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

page: 6
6
<< 3  4  5    7 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 14 2009 @ 07:39 PM
link   
reply to post by Agree2Disagree
 


You misunderstand theory. The word "theory" in science means something a group of principles used to describe observed phenomena that is still open to changes. So this means that we currently accept it as true to explain why something happens.




posted on Dec, 14 2009 @ 07:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by AKARonco
reply to post by lordtyp0
 


yes exactly, the faster you go, the more friction, or air resistance, the more energy needed to overcome, the heavier the "ship" gets.


I think a better way to look at it might be to apply the Law of Diminishing Returns. To require more energy to accelerate more-does not inherently give greater 'weight' to the moving object. It just manifests in that variable of the equation. Could be wrong with that interpretation though. I am basing that off of the simplicity idea: There is no need think of the mass increasing when other factors can account.



posted on Dec, 14 2009 @ 08:11 PM
link   
Perhaps it would be if LIGHT traveled. However LIGHT does NOT travel. E=MC2 explains it all:

Energy=Mass x Light Speed (squared). Think about that language. And what is ACTUALLY being said:
MASS times LIGHT. That is, Mass COMBINED with Light gives off ENERGY. Must mean Light is a CONSTANT while Energy is the Variable part in all of this. In other words, LIGHT does not MOVE/travel. It simply EXISTS.

Thus, ANY move you make is FASTER (relatively speakiing) than Light.



posted on Dec, 14 2009 @ 08:22 PM
link   
reply to post by paranoiaFTW
 


How do I misunderstand it?

My take is that it is as true as it can get at the moment...but that doesn't mean it is 100% true. In order to be scientific, it must be subject to change and/or the implementation of new evidences...with that being said...if one doesn't allow cusion(ie. less than 100% truth) then there is no room for improvement...which is what science is all about....it's an ongoing study...especially when it comes to the theoretical sciences....

A2D



posted on Dec, 14 2009 @ 09:07 PM
link   
reply to post by Agree2Disagree
 


Come on A2D

If the cake is actually expanding. It is doing that into the air around it.
If it gets big enough it will bump into my glass of wine on the same table.
I'd get pissed and through it out the door. Creating a BIG BANG.
LOL Seriously if all we can see is EXPANDING it has to have space to expand into.
My take is that it is a continuum, an infinity that completes the circle.
No parallel lines.
Have you ever thought about the reverse?
Do dust mites have dust mites that have dust mites?
Perhaps we just can't see them. YET



posted on Dec, 15 2009 @ 01:02 AM
link   

Originally posted by lordtyp0

Think you might have missed all my saying that FTL wasn't possible-at least under current stated laws. The hypothetical about Pluto is an exploration of the perception-not a statement of possibility.



No, I didn't miss it, but if we agree that your Pluto example is not a statement of possibility under current stated laws, then you lost me with the following statement:


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.


FTL speeds in your own reference frame, on any given example, would mean invalidating relativity, thus any other sets of theories that allow those FTL speeds can be postulated.

That said, you can't tell people that FTL speeds will not send you into the past and use relativity as a shield while giving an example of something not valid under relativity.

A better response would be: Under the theory of relativity, FTL speeds will not send one into the past because relativity simply forbids FTL speeds. Under theory XXX then you can travel to Pluto and see yourself leaving Earth. Under theory YYY then perhaps you can travel to the past.

But the keypoint is not mixing up theories XXX and YYY with relativity.

I have to quote Agree2Disagree because he has got it spot on(at least if relativity is valid):

It just IS impossible. Anywhere you go, you'll hit a brick wall(in physics) with this question.


[edit on 15-12-2009 by daniel_g]



posted on Dec, 15 2009 @ 01:11 AM
link   
reply to post by Donny 4 million
 


You're thinking inside the box(universe)...

Try thinking outside the box(universe)...

