It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

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: 5
10
share:

posted on Mar, 26 2008 @ 09:02 AM

...Light has mass. ...

If light had mass, then as it approached the speed of light in a vacuum, it would have infinite mass. This appears not to be the case.

For those of you that think we can never go faster than the speed of light, remember this: The day before the wright brothers flew for the first time, a SCIENTIFIC PAPER was published that explained how heavier than air travel was impossible. (On a related note, how many people realize it took the Wright brothers YEARS to get people to believe they weren't a hoax?)

[edit on 26-3-2008 by sir_chancealot]

posted on Mar, 26 2008 @ 09:04 AM

I think I'm wrong, although i was talking from an outsied perspective, a viewer if you will watching someone travel from point A to B. But the points aren't in motion, and therefore are a constant for light (right?) the object travelling is the variable, that would surpass light, and would therefore 'appear' invisible?

confused myself a little there

posted on Mar, 26 2008 @ 09:07 AM

Great points (didn't realise they were known as hoaxes). If light had mass, then wouldn't this contradict the 'theory of relativity'? unless light is always relative to it's environment...

just trying to clarify.

thanks. EMM

posted on Mar, 26 2008 @ 09:11 AM
How exactly do those vacuum sealed light-vanes work again?

One side is black, the other white, you put it in sunlight and the vane spins inside the vacuum.

posted on Mar, 26 2008 @ 09:33 AM

Hi. Good luck with your schooling.

I would suggest or hope that you would consider taking a minor in 'making paragraphs', as I would like to be able to read your erudite missives. (j/k)

As far as going faster than light, the answer may not be in the realm of 'physical travel'.

If a 2-D being is picked up and put down outside his house, he thinks 'I thought it was impossible to go through walls!'

But truth is, he didn't go through the wall, he merely was rotated into another dimension by a 3-Dimensional being.

Remember the question is 'can we travel faster than the speed of light'. It is, for the most part, a nonsensical question.

Though there might be a way to go from point A to point B in less time than a light beam or photon stream moving through space takes, it is not likely to be on a 'vessel' (or Wessel as Checkov might say) using some kind of propulsion.

Also for those who are making bold statements about special relativity or general relativity, it might be helpful to preface your comments with a short comment or reference as to your basic understanding of what that is.

Likewise, those making a bold statement, such as 'photons have mass' should endeavor to reference their proof of this.

Though photons are demonstrated to exert a gravitational attraction on other objects and they themselves are affected by gravity, their mass at rest is 0.
Photon @ Wiki

This would contribute to keeping the quality of the information in this thread at a high standard, which I'm sure we all desire.

posted on Mar, 26 2008 @ 11:07 AM

I still don't quite understand it either but I originally read it in Timothy Ferris' book "The Whole Shebang: a State of the Universes Report"... 1999 or 2000 if I recall correctly.

I am currently at the library so I don't have access to my copy but in it he states that in essence the speed of light is a "localized" phenomona between objects, say two stars or a nearby galaxy and earth at the same time that these objects are being carried along by the galactic masses at speeds in excess of the speed of light.

I have posted the entire quote in other threads on similar subjects.

posted on Mar, 26 2008 @ 11:58 AM

Originally posted by ElectroMagnetic Multivers

I think I'm wrong, although i was talking from an outsied perspective, a viewer if you will watching someone travel from point A to B. But the points aren't in motion, and therefore are a constant for light (right?) the object travelling is the variable, that would surpass light, and would therefore 'appear' invisible?

confused myself a little there

Not sure what you mean exactly. If a vessel was to travel faster than the speed of light, the observation would be a mix. If the vessel was travelling away, then the light would not reflect off the vessel. If the vessel was travelling perpendicular, or towards to the light source, then the light would distort and scatter. Think of standing on a road, and a car is travelling at a constant speed. As the car approaches, it sounds as though the car is louder, and is accelerating, then as the car passes the sound begins to quiet and normalize.

posted on Mar, 26 2008 @ 12:00 PM

Originally posted by gottago
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.

I think you're misstating this.

If Einstein were blind he might try to -define- the speed of light in terms of sound, (maybe using MACH numbers).

