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: 8
10
<< 5  6  7    9  10  11 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 17 2008 @ 09:02 PM
link   
As you approach the speed of light, your mass approaches infinity also.
This is why you would need an infinite supply of energy to accelerate and equal the speed of light. Not very practical.

Modern wormhole theory sidesteps this phenomena by recognizing:


  1. e=mc^2
  2. c is the velocity of light
  3. velocity=distance traveled * time
  4. if you remove time from the equation (somehow) than you have instantaneous travel with no limitations
  5. The key to controlling interstellar travel is controlling the flow of time.


Therefore since gravity controls the flow of time, creating a gravitational worm hole allows you to travel faster than light at any rate, without the need for infinite energy.

This is as simple as I can state our current understanding of the problem.




posted on May, 18 2008 @ 05:19 PM
link   
reply to post by mdiinican
 



Yes I am sorry, I forgot your knowledge is still so far behind. I shouldn't of asked that question untill about the year 2020, then maybe you would understand what I am talking about. LOL.



posted on May, 19 2008 @ 05:00 AM
link   

Originally posted by ALLis0NE
reply to post by mdiinican
 



Yes I am sorry, I forgot your knowledge is still so far behind. I shouldn't of asked that question untill about the year 2020, then maybe you would understand what I am talking about. LOL.


You can shove your "advanced knowledge" where the sun don't shine. If you don't know simple things like the EM spectrum, your knowledge is obviously false and useless. It's worse than disinformation, it's uninformation. People are literally more ignorant if they listen to you.

You think you're Trudeau or something?



posted on May, 19 2008 @ 10:32 AM
link   
reply to post by mdiinican
 



Originally posted by mdiinican
You can shove your "advanced knowledge" where the sun don't shine.


Why are you so mad? Lack of intelligence? Seems to be the only reason...

Here let me put you in your place:


Wikipedia
"The speed of light when it passes through a transparent or translucent material medium, like glass or air, is less than its speed in a vacuum."


Did you know the above quote is true? Now think, why would visible light travel slower than gamma-rays?




[edit on 19-5-2008 by ALLis0NE]



posted on May, 19 2008 @ 10:43 AM
link   
reply to post by Warlon
 


In particle physics we are told that the mass increases as speed
approaches light speed.

Apparently Tesla disagreed with the theories of Einstein.

Tesla wrote a magazine article on the Ven de Graaff static generator
pointing out its deficiencies. Being mechanical and all that.
Tesla used ac coils to make static electrically.

Tesla was always finding new rays and particles, X ray for example, and
thought that with enough voltage a particle would go faster than light.
Only light or EM is limited to the viscosity of the ether.
The old mechanical analog describing light.

World wide transmission through the earth going faster then light,
only 1.5 c, was ac static or particles and not EM radiation.



posted on May, 19 2008 @ 10:49 AM
link   

Originally posted by ALLis0NE
reply to post by mdiinican
 



Originally posted by mdiinican
You can shove your "advanced knowledge" where the sun don't shine.


Why are you so mad? Lack of intelligence? Seems to be the only reason...

Here let me put you in your place:


Wikipedia
"The speed of light when it passes through a transparent or translucent material medium, like glass or air, is less than its speed in a vacuum."


Did you know the above quote is true? Now think, why would visible light travel slower than gamma-rays?




[edit on 19-5-2008 by ALLis0NE]


Gamma-rays have a higher frequency and slip through the ether and
material of matter with greater ease.

The ether does not seem to slow the higher energy higher frequency
ray.
Alpha ray being a particle though.



posted on May, 19 2008 @ 01:57 PM
link   
reply to post by ALLis0NE
 


If you're getting at why visible light travels slower through, say, a prism than gamma rays do, I suggest you look up refractive index.

[edit on 19-5-2008 by nataylor]



posted on May, 19 2008 @ 05:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by TeslaandLyne

Gamma-rays have a higher frequency and slip through the ether and
material of matter with greater ease.

The ether does not seem to slow the higher energy higher frequency
ray.
Alpha ray being a particle though.




Gamma rays travel at the same speed as light, c, and no faster (in a vaccuum.) They might travel faster through substances, but that's just a factor of optical properties. Different frequencies of light (and EM in general) have different indexes of refraction. Gamma rays, x-rays, radio, microwaves, IR, UV, and light are fundamentally the same type of phenomena.

It doesn't matter here, though, because we're talking about exceeding the speed of light, which I for one, take to mean the fundamental constant c as measured in a perfect vaccuum, and not, say, the speed of light in maple syrup. (it is perfectly possible to have objects exceed the speed of light in a non-vaccuum medium, and it releases Cerenkov radiation.)

