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.

 

How to travel faser than light.

page: 1
7
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 8 2009 @ 05:24 PM
link   
I and a few others have been discussing this for some time and with some advice from some users here who have given me their opinions of my design, I've decided to make it a topic and ask for your feedback. This is both a feedback and opportunity for you to post your own ideas, as well as take mine and modify them. The story of my design basically goes with a thought experiment that I had and followed suit to ask a physicist on their opinions. Sadly he said he was still studying the subject at his university and not yet able to confirm them, but said they were interesting and possibly workable. So began my journey to ask people about the designs and get feed back. Thus far the feedback has been pretty good, and so I want to post it here. This is a reedited version of the original message. The images still have spelling errors that I'm too lazy to be bothered to fix. sorry


Imagine you create a cylinder, maybe twice as high as its radius, and then place within it a smaller version of the cylinder, and then charge these two to be very very negative. What material? I don;t know. Something that holds lots and lots of electrons, Probably a metal that can run electrons through it at enormous rates, or a nonmetal that can hold lots of electrons and make a heavy duty negative charge. This is a thought experiment, so just imagine that this material is producible (as it probably will be in a few years with the rate of technological advancements these years. but anyway, back to the cylinder. Fill the space between them with negative particles (anti protons maybe, or something with significant mass). We want something that can obey the ideal gas laws, but also be compacted easily, so anti-hydrogen seems ideal for usage. Now, e have a gas that is in a confined space, but not allowed to touch the cylinders due to electronic charge. Now what do we do? We make a superfluid and freeze them to the point that they super condense into a "hollow" black hole (with the inner cylinder being the hollow part). Now, make a row of these things, each rotating in opposite directions to the one next to them. Then, place bellow this another line, going opposite in rotation to those above them. The lower ones would have gravity stronger to the ones above so that the combined vectors would create Earth gravity (or they could be equal for 0 gravity, whatever). None the less, this creates an area under the influence of the gravity. The gravity should be only relative to the general area of the two groups, as gravity should be canceled out by their rotation and spins as you go farther out. What we're doing here is using gravity wells. However, it may be easier for us to use eliptic cylinders, rather than circular shapes ones. This enables us to create and destroy waves at levels within human control. The areas of larger radius have more gravity, smaller radius areas have les gravity, so we can create waves in the space-time continum just as we do in wave pools. Using this method, we'd need to use alternating patterns of gravity rings to make it so that the craft would be cut off from outside relativity. This is done through gravity valleys. Then we need to accelerate areas in the back of the craft. By doing this, impulse from the back is pushing the ship ahead of it with a lot more energy being put in. Taping the back of this area of accelerated time, would make it soom away at speeds faster han our relativity of light speed. Bug because of the gravity ring, it pulls everything within this temporal "bubble" with it. It would be like having a wind tunnel, of sorts. At this point, the ship is propelled forward and space around them warp so that the ship could travel faster then light relative to us, but not faster than light to its own relativity. Time should be affected so that the gravity "canyon"around the gravity hill and the rest of the universe is that you can move faster then light while not breaking the laws of the universe. If a photon hits the hill, it slows due to the slowing of time from gravity, ultimately coming to what we would see as a complete stop. If light cannot reach the item within the ring of gravity, then information cannot go faster than the paused light to tell the craft to go slower than light. The spin within, however, should accelerate time enough so that the time outside the shell and inside go relatively at the same rates, thus achieving fast travel. This works in par with Newton's shell theorem, only working in such a way so as to limit all information from outside.

As a side note:

Also, taking this concept further, if you used the same method to make two hollow spheres, one inside the other, and filled the space in between with matter (like the cylinder above),and charged the spheres, that you could go forward in time. The inner hollow sphere would be weightless, and allow a human to occupy it. Time within should go far slower then outside. Perhaps spinning it would allow reverse time travel, as the good Dr Ronald Mallett is doing with his time machine.


Now back to warp speed:

To destroy the black hole, some solutions would be protons. If we take the route of the borderline-black hole, the protons would reach the inner parts and destroy it. Otherwise natural black hole evaporation is the only way.

continues...(this was part 2 of it to someone who wanted me to explain it more)

Well often Gravity is shown as a kind of valley on a 2d plane. And this is also where time begins to be altered as a result of gravity ( I believe that's how it works). Knowing this, I wanted to think of how I could create the opposite. This area would go faster or equal to our relativity to our viewpoint. A Gravity "hill" is what I thought of.

