents eventually die and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it"

Max Planck

Least I be accused of derailing this thread also, I offer some 'evidence', a theory if-you-will, that indeed faster than light travel is very possible. The following video contains many theory's, but from 20 mins 56 seconds it gets on track..

Google Video Link

reply posted on 19-12-2007 @ 05:13 PM by Freelancer

"The best source of knowledge is not what we are told,
but the reasoning that what we are told is not the truth."

Freelancer, ATS Dec 19th 2007

[edit on 19/12/2007 by Freelancer]

reply posted on 20-12-2007 @ 02:08 AM by zorgon

Originally posted by deadangel23
Being a Trekkie and all,

The Alcubierre Warp-Drive
The REAL Star Trek Warp-Drive

This classic 1994 publication by Dr. Miguel Alcubierre has become generally recognized as the keystone in warp-drive theory within classical Einsteinian relativity. While Alcubierre's theory requires the use of undiscovered "exotic-matter", recent speculation has suggested that UFT, Torsion, and String Theory may allow this device to become a practical reality within the realm of practical engineering design.

Warp Drive

NASA's Breakthrough Propulsion Physics Program

New theories and phenomena have emerged in recent scientific literature that have reawakened consideration that propulsion breakthroughs may be achievable - the kind of breakthroughs that could make human voyages to other star systems possible. This includes literature about warp drives, wormholes, quantum tunneling, vacuum fluctuation energy, and the coupling of gravity and electromagnetism. This emerging science, combined with the realization that rockets are fundamentally inadequate for interstellar exploration, led NASA to establish the "Breakthrough Propulsion Physics" program in 1996.

www.geocities.com...

WARP DRIVE WHEN?
www.nasa.gov...

[edit on 20-12-2007 by zorgon]

reply posted on 20-12-2007 @ 02:20 AM by mbkennel

reply to post by mrwupy

In what way did Newton's laws say that humans couldn't fly?

Newton certainly believed no such thing.

The primary developments that lead to the Wright brothers' success was that unlike other "inventors", they were more scientific, knew full well laws of fluid mechanics (extremely Newtonian), built a windtunnel, but most importantly, took advantage of the recently developed internal combustion engine powered by petroleum.

reply posted on 20-12-2007 @ 03:06 AM by Ironclad

reply to post by ZeuZZ

The Idea to manipulate Zero Point Energy (fold Space/time), has been round for some time & many Prominent Scientists have Placed a grat deal of confidence that this is actually possible.

Steve hawkings, among others, has openly put his name to this. A couple of Researchers have even been able to manipulate 0.E on a very small scale.

This is nothing new. However, we as a race are a very long way from harnessing the actuall energy to power a device that can actually do this.
But there is no reason that other races out there have'nt already.

reply posted on 20-12-2007 @ 09:25 AM by memoir

reply to post by yahn goodey

Yahn,
Sorry for the misunderstanding; I didn't mean that no evidence exists. To clarify, I meant that I've seen no smoking gun. I've not seen the undeniable youtube video. I've not seen the msm shattering photograph. Are there some pretty convincing videos, images, and stories out there? Absolutely! Do I have my own? It's why I'm an ATS member; it's why everywhere I go and within everything I do, I'm looking for the something more.

Freelancer,
I also want to apologize for confusing you. I've no insight of clear thought

. Likely, all I have is too much coffee and a streak of luck with words. But thank you for the kind words.

Good video. Something about the latter half of the tether incident video has never sat right with me. I can't pinpoint it exactly, but there's something deffinately amiss about it.

The Galaxy Clock is certainly an interesting theory, but I can't find anything besides this guys reference to it... and he's not offering a lot of actual mathematics or data. Some pretty lines, for sure - and there's the possibility for something... Can we find the galaxy clock in a physics journal or anything peer reviewed?

reply posted on 20-12-2007 @ 11:54 AM by birchtree

reply to post by memoir

Memoir here I am again, certainly I was not implying that because we cannot explain technology that it does not exist, quite the contrary I dont think we know squat (can I say squat) when it comes to space, time, or the possibility of alien life, weather it be microbial, humanoid or non existant.

I have actually (as I am sure most of us have) went to the original posting that was listed and read the sighting contained therein. I do not even question it, I take it at face value my questioning were about the ideas that were arrived at based on the brief sighting. I think you can admit it is very interesting indeed. I would only ask that his Theory match the sighting and this is why I do no think that it does:

1. He/She actually saw the craft moving up and to the right away from the earth at high speed. This in itself seems to identify that there was at least an initial propulsion and that the craft was physically moving.