What happens if the cake is all there is..? It can expand, but not interact with anything....because all there is, IS CAKE... which, IMO, WOULD BE FANTASTIC. I love cake!


At this point, we just DO NOT KNOW. Anything is possible, theoretically speaking....

[edit on 15-12-2009 by Agree2Disagree]



posted on Dec, 15 2009 @ 01:37 AM
link   

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.



Correct me if I'm wrong.
What is mass? Matter vibrating at a specific frequency. Correct?

If you change the frequency of the mass, FTL would then be possible, Right?

John Hutchison used a frequency generator and a Tesla coil to change the frequency of a 75Lbs cannon ball, and made it float about 3 feet above ground.

[edit on 15-12-2009 by someoldguy]



posted on Dec, 15 2009 @ 02:50 AM
link   

Originally posted by daniel_g

Originally posted by lordtyp0

Think you might have missed all my saying that FTL wasn't possible-at least under current stated laws. The hypothetical about Pluto is an exploration of the perception-not a statement of possibility.



No, I didn't miss it, but if we agree that your Pluto example is not a statement of possibility under current stated laws, then you lost me with the following statement:


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.


FTL speeds in your own reference frame, on any given example, would mean invalidating relativity, thus any other sets of theories that allow those FTL speeds can be postulated.

That said, you can't tell people that FTL speeds will not send you into the past and use relativity as a shield while giving an example of something not valid under relativity.

A better response would be: Under the theory of relativity, FTL speeds will not send one into the past because relativity simply forbids FTL speeds. Under theory XXX then you can travel to Pluto and see yourself leaving Earth. Under theory YYY then perhaps you can travel to the past.

But the keypoint is not mixing up theories XXX and YYY with relativity.

I have to quote Agree2Disagree because he has got it spot on(at least if relativity is valid):

It just IS impossible. Anywhere you go, you'll hit a brick wall(in physics) with this question.


[edit on 15-12-2009 by daniel_g]


Looks like I fell prey to multi-use words. I was using "relativistic" as meaning 'having the qualities of or pertaining to something relative to the observer.' and not in the sense of the Theory of Relativity. So, boo on me for the sloppy usage.

As for the FTL violating relativity... why? Again, I do not believe FTL through normal space is possible, and only see alternate dimensions or wormholes as hypothetical fun. But given that the Theory of Relativity just says that Space and Time are relative concepts-not absolutes, why would FTL violate it? Sounds like you are saying that because the two are not absolute, it allows time travel, which outside of sci-fi books I've not seen anything to actually back that up. Admittedly I've not looked all that hard


What I was saying about time travel really boils down to this: All that exists is now. Yesterday only exists as Data. Tomorrow is more than likely to occur but the events of it are only a set of probabilities.



posted on Dec, 15 2009 @ 03:37 PM
link   
Ok, so you’ve heard that nothing can travel faster than the speed of light. (That’s not quite true. The expansion of the universe allows for faster than light travel but that’s another post.) You’re also aware that time slows down the closer you get to the speed of light. You know, the ‘One twin goes off to Alpha Centauri at the speed of light and comes back after 80,000 years but he’s only aged 3 months’ story.

Ever wonder why? Here’s the crib notes.

Everything in the universe always travels exactly at Light Speed.

Time dilation: Special relativity declares a law for all motion: The combined speed of any object’s motion through space and it’s motion though time is always precisely equal to the speed of light.



That’s right, everything. You, me, the computer screen you’re looking at, your grandma’s French toast, Santa Clause… everything.

Everything is traveling through Spacetime: space (the three dimensions we experience and the nine others that m-theory predicts) and time.

Adding the total movement through both space and time always equals light speed. Always. Always. Always.

Since you must travel constantly at exactly the speed of light, when you increase your speed through space, you decrease your speed through time.


