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.

 

Faster-than-light 'tachyons' might be impossible after all

page: 2
7
<< 1   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 19 2009 @ 05:20 AM
link   

Originally posted by Edrick

So, if we were to convert one ton of matter directly into photons (via E=mc^2) and if photons have NO mass...

Then where did the objects mass go?



Good question.

How would you contain the photons?

More importantly;

Do you have any information pertaining to whether or not such a conversion would result in the converted object undergoing a relative increase or decrease in volume?




posted on Mar, 19 2009 @ 05:24 AM
link   

Originally posted by sunny_2008ny

Do you have any info on any workable anti-gravity/ artificial gravity devices that have been invented, if any?


Check out American Anti-Gravity.

Also, here are some physicists to google: Bruce De Palma, Ning Li, Podkletnov

[edit on 19-3-2009 by Exuberant1]



posted on Mar, 19 2009 @ 10:16 AM
link   
reply to post by LeaderOfProgress
 


Sorry, it wasn't incomplete sentences; it was a lack of puncutation which made a sentence confusing.

It can be proven it is not just the same as it can be proven it is.


My bad.

Like I said, light doesn't fit the bill of matter given its normal definition but it more than likely is made up of something with an infantisimle amount of mass. I'm pretty sure of this because black holes bend light. If gravity affects light, then it must have mass.
Plants use it for energy during photosynthesis, therefore light is energy which can be converted into other types of energy.
I understand the debate because light is a wave, and waves aren't matter. But like I said, light is something you kinda have to make exceptions for.


Sorry I was being kind of a douche bag last night, I was to everyone.



posted on Mar, 19 2009 @ 10:36 AM
link   
Time does not exist. What exists is perception. Thats all.

A person who travels faster than the speed of light would not go back in time. The only thing that would alter is the perception of that person to reflections of light.

A person is somehow able to build a ship that can go faster than the speed of light. He sets off away from earth going faster than light speed. The earth would appear to move backwards because the reflection of light to that person would be slower than the actual event.

In reality the earth would be in the exact same position, time would keep moving forward at the same rate but the appearance of the earth would shift due to the distance of space between the person going faster than light and the reflection of that light off of the earth.

The same with alleged tachyons. They only appear to go back in time due to reflections of light. The same principal can be seen when an aircraft flies overhead and you hear the engines of the aircraft long after the aircraft has moved away from the sound.



posted on Mar, 19 2009 @ 10:37 AM
link   
Gravity is NOT faster than light. In the last year or so they released a 700 million dollar satellite that detected how fast gravity moves and it moves at the speed of light. If the sun were to disappear, it would take 8 minutes for the earth to not receieve the light, and it would take 8 minutes for us to not be revolving around the image of the sun.

Same speeds.



posted on Mar, 19 2009 @ 10:37 AM
link   
Gravity is NOT faster than light. In the last year or so they released a 700 million dollar satellite that detected how fast gravity moves and it moves at the speed of light. If the sun were to disappear, it would take 8 minutes for the earth to not receieve the light, and it would take 8 minutes for us to not be revolving around the image of the sun.

Same speeds.



posted on Mar, 19 2009 @ 11:00 AM
link   
Ok, reguarding anti gravity...

If gravity is a product of mass.

And mass is the concentration of energy, then it SHOULD logically be possible to create an ANTI-gravitational effect using electromagnetism.

Furthermore... Gravity does NOT bend light... Gravity bends space, and light follows a STRAIGHT path through curved spacetime.


Also, if energy (matter) can bend SPACE-TIME, then perhapse our conception of space time as a grid that particles flow freely upon is an incorrect concept.

I rather prefer the Space-Time Metric's that describe the forces of the universe as geometric representations of a multi-dimensional awareness.

For example... WHERE, and WHAT are magnetic feild lines?


-Edrick



posted on Mar, 19 2009 @ 02:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by Exuberant1
Now that tachyons are scathed off the list, does anyone know of any contenders?

What other particle could be made to travel at supraluminal speeds?





There's always a possibility that CERN will discover something out of the ordinary that could lead to anything from novel space propulsion to a clean, inexhaustible source of energy.

