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 is it Impossible to Travel Faster then the Speed of Light?

page: 2
6
share:

posted on Dec, 13 2009 @ 06:08 AM

Originally posted by lordtyp0

Originally posted by 2compelled
Theory: If any matter had a propulsive mechanism that was constant by a fuel source that could remain unemptied, there would be no limit to speed through space. It would be increasing indefinitely, provided the matter could remain intact. What I mean is, it doesn't collide with other matter or gravitational influence that would inhibit it.

The fuel source isn't the only issue. The greater the inertia the more energetic the fuel has to be. The maximum velocity of an object going --> that way cannot be greater than the velocity going

posted on Dec, 13 2009 @ 06:12 AM

Originally posted by paranoiaFTW
Why is it impossible to travel faster then the speed of light? Well, I have learned that its because light is mass-less so it doesn't "weigh" anything, thus it requires no energy to accelerate to the speed of light. An object with mass is impossible to bring up to the speed of light because it would require an infinite amount of energy. But why is it impossible to have less then zero mass? Mass comes from somewhere, and has been thought to perhaps come from the higgs boson particle. What if, just like matter, the higgs has a counter part, anti-higgs. Wouldn't it has a negative mass? Now, if it came in contact with its counter part, they would destroy each other, but the higgs Boson particle is a particle, so can't it be removed? If you remove it, and then embed anti-higgs, wouldn't it have a negative mass? If it did we would be able to accelerate it to faster then the speed of light?
It might just be my lack of knowledge that makes me jump to that conclusion, so I was just wondering if anybody knows why this is impossible.

When you say you have learned that Light does not weigh anything. How would any one know that?

Do we humans have a scale that can compare light to absolutely nothingness!

Existence can't weigh less then nothingness.

Existence can only weigh more or less compared to other existing elements.

[edit on 27.06.08 by spy66]

posted on Dec, 13 2009 @ 06:17 AM

Originally posted by 2compelled

Originally posted by lordtyp0

Originally posted by 2compelled
Theory: If any matter had a propulsive mechanism that was constant by a fuel source that could remain unemptied, there would be no limit to speed through space. It would be increasing indefinitely, provided the matter could remain intact. What I mean is, it doesn't collide with other matter or gravitational influence that would inhibit it.

The fuel source isn't the only issue. The greater the inertia the more energetic the fuel has to be. The maximum velocity of an object going --> that way cannot be greater than the velocity going

posted on Dec, 13 2009 @ 07:31 AM
The 4th dimension itself is "faster than the speed of light". We perceive distance and the universe itself in the 3rd dimension. Time is how we perceive the "distance" of the 4th dimension. In the 4th dimension, you virtually exist as a baby and an elder at the same 'time'. Your young and old self always exist, you simply can only perceive three dimensional Point-A to Point-B distance.

Light isn't 3 dimensional and neither are the distances/direction it "travels".

posted on Dec, 13 2009 @ 07:57 AM

Originally posted by SyphonX
The 4th dimension itself is "faster than the speed of light". We perceive distance and the universe itself in the 3rd dimension. Time is how we perceive the "distance" of the 4th dimension. In the 4th dimension, you virtually exist as a baby and an elder at the same 'time'. Your young and old self always exist, you simply can only perceive three dimensional Point-A to Point-B distance.

Light isn't 3 dimensional and neither are the distances/direction it "travels".

Why isn't there the Fifth Dimenion?
Where I can be 34 all the time?
The event horizon is nothing but the oceans horizon in 1491.
I advise all I know not to confine themselves to present scientific absolutes.

SPACE.com -- Scientists Claim To Break Speed-of-Light Barrier
Jul 19, 2000 ... Scientists at the NEC Research Institute in Princeton, New Jersey claim to have broken the ultimate speed limit, the speed of light.

www.space.com/scienceastronomy/generalscience/faster

posted on Dec, 13 2009 @ 08:18 AM
Why is this thread even here? A cursory read of the wikipedia article explains it all.