But it makes no sense to say it the way you did, at least to me. Blind or not light and sound a little too disparate to allow for easy measure of one in terms of the speed of the other, or whatever you're saying. We're talking 300,000kps in a vacuum vs 1193 kph at sea level.

Maybe I'm not following you.

On the Russian experments, I'd have to see the data and the parameters of the experiment. They like to 'psychology' experiments in the guise of physics and science, but sometimes they're reaching, ime.

posted on Mar, 26 2008 @ 12:23 PM

Though there might be a way to go from point A to point B in less time than a light beam or photon stream moving through space takes, it is not likely to be on a 'vessel' (or Wessel as Checkov might say) using some kind of propulsion.

Also for those who are making bold statements about special relativity or general relativity, it might be helpful to preface your comments with a short comment or reference as to your basic understanding of what that is.

Likewise, those making a bold statement, such as 'photons have mass' should endeavor to reference their proof of this.

Though photons are demonstrated to exert a gravitational attraction on other objects and they themselves are affected by gravity, their mass at rest is 0.

First, with common sense.. if light had no mass then the principle of taking a film negative to make a photograph expose wouldn't work. Light is a form of photon radiation, within our visual spectrum. Refer to discoveries and laws by Max Planck.

When ultra-violet rays fall on a piece of metal in a vacuum, a large number of electrons are shot off from the metal at a high velocity, and since the magnitude of this velocity does not essentially depend on the state of the metal, certainly not on its temperature, it is concluded that the energy of the electrons is not derived from the metal, but from the light rays which fall on the metal.
www-groups.dcs.st-and.ac.uk...

If you expect to be told that there's a such thing as weighing light, then you'd be right in assuming light has no mass, because that statement is false.

Gravitational propulsion cannot cannot be achieved through the theories of General Relativity, but through a Unified Field Theory. Just Google-search "Unified Field Theory", voila. There are no case studies supporting the Unified Field Theory, as with the atom bomb supporting Relativity. Attempts have been made with the Nazi-Bell experiment, and the Philidelphia Experiment. If you want information on a purely theoritical basis, look up: www.boblazar.com...

For some good visuals, and documentation about experiments of today, and interesting website to visit is: www.americanantigravity.com...

posted on Mar, 26 2008 @ 02:12 PM

Originally posted by sir_chancealot

...Light has mass. ...

If light had mass, then as it approached the speed of light in a vacuum, it would have infinite mass. This appears not to be the case.

For those of you that think we can never go faster than the speed of light, remember this: The day before the wright brothers flew for the first time, a SCIENTIFIC PAPER was published that explained how heavier than air travel was impossible. (On a related note, how many people realize it took the Wright brothers YEARS to get people to believe they weren't a hoax?)

[edit on 26-3-2008 by sir_chancealot]

I kinda believe both on this. I do believe that photons DO infact have mass, but I don't believe that as an object aproches the SOL that the objects mass becomes infinate.

posted on Mar, 26 2008 @ 02:12 PM

Originally posted by sir_chancealot

...Light has mass. ...

If light had mass, then as it approached the speed of light in a vacuum, it would have infinite mass. This appears not to be the case.

For those of you that think we can never go faster than the speed of light, remember this: The day before the wright brothers flew for the first time, a SCIENTIFIC PAPER was published that explained how heavier than air travel was impossible. (On a related note, how many people realize it took the Wright brothers YEARS to get people to believe they weren't a hoax?)

[edit on 26-3-2008 by sir_chancealot]

I kinda believe both on this. I do believe that photons DO infact have mass, but I don't believe that as an object aproches the SOL that the objects mass becomes infinate.

posted on Mar, 26 2008 @ 02:32 PM
As a continuance to my previous post:
This post is devided in two parts Mass question, and time travel question.

MASS QUESTION:
If the "Mass aproching infinety = infinate mass" (Hereafter refered to as MAI) theory is correct then why is it that photons don't hit you like the proverbial "truck" and/or blow straight through you? If this theory is correct then wouldn't photons from ordinary sun light or lamp light or any other light source erode you on the sub-atomic level? If something with infinate mass hits a relatively stationary object, i.e. the atoms in my body, my car, etc.., then wouldn't the objects with the larger mass anihalate (sp) the lower mass object? (Photons having the larger mass because of the MAI theory, and my atoms having less mass because of slower speeds)

When I start thinking about this and trying to make all of the pieces fit (which they can't) why do I smell burning batteries?

