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.

 

Why Can't we travel faster than the speed of light?

page: 3
10
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 25 2008 @ 11:02 AM
link   
why does it have to be light? can it be something else? just as fast?




posted on Mar, 25 2008 @ 11:25 AM
link   
Why, the speed of light wouldn't be fast enough for you?


~ In my opinion, we wouldn't need to travel faster than the speed of light.

~ Although the speed of light is available to those few in power and should be made available to all quite soon. (in relation to free-energy devices)



[edit on 25-3-2008 by xnibirux]



posted on Mar, 25 2008 @ 11:26 AM
link   
I'm made of laffytaffy



posted on Mar, 25 2008 @ 11:32 AM
link   

Originally posted by Masisoar
I'm made of laffytaffy



MODS Can we get this last post removed? One Liner and non-relevant.



posted on Mar, 25 2008 @ 11:38 AM
link   

Originally posted by Masisoar
Want to know what's sad with today's modern scientists?

They're coming up with so much bull#, they aren't really understanding the universe the way it is. I hate these small clicks of scientists who are afraid of their theories being wrong and losing funding etc, so they have to make up more B.S. theories so that this can keep going.

Do I believe we can travel faster than the speed of light? Yeah.
Just because we're not there yet doesn't mean we have to bat down the idea.



Please provide scientific data that indicates this statement to be true. Thanks.



posted on Mar, 25 2008 @ 11:41 AM
link   

Originally posted by blahdiblah
Science said we couldn't fly.

Science said we couldn't go past the speed of sound.

Science says a lot of things.

We will travel faster than the speed of light.

How? Who knows.

To everyone quoting the theory of relativity by Einstein he fully expected it to be a dis proven and let me remind you its just a theory.


OK let me stop this right here. I keep seeing, "it's just a theory" throughout this post which means those people don't know what a "theory" really is. Let me explain a theory within scientific context, as used within this thread.


In science, a theory is not a guess, not a hunch. It's a well-substantiated, well-supported, well-documented explanation for our observations.2 It ties together all the facts about something, providing an explanation that fits all the observations and can be used to make predictions. In science, theory is the ultimate goal, the explanation. It's as close to proven as anything in science can be.

A theory never becomes a law. In fact, if there was a hierarchy of science, theories would be higher than laws. There is nothing higher, or better, than a theory. Laws describe things, theories explain them.



posted on Mar, 25 2008 @ 11:53 AM
link   
A recommendation.

If you are interested in this topic, please consider viewing the PBS documentary "The Elegant Universe".

Even if you don't subscribe to a particular view, scientific or fantastical, it's an entertaining series.

Even if you don't believe in conventional scientific view, it's helpful to know what that view is. Rather than just saying 'oh, I think Einstein was fake', you should then be able to more elegantly clarify your assertions in such things.

It's available free, online and on youtube, usually in 8-9 minute segments, and is a total of three hours.

Here's a link:

The Elegant Universe

Without some background, I fear posters are wasting their time, not to mention wasting others' time with unresponsive commentary.

Again, I'm not suggesting there's any requirement that the current theories are to be believed in whole or in part. It's just good to be on the same page.

HTH.



posted on Mar, 25 2008 @ 11:57 AM
link   

Originally posted by xnibirux
Why, the speed of light wouldn't be fast enough for you?


~ In my opinion, we wouldn't need to travel faster than the speed of light.

Why wouldn't we ? If we wanted to explore the closest stars, it would take years to get there at the speed of light.


~ Although the speed of light is available to those few in power and should be made available to all quite soon. (in relation to free-energy devices)

And of course this isn't completely baseless mental mianderings as of course you have evidence to support this claim?



posted on Mar, 25 2008 @ 12:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by Badge01
A recommendation.

If you are interested in this topic, please consider viewing the PBS documentary "The Elegant Universe".

Even if you don't subscribe to a particular view, scientific or fantastical, it's an entertaining series.

Even if you don't believe in conventional scientific view, it's helpful to know what that view is. Rather than just saying 'oh, I think Einstein was fake', you should then be able to more elegantly clarify your assertions in such things.

It's available free, online and on youtube, usually in 8-9 minute segments, and is a total of three hours.

Here's a link:

The Elegant Universe

Thanks for posting the link. I'm going to check it out.


Without some background, I fear posters are wasting their time, not to mention wasting others' time with unresponsive commentary.

Unfortunately this happens quite often


By the way, cool avatar you have !



posted on Mar, 25 2008 @ 12:17 PM
link   
reply to post by drflux
 


I’m going to go out on a limb here and agree with you. What Einstein said was a theory. It has not been proven right or wrong (if I understand my science correct).

In my mind, I don’t see why we couldn’t, besides the fact that we would need massive amounts of energy (once again, if I got science down) to do this. Whether we accelerate, slingshot through dimensions ( Xen anyone? Where’s Dr Kliener when you need him?
), et cetera.

