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.

 

Hey Scientists, why is space travel impossible?

page: 2
3
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 31 2008 @ 09:54 PM
link   
It's not impossible, just highly impractical. We would be dead before we even made it to the closest star.

With our current understanding of the universe, it is impossible for matter to travel faster than the speed of light.

Science is ever evolving, so we may find a way to do it, but this would involve bending space/time according to our current understanding.

So, right now it's impractical, and there is no way to make it practical in the foreseeable future.

For instance, even if we manage to travel at the speed of light, it's still impractical.

We need to find a way to break or redefine physics as we know it.




posted on Jan, 31 2008 @ 10:25 PM
link   
It isn't. We are travelling through space right now. Glad I could help you out .



posted on Feb, 1 2008 @ 05:06 AM
link   

Originally posted by credible_evidence
Its all about Gravity. Understand gravity and the speed of light barrier will be broken. Einstien says you need mass for gravity but what if he was wrong. What if you could actually create gravity and manipulate it or even better focus it. Its not about traveling in a straight line on a road from point A to B, its about eliminating the road by taking route C. If we are ever to master space travel we must first fully understand the force of gravity and its relationship to space/time. The other 3 "universal forces" can be manipulated through frequency. I.E Radio waves and electromagnetic waves can be changed. If we can create our own artificial gravity wave then we'll have taken our first step towards deep space. Understaning Gravity is the key to FTL travel.



[edit on 31-1-2008 by credible_evidence]


I think Credible_Evidence has it right on. According to Lawrence M. Krauss, (en.wikipedia.org...) author of "The Physics of Star Trek" he says (page 55-56, hard cover) "One way to picture what is happening is to imagine yourself on the starship. If space suddenly expands behind you by a huge amount, you will find that the starbase you just left a few minutes ago is now many light-years away. Similarly, if space contracts in front of you, you will find that the starbase you are heading for, which was a few light-years away, is now close to you, within reach by normal rocket propulsion in a matter of minutes. It is also possible to arrange the geometry of spacetime in this solution so that the huge gravitational fields necessary to expand and contract space in this way are never large near the ship or any of the bases. In the vicinity of the ship and the bases, space can be almost flat, and therefore clocks on the ship and the bases remain synchronized. Somewhere between the ship and the bases, the tidal forces due to gravity will be immense, but thats OK as long as we aren't located there.
(Emphasis mine)

Another part in his book (which i will save time by summarizing) is that space is flat. Imagine a bed sheet laying flat on the floor. A bug has to travel all the way across it. But what if he could just ask us to fold it in half? Now the other end is right next to him. he walks across, we unfold the sheet, and now he is on the other side in a fraction of the time it would have taken him to walk all the way across. Same thing with us. Except we are the bug, and space is the sheet, and the gravitational force is the person folding the sheet. um, hopefully that made sense.


The only problem I have with this is HOW do we create gravitational forces strong enough to do this? how do we create and manipulate gravity to begin with?


ps I hope i quoted everything correctly. Ive never posted here before. Or on any forum for that matter. Please let me know if I didn't post this properly.
thanx.

Physics of Strar Trek
www.amazon.com...

[edit on 1-2-2008 by David.Seth]



posted on Feb, 1 2008 @ 05:40 AM
link   

Originally posted by blvr5
reply to post by Nohup
 


again, this argument against space travel revolves around the speed of light.

Lets say that teleportation is possible, what is the speed of teleportation?

My point is that yes, from what we know, light is OUR measuring stick. Thats not saying that there is nothing out there that can travel faster than light, only that light is the fastest thing WE can measure. We may not have detected an source of energy, matter, whatever that exceed the speed of light


I find that undetectable facet of space to be a particle associated with time itself at much faster than light. I have no idea how we would begin to detect such a small and fast particle in the technological sense, but we do perceive time. And our perception may actually be the key. Time is affected by gravity, and to me that says that there can be a superluminal, inter-dimensional particle that carries the information of the universe. They may be the smallest particle capable of traversing dimensional confines even within the framework of String Theory.

I have many, many reasons why I think this might work, but have no way to test them so it's relegated to BS for now. But imagine, what purpose is there to superluminal particles? Information seems to be it. Every event in time recorded by these particles as they were being produced from the string. Perhaps in our universe, when our big bang happened, this was the first thing that was produced during the big bang, and because of it's speeds flew way ahead of anything else and flooded the universe right away. I believe our perception of time might hold the key to how this all works.

