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: 3
7
share:

posted on Jun, 17 2009 @ 04:13 PM
reply to post by Johnmike

Actually, by using gravity waves you could have the same. Gravity waves, if constructive, would do the same with the acoustics black hole. We already know that two large masses of equal amount destroy each other's gravity and make 0 gravity in between (hence why there is a slight difference in your weight when the moon is above you directly). If you could create two uneven spheres, there would be plenty of logic in propagating waves that are constructive. do it in such a way that the waves are maximums and not minimums, and you could create accelerated relativity.

Also, with the refraction, that's different. because the light is still moving, therefore information can reach it. If there is a region of space where light is stopped or simply has no way of reaching without going faster than light, then information cannot reach this location. Refracting waves is not stopping the light nor is it preventing them from reaching the target without going faster than light. It is just bouncing the light away. Totally different concept.

[edit on 17-6-2009 by Gorman91]

posted on Jun, 17 2009 @ 09:06 PM

Originally posted by Gorman91
If you could create two uneven spheres, there would be plenty of logic in propagating waves that are constructive. do it in such a way that the waves are maximums and not minimums, and you could create accelerated relativity

I don't mind you calling them "waves," but they don't interfere in the way you're implying. You don't get an interference pattern from gravity, you just have forces that may or may not oppose one another due to direction. But not due to wave interference.

Originally posted by Gorman91
If there is a region of space where light is stopped or simply has no way of reaching without going faster than light, then information cannot reach this location.

You probably didn't read my last post well, which annoys me a little, but it's okay. You missed a vital part of that sentence. I'll repeat:

"If there is a region of space where light is stopped or simply has no way of reaching without going faster than light" in a vacuum. You're still assuming that theoretical force-carrying particles follow the behavior of light in a material, and this is, as far as I know, completely false. Just because light refracts in a material doesn't mean that the force carrier does, and I believe that it's infinitely more likely (and probably proven, but I won't make that claim since I don't care to research it) that a force carrier does NOT refract like light does. And thus, by slowing the "speed of light" in a material, you aren't changing the "c" used in physics equations for the speed of light, as c is in fact defined explicitly as the speed of light in a perfect vacuum, rather than the speed of light in the given material in which your frame of reference currently resides, as you are implicitly claiming.

To reiterate, you're claiming that a material which slows light will have the same effect as changing the speed of light in a vacuum, which is totally wrong.

Once again, one step at a time, grasshopper. You're still in philosophy territory, take the jump into science and you'll be a better person for it.

[edit on 17-6-2009 by Johnmike]

posted on Jun, 17 2009 @ 09:48 PM
reply to post by Johnmike

Well they proved gravity was a wave, but I forget how. They do gravity wave tests somewhere in America. They were looking for small tiny waves of gravity radiating, maybe from the big bang, maybe some kind of other thing.

But as to light, I think I know what your saying. However, as far as I know, the bose einstein condensate stops light in a different matter than how you speak of. While denser materials make light have to travel longer, making the illusion of slowing down light, I believe one of the unique properties of Bose Einstein condensates are that it does it in such a matter so as to actually stop it, thus preventing information transfer because it can't go faster. If so, then it could be used to make an artificial black hole.

www.nature.com...

[edit on 17-6-2009 by Gorman91]

posted on Jun, 17 2009 @ 10:59 PM

Originally posted by Gorman91
But as to light, I think I know what your saying. However, as far as I know, the bose einstein condensate stops light in a different matter than how you speak of. While denser materials make light have to travel longer, making the illusion of slowing down light, I believe one of the unique properties of Bose Einstein condensates are that it does it in such a matter so as to actually stop it, thus preventing information transfer because it can't go faster. If so, then it could be used to make an artificial black hole.

www.nature.com...

[edit on 17-6-2009 by Gorman91]

This doesn't actually stop light by being so dense that it bend space-time in this case!

At the simplest explanation, the principle is analogous to the old Semaphore Long Distance Communication.

