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.

 

Traveling faster than the speed of light?? I have Proof it can be done!!

page: 1
4
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 12 2010 @ 10:57 AM
link   
First, if this doesn't belong here please move it.

So I was thinking about alot of things last night but one that came to my mind was, can we travel faster than the speed of light?

So first I wanted to state a couple of facts.
Fact 1 light travels in the vacuum of space (there is a slight amount of friction in space but very little, in any case its not a perfect vacuum) at a constant 186,000 miles per second
fact 2 light travels slower in other transparent materials such as water or air slower than in the vacuum of space
Fact 3 two items with different masses will fall at the same speed (on earth and should anywhere else there is gravity).

So thinking of the facts above, I started thinking if we could travel faster than the 186,000 miles per second that light travels and I feel the answer is "yes". Why? Here is my answer.

If light travels at a constant 186,000 miles per second (in the vacuum of space) it travels that fast because of the energy produced when light is made so the speed will always be a constant never changing. Light slows down because of the friction of water, air etc. therefore, I feel you can only travel faster than the speed of light in the vacuum of space where there is very little friction.

Ok, so that sounds all great and everything but how does that tell me that I can travel faster than the speed of light? Ok, so there is a constant at which a human body falls in the earths atmosphere, its around 56 m/s (200 km/h or 120 mph and is called terminal velocity). Even though the fastest we can fall is 120 mph we can travel much faster than 120 mph in an airplane for example. which shows that even though one object can fall at a constant (or close to constant) we can prove that you can travel faster than 120 mph. So I feel that this shows that we can travel faster than the speed of light given the right circumstances.

en.wikipedia.org...

In fact if space was a perfect vacuum, light would in fact travel faster than "the speed of light" we know right now at this time and age. Just with that little bit of information we now know without a doubt that we can travel faster than our current speed of light if our space was a perfect vacuum!! HA!

Also given the fact that the human body falls at a terminal velocity of around 120 mph and we know that we can travel faster than this speed I think that it also shows that we can travel faster than the speed of light. Now I'm not saying that we have the technology right now to travel faster than the speed of light but that I feel we can travel faster if we had the proper tools to do so. If we could reach the speed of light then we should be able to go faster.

lets pretent that the speed of light is at 120 mph like a human body right? The reason it reaches that speed is due to the friction of our air and the pull of our gravity. Now we already know that we can travel faster than 120 mph we just need more energy to move faster which we do everyday with airplanes.

The same thing applies to light. We already know that if our space was a perfect vacuum, light would travel at a faster speed then at which it is traveling right now. So given that, you must be able to travel faster than the speed of light because we already have proven that we would if we had a perfect vacuum. How much faster? I'm not sure exactly how fast but I feel that friction determines your max speed on earth and in space.

I feel that because our space is almost a true vacuum we can travel much faster than the speed of light but i'm not sure what the limit it is. Because earth has an atmosphere with lots of friction, I feel it restricts traveling faster than the speed of light. I also feel that in a true vacuum there would be no limit to how fast you traveled.

Please give me your thoughts as to if you agree with me or think i'm nuts. Thanks.




posted on May, 12 2010 @ 11:05 AM
link   
This thread will, unfortunately, be ripped up shortly. Many will point out you're comparing the properties of gravity to light, etc., etc.

BUT, I like your way of thinking


And, yes, you are nuts.



posted on May, 12 2010 @ 11:11 AM
link   
You can travel faster than the speed of light. You just can't travel AT the speed of light. As you approach the speed of light your mass increases in proportion to your velocity. As your mass increases it requires more energy to keep you accelerating towards the speed of light. When you reach the speed of light your mass becomes infinite and you can't generate enough energy to quite get there because of infinite mass.

Once you pass the light barrier the equation shifts and you can accelerate again faster than light and beyond but you just can't break that light speed barrier. So good luck with your theory.

Wiki FTL



posted on May, 12 2010 @ 11:15 AM
link   
reply to post by damwel
 


BINGO!
You hit it right on the head!
Great explaination!



posted on May, 12 2010 @ 11:20 AM
link   
reply to post by Trudge
 



I think you may be on the right lines. Space can and does travel faster than light, the equations only count for 'things travelling through space' so remove space and you may be onto something.



posted on May, 12 2010 @ 11:21 AM
link   
reply to post by Trudge
 

To answer your question, yeah you're nuts. Experiments have been done using a real vacuum and light goes, yup, you guessed it, the speed of light. Speculatively, in a Casmir vacuum, you might get an increase of 1 part in 10^36, but even then you run into Hawking's chronology protection conjecture which suggests that feedback loops of virtual particles would create "uncontrollable singularities in the renormalized quantum stress-energy." Read the papers at Klaus Scharnhorst (1990-05-12). "Secret of the vacuum: Speedier light" and [0706.0553] Can Light Signals Travel Faster than c in Nontrivial Vacuum in Flat space-time? Relativistic Causality II.



posted on May, 12 2010 @ 11:23 AM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on May, 12 2010 @ 12:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by damwel
You can travel faster than the speed of light. You just can't travel AT the speed of light. As you approach the speed of light your mass increases in proportion to your velocity. As your mass increases it requires more energy to keep you accelerating towards the speed of light. When you reach the speed of light your mass becomes infinite and you can't generate enough energy to quite get there because of infinite mass.