Personally on space travel itself, using EM Anti-gravity is probably the best thing possible. Cancel mass/inertia and you won't need that much power to shove you around. And you can do it by pushing off of gravity itself..But you still need a decent power source for this..And it is not something currently available, or monetarily feasible.



posted on Feb, 1 2008 @ 06:31 AM
link   
The answer certainly lies in gravity and the elusive gravitons / gravity waves being searched for at the moment with LIGO and soon the LHC. Physically travelling is not an option, we would need to jump.

If recent theories are proved correct, our 3 dimensional 'brane' that we exist within is affected by gravity leaking in from higher dimensions, a kind of shadow world that we interact with but can only 'see' indirectly.

If the graviton can be mastered, then localised pinching of spacetime may be possible, a long way off but possible. Its just a workaround in physics to instant transportation anywhere by folding space onto itself. It might explain how quantum pairs can affect each other instantainously even if separated collosal distances.



posted on Feb, 1 2008 @ 07:03 AM
link   

Originally posted by TheStarMan
It's not impossible, just highly impractical. We would be dead before we even made it to the closest star....
For instance, even if we manage to travel at the speed of light, it's still impractical...


No! With today's known physics laws, it is theoretically possible. IFF you travelled at the speed of light, you would not be dead when you got there.

Only some of us here on earth.

We discussed this here just a few days ago.

In short, let me quote from "Uncoventional flyting objects", a terrific book I *highly* recommend!



Consider a UFO starship which leaves Zeta 1 Reticuli bound for earth 37 light years away at a velocity v = O.9999c. If they made the trip at full speed all the way it would take 6 months 8.5 days of ON BOARD TIME....on board the ship they are doing immensely better than the 37 years we think of light as taking the trip.


[edit on 1-2-2008 by senshido]



posted on Feb, 1 2008 @ 07:26 AM
link   
Pushing object towards the speed of light is definately the wong approach. The energy required is unimaginable and even using matter/antimatter as a fuel you would have to carry impossibly large quantities and it wouldn't even get to close to the speeds needed. Slowing down alone would take thousands of years.

The impracticallity also includes the fact that even at near light you may reach a place and find it is not there and when you return your planet and species will have been extinguished. Its a non-starter.

The answer lies in not pushing ourselves through space, but getting space to do the twisting and moving for us.

[edit on 1-2-2008 by Benjob]



posted on Feb, 1 2008 @ 07:44 AM
link   
Time, what exactly is this, to us it is measured by the rotation and orbit of our planet, but this is not a constant throughout the vast reaches of the universe. What if..out beyond a certain point, time and lightspeed change, much like a river changes speeds with different currents. Let's say you are in a spaceship, moving along in our solar system and suddenly you pass the void at the edge of our solar system and enter a much faster current in space and are now clipping along much faster than before. Your place in space and time is now changed, no longer being measured by anything known. There may be a natural "fold" in space after leaving our solar system and at this point it could be as simple as opening a door and stepping across a hallway into another room.



posted on Feb, 1 2008 @ 08:42 AM
link   
I got a B.S. in physics, and these kinds of things were discussed in a couple classes for brief moments, and I've never heard a professor or an "expert" ever claim these things are impossible altogether, just impossible with our level of technology today. I think many times what they're trying to do is to get you to think - for some people it's very easy to claim the good ol' alien argument, but if that's the scenario, we'd love to hear how you propose they got here in the first place, with a certain amount of rationality. To me, it's almost the same argument many use for the classic God and religion debate, if God exists, how did God get there in the first place?

Just my two cents.



posted on Feb, 1 2008 @ 09:03 AM
link   
Dear Mr. Jesus please read my previous replies.

Gravity binds the universe, it can also unbind it.



posted on Feb, 1 2008 @ 09:32 AM
link   

Originally posted by crashrash
Time, what exactly is this, to us it is measured by the rotation and orbit of our planet, but this is not a constant throughout the vast reaches of the universe. .


I agree about us arbitrarily defining the second. However, you are incorrect in the definition. Time is now defined by counting the number of transitions between "hperfine states" in cesium atoms. WHat does that mean?

en.wikipedia.org...

This definition was decided upon because many people, down to the average intuitive child were questioning the validity of "time".

