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 then light hypothetically speaking

page: 1
0

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 25 2008 @ 07:43 PM
link   
If you had something that had 0 mass or weighed as much as light particles and you had something like a rocket engine that also had 0 mass would it push something faster then light?




posted on Jan, 25 2008 @ 08:15 PM
link   
I don't know the answer to your question but I think it is possibly to go faster then the speed of light.

I don't have any prof but who knows what kind of technology is out there, and the different affects stars and black holes and things we have never seen or know to exist. The universe is a very place (never ending some say) and I think it would be foolish to think the physics we have come to know today are all 100% right and complete.

All it would take is for one thing we didn't know exited to throw everything off.



posted on Jan, 25 2008 @ 09:01 PM
link   
As for going to the exponential speed of light,"Einstien thinks it's impossible." and for travelling faster than 187K per/sec/sec2, it is even more unlikely. There have been very indepth studies of how light works as an energy . From enerygy effects. It is yet to be seen for the speed equivalents to be met, bet you would rather be more interested in the "Ienstien-Rosen Bridge" affect is unknown and could be very well the answer to all instatanious warp travel through space via. time time travel.


In 1916 Einstein first introduced his general theory of relativity, a theory which to this day remains the standard model for gravitation. Twenty years later, he and his long-time collaborator Nathan Rosen published a paper[1] showing that implicit in the general relativity formalism is a curved-space structure that can join two distant regions of space-time through a tunnel-like curved spatial shortcut. The purpose of the paper of Einstein and Rosen was not to promote faster-than-light or inter-universe travel, but to attempt to explain fundamental particles like electrons as space-tunnels threaded by electric lines of force. The Einstein-Rosen Bridge is based on generally relativity and work done by Schwarzschild in solving Einstein’s equations; one of the solutions to these equations was the prediction of black holes.


Very interesting stand on something that would of been regaurded as foolish until Einstien had said his biggest blunder of intelligent giving came when he said; "The Universe is expanding at a constant rate of it's source of creation." But, he led himself believe that this could have not been possible. "Go figure!!" Today all scientific wanna be's use his exact proposla as the explanantion that the "Big-Bang" theory derived from in the concious thoughts of man.
Either way, "Good thread and even greater question's..."


Read more here about the "Einstien-Rosen Bridge":

www.krioma.net...



posted on Jan, 25 2008 @ 09:08 PM
link   
I saw an article in the Scientific American a year or so ago that mentioned faster than light travel. I can't find the exact article but here's a link to a short summary of the idea. It's based on the theory that the Universe is actually a hologram. It's an interesting read to say the least.



posted on Jan, 25 2008 @ 09:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by dbates
I saw an article in the Scientific American a year or so ago that mentioned faster than light travel. I can't find the exact article but here's a link to a short summary of the idea. It's based on the theory that the Universe is actually a hologram. It's an interesting read to say the least.


"Bringing the world into focus through the lens of Scripture." ?


I don't know about that website dbates, "Sounds pretty one sided too me."

I know of the studies that were done at that time, by the way that article was written in 2002 and there has been alot of diferent adaptions of "Might" and "Might Not" works on the table since the ascertation of it being a probability of achievement. "With possitive conclussions" of course.
Even as a "Three-Dimensional existance" , there is no problem with accepting that, we are three-dimensional existances. If you need to know the true and whole story, check this out;

In 1982 a remarkable event took place. At the University of Paris a research team led by physicist Alain Aspect performed what may turn out to be one of the most important experiments of the 20th century. You did not hear about it on the evening news. In fact, unless you are in the habit of reading scientific journals you probably have never even heard Aspect's name, though there are some who believe his discovery may change the face of science.


The probabilities for a "Three-Dimensional" universe has it's calling, the only thing that bother's me , is that, "It has been around for a very, very long time as an acceptance to life, look to the earliest tribes of recorded history, they knoew there was mare than meets the eye many moon's before that statement of "Epiphany" ever happened.
But it is a very good and interesting point that we dio actually live in a possible 6-D world, with possibly 11 to have to get to the end of the debate, dbate...."No punn tended"..

Here's more of a read for youhe initial preceptions of the "Three-Dimensional" or "holographic Universe" when it first started.

Great thread man, love to talk about the "Out-of-the-ordinary" ATSER< "All the way to the 'Deny Ignorance Bank"....