One way to make this hill may be by creating a hollow black hole, or something with enough gravity to make the distortion.

Indeed, "hollow" isn't the right phrase perhaps. It's basically two hollow spheres, one smaller than the other, and the space between being filled with a lot of compressed mass. It's kind of forcing three dimensions into something that has none through an indirect trick. Black holes have no dimensions, so this method is forcing dimensions into a dimensionless void.

I have a pictures if it helps:

img16.imageshack.us...

img15.imageshack.us...

By leaving the space inside empty, with 1 ATP, and the opposite side with opposite spin of the black holes, you can create an area not affected by time space distortions, and as such a gravity hill artificially made. Think of this point as like between two enormous bodies. Their pull of gravity is such so that one cancels out the other a little bit more then the other, thus creating 1 Earth Gravity for the occupants to safely exist in (or you can have them equal and have 0 gravity)

More pictures if it helps

img14.imageshack.us...

img7.imageshack.us...

img24.imageshack.us...


Basically, matter in the gravity ring you see in the picture above, moves slower from time space distortions and then moves normally to our relativity inside the gravity well. By doing this, you can move faster to a location than it would take on normal speeds, because your object is traveling through this gravity ring at normal speeds, but it seems to be going faster than light at our viewpoint. I believe this is a Doppler effect of some sort. I think it may be creating a very large tachyon to our relativity, but in reality it is not.

Warp speed, in a simple term.


Hope that helps.

As to the possible application to a time machine I mentioned in the later parts of my message, it's just an alteration a bit to what's there. Just two hollow spheres, one smaller then the other, and on inside the other, with lots of matter in between them. That should allow the occupant inside the inner sphere to safely travel forward in time because time to that person would seem to go faster relative to that location inside.


Finally, the ship. The cylinders around it are the previously mentioned cylinders. Within is a ship, surfing the gravity waves.

img20.imageshack.us...

img269.imageshack.us...

img199.imageshack.us...

[edit on 8-6-2009 by Gorman91]

[edit on 8-6-2009 by Gorman91]




posted on Jun, 8 2009 @ 06:28 PM
link   
I have a few fundamental problems with this;

1) Relativity is bunk.
2) Gravity 'appears' to be curvature of space-time, but it isn't - it's a change in density of the vacuum.
3) Renormalization of the vacuum energy is bunk.
4) Everything you know is a lie - including some very basic things regarding electricity.

Vacuum is a super fluid composed of Plank length polar particles that are comprised of a positron and electron.

If you want to travel faster than light, you need to reduce the density of the vacuum. Because we measure using these Plank length particles - then the vacuum density appears to be constant, and relativity appears to be valid - but it isn't - as can be deduced by the variation of the gravitational constant over large distances.

Electro-hydrodynamic engines will drive us through space in future - and aligning the vacuum with a powerful magnetic field, then using a pulse of electric charge to evacuate an area of vacuum (creating a black hole) will allow us to travel faster than light.



posted on Jun, 8 2009 @ 06:51 PM
link   
reply to post by Amagnon
 


Then why do galaxies behind large packets of galaxies get their images bent? because the photon is being stretched and its path curved.. Why did an atomic clock go faster in space? because mass wasn't slowing down time. Why do Black holes evaporate sooooo slowly? because the matter needs to leave it at the black hole's relativity, which is slow. Why does a black hole seem to spit out less than it is sucking in? Because the matter existing is slower than matter entering from the mass slowing down time.


Sorry pal, your wrong.

A vacuum is a complete lack of matter. if what you say is true, then you should not have expansion on places like the moon. On the moon, there is no air, but what you claim means that the vacuum should be compressed. The space suit should compress, not expand.

[edit on 8-6-2009 by Gorman91]

[edit on 8-6-2009 by Gorman91]



posted on Jun, 9 2009 @ 07:01 AM
link   

Originally posted by Gorman91
reply to post by Amagnon
 


Then why do galaxies behind large packets of galaxies get their images bent? because the photon is being stretched and its path curved..