Information travel between Semaphore stations takes place at the speed of light by means of visual observation, but it takes time for the operator to repeat the same signal he recieved for the next station.

The visual signals represent the light, the Semaphore operator represents the BECs

[edit on 17-6-2009 by ahnggk]

posted on Jun, 17 2009 @ 11:15 PM
reply to post by ahnggk

Well I don't know if I understand you. What I think is that it does. If superheated lasers can bend space time with no mass, such as Ronald Mallett's time machine, then why can't the opposite temperature spectrum do the same?

posted on Jun, 17 2009 @ 11:40 PM

Originally posted by Gorman91

Well I don't know if I understand you. What I think is that it does. If superheated lasers can bend space time with no mass, such as Ronald Mallett's time machine, then why can't the opposite temperature spectrum do the same?

I think you still don't understand me or what the others has said, because you only want to believe your theories and discarding more objective answers.

Once you deal with BEC's, superfluidity, you begin to deal with Quantum Mechanics. Have you got the slightest idea what it's about?? I don't.

But from the very very little I know, our reality is governed by random forces and probability, that is more accurately modeled with Quantum Mechanics. But when you super-cool things, these forces are not so random anymore, so produce effects that are unlike our 'random reality'

It will begin to disobey certain laws like mostly, classical physics - gas laws, entropy, etc... I think you're still thinking 'classical' and it don't work in such conditions anymore.

Now I'm not saying FTL flight is impossible. The knowledge is just hidden somewhere.... If you're so serious about this, you must try to learn everything! You must understand how atoms work, how nature work, how animals behave, etc, etc.. Sometimes it would surprise, you'll find what you're looking for in places you don't expect!!

posted on Jun, 18 2009 @ 12:09 AM
reply to post by ahnggk

Well yea that's what I'm looking into. But I am very interested in what others have to say. It lets me learn ever more and aid me in designing better.

But from what I have read about, super fluids, some at least, do actually stop the moving of light, unlike denser items which simply make light have to move more to get through. They detected that the light was really going slower, while in a denser item they'd find the rate of passage is slower, but the light still goes at it's normal speed.

If this is so, then I am right. But again, I'm asking people to help me disprove it so that I can modify it and make it more plausible. I look up things but I am only one man, and need the help of others. So what I'm really looking for is for someone to explain to me how stopping light wouldn't stop information with it. For black holes this is true, but is it true for super fluids that stop light? I'm assuming so because as far as I know, change light speed and you stop anything from going faster in the location of this slower light.

[edit on 18-6-2009 by Gorman91]

posted on Jun, 18 2009 @ 03:26 AM

Originally posted by Gorman91
reply to I'm assuming so because as far as I know, change light speed and you stop anything from going faster in the location of this slower light.

[edit on 18-6-2009 by Gorman91]

You can actually make subatomic particles like Electrons or Beta Radiation move faster than light in a certain medium. It creates a secondary radiation analogous to sonic booms for objects traveling faster than speed of sound.

It's called the Cherenkov Radiation
en.wikipedia.org...

It's all illusion when light seemed slowed down by a medium due to its interaction with the medium's atoms. It's kinda like they are moving at a zigzag pattern inside a medium but they still moving at 100% c. But you don't see this 'zigzag' motion so it appears, light slowed down.

[edit on 18-6-2009 by ahnggk]

posted on Jun, 18 2009 @ 12:20 PM
reply to post by ahnggk

But again, this is not changing the speed of light, it is an illusion. Now I don't know if I am right, but it seems that BECs actually stop it, not make light go in zig zags. And if it actually holds the photon in place, this is what I want. This is different from that kind of thing you described. I know very well about that kind of radiation, but I'm trying to learn if BECs are different.

Physically stopping light is different from sending it through a big pin ball machine.