I also heard a person saying that we would be wherever we would be going instantaneously. This is not the case (if we were only going the speed of light, not faster). If something was 18 million light years away, it would take us 18 million years to get there, for we are traveling the speed of light. And that gives way to the argument for a faster than light system, so maybe we can get there in 18 minuets instead of 18 million light years!

Now I agree with dark matter being a source of energy, but last time I checked, we were still unable to prove that it exists! Now I know this post may sound like I’m dismissing the idea….but I’m not. One single discovery could take us to planets unknown!

[edit on 25-3-2008 by unknownfrost]



posted on Mar, 25 2008 @ 12:19 PM
link   
Sychronicity!

I was just listening to Boyd Bushman talking about this 2 days ago on the Paracast, an absolutely fascinating interview; you can listen to the podcast here

He comments directly about this, noting that if Einstein were blind he would have deducted that the ultimate speed limit of matter was measured by the speed of sound. In other words, the speed of light is a perceptual limitation on our part, not of matter itself.

He also cited a Russian experiment, in which baby rabbits were put on a nuclear submarine and then the captain was sent a message to immediately kill them all at a precise moment. The mother rabbit was monitored in a lab and she reacted instantaneously at the moment of the death of her offspring. Bushman's comment: animals and humans have the ability of instantaneous transmission of something--thought, feeling, something--that defies the physical limits of Einstein's theories.

Oh, and he reports an asteroid will impact earth in 2036 unless we do something about it on its next near passage...



posted on Mar, 25 2008 @ 12:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by unknownfrost
reply to post by drflux
 


I’m going to go out on a limb here and agree with you. What Einstein said was a theory. It has not been proven right or wrong (if I understand my science correct).

Actually, many of Einsteins predictions including special relativity have been verified scientifically. Also, please read one of my posts above about what a "THEORY" is.


In my mind, I don’t see why we couldn’t, besides the fact that we would need massive amounts of energy (once again, if I got science down) to do this.

Yes, we would need an infinite amount of energy.



posted on Mar, 25 2008 @ 01:27 PM
link   
I'm pretty sure Einstein was right about not "traveling" faster than light, physically. I don't think, however, that Einstein said you can't change what the speed of light is, or step beyond the diminsional "physics" of time/space as we perceive it. Einstein does tell us that time/space is unique and individual for every particle point that is in this universe. To me this means that for every point in space there is a different point of view and thus another, slightly seperate, set of physical laws that govern that unique particle point, exclusively. This creates an ever changing and expanding set of possiblities for quantum theory, which then accounts for the perceptual phenomena of chance or randomness.



posted on Mar, 25 2008 @ 01:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by jfj123

Why wouldn't we ? If we wanted to explore the closest stars, it would take years to get there at the speed of light.


Very true, and teleportation is faster than the speed of light, and free energy teleportation devices do exist and are held in the hands of the few.




And of course this isn't completely baseless mental mianderings as of course you have evidence to support this claim?



No, I can't prove this too you, it is simply what I believe to be true. How could you not believe that free energy was created by Tesla and has been further engineered since then by secret officials?

[edit on 25-3-2008 by xnibirux]



posted on Mar, 25 2008 @ 02:46 PM
link   
I just got home and started reading this thread and am quite excited someone started this.I am currently in school to major either in theroritical astrophysics or anesthiesiology,so I am some what versedin the physics of this.First off someone made a post on the 1st page saying antimatter and dark matter are the same thing-not true,they are completely different by deffenition.Also many on here have bashed Einstien for his theroy of realitivity,and stating that travel(and note this next phrase)in THIS SPACE is not possible ftl.However like someone did bring up the Einstien-Rosen bridge was postulated,again someone brought this up and someone else said that it is only due to mathmatical numbers-true,but those mathmatical numbers can be verified to a degree by his proven other postulations(ie.the curving of light around gravity).So NO it is not possible by all acounts to travel ftl in tis dimension of space.But like some said on here it is possible to "bend" our space like a sheet of paper with point A on one end and point B on the other,you bend space and connect the points.Now whether this means instantanious travel b/w points is uncertain due to the fact there may be a "lag" so to say b/w points.Also it is also postulated that you can "warp" an area of local sapce around your craft by constricing space infront and expanding space behind.Therefor you are moving a localized region of space-not the craft THROUGH SPACE is self.Now as for the energy requirments its is not as great as you would imagine-granted out of our technological reach today,but by all means infinite energy is not needed.m/-m(matter/antimatter) is a good fuel source but need to be made in much larger amounts,and then we would need to undestand how to apply it so it exerts the required gravitaic effects in space.That is where it really gets complicated.That is pretty much where the ideas for ftl travel come to a "wall" the engine so to say.NASA has a breakthrough propulsion lab and many other agencies have something similar aswell working on these types of problems,I would link them ,but you can find them easy enough by Google.Keep this in mind-there is a speed limit in space,but not a limit for how fast space itself can move.



posted on Mar, 25 2008 @ 02:53 PM
link   
Good arguments on both sides at the moment, but one question, why does Einstein have to be a fake? why can't he just be wrong? Not saying he was entirely wrong, I understand that alot of his theories have been proven, but the bigger picture is by no means complete and people keep following him religiously.