Your head (and the rest of you) is traveling through spacetime at the speed of light. But, when you’re at rest (not accelerating) all of your head’s movement is through time, none of it is traveling (accelerating) through space. Every time your head moves (accelerates) through space; in a car, in a plane, in a spaceship… even nodding up and down, some of it’s movement in time is lost since it is now moving through space. Cool huh.

What about light?
Since light waves use all of their motion to travel through space at Light Speed, they have absolutely no motion through Time. Every photon that has ever been produced exists in an ageless state. (To us, the light seems to move through time but to the photon, time is standing still. This is one of the seemingly odd realizations fo Ensteins Theory of Relativity.)


The universe ages, light does not



posted on Dec, 15 2009 @ 08:00 PM
link   
reply to post by Kaytagg
 


Here is a very simple & easy answer, the lateral or inertial spin of the photon through 3 dimensions is FASTER than the FORWARD motion of "C".

The induced lateral/inertial spin within a spiral can also be changed through "C-", "C" and "C+" by changing frquency and amplitude.

As we manipulate "C" up to "C+" the spin diameter will decrease as well the initial inertial spin rate of the photon will increase as well as decrease its mass and become LIGHTER (pardon the pun)

Therefore lateral photon spin can be construed as "C+" in 2 dimensions as well as tying up tachyons, which happen to be but 2 reference points in 2 dimensions for quantum entanglement.

For headaches we can extrapolate this through 3 dimensions, and for teleportation at point A we use 7 dimensions but to get from A to B we need 14 dimensions and a 15th dimension to get there.

Think STARGATE navigation.

And we have FTL teleportation ; )

HADES



posted on Dec, 16 2009 @ 03:07 AM
link   

Originally posted by Agree2Disagree
reply to post by SideWynder
 


I think trying to equate time with speed is like...trying to give infinity a numerical value....


Yes,Yes it is...

But unlike infinity, there are some theories that suggest time started with the big bang, not that it was just noticed, but that there was "no time" in exsitance before the big bang..( I can't grasp that theory myself. I am just saying it is out there) But if that is true, then it is possible time may have an end, and may have other properties that we are as yet unaware of.. such as a "speed limit"
If it Has a begining, and an end, it also has a middle, even thinking in linear terms it may be possible that time "moves" at certain speeds in certain circumstances.. so maybe there are "speed limits" for time??

I am not saying that the "speed of time" can actually be quantified by placing a numerical value to it.. IE max speed of time =200,000 miles per second.... and use it as a constant,

I'm just saying that it has been proven that gravity, as well as speed effects time. so a max speed limit for time may be a possibility

[edit on 16-12-2009 by SideWynder]

[edit on 16-12-2009 by SideWynder]



posted on Dec, 16 2009 @ 03:19 AM
link   
reply to post by lordtyp0
 


if you do a search on the "International space station and time dialation" alot of information comes up that does say that time moves slower on the station than it does here on the ground. and depending on the orbit of the satelite, time will either pass quicker or slower than on the ground..

I also found this experiment that used atomic clocks and jet aircraft

The so-called “twin paradox” occurs when two clocks are synchronized, separated, and rejoined. If one clock remains in an inertial frame, then the other must be accelerated sometime during its journey, and it displays less elapsed proper time than the inertial clock. This is a “paradox” only in that it appears to be inconsistent but is not.

Hafele and Keating, Nature 227 (1970), pg 270 (proposal).

Science Vol. 177 pg 166–170 (1972) (experiment).

They flew atomic clocks on commercial airliners around the world in both directions, and compared the time elapsed on the airborne clocks with the time elapsed on an earthbound clock (USNO). Their eastbound clock lost 59 ns on the USNO clock; their westbound clock gained 273 ns; these agree with GR predictions to well within their experimental resolution and uncertainties (which total about 25 ns). By using four cesium-beam atomic clocks they greatly reduced their systematic errors due to clock drift.

link
math.ucr.edu...



posted on Dec, 16 2009 @ 03:38 AM
link   
Haven't bothered reading the rest of the thread but simply the answer is you would need an infinite amount of energy which is obviously impossible also your spaceship would probably turn into a black hole well beforehand.