[edit on 18-6-2009 by Gorman91]

posted on Jun, 18 2009 @ 12:39 PM
reply to post by Gorman91

This is coming from the link you gave earlier. That light is absorbed and re-emitted, so I guess you have made a wrong assumption. Light isn't stopped in this case. And the BEC example is actually analogous to "Florescence" than anything else, of course, they are not the same in any respect!

From the same link you gave earlier:
www.nature.com...

......Such light fields interact strongly with the internal electrons of the atoms, and couple directly to external atomic motion through recoil momenta imparted when photons are absorbed and emitted.....

....The amplitude and phase of the spatially localized light pulse are imprinted on the recoiling part of the wavefunction, which moves towards the second condensate. When this 'messenger' atom pulse is embedded in the second condensate, the system is re-illuminated with the coupling laser.....

When we're talking of absorbed and re-emitted. You can almost say that light was 'killed' and 'resurrected' again at some point. It's not even remotely close to 'stopping'!

Don't get me wrong though, I also think that there might be possibility with FTL technology with such matter form as BECs, superfluids, or even superconductivity. It's just the way I see how you understand it, might not work that way.

You can see BECs as ordered structures unlike anything we commonly see or percieve so you can expect it to defy some classical laws, and who knows, gravity if used correctly!
...

[edit on 18-6-2009 by ahnggk]

posted on Jun, 18 2009 @ 01:19 PM
reply to post by ahnggk

Ok thanks a WHOLE lot there.

Then I return to my original plan, now that I see this shortcut is a dead end (for now).

Super fluids of antimatter would still be useful in the anti-hydrogen ionic form. This would provide an easily collapsible gas with only protons and no electrons.

Thank you. I thought I was going on a shortcut so you wouldn't need a black hole. but alas, it seems for now you only could do it with highly compressed antimatter hydrogen. I want that because normal hydrogen gas with electrons isn't so great for negative-negative interaction. I run the risk of the electrons flying off from the pressure and then you'd basically have within that cylinder a ring of electrons surrounded by an outer ring of protons. It's alot easier if we use antimatter hydrogen and go about having one particle, rather than risk having the other way.

Then again, now that I think about it, if you have a ring of protons and inside the ring is another ring of electrons, I wonder if you could cause a black hole with electrons? They are even easier to collapse. Such negative-negative pressure would cause their wave-like behavior to collapse, because they are pressurized to be in one specific location. They're light, almost nonexistent mass might more easily create a singularity which is a lot smaller.

So really now what we've come to is a fork in the road after hitting a dead end.

Which do you think would be better?

[edit on 18-6-2009 by Gorman91]

posted on Jun, 18 2009 @ 10:09 PM
reply to post by Gorman91

You don't know what the hell you're talking about and I suspect that you're trolling for replies in your own thread. There's better ways to get ATS points.

posted on Jun, 18 2009 @ 10:11 PM

Originally posted by Gorman91

....Then again, now that I think about it, if you have a ring of protons and inside the ring is another ring of electrons, I wonder if you could cause a black hole with electrons? They are even easier to collapse. Such negative-negative pressure would cause their wave-like behavior to collapse, because they are pressurized to be in one specific location. They're light, almost nonexistent mass might more easily create a singularity which is a lot smaller.....

I strongly suggest, you take a break from conspiracy sites and concentrate on studying science before.

That is a dead give away that you don't know what you're doing!! Electrostatic forces would completely overwhelm gravity before that happens! You will instead see protons and electrons simply combining to become normal hydrogen atom.

Your closest candidate to making this happen is using enormous magnetic fields and accelerating the protons or electrons close to the speed of light via huge particle accelerators, to create what? A tiny black hole that rips apart to jillion pieces anything that comes near it!!!

My replies to your posts ends here - I can't help you anymore because you do not understand even simple scientific principles but I give you an advice - nothing is impossible but you need to study hard and learn a lot more about science! Don't worry if it will take maybe years, patience is a virtue!

posted on Jun, 18 2009 @ 10:22 PM
reply to post by ahnggk

But if you had a cylinder that was very negative, and another cylinder within that was very negative, and then placed in it normal hydrogen gas, wouldn't the electrons be ripped off trying to find the least negative area, while the protons would rip off trying to get to the negative? How is this not true?