No, because the density of the vacuum is reduced by the presence of what we call matter - additionally there is both an inertial reduction in density at galactic center's (which lead to black holes) and an alignment of the polar particles (which we call an electro-magnetic field) which causes the vacuum to have gradient density depending on 'field strength'. Due to this difference in density of the medium through which light travels it is refracted because it CHANGES SPEED depending on the density of the medium.




Why did an atomic clock go faster in space? because mass wasn't slowing down time.

Correct - but the source of the time wasn't correctly identified as emanating from the subspace particles. Time went faster because the particle density went up, more particles per unit area = more time created .



Why do Black holes evaporate sooooo slowly? because the matter needs to leave it at the black hole's relativity, which is slow.

Again correct - I have no issues with the impact of gravity or velocity on time - it's the mechanism that I dispute.


Why does a black hole seem to spit out less than it is sucking in? Because the matter existing is slower than matter entering from the mass slowing down time.

Again - the mechanism is wrong. At very high 'gravity' the vacuum density is at a minimum - in a black hole the density reaches zero. If there are no sub particles to spin and create time - time stops.


Sorry pal, your wrong.

A vacuum is a complete lack of matter. if what you say is true, then you should not have expansion on places like the moon. On the moon, there is no air, but what you claim means that the vacuum should be compressed. The space suit should compress, not expand.

Ok - this is where you simply missed the boat entirely. I said the particles were of Plank length - which means they completely permeate all matter - in other words they are in equilibrium. We are permeated by vacuum here on earth, as in space. When we go to the moon for example - there is no external 'gas' pressure to keep us from being blown apart by the vacuum pressure (which is inside and outside us in equilibrium).

Time dilation is observable - I did not contest that - some of the observations regarding relativity are correct - but the theory based on the idea that the vacuum is empty - which it patently is not.

Here is what I will say is the flaw in relativity. If I enter free space outside of the sun's heliosphere - then I accelerate in a particular direction, then when approaching some large velocity I shine a light ahead of me - the light will NOT move away from me at light speed - because I am moving through a fluid MEDIUM that has a velocity independent of my velocity.

[edit on 9-6-2009 by Amagnon]



posted on Jun, 9 2009 @ 07:16 AM
link   
For interest - galaxies form in EXACTLY the same way that hurricanes and cyclones form.

The density of the vacuum is not uniform - so it flows towards area's of low pressure. Due to it's polar nature - and the relatively infinite length of alignment of electromagnetic fields, the vacuum will begin to spin as it travels towards the low pressure center.

As it rushes in, the increasing velocity and rate of spin amplifies the alignment of particles, strengthening the electromagnetic alignment of the subspace particles, preventing them from reaching the low pressure center. In fact they spin around it, causing even lower pressures at the center. Once the density of the center gets close to zero, then a 'tear' occurs in the vacuum - it suffers cavitation. Because all measurements rely on the use of the Plank length particles to measure things - the center appears to 'vanish' into a singularity.

The black hole grows in strength the vacuum on the event horizon is imparted spin and charge - this is emitted at right angles to the spin. When the spin and charge imparted is high enough, elementary particles are created. These are charged particles, and are locked into the forming galaxies electromagnetic field - much like plasma is locked into the suns heliosphere. These particles strike each other forming more complex matter, some of which bears no charge - this matter then gravitates towards the central axis of rotation.



posted on Jun, 9 2009 @ 07:52 AM
link   

Originally posted by Amagnon
Electro-hydrodynamic engines will drive us through space in future - and aligning the vacuum with a powerful magnetic field, then using a pulse of electric charge to evacuate an area of vacuum (creating a black hole) will allow us to travel faster than light.


I like this idea. A while ago I had a dream about a craft I was piloting in space beyond the speed of light. From the cockpit, I saw two long trusses extending forward on each side of the craft. The far ends of the trusses at the leading edge of the craft were connected by a beam. In the middle of the beam there was a small black hole. I understood in the dream that the craft was being "pulled" towards the black hole, and thus had accelerated to beyond the speed of light. The beam was slightly below my sight line from the cockpit, so I could see space beyond the beam.