Alpha radiation and beta radiation are indeed particles, and their energy varies depending on the circumstance of their creation. Alpha rays are actually helium nuclei, and beta rays are fast moving stray electrons. They don't have anything to do with the speed of light, though, except that they can't exceed it. They aren't similar to light or gamma rays.



posted on May, 20 2008 @ 03:53 PM
link   
reply to post by mdiinican
 


There is speculation that Tesla extracted neutrinos or some unknown
particle from aluminum.

Tesla can work with 30 million volts so not being familiar with this
activity level... I know that electrons were made to beam in TV tubes.
The Electron tube heated the cathode to lower the voltage or work
function to release electrons from metal.

Metal gives off free electrons in proportion to the square of the
electric field, so high voltage is needed.

X rays must take high voltage, a result of particle bombardment, but
30 M V might rip out some unusual particles.

ED: So gamma ray has the speed of light but the higher frequency
and energy level lets it pass through more material.



[edit on 5/20/2008 by TeslaandLyne]



posted on May, 24 2008 @ 02:39 AM
link   
In nuclear reactors the electrons coming out of the core travel faster than the speed of the light and then they release a gamma when they slow down, to slower than the speed of light speeds. If electrons can travel faster than the speed of light than why not larger things?



posted on May, 24 2008 @ 05:02 AM
link   

Originally posted by nuker123
In nuclear reactors the electrons coming out of the core travel faster than the speed of the light and then they release a gamma when they slow down, to slower than the speed of light speeds. If electrons can travel faster than the speed of light than why not larger things?


Because it's traveling faster than the speed of light *IN WATER* (and generally, the particles give off ultraviolet and blue visual light, not gamma rays, but I'm sure it could happen with enough energy involved). The speed of light in a vaccuum is the only speed of light that matters to this discussion.

The speed of light in anything other than hard vaccuum isn't relevant, because light isn't actually traveling any slower in those substances than it is in hard vaccuum. It's just taking a more complicated path, involving being absorbed and re-emitted by the atoms that make up the substance that it's traveling through.

So really, the particle is just traveling though water faster than light can get through water, but it's still going noticeably slower than light itself. The radiation emitted by the particle as it passes through a medium faster than the speed of light in it is called cerenkov radiation.

The speed of light in any given substance ins't relevant to any of the interesting properties given to the fundamental constant c given as the speed of light in a vacuum. Speeds of light in other materials just give rise to optical properties like refraction.



posted on May, 24 2008 @ 03:03 PM
link   
Earlier I asked a simple question:

Faster than visible light or faster than gamma rays?

If you stick to Einsteins theories, you and the entire world will be still stuck on 1950's knowledge. Sorry it is now the year 2008. While you are stuck in 1950's knowledge, you THINK you understand "gravity", "electricity", and "light" but the truth is you don't have a clue what it is.

The reason I asked if you are talking about faster that visible light, or faster than gamma ray's, is because their FREQUENCY is a property of SPEED.

Some stupid reason you people think frequency and speed are two different things, well you are wrong. You also think electromagnetic radiation is a wave, THAT is wrong. Some reason, you see up,down,up,down,up,down and your stupid human mind thinks OH it looks like a WAVE!

Well, you have been wrong for so many years because of your perspective on life. Light is a collection of many many particles. These particles are NOT traveling up,down,up,down like a wave, they are traveling is a spiral, with a right hand twist. Because of the fact that YOU and most researchers only look at light from the side perspective, you only see up,down,up,down, when in reality the particle is traveling in a spiral.

Get your finger and trace an imaginary circle in the air, over, and over, in a right hand twist. Then view your arm from the side while tracing that circle. Your hand will appear to be moving up,down,up,down.

So you see, when the frequency of light is higher, the particles are actually making MORE REVOLUTIONS PER MINUTE (RPMS), meaning they ARE traveling faster.

I don't understand how your science belief system can pretend that light, no matter what frequency, goes the same speed. How can something with the frequency of 10 travel the same speed as something with a frequency of 5? Something has to move faster to get the extra 5 in.

If I stick to your beliefs, all I can imagine is a floating ball on top of water which has waves, and the ball is kind of anchored down to the ground. When there are less waves (low frequency) that ball moves slowly on top of the waves. But when there are many waves (high frequency) that ball is going to be moving up and down really fast to make it over all the waves in a short amount of TIME. So the ball is moving faster, the surface water is moving faster, but the waves are going the same speed?? That doesn't work.

Light is not traveling in a straight line, in a wave pattern. It is traveling in a spiral or like a barrel roll. So the frequency is a direct property of its speed. Just like the rpm's determine and engines speed.

It's ok I don't expect your level of understanding to ever reach mine.



posted on May, 24 2008 @ 03:27 PM
link   
I made this illustration to show you what you might be learning in a few years from text books.




posted on May, 24 2008 @ 03:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by ALLis0NE
Earlier I asked a simple question:

Faster than visible light or faster than gamma rays?