I don't understand how I'm wrong on this. Would the two pulling forces not cause what I said? How could they rejoin if they are being pulled and repelled by different likes and differences. The Electrons want to go to the space in between, but the protons want to get to both cylinders. This rips them apart making an inner ring of electrons surrounded by an outer ring of protons.

This is not wrong. If I'm wrong, please tell me. it's unfathomable how this is not true.

[edit on 18-6-2009 by Gorman91]

[edit on 18-6-2009 by Gorman91]

posted on Jun, 19 2009 @ 02:13 AM
reply to post by Gorman91

Sadly, it can't happen that easily due to Faraday Cage Effect. And trying to contain electric charges with another electrical charge is futile because it's highly unstable.

It's usually better to contain charges within magnetic fields and that's what they do in particle accelerators.

I understand your plight, but you also need to help yourself by learning more! If you're in a hurry, why not try to look for expert advice from someone near you. It's very difficult to explain things about science through chats like these. Sometimes you have to see or do things for yourself!

posted on Jun, 19 2009 @ 03:17 AM
reply to post by ahnggk

Well I do. I read a lot. But wouldn't those cylinders basically be magnets? I was under the impression that running lots of current through such a metal creates a very powerful magnet. I mentioned the usage of nonmetals, but I don't think that's very viable.

What I understand is that an electron, if surrounded by negative charges, will cease to move.

posted on Jun, 19 2009 @ 04:08 AM
Just think of travling faster than the speed of light like travling on a train.Its in two parts.A energy force that travels much faster than the speed of light and a space ship that travels along this energy beam traveling more than the speed of light but traveling less than the speed of the energy beam.Its a bit like the worm hole travel vortex on stargate.A energy beam that picks a location to travel to by-passing along the way other star systerms,nebulars and planets.

posted on Jun, 19 2009 @ 04:31 AM
reply to post by Gorman91

Not really. You either have to choose high current, high magnetic fields, low voltage or low current, high voltage, high electrostatic fields.

You can't do both, other than it's unnecessary, it's a tremendous waste of energy. The formula is P=V x I Power = Voltage multiplied by Current. You can however, install separate magnets, and that could actually still be more efficient than if you drop it in one package!

You can of course stop an electron dead in its tracks if you surround it with electrons, but like I said earlier, Faraday Cage Effect will defeat that possibility.

posted on Jun, 19 2009 @ 03:30 PM
reply to post by ahnggk

I do not think your cage thing applies here and I don;t think you're talking about what I'm doing. Because what I want to do is already done in the means of storing and holding antimatter. I'm just taking the current method and adding it to a machine. The larger hollow cylinder creates an area that if you placed an electron within, it would stand still. If this is not true, than how do they store antimatter, which is basically the same approach? If you are right in what you say, then there is no way to store antimatter, yet they do. Within this hollowed space, there's yet another negative item. I do not want the matter stored at one point, I want a ring that can spin around.

The cage effect would be outside, but we are not talking about outside. We are talking about inside. I do not want to block all EM fields within the cylinders. I want to create an interacting field within the cylinder that causes a lot of matter to be turned into a cylinder ring shape, to which can be compressed into a strong gravity pull to this ring.

The spinning of this would create an weaker version of what black holes do. And multiples of this surrounding a craft, alternating in spin so as to create something similar to newtons shell theorem, would allow a ring-shaped black hole. I'm making a lot of smaller black holes so as to create a much larger one.

[edit on 19-6-2009 by Gorman91]

posted on Jun, 19 2009 @ 03:46 PM
reply to post by GORGANTHIUM

The energy beam of that would be so strong it would vaporize a ship, and it couldn't go faster than light anyway. Adding more energy does not make a collection of energy go faster. 2 photons together don't travel faster than one.

new topics

top topics

7