Anyway, that is cool to read your physics explanation. I wonder how long it would take for such a craft to accelerate to light speed, how the black hole could be tethered so that the beam and trusses do not collapse into the black hole, and how to generate the black hole in the first place. Can you elaborate on or point me to a link that explains what you mean when you say an electric charge evacuates an area of vacuum?



posted on Jun, 9 2009 @ 01:22 PM
link   
Greenorbs -

My explanation is certainly not mainstream - it would be considered fringe at best - however, I am not alone in postulating a superfluid vacuum composed of polar particles.

In terms of how an electric charge can evacuate an area of these proposed (but never detected) subspace particles its very simple.

You could use one of two techniques - you could align the charges with a magnetic field, and use an electric charge to move them, or you could align them with an electric field and use a magnetic 'charge' to move them.

For example if you aligned the particles with negative on the left and positive on the right - you could draw them away from a central point by placing a massive positive charge on the right side, and a massive negative charge on the left side - they would be drawn away from the center - with a strong enough magnetic field to hold them in alignment, and a strong enough electric charge to draw them apart - you could create a singularity.

Nuclear submarines use a lot of the technology in water (a polar fluid) that can be applied to the vacuum - the problem is mainly a matter of the much higher energies required.

My theory proposes that inertia is simply the change in pressure required for the subspace particles to be pushed through the gaps between atoms. It also requires that atoms are basically tiny singularities themselves - this would have been considered a fringe idea not that long ago, but now some pretty famous names like S. Hawkings are looking into the idea.

This is how inertia and gravity look in this theory. Inertia is a bodies resistance to acceleration and deceleration. Now you probably immediately point out that you can see how it might cause resistance to a body being accelerated - but you might might reasonably object to the idea that once it is motion it continues to 'want' to be in motion - isn't it colliding with the subspace particles, won't that slow it down?

The solution to the seeming contradiction lies in the assertion that atoms are singularities - in other words they are bubbles in the fluid of the vacuum. Once you make that connection - then you can see that a moving body will act exactly like a bubble moving through a fluid. THe subspace particles don't actually collide with particles - but they are pushed out of an atoms nucleus - and to a lesser extent the electron cloud by the energy density and motion of energy inside the atoms.

When a bubble moves in a fluid an area of low pressure is created in front of the bubble - and the bubble then travels forward on a pressure wave, as the particles in front rush to move in behind it. In the case of matter - as they pass through us they must speed up to pass between the gaps between the atoms in our bodies - this creates a kind of 'lift' - in effect a low pressure in front, and higher pressure behind. The moving body then will stay in motion carried on this pressure wave in exactly the same way a bubble travels through a fluid.

As I said - this is not the mainstream view - but I contend that ether drift experiments produced positive results - although low ones. The reason why the ether drift rates reported in the experiments was so low - is because they didn't realize the 'ether' they were looking for, was composed of polar particles that would in effect be caught up in the magnetic fields of the earth and sun - so they would move along with any body that had a magnetic field surrounding it - making any drift rate very low and hard to detect.

In terms of this theory I am not really ready to go into gravity in too much detail - because I'm unsure of a good model to explain it completely (but neither is mainstream physics). I think it is composed of two factors - electromagnetism and buoyancy.

The main thing you could take away is that gravity is largely buoyancy - that is atoms are bubbles and they are pressed on by the high pressure fluid of the vacuum towards the lowest density region - low density in this case means the highest concentration of matter - in other words if you are standing on the surface of the earth, then the vacuum is pushing you 'up' towards the middle of the nearest big bubble - the earth.

As for the electromagnetic component - that's still a bit hazy in my head - I think it will be a factor, but it may be so slight that's its hardly detectable.

[edit on 9-6-2009 by Amagnon]

[edit on 9-6-2009 by Amagnon]



posted on Jun, 9 2009 @ 01:44 PM
link   
Interesting thought experiment with some excellent discussion. Says a lot about the mental aptitude of ATS members.

I don't have anything to offer really except for one of the most profound statements I had ever heard about the conundrum regarding the limits of faster than light speeds limited by relativity.

The statement occurred during an episode of Coast to Coast on 4/22/09 that featured Michio Kaku titled "The Future of Science".