I agree with your assessment of time being incorrectly or arbitrarily defined because they really didnt clarify anything- they just buried the definitionin a pile of "scientific" BS and complicated formulas to obfuscate and befuddle anyone who tries to question its validity. If you dig into this incredibly complicated jargon, you can see what I am talking about and you dont have to do a single calculation or know any algebra at all. At the core of the calculations of the "Modern" definition of the second both the Meter and the Speed of Light are used.

What could possibly be wrong there you ask?

Lots. Science is supposed to be based on things that are logically defined.

Circular logic or definitions are not acceptable i.e. using the thing being defined to define itself.
Here is an Example of circular logic using two terms: What is heat? Heat is the absence of cold. What is cold? Cold is the absence of heat. What is heat? etc. etc. A circular defintion does not mean that that statement is wrong. The above circular definition is obviously correct, and you cannot prove it to be false. However, it is arrived upon in a non- scientific manner and is therefore useless.

Here is a slightly more complicated definition using circular logic involving three terms: What is the second? The second is a constant defined with a formula using the speed of light and the meter. What is the speed of light? The speed of light is a constant defined using the meter and the second. What is the meter? The meter is a constant defined using the second and the speed of light. What is the second? etc. etc. It is not necessarily wrong, but is arrived upon using unscientific means and is therefore useless.

But if this is true how come we can do all these neat things using this "science"? We can build Atom bombs and Lasers and Microcomputers all based upon using these terms.

Our knowledge of the physical universe can be compared to a wrapped gift. We can look at it and describe it. We can do lots of useful things with it : We can stand on it to put the star on the xmas tree or we can hit each other on the head with it or we can even burn it for heat. Very useful. But we still do not have the foggiest what is really in the box.

We are still the child shaking the gift box to try and figure out what is inside.

P.S. I am currently writing a book on modern scientific heresy and with any luck it will actually get published.



posted on Feb, 1 2008 @ 10:16 AM
link   
There is nothing wrong with our understanding of things around us.

Units of measurement for our universe create a reference point for understanding, as our understanding increases our measurements and formula have to change and evolve. Einsteins theories were radical at the time and today are being superseeded and built upon. Its a simple progression which will lead to opening our "box" universe.

An understanding of 'what gravity is' has eluded us, I'm hoping that in my lifetime it will reveal its secrets.



posted on Feb, 1 2008 @ 11:50 AM
link   
One of the arguments often used somewhat erroniously is that it would take 20 years to travel 20 light years at the speed of light.
This is actually only for the observers who stay on behind on the home planet not for the pilots of the ship. They experience a much shorter duration of the trip. At the limit of the speed of light it is instantaneous. So relativity acts in the favour of the astronauts, and avoids the need to go faster than light.



posted on Feb, 1 2008 @ 02:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by Dr X
One of the arguments often used somewhat erroniously is that it would take 20 years to travel 20 light years at the speed of light.
This is actually only for the observers who stay on behind on the home planet not for the pilots of the ship. They experience a much shorter duration of the trip. At the limit of the speed of light it is instantaneous. So relativity acts in the favour of the astronauts, and avoids the need to go faster than light.


Right, that's what I posted in apparantly invisible web ink.

Zeta Reticuli is 6 months away. If you're on earth, it'll take 37 years for the ship to reach the binary star system.

[edit on 1-2-2008 by senshido]



posted on Feb, 1 2008 @ 02:23 PM
link   
yeah but you still have the problem of getting up to that speed & colliding with any objects in space at that speed.

[edit on 1-2-2008 by yeti101]



posted on Feb, 1 2008 @ 02:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by Benjob
There is nothing wrong with our understanding of things around us.

Units of measurement for our universe create a reference point for understanding, as our understanding increases our measurements and formula have to change and evolve. Einsteins theories were radical at the time and today are being superseeded and built upon. Its a simple progression which will lead to opening our "box" universe.

An understanding of 'what gravity is' has eluded us, I'm hoping that in my lifetime it will reveal its secrets.


Nothing wrong with our understanding? I think you should write down your unified theory real quik before you forget it because there are 10s of thousands of the smartest people on the planet trying to figure it out right now.

As for the reference point I agree 100%. That was exactly the point I was making in my post. We have NO reference point.



posted on Feb, 1 2008 @ 02:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by senshido
Zeta Reticuli is 6 months away. If you're on earth, it'll take 37 years for the ship to reach the binary star system.