If I understand things that I have read about relativity and such, and if the MAI theory is infact bogus then all we would need to acheive higher than SOL speeds in a vacume is a propulsion system that has an exit velocity of greater than SOL, like a graviton drive. (Haven't scientists theorized/ proven that gravitons move faster than SOL?).

TIME TRAVEL QUESTION:
Also If you had two watches that were sincronised (SP) and left one at the the aforementioned (in previous posts) lightsource, and traveled say 15 light minutes away, when you stoped you transmitted your time back to your friend that you left behind, via a sub-space transceiver (thank you Startrek) or other device that would transmit instantly across the cosmos, the time that your friend received from you and the watch he has would be exactly the same time? Right? Even though, as you look back, it appears that the light that you switched on yourself as you left doesn't turn on for 15 minutes? Am I understanding this right?

If so, then why do scientists feel that your clock would say a time that is exactly 15 minutes behind your friends? Where does the time travel come in?

Is someone cooking batteries?

[edit on 3/26/2008 by Warlon]

posted on Mar, 26 2008 @ 02:34 PM
sorry for the previous double post

posted on Mar, 26 2008 @ 02:43 PM

Though photons are demonstrated to exert a gravitational attraction on other objects and they themselves are affected by gravity, their mass at rest is 0.
Photon @ Wiki

My apologies if I come off as unschooled. I just don't know as much as I would like about this subject, and I don't understand how one scientist states that this is absolute and another says the same thing when they contridict (sp) each other.

If the MAI theory is true, then wouldn't all things at rest (say 0 degrees Kelvin) have no mass? Just a thought.

Also how can something that has no mass be effected by gravity? Isn't gravity defined as the force acting to attract two objects, and proportional to their MASS? Wouldn't they have to have mass to be effected by gravity?

Are those batteries done yet?

[edit on 3/26/2008 by Warlon]

posted on Mar, 26 2008 @ 06:46 PM

About your time travel question:The reason both clocks would be the same if you used a "subspace" signal is because subspace is not in this dimension it is in another one w/o our laws.So therefor one would send a signal in that dimension the same way the craft in "startrek"warp space-thus the laws of physics of THIS dimension(universe)do not apply.If that signal were sent in "real"space than realitivity would occur.

Now as for the definition of gravity:

Gravitation is a natural phenomenon by which all objects with mass attract each other, and is one of the fundamental forces of physics. In everyday life, gravitation is most commonly thought of as the agency that gives objects weight. It is responsible for keeping the Earth and the other planets in their orbits around the Sun; for keeping the Moon in its orbit around the Earth, for the formation of tides; for convection (by which hot fluids rise); for heating the interiors of forming stars and planets to very high temperatures; and for various other phenomena that we observe. Gravitation is also the reason for the very existence of the Earth, the Sun, and most macroscopic objects in the universe; without it, matter would not have coalesced into these large masses and life, as we know it, would not exist.

As far as Photon mass:

The invariant mass, intrinsic mass, proper mass or just mass is a characteristic of the total energy and momentum of an object or a system of objects that is the same in all frames of reference. When the system as a whole is at rest, the invariant mass is equal to the total energy of the system divided by c2, which is equal to the mass of the system as measured on a scale. If the system is one particle, the invariant mass is called the rest mass.
Wikipedia

posted on Mar, 27 2008 @ 09:25 AM
My issue with being told of a limitation at the speed of light is as follows :

Relative to what?

If the entire universe is thought to be all moving in one direction at a set speed, you can add to that set speed by moving through it yourself in the same direction... if EVERYTHING is moving, then relative to everything you have broken no laws.

Essentially you can't have a set speed without something to base it on. So what is the speed of light to be set by?

If it were set by your closest object, it could be an asteroid, bring that up to near light speed with you, and suddenly you can achieve almost double light speed.

If it were the center of the universe, then who is to say the center of the universe isn't already moving.

Everything is relative to each other, measurements of time especially...

posted on Mar, 27 2008 @ 02:29 PM

Originally posted by johnsky
My issue with being told of a limitation at the speed of light is as follows :

Relative to what?