Dr. Kaku talked about how a lot of the things we read about in science fiction is actually doable, given time and resources. But he made one simple comment that affected me more than anything I had heard in a long time. "Nothing can go faster than the speed of light, but that's the answer, "NOTHING" can. We have absolutely no proof about the bulk of what makes up the universe, so the answer could very well be in that "nothing" that we know nothing about.

I love that man. Probably one of the true geniuses that exists on this planet today.



posted on Jun, 9 2009 @ 03:15 PM
link   
reply to post by Amagnon
 


It doesn't matter. if the vacuum of space had any sort of matter in it it would make much of the universe impossible. An item in space should slow down. Galaxies shouldn't move, and mysteries like the "dark flow" should not exist. All things should be slowing down, yet we find them traveling with no sort of drag other than gravity. We should be able to hear in space, and hear the sun, because ANYTHING existing in a vacuum, no matter how small or large, would allow the transition of sound. Yet we hear nothing. If there was anything permeating all of space, we would see trails of it as the planets move, we would see heat on the dark side of planets, we would see so many other things. I can continue on how many fundamental laws you are violating.

Aether, which is what you are describing, simply does not exist.




Here is what I will say is the flaw in relativity. If I enter free space outside of the sun's heliosphere - then I accelerate in a particular direction, then when approaching some large velocity I shine a light ahead of me - the light will NOT move away from me at light speed - because I am moving through a fluid MEDIUM that has a velocity independent of my velocity.


No. Because you are already moving. Why would the light be accelerating at light speed from your viewpoint if you are already moving? Now if I were watching you, not moving, I would see the light traveling at light speed, and you traveling behind it.


Originally posted by greenorbs
Anyway, that is cool to read your physics explanation. I wonder how long it would take for such a craft to accelerate to light speed, how the black hole could be tethered so that the beam and trusses do not collapse into the black hole, and how to generate the black hole in the first place. Can you elaborate on or point me to a link that explains what you mean when you say an electric charge evacuates an area of vacuum?


The black hole is produced like at CERN or other things, only modified. the reason why everything doesn't collapse into the black holes is based on Newton's shell theorem. And it doesn't need to be really tethered. The ship is not moving, it is surfing. The ship is pushed lightly with some form of impulse, then it just surfs the rest of the way.

[edit on 9-6-2009 by Gorman91]

[edit on 9-6-2009 by Gorman91]



posted on Jun, 9 2009 @ 10:16 PM
link   
Typically, when presented with two theoretically correct models that can adequately describe the behavior in question (in this case, the behavior of "space"), both models are purely a mathematical convenience and lack substantial detail to infer as to the actual cause.

And therein lies the problem - mathematics.

For the longest time, we've used math to express behavioral relationships amongst the observable universe. However, when we start extending into the realm of that which cannot be observed, the entire concept of math breaks down. We cannot make observations, and cannot derive formulas to predict behavior.

We can derive statistics - but that is akin to attempting to understand the aerodynamics of an arrow by firing a bunch of arrows at a target and seeing how many hit.

To truly understand our universe, we have to develop an entirely new concept and system of 'math' - one that gets away from the quantifiable, and that accepts the influences of perception.

We've still got much to learn.

I think the Bible sums it up best:

"God has put in the hearts of man, Eternity."

We're just trying to be like 'daddy.' We're just not quite ready to be let loose in the workshop, just yet.



posted on Jun, 9 2009 @ 10:38 PM
link   
reply to post by Aim64C
 


But the reason why such things are affected by perception alone is because when we see, photons affect the item in question. They are still observable, we just need smaller photons or things smaller than the small that we observe. Translates for quarks to photon based detectors. it's simple, just hard.

God let us in the workshop the moment we existed. We just haven't learned all the tools yet.



posted on Jun, 15 2009 @ 06:34 PM
link   
BUMP

I've been gone for a while and as to my request it was finally moved. Thank you mods.



posted on Jun, 15 2009 @ 06:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by Aim64C
I think the Bible sums it up best


I think the bible is a load of rubbish, and you see what you want to see. Confirmation bias and that sort of thing.


Originally posted by Gorman91
Translates for quarks to photon based detectors.


You can't separate quarks. They are bound together by Color Confinement.