Yes, but only if you're moving at or very near light speed. Even the smallest percentage of light speed slower than that increases the amount of travel time by a lot. If we were somehow able to harness the power of a few hundred suns, we might be able to push up near 80 percent light speed.

As for us bending space, so that we bring the mountain to Mohammed, so to speak, the amount of power that would take is almost unimaginable.

No, our best bet is still to figure out away to somehow "translate" ourselves and our ships into the non-physical dimensions of space so that distance and time are not an issue. Unfortunately, we don't have a clue as to how this can be done, although research into Remote Viewing and OOBEs may eventually yield some clues. Remote viewers suggest that when they travel about in the aether, the thing that essentially is their point of view is not constrained by distance or time. So maybe there's something to be discovered there. Or not.

Until then, though, we just can't generate the kind of power necessary to make speedy trips through space. Nobody's getting anywhere near the speed of light, and nobody's magically dragging Zeta Reticuli closer to Earth.



posted on Feb, 1 2008 @ 02:36 PM
link   
Although I'm not a major in astronomy, I did take a course in it. Something that really interested me was the topic about "dark matter".

If we must "manipulate" gravity for efficient space travel, I would seriously look into dark matter. Dark matter is something that we cannot detect by visual means. It does not emit or reflect electromagnetic (EM) waves. Scientists only know it is there because of the gravitational forces that are exerted on nearby "visible" matter that is unaccounted for by any mass/matter. In other words, something is exerting forces of gravity but it is not conventional matter.

I noticed a lot of people mentioning manipulating gravity. But how are we going to do that if we can't even touch it, or spontaneously create matter? Sure, we can produce a huge amount of energy but where will we extract this energy from? And will it compromise mother nature further by emitting more radioactive wastes and harmful green house gases that could change the climate of Earth forever? I'm sure the "Aliens" would be well entertained at how destructive we are if we were to go down that path.

If we ever manage to artificially generate "gravity" to "fold/contract" space to travel smaller distances, how do you make sure we don't get trapped into this huge gravity that we made ourselves? Certainly we would need energy to pull ourselves out of it.

So even though these space travel theories sound nice and fancy, all of it is pretty much coming out of our asses.

Humans still have a long way to go.

[edit on 1-2-2008 by yuwing]



posted on Feb, 1 2008 @ 02:38 PM
link   
Oddly enough....if you look at some web pages talking about alleged "trips" to Zeta, and the time they claim it took..well it's possible in today's physics...this here for example states,

"

It took the team nine months, travelling in the alien craft to reach the Eben planet, which the US Military named Serpo
"

and this site here mentions...

Q: "How long does the trip from Zeta Reticuli take....?"

A: "They can... do it in about 91 days."



mentions the EBEs can do this in 91 days, which de-facto means FTL on their part



posted on Feb, 1 2008 @ 07:29 PM
link   
Great thread! Well thought out arguments by all!

I just wanted to add, that it's been several years now (at least) that the speed of light has been known to be less than the speed of gravity.

Not counting the date that Tom Van Flandern set out the equations (a few years ago) here: www.metaresearch.org...
(Specific page here
www.metaresearch.org...

The formula table is copied here (from the above source):
"postulates
1) all inertial frames equivalent

2) speed of light unchanged
classical physics applies

equations
t=y(T-vX/cSquared); x=y(X-vt)
T=y(t-vx/cSquared); X=y(x-vt)

t=T/y; x=X
T=yt; X=x

physical effects
time dilates, space contracts, momentum amplified by motion relative to observer clocks slowed by motion relative to local gravitational potential field

special feature
space and time are physical entities that can be altered by motion
space, time are dimensions/concepts, not material, tangible entities

light speed
constant by postulate
varies with observer motion

distant time
no remote simultaneity between frames
universal instant of “now”

motion
all motion is relative
motion relative to local gravity field"

The above is from Van Flandern...


Einstein himself actually never defined the speed of gravity in his relativity theories, he simply set the variable at infinity. Van Flandern has been able to pin the figure down a bit better, at:
www.metaresearch.org...

His figure places the speed for gravity's propagation at approximately greater than or equal to 2x10(to the 10th power)c.

Further papers by Van Flandern on this topic are here:
www.metaresearch.org...
www.metaresearch.org...

So from all of this we know that gravity is already moving much faster than light. We just need to figure out how to hitch a ride on that existing propagation (waves? particles?)



new topics

top topics



 
3
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join