If the entire universe is thought to be all moving in one direction at a set speed, you can add to that set speed by moving through it yourself in the same direction... if EVERYTHING is moving, then relative to everything you have broken no laws.

Essentially you can't have a set speed without something to base it on. So what is the speed of light to be set by?

If it were set by your closest object, it could be an asteroid, bring that up to near light speed with you, and suddenly you can achieve almost double light speed.

If it were the center of the universe, then who is to say the center of the universe isn't already moving.

Everything is relative to each other, measurements of time especially...

I agree, how is the SOL set? If the SOL is constant then, while you are on earth, traveling through space at 100,000 FPS (just pulling numbers out of the air, not sure the real speed) away from the core of our universe. Then you fired a light beam forward in your path (away from the universal core) and one behind, wouldn't the forward beam be moving at about 286,000 FPS and the trailing one at 86,000 FPS, because of the speed of the earth?
Wouldn't the forward beam be traveling at about 1 1/3 times the speed of light?

Batteries cooking again???

[edit on 3/27/2008 by Warlon]

posted on Mar, 27 2008 @ 02:39 PM

Originally posted by jkrog08

About your time travel question:The reason both clocks would be the same if you used a "subspace" signal is because subspace is not in this dimension it is in another one w/o our laws.So therefor one would send a signal in that dimension the same way the craft in "startrek"warp space-thus the laws of physics of THIS dimension(universe)do not apply.If that signal were sent in "real"space than realitivity would occur.

Now as for the definition of gravity:

Gravitation is a natural phenomenon by which all objects with mass attract each other, and is one of the fundamental forces of physics. In everyday life, gravitation is most commonly thought of as the agency that gives objects weight. It is responsible for keeping the Earth and the other planets in their orbits around the Sun; for keeping the Moon in its orbit around the Earth, for the formation of tides; for convection (by which hot fluids rise); for heating the interiors of forming stars and planets to very high temperatures; and for various other phenomena that we observe. Gravitation is also the reason for the very existence of the Earth, the Sun, and most macroscopic objects in the universe; without it, matter would not have coalesced into these large masses and life, as we know it, would not exist.

As far as Photon mass:

The invariant mass, intrinsic mass, proper mass or just mass is a characteristic of the total energy and momentum of an object or a system of objects that is the same in all frames of reference. When the system as a whole is at rest, the invariant mass is equal to the total energy of the system divided by c2, which is equal to the mass of the system as measured on a scale. If the system is one particle, the invariant mass is called the rest mass.
Wikipedia

Most of this reads like Japanese stereo instructions

I understand the "basic" explanation of gravity, but doesn't it also state that the effect of gravity is proportional to it's mass and inversly (sp) proportional to the distance between the objects? So if a object has no mass then it wouldn't be effected by gravity? Correct??

Also something that confuses me (lots of things do
) is if mass is effected by speed then why arn't things that are hot (a by-product of speed) more massive than things that are cold? Why couldn't we erase our mass by lowering our temp to 0 deg. Kelvin? Also why don't I weigh more when I am traveling at 500 MPH in a jet than I do standing still on earth?

Wow,
I think I just nuked the batteries AND the charger.

posted on Mar, 27 2008 @ 03:11 PM
I saw a video about this, theres an equation that says if you can travel at the speed of light, you can't EVER slow down. And if you've ever NOT traveled at the speed of light, you can never travel at the speed of light

[edit on 27-3-2008 by Damien_Hell]

posted on Mar, 27 2008 @ 03:28 PM
You are overthinking the SOL,you just CANNOT travel faster in real space,it sdoesnt matter if you beam something ahead or not,EVERYTHING at fastest 186,172mps(I believe that is the approximate #)Im sure adge will correct me if Im wrong,I didnt look at any source.Also gravity in relation to mass:Now you are going into extremly advandced theroritical quantum physics,but for your answer:If you say somthing w/ no mass can then travel FTL that is not true,you have to have mass to accel. to any speed,even neutrinos which at time(in curent theroy)"phase"in and out w/ mass,like I said you are now going into a VERY COMPLICATED SUBJECT,I will find some info and post it for you shortly.

new topics

top topics

10