Besides that, none of our current ideas look to be feasible in the foreseeable future. We know that warp drives and wormholes are theoretically possible, but the math says they require tremendous amounts of energy and we really don't even know where to start.

But as far as "anti-gravity" goes, I'd keep an eye out for so called frame-dragging experiments such as those performed by Martin Tajmar. They could possibly lead to a breakthrough, although his experiment hasn't been replicated yet.



posted on Mar, 19 2009 @ 03:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by whatukno
Time does not exist. What exists is perception. Thats all.


Bingo.

Time is, in fact, illusory. It is a construct of perceptual variances against a framework of space.

One can only 'appear' to travel at a rate 'faster than the speed of light' by manipulating the nature of space.

It may well be that gravity is inherently intertwined with the framework and thus appears to be related to time from one relativistic perspective.

Oh, this is way beyond me to explain in a thread. I need a chalk board.



posted on Mar, 19 2009 @ 03:45 PM
link   
reply to post by Edrick
 


E=mc^2

You cannot really take a formula for granted completely. I have a theory myself that the einstein formula is missing something , that in normal conditions is equal to 1 (or 0 depending on the operation)

So let's say E=(m*c^2)/x or E=(m*c^2)*x , where x=1 in normal conditions
or : E=(m*c^2)+x or E=(m*c^2)-x , where x=0 in normal conditions.

So let's imagine 0 or 1 is what we get in most situations , making einstein's formula completely true in normal situations.

What would happen if we could somehow meddle with x?



posted on Mar, 20 2009 @ 03:40 AM
link   

Originally posted by Roufas
reply to post by Edrick
 


E=mc^2

You cannot really take a formula for granted completely. I have a theory myself that the einstein formula is missing something , that in normal conditions is equal to 1 (or 0 depending on the operation)

So let's say E=(m*c^2)/x or E=(m*c^2)*x , where x=1 in normal conditions
or : E=(m*c^2)+x or E=(m*c^2)-x , where x=0 in normal conditions.

So let's imagine 0 or 1 is what we get in most situations , making einstein's formula completely true in normal situations.

What would happen if we could somehow meddle with x?



You are talking about messing with the second law of thermodynamics.

If you could change "X" you could convert matter to more energy than normal, then convert that energy to more matter than normal, and eventually nd up with orders of magnitude more enegy than was originally in the system.

Dosent really jive with our current understanding of physics and entropy.

If, however you were to gain this energy from otherwise unknown aspects of space-time (such as anouther dimensional manifestation of reality) then it COULD be possible to achieve this type of "Over-Unity" as since it gains energy from somewhere else, it would not really be over unity, just "Non-Visible-Over-Unity"

-Edrick



posted on Mar, 20 2009 @ 12:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by Edrick

You are talking about messing with the second law of thermodynamics.


Quantum physics and the mere presence of a "frame-dragging effect" implies that the universe is not a closed system.

That by the factoring in of rotation, many hitherto unsolvable anomalies have been explained also implies this. From where does the energy comes from.

Anomalies that present when certain superconductive particles are accelerated and collided also indicate that our universe is not a closed system.

*I wouldn't throw away the second law of thermodynamics yet, but I wouldn't let it limit my exploration of the possibilities within our quantum universe.



posted on Mar, 20 2009 @ 12:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by Exuberant1

Originally posted by Edrick

You are talking about messing with the second law of thermodynamics.


Quantum physics and the mere presence of a "frame-dragging effect" implies that the universe is not a closed system.

That by the factoring in of rotation, many hitherto unsolvable anomalies have been explained also implies this. From where does the energy comes from.

Anomalies that present when certain superconductive particles are accelerated and collided also indicate that our universe is not a closed system.

*I wouldn't throw away the second law of thermodynamics yet, but I wouldn't let it limit my exploration of the possibilities within our quantum universe.


Yes, that is my point...

That there are more dimensions that the classical 3 spacial, and 1 temporal.

This is what I meant by Non-Visible-Over-Unity


-Edrick



new topics

top topics



 
7
<< 1   >>

log in

join