Once you pass the light barrier the equation shifts and you can accelerate again faster than light and beyond but you just can't break that light speed barrier. So good luck with your theory.

Wiki FTL


Yes but they use to say people could not fly! Who knows what a few 1000 years might bring about.



posted on May, 12 2010 @ 12:28 PM
link   
Since physics to date states what Damwel said, breaching the light speed barrier of 186,282 miles per second has a low but non-zero probability due to energy requirements we may or may not totally understand.

However, if you just want to travel vast distances with the appearance of FTL type movement, you can look to ER/EPR solutions and Bell's Theorem. Particles of exact structure, spin and charge which are mated or split from a single particle producing "identical twins or triplets" under Bell's Theorem communicate by spatial compression. But the communications is orthogonal, meaning inverted in three dimensions. The solution to this problem is three identical particles, or the double inversion.

Then there is the a secondary problem of quantum versus classical reality. The aforementioned solutions and theorem operate in classical reality and the mechanism is not fully understood that allows communication but it has been proven in particle interaction experiments.

Now looking at Michio Kaku's ideas (from when I used to talk to him and had some respect for him before he IMHO sold out), a possible explanation is hyper-spatial tunneling as a process by which the particles can communicate, by which they are possibly "bound."

What this falls into then, is a possible means of the emulation of quantum functions at classical levels, or the ability to produce what might be a standing wave (possible emulation of a particle function) within a geometric structure that might support an emulation of a particle function. This could give access to the hyper-spatial region within the emulation and allow for communication or matter transfer (size dependent) between like emulations. Since it appears that the energy requirements for such a process are inverse and exponential to distance because of the requirement to curve space, the further two points are apart becomes a "straighter line" and therefore requires less energy to move EMF or matter.

So can you travel faster than light? Probably not. Can you move between two points in space with the appearance of traveling faster than light? Probably yes.

Cheers - Dave

PS. Our experiments were run at Universities in Ontario and the National Research Council.

[edit on 5/12.2010 by bobs_uruncle]



posted on May, 12 2010 @ 12:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by Signals
This thread will, unfortunately, be ripped up shortly. Many will point out you're comparing the properties of gravity to light, etc., etc.

BUT, I like your way of thinking


And, yes, you are nuts.


I'm not saying that light is like gravity but the resistances light encounters determins its speed and that light can travel faster given a "Cleaner" vacuum thus proving that we can travel faster than our speed of light in our universe.

Also I have a thought that due to some observations that says our universe is speeding up and not slowing down means to me that our known universe is expanding into a more pure "vacuum", or into an empty space filled with anti gravity that is pulling our universe apart. Just a thought.



[edit on 12-5-2010 by Trudge]



posted on May, 12 2010 @ 12:41 PM
link   
No matter how fast light travels, darkness is always hanging around waiting for it when it arrives.

Light travels at a certain speed in a vacuum, nothing with mass can accelerate up to that speed. Something without mass can. Light has no mass.....sort of.

A probability wave collapses faster than light




[edit on 12/5/10 by pieman]



posted on May, 12 2010 @ 12:50 PM
link   
Got 1080,000 miles per hour.
That is 300 miles per second.
This has been predicted by a vehicle.
How could this be.
Apparently using the ether by a vehicle is better than
most other propulsion methods
Light velocity depends on the density of the medium.
Sound wave pressure velocity depends on the density of air.
Light wave is also a velocity pressure wave in the ether.
However a vehicle might be able to use the energy in the
ether.



posted on May, 12 2010 @ 12:54 PM
link   
The distances between galaxies at opposite sides of the observable universe are travelling away from each other 'faster than the speed of light'

I'm sure ive read that cosmological inflation happened at a faster than light speed (faster than the speed we measure light today) but i cant remember where i read that.

There are also theories that say the speed of light is a function of the size of the universe and not fixed at all.

Maybe when we understand what 'space' is then we will understand why 'waves' seem to have an upper speed limit through it. In the mean time Trudge dont give up the theories. The guy who postulated Tectonic plate movement was a balloonist, not a geologist and was poo-poo'ed by the so called scientist of the time who were limited by their 'educated' view of the limits of science. Progress is usually made by standing on the shoulders of giants ( rather than hiding in their shadows for the sake of conformity. )



posted on May, 12 2010 @ 01:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by Wobbly Anomaly
The distances between galaxies at opposite sides of the observable universe are travelling away from each other 'faster than the speed of light'

I'm sure ive read that cosmological inflation happened at a faster than light speed (faster than the speed we measure light today) but i cant remember where i read that.

There are also theories that say the speed of light is a function of the size of the universe and not fixed at all.

