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.

 

Remember when skeptics said it was impossible to break the lightspeed barrier?

page: 3
1
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 17 2009 @ 12:44 AM
link   

Originally posted by TeslaandLyne
reply to post by Intothepitwego
 


I don't know. I gave him a star for effort.
Perhaps one or two I agree with.
The 'Occult" or hidden science (from Tesla) of the Illuminati may
have developed anything we know nothing about.

I'm about to look at that movie he linked.


Sorry but I cannot just pretend there would be a reason to discuss something that is founded on fault. I thought that if he had good enough ideas, he could still work them out without the notion of weight vs. mass. I can pretend instead though, that seems to be the theme tonight anyway around here.




posted on Jan, 17 2009 @ 12:46 AM
link   
Actually ftl has been around a long time,at least theoretically. Tachyons are particles whose minimum speed is greater than the speed of light:

en.wikipedia.org...



posted on Jan, 17 2009 @ 01:17 AM
link   

Originally posted by Intothepitwego
The flaw starts here. This is not correct. Mass does not get "heavier" the faster you go. Sorry but it was bad math out of the gate.


In the LHC, each proton is accelerated to nearly the speed of light. When it won't go any faster, it continues to gain energy as they try to further accelerate it. When they finally get the two opposing streams of protons to collide, each one will weigh approx. 7000 times more than they did at rest.



posted on Jan, 17 2009 @ 01:25 AM
link   

Originally posted by lernmore

Originally posted by Intothepitwego
The flaw starts here. This is not correct. Mass does not get "heavier" the faster you go. Sorry but it was bad math out of the gate.


In the LHC, each proton is accelerated to nearly the speed of light. When it won't go any faster, it continues to gain energy as they try to further accelerate it. When they finally get the two opposing streams of protons to collide, each one will weigh approx. 7000 times more than they did at rest.


That still does not equate mass with weight. That is an example where the mass increase is measurable by weight. That is not neccesarily always the case.



posted on Jan, 17 2009 @ 02:20 AM
link   
Force = The ability to do work
Force = Mass x Acceleration

Intrinsic Mass = Mass at rest
Inertial Mass changes depending on velocity ie,; it grows as velocity gets higher.

Basic stuff.

Berkeley Physics

The whole class (introductory version) is there, (lecture 22 of 26)



[edit on 17-1-2009 by lernmore]



posted on Jan, 17 2009 @ 04:02 AM
link   

Originally posted by apacheman
Lightspeed is NOT constant, as it has been slowed down in several experiments, last reported in Scientifc American if I remember correctly.


Physicists Slow Speed of Light


Slowing light this way doesn't violate any principle of physics. Einstein's theory of relativity places an upper, but not lower, limit on the speed of light.





Originally posted by apachemanActually ftl has been around a long time,at least theoretically. Tachyons are particles whose minimum speed is greater than the speed of light:


Tachyons have never been proven to exist.
Wikipedia isn't a credible source for scientific research, as anyone can edit it.

Here's what Cornell University has to say...

Tachyons, if they were to exist, would by definition always travel faster than the speed of light. But there's no observational evidence that tachyons exist. The only reason why some people have proposed that such a particle might exist is because "faster-than-light" particles would satisfy all the relativity equations. I may be using the word "satisfy" a bit loosely however. Tachyons would have to either have a mass or an energy which is an imaginary number. One could argue that this is a pretty nonphysical idea. They'd also have the bizarre property that if you give a tachyon more energy, it would slow down (but never move as "slow" as the speed of light).

Don't tachyons travel faster than light?

It would be cool if they did, but it's just not feasible to say it's true until it can be proven to be so.


Peace

P.S. Anything is possible...check my sig and you'll understand why I won't rule anything out...for now.

[edit on 17-1-2009 by lernmore]



posted on Jan, 17 2009 @ 01:21 PM
link   
reply to post by lernmore
 


Good points.

But I did say theoretically.

[edit on 17-1-2009 by apacheman]



posted on Jan, 17 2009 @ 03:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by lernmore
Force = The ability to do work
Force = Mass x Acceleration

Intrinsic Mass = Mass at rest
Inertial Mass changes depending on velocity ie,; it grows as velocity gets higher.

Basic stuff.