If you stick to Einsteins theories, you and the entire world will be still stuck on 1950's knowledge. Sorry it is now the year 2008. While you are stuck in 1950's knowledge, you THINK you understand "gravity", "electricity", and "light" but the truth is you don't have a clue what it is.

The reason I asked if you are talking about faster that visible light, or faster than gamma ray's, is because their FREQUENCY is a property of SPEED.

Some stupid reason you people think frequency and speed are two different things, well you are wrong. You also think electromagnetic radiation is a wave, THAT is wrong. Some reason, you see up,down,up,down,up,down and your stupid human mind thinks OH it looks like a WAVE!

Well, you have been wrong for so many years because of your perspective on life. Light is a collection of many many particles. These particles are NOT traveling up,down,up,down like a wave, they are traveling is a spiral, with a right hand twist. Because of the fact that YOU and most researchers only look at light from the side perspective, you only see up,down,up,down, when in reality the particle is traveling in a spiral.

Get your finger and trace an imaginary circle in the air, over, and over, in a right hand twist. Then view your arm from the side while tracing that circle. Your hand will appear to be moving up,down,up,down.

So you see, when the frequency of light is higher, the particles are actually making MORE REVOLUTIONS PER MINUTE (RPMS), meaning they ARE traveling faster.

I don't understand how your science belief system can pretend that light, no matter what frequency, goes the same speed. How can something with the frequency of 10 travel the same speed as something with a frequency of 5? Something has to move faster to get the extra 5 in.

If I stick to your beliefs, all I can imagine is a floating ball on top of water which has waves, and the ball is kind of anchored down to the ground. When there are less waves (low frequency) that ball moves slowly on top of the waves. But when there are many waves (high frequency) that ball is going to be moving up and down really fast to make it over all the waves in a short amount of TIME. So the ball is moving faster, the surface water is moving faster, but the waves are going the same speed?? That doesn't work.

Light is not traveling in a straight line, in a wave pattern. It is traveling in a spiral or like a barrel roll. So the frequency is a direct property of its speed. Just like the rpm's determine and engines speed.

It's ok I don't expect your level of understanding to ever reach mine.



You're very rude. Furthermore, You're incorrect. Radio can come in kilohertz or even lower frequencies, whereas light comes in teraherts. It's trivially simple, however, to create experiments that measure the speed of radio, and it's the same as the speed of light.



posted on May, 24 2008 @ 04:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by mdiinican
You're very rude. Furthermore, You're incorrect. Radio can come in kilohertz or even lower frequencies, whereas light comes in teraherts. It's trivially simple, however, to create experiments that measure the speed of radio, and it's the same as the speed of light.


I don't think you understand... let me clarify.

First off, lets clarify 0ne thing. Radio waves, microwaves, terahertz radiation, infrared radiation, visible light, ultraviolet radiation, X-rays and gamma rays are all THE SAME THING. They are all "light". The only difference is the "frequency" which is the number of "waves" within a specific time.

Now tell me. Isn't the shortest distance between two places a straight line? I'm sure it is..

Look at the image below. Imagine car A, and car B, started the exact same time. Now imagine car A, and car B, arriving at the finish line at the exact same time. Which car do you think had to travel faster in order for them to both arrive at the same time?



The answer is A, because car A had a longer distance to travel then B. If they both arrive at the same time, that means A was going faster than B. Right?

Car A = Gamma Rays
Car B = Radio Waves


I find it rude when people act like Parrots. Repeating words they don't even understand that was handed to them from someone else.

Polly want a cracker?



[edit on 24-5-2008 by ALLis0NE]

[edit on 24-5-2008 by ALLis0NE]



posted on May, 27 2008 @ 11:41 AM
link   
Wow. I'll take the one line post. QFD.



posted on May, 27 2008 @ 03:58 PM
link   
reply to post by ALLis0NE
 


You can't say the speed of sound changes with the frequency, and that is a wave...but it does change with the medium.

Methinks you have polarization mixed up with EM propogation. It is the properties of space/time that determine the speed of light.

Oh, and btw the knowledge is from the beginning of the 20th century, not the 50s/60s.

Unfortunately I do not have the time to argue these points with you. You will have to accept my word as gospel truth or arrive at a more complete understanding.



posted on May, 28 2008 @ 02:13 AM
link   
I am curious.. why is this all not general knowledge and widely accepted? (yet?)



posted on May, 30 2008 @ 12:27 AM
link   
reply to post by ALLis0NE
 


Car A travels farther. That's not the direction the light is moving however. Looking at your diagram the light would be moving north/south. Those peaks are part of the wave which is moving forward at "c". Unless you're chosing to ignore our current model of light in which case I have no comment.



posted on Jun, 10 2008 @ 02:29 PM
link   
reply to post by downtown436
 


Yes, they have made electrons travel faster the the speed of light, but it was in water, vs, the speed of light in water.



new topics

top topics



 
10
<< 5  6  7    9  10  11 >>

log in

join