Just looking through, I thought I would post a couple things. I saw where it says light is part particle and part wave. That is not correct. Light takes on the properties of both a particle and a wave, depending on the situation.

Lots of talk about Einsteins relativity. Special relativity is still a theory, but as theories go, it is going under testing to see if it is a law or not. While it cannot be considered a law, it is still a theory that has not been proved wrong yet, and has predicted many things that we have found to be true.

Another quick note about relativity. Explaining relativity to someone who does not understand physics, is like trying to explain music to someone who is deaf.

Light has mass. Particles that have even less mass than photons can travel faster. Also, I think when speaking of the speed of light, it is important to state, the speed of light in a vacuum. Light travels at different speeds depending on the medium it is traveling in. (It travels VERY slowly within the Sun itself)

The original posters topic is "Why can't we travel faster than the speed of light?". I will try to answer this with 2 answers.

1. As many people have said, it is a mass issue. To much energy is required to accelerate us to that speed. Let alone the logistics of what engine could be used to form thrust.

2. Define travel. A fly can travel over 400 MPH, while flying at his normal speed. He broke no laws, and can be done quite easily. (Put a fly in a jet airliner). We have propulsion concepts for faster than light travel. Think of it as warp speed. Take a bus. (lets make it safe for space too ) Now this space bus we can take up to 1/10th speed of light. Not bad at all. Now, take the area around the space bus, and have that travel 1/10th the speed of light also. This area is being "warped" constantly. The bus is only going 1/10th speed of light, the warped area only going the speed of light.

Relativity deals with faster than light. Relativity speaking, the space bus is only going 1/10th the speed of light (important to know when dealing with that whole time dilation thing) but clearly traveling much faster.

Th only time we even come close to FTL travel is when we smack a bug biting us on the arm, and such.

But, in all reality we might already be doing FTL travel. Who knows what is going on out in space (with our secret fleet?) with all the stuff hackers find before they get busted by NAS.

I often wonder myself what is really going on. I mean time travel an such would be FTL speed and the things people claim that are done in secret who knows?

[edit on 25-3-2008 by RUFFREADY]

Ok,I thought I saw someone on here post that they had their own theroies on ftl travel,if that person reads this,pleas u2u me,I also have my own theroies and would like to talk w/ you.

Do you theorize that 'we' might be able to break the light barrier if 'we' could produce a "force field" that would mask or mitagate (sp) our mass? then wouldn't it just be a matter of accelerating 'us' to the speed of light and through it?

Just letting my brain wander for a while, off the leash.

When einstein first published his theory, dark matter and dark energy hadn't even been theorised about. I feel that, during this century, we will learn much more about these mysterious things, and who knows what such information may lead to. Also, I do believe scientists have found a way round the limit of light speed. There was an experiment where a speed above that of light was achieved, but it did not prove einstein wrong. I think someone posted a thread about it on here, but I really cant be bothered to find it now. There is also of course, worm holes, black holes etc. A worm hole may permit faster than light travel from one place to another, again without breaking einsteins theorised laws, but alas, as usual its all just theory.

Some people seem to e getting upset with the "Einstein is a fake" link. In fact it was a question. "WAS Einstein a fake?"
I am not saying he is a fake (not in context of this thread anyway) but I am saying his SoL theory can and should be questioned.
It is as though as soon as he announced the theory walls went up for everyone. "Einstein said therefore is must be true, so lets stop looking any further"

Originally posted by Shadow_Lord
Just looking through, I thought I would post a couple things. I saw where it says light is part particle and part wave. That is not correct. Light takes on the properties of both a particle and a wave, depending on the situation.

Lots of talk about Einsteins relativity. Special relativity is still a theory, but as theories go, it is going under testing to see if it is a law or not. While it cannot be considered a law, it is still a theory that has not been proved wrong yet, and has predicted many things that we have found to be true.

Another quick note about relativity. Explaining relativity to someone who does not understand physics, is like trying to explain music to someone who is deaf.

Light has mass. Particles that have even less mass than photons can travel faster. ....

Good going until this point. Light is an EM wave, electric and magnetic fields. Photons are massless particles.

To add, the orbit of mercury has also vindicated special relativity.

Originally posted by VIKINGANT
Some people seem to e getting upset with the "Einstein is a fake" link. In fact it was a question. "WAS Einstein a fake?"
I am not saying he is a fake (not in context of this thread anyway) but I am saying his SoL theory can and should be questioned.
It is as though as soon as he announced the theory walls went up for everyone. "Einstein said therefore is must be true, so lets stop looking any further"

That's only true for people who don't have the mind to pursue his work any furthur. I say, forget about the outspoken few who get this attention, instead, look into the work of John Dering, Gabriel Kron, and Dr James Corum who are some of the other great minds of our time, trying to unravel the mysteries of Einstein's Unified Field Theory.

AFAIK, which is not much, the postulate that nothing can move faster than light is simply an assumption that holds for special relativity. Any frame of reference will always experience light traveling at C0 (speed of light in vacuum), therefore it will always have to contend with this barrier. The problem is that Maxwell's equations require the constant to hold no matter what speed the frame of reference is moving at or accelerating.

And since this has held the theory together which in turn has been experimentally been proven, until Mr. Spock comes along and rips through subspace, we will just have to believe the limit applies.

However, as someone else stated before, that if an existing frame of reference is already travelling above C0, the upper barrier to speed limit will not apply. However, such an environment will have a lower limit, i.e. cannot travel slower than C0.

Corrections are always welcome.

Why do scientists think that if you break the SOL barrier that you will go back in time? How are time and light related.

To me it seems that if you took off from a spot next to a stationary light source and broke the SOL then all you would do is pass the photons/ waves from the light source and it would "Seem" like you left before the light was turned on but in all actuality you wouldn't have gone back in time you just passed the photons/ waves that left at the same time you did.

Kind of like breaking the sound barrier (which at one time everyone said couldn't be broken, but Chuck proved them wrong) you just pass the sound that you make and it sounds like it did before you left, as long as you stay ahead of the pressure wave.

As long as you stay ahead of the particles/ waves of light it would look like the light never got turned on. I'm just rambling, sorry.

I just don't understand. Guess I have a long way to go to deny ignorance. But I will try

[edit on 3/25/2008 by Warlon]

No dude you are right on ...at least I think so. That is proper thinking. I like how these sceneros really open up the mind.

If something moves faster then the speed of light I think its just that, faster and thats it.

Object at point A gets to object at ponit B and C faster then the speed of which light travels and or for this matter is traveling at (SOL alternating..etc) The object should get to points B and C before the light (traveling wave) from the light source gets to the object. In essance it would be literal....invisible...as in not visible..as in the object got to and left point B before the light wave could shine on it and reflect back in our eyes.

Light is just like any other wave. Makes sense. I not sure how matter ACTUALY REALLY does play a REAL role. I understand the theorys but I think there is an added unnecesary componet or there is something missing.
Concerning acceleration and G's I think we are forgetting basic theory that if all objects move relatively together at the same rate then there should be no prob.

In fact G's occur only when other parts of the componets resist movement. If all componets can tie in....zip.

This might sound crazy but experienced these physics through skateboarding. There is a way where you can gain control over your mass where the existing force from your movement and mass get dis-placed and things that would normally have a hold on you are now energy for your liking. I know.

[edit on 25-3-2008 by Stella Lotus]