Berkeley Physics

The whole class (introductory version) is there, (lecture 22 of 26)



Yes, and now you are back to confusing mass with weight. Sorry but you should really move on past the introductory stuff and you might start to get it.



posted on Jan, 17 2009 @ 04:17 PM
link   
reply to post by Balez
 


If I remember from things I have read you are talking about a wardrive. The warpdrive generates a bubble that the craft would ride through space faster than lighte.



posted on Jan, 17 2009 @ 06:12 PM
link   
Until it's proven scientifically, I'm pretty sure that it's still a fact that matter cannot exceed the speed of light, and that really strange things begin to happen to it when it begins to approach such a speed.

That's the wonderful thing about science, is that it's constantly changing to factor in new truths and ideas.

Although history has proven that science has an unfortunate tendency to try and discredit any proof that disputes their own long-held dogmas, once those new truths are demonstrated acceptably using the scientific method, the book is - and has been - rewritten.



posted on Jan, 17 2009 @ 08:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by Intothepitwego

Yes, and now you are back to confusing mass with weight. Sorry but you should really move on past the introductory stuff and you might start to get it.


You're kidding right? I didn't post that for me.


No particle has ever been observed to go faster than 300 km/sec.
No matter how you try, it won't happen, however it will gain energy.

As a particle accelerates, it must get heavier because of the extra energy it now has. It cannot take on the extra energy without also taking on the extra mass that goes with the energy.

If you can get around that, and offer more than one liners with no content, please do.



posted on Jan, 17 2009 @ 08:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by lernmore
As a particle accelerates, it must get heavier because of the extra energy it now has. It cannot take on the extra energy without also taking on the extra mass that goes with the energy.


You are kidding right?

Are you just playing with me now? No one could be that arrogant and that stupid. You said it again, as a particle accelerates, it gains mass. Then you go on to say it gets heavier.

Sorry, that is not how that works. Mass does not equal weight. They are not interchangable, they do not mean the same thing. Weight is relative and relates to forces acing upon something whereas the mass of something is the amoun of matter making up its whole. Believe it or not, once you remove gravity, you remove weight, but you still have mass. You are stuck on experiments done with certain types of matter here on earth in out gravity. That is not how physics works. Mass and weight are not the same thing. Stop acting like such an ass.



posted on Jan, 17 2009 @ 09:24 PM
link   
reply to post by Intothepitwego
 


Intothepitwego,

As a particle becomes more massive we say that it becomes "heavier" because it takes more and more energy to cause a change in its inertia. It's a bit of a colloquialism, perhaps, but it's still a correct term in that case.

While the "weight" of a body -- expressed in real numbers -- is relative to location, the "heaviness" of a body is considered relative only to itself and other bodies in the common usage, such as in this example from the American Museum of Natural History:


The faster an object travels, the more massive it becomes. As an accelerating object gains mass and thus becomes heavier, it takes more and more energy to increase its speed. It would take an infinite amount of energy to make an object reach the speed of light.

www.amnh.org...



posted on Jan, 17 2009 @ 10:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by Tuning Spork
reply to post by Intothepitwego
 


Intothepitwego,

As a particle becomes more massive we say that it becomes "heavier" because it takes more and more energy to cause a change in its inertia. It's a bit of a colloquialism, perhaps, but it's still a correct term in that case.


No, it is not. Physicists do not just reassign words to fit new definitions at will. People who read about this stuff as a novice do.


While the "weight" of a body -- expressed in real numbers -- is relative to location, the "heaviness" of a body is considered relative only to itself and other bodies in the common usage, such as in this example from the American Museum of Natural History:


The faster an object travels, the more massive it becomes. As an accelerating object gains mass and thus becomes heavier, it takes more and more energy to increase its speed. It would take an infinite amount of energy to make an object reach the speed of light.

www.amnh.org...


Because it does not finish the thought - this is what happens on earth with materials that have a measurable weight. This is not a physics rule or constant of some kind. This is an earth bound abberation as weight is a function of gravity. If there is no gravity, and no other source of friction, the mass of an object and its "weight" become completely irrelevant. There is no weight to measure, not against itself or the other mass in the system; none. I see how badly people here want one thing to mean another but post it as many times as you like, it will not make it so. Sorry.



posted on Jan, 18 2009 @ 01:19 AM
link   
Mass bends space, so far we can agree, right?

A particle under acceleration exhibits an increase in mass. Check?

The particle, from its perspective as well as ours, will never be moving ftl. Check?

Now if we assume accelerating mass effects surrounding space...

Then if that particle is one among many moving in a stream, the former applies to the particle's perspective, but not from ours. Why? Perhaps because space is effected in such a way by the other accelerating particles that its properties change notably towards the center of the stream...