For arguments sake lets say you have infinite energy though you would be instantly destroyed by all the objects you never saw coming colliding with you.



posted on Dec, 16 2009 @ 07:07 AM
link   
A question, if you was to break the light barrier if possible would it make like a sonic boom as if you was breaking the sound barrier?

cheers



posted on Dec, 16 2009 @ 10:27 AM
link   
reply to post by Konspiracy Brotha
 


Are you kidding? C is the speed of light in a vacuum. Light does indeed travel. Light combined with mass gives energy? What are you talking about? Or do you know more about physics than Einstein?



posted on Dec, 16 2009 @ 01:35 PM
link   
reply to post by Konspiracy Brotha
 


actually, light does travel, IE. move, in a vaccum its speed is approx 186,000 miles per second. if light encounters, atoms, gravity, etc. it slows down..

Link.
en.wikipedia.org...

However, so you don't think I am flaming you, your theory of light had been around for, well almost since man started thinking about it.. So your theory about light is not absurd, it just happens to have been proven incorrect.


[edit on 16-12-2009 by SideWynder]
Spelling, spelling, spelling....!!!! someday I will figure out how to use spellcheck!!!!!

[edit on 16-12-2009 by SideWynder]



posted on Dec, 16 2009 @ 06:21 PM
link   
reply to post by hurst85
 

This is a hypothetical application of "speed", not STARGATE navigation I have previously explained.

If you were to break the light "speed" barrier you would most likely experience a period of 'adjustment" just like when punching through the sound barrier, then it will become stable beyond that.

If I was travelling a "C" in a right handed spiral (think of slinky spring) I would do one of two things, either and up as an inverse analogy of myself on the rebound (4th dimensional inversion point), or I would travel through a "zero point" and travel in a left handed light spiral whilst still moving forward.

There will be a cross-over point where the right handed spiral will "centralise" and become left handed.

If "C+" becomes a left handed spiral then the amount of energy will become equalised beyond "C" by using the energy from "C-".

At the equivalent of Mach2, let's call this ("C+")2 it should switch back again, and from there it should become apparent that it is "harmonic"

A side note pointed out ealier that light can travel backwards as proven by scientists which apparently arrives before being sent;

We can also use this within a standing "C" wave, where it would appear from an outside perspective that the "originating" photon is standing still but by creating the standing wave the wave will travel faster (or slower),

So now it's time for us to create / build a FTL Standing Wave Photon Drive,
using some magnets, capturing the photons in a confinement field, accellerating the photon lateral spin beyond the forward spin, creating a harmonic standing wave, and go "C+"

StarTrek anyone?

HADES



posted on Dec, 16 2009 @ 08:10 PM
link   
reply to post by paranoiaFTW
 


If one has the power or force then what speed do you want.
Tesla said he could make ANY voltage pressure.
The high voltage pressure wave is the force that will speed.
So just how much force, this is physical mechanical force direct
from high voltage, is the in one million volts, pinky by the lip.
If no one can tell us them either no one know or no one has tried.
Of course America ignored Tesla till 1943 when Nazi spies say the
end and America found out Germany was building the Technology
America rejected since 1914.
Now America sits on it like a good babysitter.



posted on Dec, 18 2009 @ 11:15 AM
link   
reply to post by paranoiaFTW
 


It's easy to travel faster than the speed of light.
All you have to do is cheat.
Don't break the laws of physics just find a way around them.
The first thing you need to do reduce the mass of your spacecraft
from its natural value say 40 tons all the way down to an artificial
zero.
---------------------------------------------------------------
- Spacial Deterioration of Mass -
Once your spacecraft has a mass value of zero it suddenly becomes
very easy to move around.
A matter / antimatter reactor should do the trick.



new topics

top topics



 
6
<< 3  4  5    7 >>

log in

join