It's not a conspiracy, it's not anything strange or peculiar. It's physics.

posted on Dec, 13 2009 @ 08:32 AM
]I think this is a wonderful thread.
It also brought me to ask myself how the Hubble Telescope
works , considering this is about the best example I can think
of at the moment of the space/light explainations
I have read here.

Amazing What Men Have Achieved So Far.. HERE

This is also the reason I love ATS, not to argue about who is
brighter or more knowledgable, but to ask and learn.

posted on Dec, 13 2009 @ 08:51 AM

Originally posted by dougie_s83
as far as I can tell in this subject! sound does not exist, its only vibration, sound exist between our ear and brain! so how does one guess the speed of sound? we have created our reality using our 5 senses! which is just our brain being active. if we talk about light, then man has created artificial light! and there for have the ability to travel at the speed of light! it is beyond our comprehension but not impossible! we create everything so we create light! IMO .

i have often concluded this. Our brain was built to interpret the world we live in to survive. if our brain DID NOT interpret the world around us correctly, we died. therefore, we use an interpretation of the universe based on the data we use to survive on earth. it could be different, alot different, if we had been a life form that had survived by completely different means.

posted on Dec, 13 2009 @ 10:37 AM
reply to post by ALLis0NE

Now that is one of the smarter answers I have seen.

But theory be told, gravity is a trillion times faster.

However, that can be found on other threads.

posted on Dec, 13 2009 @ 10:58 AM

Originally posted by 2compelled
Theory: If any matter had a propulsive mechanism that was constant by a fuel source that could remain unemptied, there would be no limit to speed through space. It would be increasing indefinitely, provided the matter could remain intact. What I mean is, it doesn't collide with other matter or gravitational influence that would inhibit it.

We have a lot of matter that has an unlimited fuel source. They are called electrons and protons. ( If I remember correctly)

Anything in a closed system such as an atom where electrons and protons circle a nucleus would fit your description.

Solar wind too perhaps.. how does the particles of the solar wind travel? Neutrinos How do they travel? Hmm...

Theory.. if everything is made of energy, and when you have an electric current, ( because energy is all around us) you have a magnetic field could it be that there are very weak magnetic forces everywhere for these things to travel on?

posted on Dec, 13 2009 @ 11:56 AM
The moment you hit light speed wouldn't you be fried instantaneously by all the light you would encounter?

I dunno why people consider impossible things like humans at the speed of light.

You'd have to accellerate damn fast, decellerare and come to an immediate stop, turn round, accellerate again in the opposite direction, decellerate and stop at the original point and time of departure (roughly +/- a few thousand years).

No problem, where's my rollerskates...... and why am I doing this?

posted on Dec, 13 2009 @ 12:09 PM
reply to post by tarifa37

I believe that is an interesting question. If a space ship were to be traveling at the speed of light and you were to move from the rear to the front of the ship would you technically be going just a fraction faster than the speed of light?
Let's slow it down a bit.. If a bus was traveling at 1mph, and you were to walk inside the bus from the rear to the front at 1mph, from a stationary observer outside the bus you would appear to be moving at 2mph, relative to the observer.
However to an observer seated on the bus you would be moving at 1mph relative to them.
But if you were to walk inside the bus from the front to the rear at 1mph, to the stationary outside observers pespective you would be standing still, while the bus would appear to be moving past both you and him.
Yet to the observer inside the bus you would still be moving at 1mph relative to them.
Using this hypothetical situation, it would appear to an outside stationary observer you would be moving faster than the speed of light.(of course that would be too fast for the human eye to see)
However that brings up other questions, because according to many theories, strange things start to happen when you get close to the speed of light. So if you were to move inside a spaceship moving at or near the speed of light and you ran from the rear to the front, thus making yourself travel faster than the ship, thus faster than the speed of light, what would happen to you?