2. He/She saw the blur of the red internal lights (which were coming from the port holes) as it jumped to a greater speed than the individual had ever seen before. This once again suggests to me that there is some kind of propulsion, also at that time of hyper acceleration is when I am assuming that our observer beleives that time was warped/encapsulated around the craft using some sort of something (negative matter, anti matter, or a inverse field) to transport it to its destination. If so could we have seen the craft visually flying into space if it was held by another dimesnsion of time.

3. In his/her theory the craft does not move but travels to its destination through a warping of STC/ In the sighting he/she see movement what does that say about what happens here on Earth: are we moving.

4. The second law of thermodynamics?

I am not doubting what this person saw. I am also not denying that I am trying to explain this with what I know, which is not all knowing. But he/she was able to explain I am just offering some insight to my questioning of the hypothesis offered by the author. As far as using Casimir, that will have to be a separate POST on my part and is quite a undertaking. We can believe but I am not just going to disregard accepted theory and some sense of logic without explanation, I am not trying to be-little anyone. I am here for the same reason most of us are here and that is to look for answers.

respectfully Birchtree

[edit on 20-12-2007 by birchtree]

reply posted on 20-12-2007 @ 01:47 PM by Freelancer

Originally posted by memoir

Good video. Something about the latter half of the tether incident video has never sat right with me. I can't pinpoint it exactly, but there's something deffinately amiss about it.

Could it be the 'tether can still be seen in space from 70+ miles away when its width is akin to a ball of string?. The length might be 12 miles long but the width isn't on this scale. I am no mathematician but how wide is that tether suppose to be 'as seen from 70+ miles?' I dont buy it that its supposed to be charged up with energy that it lights up like a giant neon tube. The 'width' of this 'neon' would have to be huge!

reply posted on 20-12-2007 @ 02:40 PM by euclid

I remember someone (maybe Bob Lazar) explaining how UFO propulsion worked. What that person described (though not using the same terms) is exactly what this paper is describing..... warping space behind and in-front of the "craft". I like it.... I want one.

-Euclid

reply posted on 21-12-2007 @ 12:08 AM by Spoodily

Originally posted by birchtree
reply to post by memoir

1. He/She actually saw the craft moving up and to the right away from the earth at high speed. This in itself seems to identify that there was at least an initial propulsion and that the craft was physically moving.

The craft sat stationary for 3-4 seconds. I looked at the craft for the 3-4 seconds before it darted away from a standstill on the 3-4 second. There was NO movement before its departure. I never saw the craft 'move', all I saw to indicate its direction of travel was a red streak of light that was longer than the craft itself. The light hung for a good second or so but the craft was long gone. I DID NOT see the craft fly away, I saw it LEAVE.

I also never said anything about 'away from the Earth at high speed'. I understand that stating 'up and to the right' is easily exaggerated by the reader and that is my error. I should have said the craft left to my right. The streak of light it left was at a slight elevation and not parralel to the ground. The elevation was at most about 15-20 degrees using the horizon as a baseline. It could have stayed within the atmosphere and made a terrestrial relocation or it could have gone into space. I did not see where it went to. I also never claimed that this was a 'space craft'. It could be solely a terrestrial craft I saw, but the rate of travel achieved could easily get you to a destination that is some distance away in a very short time.

2. He/She saw the blur of the red internal lights (which were coming from the port holes) as it jumped to a greater speed than the individual had ever seen before. This once again suggests to me that there is some kind of propulsion, also at that time of hyper acceleration is when I am assuming that our observer beleives that time was warped/encapsulated around the craft using some sort of something (negative matter, anti matter, or a inverse field) to transport it to its destination. If so could we have seen the craft visually flying into space if it was held by another dimesnsion of time.

The amount of g-forces that would be applied to the occupants of such a vehicles would have killed them. The speed from 0 to ??? would have more than likely dissintigrated that craft or torn it to pieces from wind resistance alone. There could not have been 'acceleration' because of this. The only obvious answer to the observation was that the craft itself never moved through space and it actually remained stationary, moving space around it. Think of the entire craft as a 'gravity turbine' passing the space infront of the craft to the rear of the craft over the craft itself. The craft, in my opinion, is the 'propulsion' as much as it is the vehicle.