Also, this thread is interesting, but probably a bunch of BS. Fortunately, science, unlike religion, has a method to accurately test theories. So, where is the experiment from the OP that can prove his theory?



posted on Jun, 15 2009 @ 08:16 PM
link   
Such an experiment would not be carried on by me. I just based my writing off the results of experiments before hand. All of it is a thought experiment that I simply made my mind memorize laws from other experiments and run a simulation in. I came to that result.

Also there must be a way to separate them. Anything bound together can be separated. Not only that, but What I'm talking about is simply bouncing off something smaller than light, then using the radar-like signal received and translating it in a computer to as if a photon had hit it.

[edit on 15-6-2009 by Gorman91]



posted on Jun, 15 2009 @ 10:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by Amagnon

Vacuum is a super fluid composed of Plank length polar particles that are comprised of a positron and electron.


I thought it was virtual particles and virtual anti-particles, they are under what you call Zero Point Energy. They are slowly becoming mainstream knowledge actually. They are called virtual because they don't have mass, but they can interact electromagnetically with matter as a normal particle with mass would.

I'm not sure if they exhibit the behavior of a super fluid, since they are vibrating in random directions. However, an ordered state might be induced by some means.

If they are what you mean that decreasing the energy density of such virtual particles, will push the vehicle towards that direction, then you maybe right.


You may not even have to decrease the density but by simply aligning them in a certain direction so that they won't interact with the vehicle. I think it's vastly more efficient this way.

[edit on 15-6-2009 by ahnggk]



posted on Jun, 16 2009 @ 12:41 AM
link   
reply to post by ahnggk
 


Well as i said that really violates the visible universe. The universe should look more like through sun glasses, not through normal sites.



posted on Jun, 16 2009 @ 01:47 AM
link   
Einstein's nutty ideas don't allow for faster than light travel.


However if Einstein is wrong (which I believe he is) and the universe is static, faster than light travel becomes possible with no limits on speed.

Einstein says nothing can travel faster than light, not even gravity, yet work done by Tom Van Flandern shows us gravity MUST travel faster than light or the Earth would go flying off into deep space.

The Sun is a moving target orbiting the galactic plane, so in order for the Earth to know where the Sun will be as it orbits around the Sun, it must have near instantaneous knowledge of the Sun's location.

This shows that gravity MUST propagate at a speed faster than light.

That fact alone is enough to throw all of Einstein's ideas in the trash.



The speed of gravity:
www.metaresearch.org...



[edit on 16-6-2009 by mnemeth1]



posted on Jun, 16 2009 @ 04:11 AM
link   

Originally posted by Gorman91
reply to post by ahnggk
 


Well as i said that really violates the visible universe. The universe should look more like through sun glasses, not through normal sites.


I think you might to re-think your ideas


en.wikipedia.org...


Originally posted by mnemeth1
Einstein's nutty ideas don't allow for faster than light travel.


However if Einstein is wrong (which I believe he is) and the universe is static, faster than light travel becomes possible with no limits on speed.


Well he is neither right nor wrong

en.wikipedia.org...

[edit on 16-6-2009 by ahnggk]



posted on Jun, 16 2009 @ 12:09 PM
link   
reply to post by ahnggk
 


That is for the small. For the large, the wave of probability is pretty much obvious. You would need an external force, or a God, to alter the wave probability of all the matter of the universe to make it look like a vacuum and not through a filled field.

reply to post by mnemeth1
 


That is in par with the wackiness of gravity. Gravity must not have existed when the universe began, or it would have made all the universe one big black hole, gravity must go faster than light in order for large quantum waves to exist, and other such things. So that's why we think the graviton, if it exists, can quantum tunnel and do other things particles can. The graviton is probably a special kind of photon that isn't on the electromagnetic spectrum, or if it is, is very small on it or on an undetectable area. So we search, for if true, it would allow for the unified field theory to exist.

[edit on 16-6-2009 by Gorman91]



posted on Jun, 16 2009 @ 04:06 PM
link   
mmmmm interesting read.

I think that (dare i say it "Bob Lazar") proposed that kind of propulsion system using gravity hills and troughs. The craft would basically fall down the hill which it created behind itself, basically meaning that the craft would be constantly falling with a forward motion.

interest though .... very interesting idea.



new topics

top topics



 
7
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join