Source:
www.earthportals.com...



posted on Jan, 25 2008 @ 09:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by Allred5923
I don't know about that website dbates, "Sounds pretty one sided too me."

Well, it was either that or Rense. The other sites that quoted the article I thought of are unreadable due to seizure inducing color schemes or the absense of paragraphs. There's an actual Scientific American article on this same thing. You just have to pay to see their archives. Glaze over the religious part if you wish. I was just sharing some info on an intersting theory.



posted on Jan, 25 2008 @ 10:33 PM
link   
tachyon particles can go faster than light just in theory



posted on Jan, 25 2008 @ 11:04 PM
link   
There is faster than light forces,

It was as if some ghostly bridge across the city of Geneva, Switzerland, had permitted two photons of light nearly seven miles apart to respond simultaneously to a stimulus applied to just one of them.

The twin-photon experiment by Dr. Nicolas Gisin of the University of Geneva and his colleagues last month was the most spectacular demonstration yet of the mysterious long-range connections that exist between quantum events, connections created from nothing at all, which in theory can reach instantaneously from one end of the universe to the other.

In essence, Gisin sent pairs of photons in opposite directions to villages north and south of Geneva along optical fibers of the kind used to transmit telephone calls. Reaching the ends of these fibers, the two photons were forced to make random choices between alternative, equally possible pathways.

Since there was no way for the photons to communicate with each other, "classical" physics would predict that their independent choices would bear no relationship to each other. But when the paths of the two photons were properly adjusted and the results compared, the independent decisions by the paired photons always matched, even though there was no physical way for them to communicate with each other.Further reading



posted on Jan, 26 2008 @ 05:32 AM
link   
yes
and I once read about a scientist named Eric Drexler
He is a pioneer in the field of nano-tech and he was
saying the when a Molecule(I think) was subject to a different
light frequency it would "Chunk" to another shape.
he said this chunk appeared to change at faster than
light speeds.
not sure if I have every term correct there but I`m sure that you get the jist of it.

it was from an article in Omni Magazine from the 90s.

[edit on 26-1-2008 by Maya432]



posted on Jan, 26 2008 @ 07:14 AM
link   
I watched this documentary on something called the "Galaxy Clock Effect". This talked about a way to "cheat" Einstiens equation if you will, to go faster than the speed of light. To bad I don't remeber what the documentary was called.

Also this one guy I know, he went to university with one of the top leading scientists in quantum mechanics. He didn't continue down that path, but he still knows the guy. He was telling my about this theory that his old classmate started working on about traveling faster than the speed of light. As far as he knew, his classmate was still workning on the project to this date. Appearently they are actually getting some where with. I don't really know the details, but they found a process in the human brain/mind that inspired them to start this project. It is to do with teleportation, but that is all I really know.



posted on Jan, 26 2008 @ 03:46 PM
link   
Here's a good informational video on tachyons: www.youtube.com...


What a tachyon is: en.wikipedia.org...



posted on Jan, 26 2008 @ 10:14 PM
link   
nope.

F = M * A

no matter how much 'thrust' the rocket produces, the force of it would still be 0. Even that's irrelevant though since kinetic energy can only effect things that have mass.