3. In his/her theory the craft does not move but travels to its destination through a warping of STC/ In the sighting he/she see movement what does that say about what happens here on Earth: are we moving.

This makes no sense to me and needs clarification for an appropriate answer.

4. The second law of thermodynamics?

What about it? You should look into inertia first and understand what it means.

I am not doubting what this person saw. I am also not denying that I am trying to explain this with what I know, which is not all knowing. But he/she was able to explain I am just offering some insight to my questioning of the hypothesis offered by the author. As far as using Casimir, that will have to be a separate POST on my part and is quite a undertaking. We can believe but I am not just going to disregard accepted theory and some sense of logic without explanation, I am not trying to be-little anyone. I am here for the same reason most of us are here and that is to look for answers.

respectfully Birchtree

What is there to believe about seeing something that was a machine doing incredible things? If a truck runs you over, do you believe it hit you or do you know it hit you? I don't have a belief that this type of technology is real, I know for 100% fact it is real and being used.

My claim is not that aliens are real but rather that distortion vehicles are real. I have never seen anything that gives me any reason to believe aliens are real. It scares me more to think that this craft is human made because of the implications involved and would prefer there to be an outside influence in the technology.

PS

I am a 26 year old male.

reply posted on 22-12-2007 @ 01:34 AM by Strapping Young Lad

Having worked in optics for over a decade and having studied the physics of light the "law" that nothing can go faster than light never made sense to me. Without even getting into the theory of relativity and light theory Ive always thought you could break the argument down pretty simply. Like who says that there should be a law saying that its impossible that anybody can outrun my cousins 750hp blown 87 Monte Carlo SS?

Ive delved abit into Einsteins theories. I get the theory of relativity thats fine. Makes perfect sense. But when it gets down to there being nothing possible at all in the infinite expanse of the universe that can go faster than light that its just physically impossible just never seemed right but hey...I mean its Einstein right? I dont know all of his masterful theory work but Ive just allways thought hes just flat wrong on this one.

If anyone out there can post in laymans terms why hes right and all these brilliant scientists decades later are wrong then please feel free to educate...

reply posted on 22-12-2007 @ 07:32 AM by Nailer

If my other computer hard drive would not have burned out/Virus ate it , I would still have a link to a Nasa site where the article stated that the Nasa has developed a ION engine for space travel.

The reason it has never been used is that at the speeds it could reach , we have no materials capable of withstanding space debris( sand,marble sized rocks) from penetrating the skin of a space vehicle like a hot knife goes through Butter.

It was a very interesting read and it makes you think that soon man we be in Star trek mode. Except if the military gets to us it first then we will be at war with other species 15 galaxies away.

reply posted on 22-12-2007 @ 07:46 AM by phantomseek

reply to post by ZeuZZ

Actually on that topic what was written back at the beginning of the 1900's was a paper by Charles Brush titled the Kinetic Theory of Gravity which is an easy read - and actually proves the known physics is a shame.. To this day they still utilize (NASA does) some of his theorums which proved that no body in space can ever cool to absolute zero...

What is also interesting is he shows that Gravity is a PUSH not a pull..

But here is the paper read for yourself...

www.anomalicresearch.com...

reply posted on 22-12-2007 @ 08:30 AM by stumason

reply to post by birchtree

You seem to basing this entire post on the assumption that any Aliens would inhabit an entirely different Galaxy to us. What is it, one each or something? There could be many thousands of Alien species in our own galaxy.

Our Galaxy contains hundreds of millions of stars, each potentially having having a cluster of planets.

That's just our galaxy!

There are billions of Galaxies out there too, so by the law of averages, there must be Aliens out there.

If my other computer hard drive would not have burned out/Virus ate it , I would still have a link to a Nasa site where the article stated that the Nasa has developed a ION engine for space travel.

The reason it has never been used is that at the speeds it could reach , we have no materials capable of withstanding space debris( sand,marble sized rocks) from penetrating the skin of a space vehicle like a hot knife goes through Butter.

Utter rubbish.

The ION engine is in use already. Several probes have already been fitted with it. It's not terribly powerful though and takes a while to get up to speed. The acceleration is akin to the force exerted on your hand by a sheet of paper. Over the period of a few months though, it can get pretty nippy and it is quite efficient.