And that little particle is being swept up by an accelerated space which increases in units/sec^2 by the inverse square law towards the center. That is the hypothesis. So in a uniformly dense and uniformly accelerating stream of particles the warp function is a power play:

Acceleration of particle stream in u/sec^2 multiplied by acceleration of space in u/sec^2:

Add the exponents to get your "warp factor" u/sec^4:

Inversely proportional to the square of the distance to the center:

u/sec^4x1/d^2

And directly proportional to the mass:

m(u/sec^4x1/d^2)

By Lorentz transformation we should be able to mathematically demonstrate the degree to which the speed of light changes as we observe, but will remain the same relative with all particles within the system.



posted on Jan, 19 2009 @ 05:56 AM
link   
Heh, don't mix up weight with mass. If I were to walk on the moon I'd weigh less due to the local gravitation. Alas, my mass would still be the same. Just picture mass as something for gravitation to grip a hold of, the more you have the more it affects you. This will equal weight, however it does so in relation to how strong the gravitation is.

Layman enough?


Also, this talk about a bubble around our moving object to exeed the supposed lightspeed-barrier; reminds me of the Alcubierre metric. Where you create a bubble of sorts to surf through space. Why? Well, this says you can exeed the speed of light without breaking the laws of nature local, relative to you. Since you are in your bubble. My opinion though is that this sounds rather stupid at present. It would need modification.



posted on Jan, 19 2009 @ 07:39 AM
link   

Originally posted by mdiinican

Originally posted by DarthoriousOne other thing I have heard in quantum mechanics/physics is, as mass accelerates it vibrates, as it vibrates the particles move farther and farther apart which actually causes the mass to become less dense and decreases the "weight" of the mass by the vibrations causing it to be dispersed over a larger area of space.


What? Your description sounds kind of like what happens to a gas as it is heated up, but otherwise I can't make sense of it. Got any links to reputable sources for what you're saying?


It actually makes perfect sense.

Normally an object as it speeds up vibrates normally in an atmosphere the restriction of gasses passing over the object become like a wall and tear the plane or flying object apart in the atmosphere hence the reason for max speed capabilities before structural failure.

However in a true vacuum you will have no structural failure due to speed because there is no resistance. However you will still have vibration therefore you end up with a vibration that can destroy structural integrity by vibrating the particles so much it literally vibrates apart. However it becomes less dense the faster it vibrates because the particles crashing into each other are then repelled away at the same rate in a true vacuum. As they move away from each other they cover more area and reduce the mass by increasing area of coverage problem is there is no man made object that can tolerate this and it simply tears itself apart instead of staying bound together over the larger area.

Humans would also be torn apart by vibrations. So the trick is to find the silly puddy of space that stays structurally bound as the particles vibrate and move away from each other.

First time I had heard of something even close to this was the discussion of the galaxy clock and debate of weather we could go past light speed. Quite honestly there's quite a bit of debate on this not if it's correct but if space is actually a true vacuum because if it's not then there is no use for this idea.



posted on Jan, 19 2009 @ 08:02 AM
link   
I hate to steal anyone's thunder, but the speed of light was broken back in '98 or '99. Scientists reported it. Several other labs immediately replicated the results. Even more labs replicated the results several days later. This was HUGE news on the internet, but didn't make mainsteam newspapers. Do you wonder why? Then..... it all went away. Surprise, surprise.



posted on Jan, 19 2009 @ 08:30 AM
link   
Our part of space already travels faster than light (relative to other parts of the universe). What we can't do is accelerate past light speed. So the trick is to move around without accelerating. Doing so would also nullify time dilation.

And there's no such thing as anti-gravity as all of space is connected by gravity... though it may some day be possible to focus the attraction of gravity in certain directions, basically pulling yourself around space rather than using our currently primitive forms of propulsion.



posted on Jan, 19 2009 @ 02:50 PM
link   
Breaking the light barrier for an unmanned ship would be useful. However, even if we did break the light barrier somehow, we would still be a long way from sending a person to a nearby star. Imagine the enormous amount of G-forces a human would experience traveling at the speed of light or greater.

As it stands though, nothing has been known to travel faster than light. The only thing that comes to mind is quantum entanglement which physicists have recorded going at about 10,000 times faster than light. This can't be used for space travel though because the information being sent is random gibberish.

[edit on 19-1-2009 by GeeGee]



new topics

top topics



 
1
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join