[edit on 13-12-2009 by SideWynder]

posted on Dec, 13 2009 @ 03:19 PM
reply to post by paranoiaFTW

I haven't read all the other posts so sorry if this has been covered....but the closer you get to the speed of light the more time itself slows down then once you reach the speed of light time ceases to exist...and when you go faster than the speed of light time goes backwards, so even if you could travel faster than the speed of light you would not be moving forward towards your destintion. Moving through physical space/time is not the answer.

posted on Dec, 13 2009 @ 03:51 PM
In order for anything to exist within space-time, it has to have a finite value(one can assume that the Big Bang is an explosion of the infinite into the finite.) As to why it has that value, well, it has to have some value, and I guess the Creator just sets it at that value, that is anything with no mass, yet is still "observable" within space-time, has that limit.

My theory is that the speed of light outside of space-time is infinite or equal to the distance around the universe. Space(or existing within space-time) slows it down to a finite value.

posted on Dec, 13 2009 @ 04:03 PM

Originally posted by paranoiaFTW
Why is it impossible to travel faster then the speed of light?

Because light travels at the same speed in all reference frames. So if you're moving at 99% of the speed of light, then turn on a flashlight and bounce it off a mirror and let it bounce back to you, in your reference frame, that light will still only be moving at c. It wont be moving at c + your speed.

Well, I have learned that its because light is mass-less so it doesn't "weigh" anything,

Light has a relativistic mass, created by its energy. Relativistic mass is different from rest mass, and a photon can not rest, therefore it has no rest mass.

thus it requires no energy to accelerate to the speed of light.

Light doesn't accelerate, it just "goes." Adding more energy to light changes its frequency. An example would be when light approaches a gravitational body (like the earth) it becomes "more massive," as in it acquires more energy; as a result, the frequency increases.

why is it impossible to have less then zero mass?

I have no idea. Even light has relativistic mass, though. Matter and light are "both different manifestations of the same thing," according to Einstein. So finding matter without mass, or radiation without energy, seems like an oxymoron.

Mass comes from somewhere, and has been thought to perhaps come from the higgs boson particle. What if, just like matter, the higgs has a counter part, anti-higgs. Wouldn't it has a negative mass? Now, if it came in contact with its counter part, they would destroy each other, but the higgs Boson particle is a particle, so can't it be removed? If you remove it, and then embed anti-higgs, wouldn't it have a negative mass? If it did we would be able to accelerate it to faster then the speed of light?
It might just be my lack of knowledge that makes me jump to that conclusion, so I was just wondering if anybody knows why this is impossible.

All that is speculation, so nobody knows.

posted on Dec, 13 2009 @ 04:06 PM

Originally posted by MissSmartypants
reply to post by paranoiaFTW

I haven't read all the other posts so sorry if this has been covered....but the closer you get to the speed of light the more time itself slows down then once you reach the speed of light time ceases to exist...and when you go faster than the speed of light time goes backwards, so even if you could travel faster than the speed of light you would not be moving forward towards your destintion. Moving through physical space/time is not the answer.

There are two types of time. One is "Perceptual" and the other is "Grid" Math examines grid time. The 4th dimension is not a literal dimension-it is an aspect of the equation in the form of grid, a purely mathematical concept. If you were to go faster than light you would not be going back in grid time-just perceptual time. e.q. Time appears to go back because if you could somehow perceive behind you-you would see yourself at an earlier time in the grid.

Earlier I mentioned the causality paradox: "If I travel to Pluto at 100x the speed of light. When I arrive there I could look back with a scope and watch myself making preparations on earth-when I hit FTL my vessal would have seemingly disappeared from earth orbit (the ship would be faster than light so it would beat the suns rays to Pluto effectively making the trip invisible)." Many people say this violates causality because it appears you are in two places. This is perceptual time. You are on Pluto and simply watching an image of yourself approaching. If you were able to communicate with earth at FTL speeds, as far as they would be concerned you left at your scheduled time. You simply arrived at Pluto moments before the light of your preparations left earth. This again is perceptual time. According to grid time-there is no problem at all, and the only place you exist is on Pluto.

Perceptual time could be said to slow down only because the light would appear strange-if you could see it. At the speed of light you would not see anything behind you and in front of you would be narrowed down to a small corridor of visual field.