I myself believe in the Electric star model, for me it just makes sense, i've read a number of articles and watched many documentaries (best being "Thunderbolts of the gods") and from my perceptions of the world we live in, this theory answers many more questions and opens up many more possibilites. That said, I have also researched ZPE (Tom Valone is a good place to start) and I feel this is an extrememly interesting subject, should have more time and research invested into it. I believe the reason the ZPE is underfunded and considered 'pseudo-science' is due to the fact it doesn't fit in to the 'standard model' and instead is passed off as dark matter, gravitons or anti-matter and many other crazy particles they keep finding, they are merely measuring the interactions of these particles with the ZPE.

So, if (IF!!)this energy is all around us, could we not consider it infinite? throughtout every inch, every nanometre of the universe, constantly fluctuating in balance, could we not harness this energy? We our only limited by our own perception, so if we alter our perception of our universe, do we alter our limits? or just the perception of our limits?

thanks. EMM

[edit on 25-3-2008 by ElectroMagnetic Multivers]



posted on Mar, 25 2008 @ 03:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by Warlon
Just wondering? Why can't we travel faster than the speed of light? I have read that most scientists agree with Einstein when he stated that we will never travel faster than the speed of light because as a object nears plank speed (Close to the speed of light if I understand correctly) it's mass becomes infinately larger, so there is not enough power in the universe to push it past the light barrier. But why not? do they have proof of this or is this still a theory. Haven't scientists pushed particles to the speed of light in accelerators (SP)? or are they stuck at a percentage of the speed of light? I am just currious. if it is a power problem then why couldn't you use the energy released by the anialation (sp) of matter/dark (anti) matter? if there is as much dark matter in the cosmos as I have read then there should be an abundance of "fuel" available for the "engine". Just a thought.

Could some of you help me fight ignorance? Thanks


There is no real money for the research consortiums (organizations that relate to leading edge research about space travel) if FTL related technologies surface from any of the great ideas of visionaries like N. Tesla, Wilhelm Reich, V. Shauberger etc. because the possible extension of their ideas main philosophies demand a social structure that is not dependant on paying for energy. They envisioned a technological paradise where energy is free for everyone.


Until the PTB find a way, mostly via efforts of social engineering to change the perception of the masses, in a more suitable way for them to effortlesly sustain and even extend their present stranglehold upon society, PTB will make sure FTL will never be introduced as a feasible idea for us humans.

You can take that to the bank!


P.S. A very interesting hypothesis was brought forth in the movie Astronaut Farmer where an retired astronaut was trying to initiate his own space program in his ranch.
As seen in the movie he used the same technology that existed in the 60's. This idea technicaly speaking might work, but socialy is becoming more and more an impossible feat due to new antiterrorist laws being placed globaly against any individuals free will. SO we seem to chase ghost terrorists while we might be losing literaly the universe itself.

If you can watch the movie trailer in the link I posted, there is a very graphical scene during his capsule launching procedure, where it was initiated prematurely, resulting in a wild ride right smashing through a big sign that has the following words on it:

SPACE FOR RENT



That concealed message said it all!


Peace!


[edit on 25-3-2008 by spacebot]



posted on Mar, 25 2008 @ 03:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by xnibirux
Originally posted by jfj123

Why wouldn't we ? If we wanted to explore the closest stars, it would take years to get there at the speed of light.


Very true, and teleportation is faster than the speed of light, and free energy teleportation devices do exist and are held in the hands of the few.


Can you actually post any evidence at all that this type of teleportation exists ?


And of course this isn't completely baseless mental mianderings as of course you have evidence to support this claim?


No, I can't prove this too you, it is simply what I believe to be true. How could you not believe that free energy was created by Tesla and has been further engineered since then by secret officials?

[edit on 25-3-2008 by xnibirux]

Why would I without evidence? Do you believe in giant, invisible, purple wombats?



[edit on 25-3-2008 by jfj123]



posted on Mar, 25 2008 @ 03:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by jfj123

Why would I without evidence? Do you believe in giant, invisible, purple wombats?



Ok free energy is bogus, doesn't exist, and fits into a category with 'giant, invisible, purple wombats; yea that sounds like a good way to put it


[edit on 25-3-2008 by xnibirux]



posted on Mar, 25 2008 @ 03:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by xnibirux

Originally posted by jfj123

Why would I without evidence? Do you believe in giant, invisible, purple wombats?



Ok free energy is bogus, doesn't exist, and fits into a category with 'giant, invisible, purple wombats; yea that sounds like a good way to put it


[edit on 25-3-2008 by xnibirux]


How else would I put it when no evidence is given? If there is no evidence either exists, they are indeed in the same category.



new topics

top topics



 
10
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join