Maybe when we understand what 'space' is then we will understand why 'waves' seem to have an upper speed limit through it. In the mean time Trudge dont give up the theories. The guy who postulated Tectonic plate movement was a balloonist, not a geologist and was poo-poo'ed by the so called scientist of the time who were limited by their 'educated' view of the limits of science. Progress is usually made by standing on the shoulders of giants ( rather than hiding in their shadows for the sake of conformity. )


Thank you for your reply wobbly anomaly. I agree that it seems that so many people take what they read in books as all fact and that none of it is wrong. Many scientists like you say seem to be confined to the limits they put on everything.

One of the biggest evils out there in my opinion is saying that something "can't be done" or "you can never do that". The human race is so much more talented that we give ourselves credit for and we put limits on ourselves that block our abilites most of the time. If you think you can't swim then you won't be able to swim, but if you tell youreslf that you can swim, than you can....



posted on May, 12 2010 @ 01:37 PM
link   



Yes but they use to say people could not fly! Who knows what a few 1000 years might bring about.


A few thousand years aren't gonna change the laws of physics. You can't go faster than light without going the speed of light at some point. Also what Bobs_uruncle said is very true or at least possible.

[edit on Wed May 12th, 2010 by damwel]



posted on May, 12 2010 @ 01:38 PM
link   
Lovely
Yes you are nuts and your theori is awsome but there are to many blanks to be filled in.

Oh, oh! where's the proof byt he way?

S&F
for some fun reading



posted on May, 12 2010 @ 01:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by Vesica
Lovely
Yes you are nuts and your theori is awsome but there are to many blanks to be filled in.

Oh, oh! where's the proof byt he way?

S&F
for some fun reading


Hehe thank you for your reply.

Well my proof was that if given a "pure" vacuum you would in fact travel faster than our current speed of light because there would be no resistance. Therefore, traveling faster than our current "speed of light" would then mean that light speed can be faster or slower and that also means that there are different "light speeds" if you will. If you had two different universes side by side and one had a better vacuum you would in theory be traveling faster than light (faster than light of the other universe).

The resistance to me tells me how fast something can travel before it breaks up. I think even in our vacuum of space due to the slight resistance there is a max speed that something can travel before it breaks itself up but I don't think that "breaking speed" is the speed of light it is faster.



posted on May, 12 2010 @ 01:54 PM
link   
Well that blows away Tesla's discovery of 50x the speed of light particles.
So if mass could go faster than light.
Then a galaxy can go faster than light.
Than would mean the red shift is possible for a gaseous ether and
light was not EM but a pressure wavy like sound.
I'll stick with Tesla to explain things about nature.
And stick it to Einstein.



posted on May, 12 2010 @ 02:07 PM
link   
So perhaps light is simply a resistive partition point/barrier?

Like an otherwise continuous function with a single [multiple?] vertical asymptotic discontinuity.

If there is a domain where minimal energy will [get?] keep particles at superluminal velocities then it seems likely there may already be a natural particulate stream already in existence.

The winds of superluminality.

The tricks may be (1) the discrete placement in that superluminal realm, as well as (2) evading reverse temporal flow [backwards time flow].
If there is an already existent stream of superluminal particles, which sounds entirely possible to me then perhaps one can try to fall into it. How one would maintain a fixed or progressive time frame is maybe the more difficult project.

If time is the phase shift between magnetic & electric phases of EM waves, then going backwards in time must be a reversed [inverted?] phase shifting.
I wonder if setting up some kind of circular wave pattern might have some application? It perhaps spun in synchronous rhythm with the phase shifting it was encountering. Like using the bouncing from wave(?) peaks to keep one in empiric 'verticle' non-time flow. A canceling counter rhythm?

The manipulation of EM phase shifting probably has many useful, interesting & very frightening possibilities, not excluding time travel & reality altering.

A weird idea is that if you can freeze time during transit you may be able to arrive elsewhere in your own Universe, but if some time passes [forward or reverse] you might end up in some other[when?] Universe.
And the fact if one could stop/pause timeflow is that transit would be essentially instantaneous.

You are already there, which is now 'here'. You are no longer here, because it is now 'there'.



posted on May, 12 2010 @ 02:26 PM
link   


If light travels at a constant 186,000 miles per second (in the vacuum of space) it travels that fast because of the energy produced when light is made so the speed will always be a constant never changing. Light slows down because of the friction of water, air etc. therefore, I feel you can only travel faster than the speed of light in the vacuum of space where there is very little friction.


To make the assumption that light slows down because of friction would most likely be wrong. Why? Well because to describe light as having physicality that can be affected by friction against other physicalities would be incorrect.

Light is a energy, it is not something you can pick up and feel, there is no physical aspect to it, so my proposition to you would be that light slows down in denser material, such as water etc, not because of friction, but due to the time taken for the light to travel through/around the higher density of molecules present, hence, faster in a vacuum with little.no molecules.

Light speed is measured by time taken to travel a certain distance, so the assumption would be that light slows because the time taken is longer (more molecules) and the distance traveled is longer (bending around molecules).

Just my thought on it.



new topics

top topics



 
4
<<   2 >>

log in

join