So, no: FTL speeds will not send one into the past, it would just allow one to watch the events of an earlier node on the grid-just like watching a video of earlier events. That is the relativistic part.

Dimensions when related to math (even through string theory) are just aspects that modify an equation. The "4th" dimension is no more special than the "1st". Same with String theory which has many more dimensions which vary according to which interpretation.

Mathematically-you cannot travel in grid time. Our current understanding in math says you cannot actually time travel. Personal sentiment aside on the subject (I consider time travel hokey at it's best): Math is there to describe what we see. It does not dictate the universe any more than calling a cat a cat suddenly makes it exist-we assign meaning to the word and apply it to the thing which everyone recognizes as a cat. Time and time everyone says "cat" when they see the animal, thus the meaning is good.

Math is a description and definition. It is a language. The usage of dimensions simply makes the sentence much more complex by conjugating verbs, adding nouns and adverbs (+, -, *, /, exponents, squares etc.). Our current understanding of said language makes it so trying to make a 'sentence' where time travel is possible-one winds up with incomprehensible sentences where you know what you were trying to say, and quick glances make it seem intelligible, but contradictions start decaying the formula.

If any of that makes sense. Really distracted atm.

posted on Dec, 13 2009 @ 04:10 PM
reply to post by lordtyp0

Dimensions, in mathematics, are simply axes.

You want one dimension, draw one axis. You want two, draw two axis. You want three, draw three axis. You want a fourth? Make a fourth axis.

Space has three axis, and one time axis.

You could add however many axes you want, though, and play around in 888 dimensions if you want. The axes can be whatever you want them to be. You could draw an axis for mass, if you wanted.

Physics best describes events as taking place in a three-dimensional space and at a certain time. Hence, why we live in "4 dimensions."

[edit on 13-12-2009 by Kaytagg]

posted on Dec, 13 2009 @ 04:19 PM

Originally posted by Kaytagg
reply to post by lordtyp0

Dimensions, in mathematics, are simply axes.

You want one dimension, draw one axis. You want two, draw two axis. You want three, draw three axis. You want a fourth? Make a fourth axis.

Space has three axis, and one time axis.

You could add however many axes you want, though, and play around in 888 dimensions if you want. The axes can be whatever you want them to be. You could draw an axis for mass, if you wanted.

Physics best describes events as taking place in a three-dimensional space and at a certain time. Hence, why we live in "4 dimensions."

[edit on 13-12-2009 by Kaytagg]

Yup, thats what I said, just used more boiled down terms. The crux though is its all just a description. Paradoxes exist because we lack the proper verbage and the likes to properly describe what we see. The time axis though, is grid not perceptual in nature.

posted on Dec, 13 2009 @ 04:28 PM

Originally posted by lordtyp0
The time axis though, is grid not perceptual in nature.

What do you mean?

posted on Dec, 13 2009 @ 04:41 PM
Physics 101

A photon DOES have mass, easily provable, why else would NASA consider using a LASER to "propel" a craft, or to use an old high school experiment whereby a propellor is suspended in a vacuum flask/bulb and the teacher shines a light onto the propellor and the propellor starts spinning. If there was no photon mass neither of these would work.

A photon can have varying masses when compared to "white" light, the lower the frequency the slower spin rate - let's call this "C-" - infrared travels slower the "C", a higher frequency will travel faster than "C". Let's call this C+.

"C" or white light in a vacuum has been proven to travel at a constant, however it has also been proven recently that the lower frequencies of travel slower than " C" light. NASA proved this recently when they discovered the "C-" light took longer to travel to earth, by up to several magnitudes.

"C-" light has a larger diameter of spin and slower rotational rate compared to "C" which can be considered as a constant.

If you want to travel faster than "C", then it is necessary to use "C+" computationally, however "C+ photons have a smaller spin diameter and faster rotational speed when compared to "C".

Hence E=MC squared won't work for Faster than light, however if you want to bypass this this then it is necessary to refer to hyperspatial dimensions to achieve "C+".

Welcome to the future ; )

new topics

top topics

6