posted on Jan, 26 2008 @ 11:27 PM
link   
Faster than light travel may or may not be possible, but traveling faster than 299,792,458 m/s (the "speed of light" or SOL) definitely is.
Why do I say this? Because the assumption that we have calculated the true speed of light is wrong. Do a little logic test for yourself. The SOL is said to be 299,792,458 m/s in a "vacuum". A true vacuum does not exist- either in nature or made artificially.Reference books say that the SPEED of light is affected by refraction from, and interaction with, molecules in a gas or by gravitational potential.Hmm- so this "physical constant" stays the same UNLESS it encounters certain conditions- and these coditions exist EVERYWHERE. Does it matter if a beam of light interacts with a billion particles per cm in a gas or a billion particles per 1,000 km in space? NO- slowing down is slowing down refraction is refraction.Does it matter if the "percieved" speed is affected by one real big gravitational tug or the accumilative tug of trillions of smaller things? "Scientists" say that the tiny amount of matter present in any "vacuum" doesnt mean anything because it is a small number. I say BS! Small amounts matter- and they add up- if there is a tiny undiscernable effect in say 1,000 km of "vaccum"- Then there is 1,000,000 times that effect in 1,000,000,000 km . Ignoring them does not make them go away. If these conditions are acknowledged as affecting the SOL and these people are really practicing science- then why is the SOL ,the supposedly unshakable bedrock that every other building block of science is based upon,not defined including conditions? Instead of measured in a "vacuum" It should read: "measured in a slightly imperfect vacuum that varies from place to place and which we have no way of knowing the exact composition of yet we are certain this is correct because we say so" followed with a big asterix saying "oh yea- and also unless it is affected by gravity or by the 90% of dark matter or energy that we have no idea about"? That means that this number that is beaten into our heads is incorrect whether it is off by.0000001% or 1,000,000 % is irrelevant- all current models of the universe are based using it as a constant- not an "almost constant" The question is how incorrect and what really exists in the space between the discernible objects in the universe.
This rosy picture of the "vacuum" in which the SOL was measured in was established long before "Scientists" admitted that they have no idea where at least 90% of the universe is or even what it might be, and it has not been revised since. Space is not empty at all - but filled with an atom here and there and at least 10 times that amount of stuff in some form of matter or energy or some other phenomenon that we havnt yet grasped. How this 9/10 of all matter interacts with light and every other type of radiation for that matter, is a complete mystery. For all we know a channel can be sliced through this stuff allowing travel at the real speed of light- which could very well be instant from the origin point of this rift to the end point of the rift regardless of the distance.

[edit on 27-1-2008 by ItsHumanNature]



posted on Jan, 26 2008 @ 11:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by avingard
nope.

F = M * A

no matter how much 'thrust' the rocket produces, the force of it would still be 0. Even that's irrelevant though since kinetic energy can only effect things that have mass.


A Rocket?
what use would a rocket be in faster then light travel?

isn`t that like saying you wanna get your bicycle
to go like 5000 miles an hour.??

a super string reaction happens in a non-linear fashion.
at speeds way beyond light speed(there are harmonic frequency
reactions that are faster than light.

where light takes a duration to reach a given location, a quantum string reaction will reach the location instantaneously. non-linear.



posted on Jan, 27 2008 @ 06:01 PM
link   
this is a problem i dont understand as well, from what i understand time travel is possibe(traveling at the speed of light) however doesn't there have to be something with an infinite mass infinate velocity, meaning that it is in itself impossible?



posted on Jan, 28 2008 @ 12:34 AM
link   
Mankind has supposedly never put a particle collider in space. Nor have we even attempted to experiment with a rail-gun of any size (in space).
The reason we "haven't" done this is because we actually know what would happen if such an experiment were tested. The Law of thermodynamics starts to more to look like the 'theory of thermodynamics'.

Examine it in your mind for a while, the idea of a rail-gun/particle collider as a means of propulsion. Look it up even, you'll be surprised at what you won't find.

[edit on 28-1-2008 by doctormcauley]



posted on Feb, 4 2008 @ 08:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by Maya432

Originally posted by avingard
nope.

F = M * A

no matter how much 'thrust' the rocket produces, the force of it would still be 0. Even that's irrelevant though since kinetic energy can only effect things that have mass.


A Rocket?
what use would a rocket be in faster then light travel?

isn`t that like saying you wanna get your bicycle
to go like 5000 miles an hour.??

a super string reaction happens in a non-linear fashion.
at speeds way beyond light speed(there are harmonic frequency
reactions that are faster than light.

where light takes a duration to reach a given location, a quantum string reaction will reach the location instantaneously. non-linear.


The rocket is irrelevant, you can substitute in any type or propulsion you'd like. The point is, something of 0 mass can't have ANY velocity because it isn't matter.

F = M*A

since M is 0, you can never have acceleration or force.

How can you go faster than light if you have no acceleration (i.e. change of velocity, which means that the 'object' of 0 mass also has no velocity)



posted on Feb, 5 2008 @ 12:37 AM
link   
I like the idea of being able to "curl" a spacecraft up into calabi-Yau spaces, then "uncurl" it at the destination.

another idea would be to create a way to lessen a vessels mass. the faster you accelerate the more fuel is required, unless you could decrease your mass as you accelerate, then you could go faster using less and less fuel, once you have no mass your traveling the speed of light. now continue to decrease the mass (we're now talking anti-gravity) and you could theoretically continue to accelerate even faster. the problem is that with antigravity the particles are no longer held together as well and start flying apart. maybe you could create an antigrav bubble around your spacecraft to travel through.



new topics

top topics



 
0

log in

join