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.

 

Travel at Light Speed by standing still?

page: 1
4
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 9 2010 @ 06:21 PM
link   
I just watched a show from 2008 on The History Channel called "The Universe." they stated that the universe is expanding at beyond light speed. Therefore, why can't we just place a ship in outer space and let the universe come to us? Maybe we would need to be outside the gravity of a solar system, but it should be possible, no?




posted on Jul, 9 2010 @ 06:31 PM
link   
No you are part of the universe.

2nd line



posted on Jul, 9 2010 @ 06:38 PM
link   
Answer: Meditate

2nd line.



posted on Jul, 9 2010 @ 07:10 PM
link   
Well, I would first ask if what the history channel is supposing is correct. The supposition is very theoretical at best.

If, perhaps, the universe is in fact expanding at the speed of light, what exactly does that mean? Is space itself being created at the "outer edge" of space, or is the existing space "stretching"? Both have very different implications for your question.

Beyond that, let's take a step back and examine the problem further.

Space is a viewpoint of dimension. All changes in location in that space are relative to a particular viewpoint. No viewpoint is stationary, thus, no change in location is absolute. Consequently, no velocity is absolute.

These are basic truths that one does not even leave one's house to understand, all this is required is to examine the universe around you thoughtfully, one step at a time.

I like how you think; keep it up, just be careful not to make assumptions that are not evident to yourself, from your viewpoint.

Shane



posted on Jul, 9 2010 @ 07:11 PM
link   
reply to post by dlifesjrny
 


In relation to other things in the universe, you are moving at above light speed.

However in relation to anything close by/meaningful, you are barely moving. It's all relative.

[edit on 9/7/10 by GobbledokTChipeater]



posted on Jul, 9 2010 @ 07:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by UrbanShaman
Answer: Meditate

2nd line.


Due to your response having absolutely nothing to do with the OP, I'm guessing it is a generic answer you give for anything you don't have an answer to?



posted on Jul, 9 2010 @ 07:22 PM
link   
reply to post by randolrs1
 


Thanks for the compliment, Shane!

I just see it as finding a way to step off the conveyor(sp?) belt and let the belt keep moving while you wait for something to come by, then jump back on.



posted on Jul, 9 2010 @ 07:32 PM
link   
its very close to something which was popping in my mind often...

that since our molecules are travelling at the speed of light and are beingheld by dark matter in our current speed...maybe when we die we become non matter and not effected any more by the effect of dark matter and we travel at the speed of light until we bumb into a paralell universe in which a new you awaits (any 1 recall when you fall asleep and you feel like falling from a very high o impact in your body)..thats for me its your birth in a new universe in which you immediately inherit all the memories you have as if they really happened



posted on Jul, 9 2010 @ 07:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by heineken
its very close to something which was popping in my mind often...

that since our molecules are travelling at the speed of light and are beingheld by dark matter in our current speed...maybe when we die we become non matter and not effected any more by the effect of dark matter and we travel at the speed of light until we bumb into a paralell universe in which a new you awaits (any 1 recall when you fall asleep and you feel like falling from a very high o impact in your body)..thats for me its your birth in a new universe in which you immediately inherit all the memories you have as if they really happened


Thats some deep stuff.

Beckoned line.



posted on Jul, 9 2010 @ 08:00 PM
link   
reply to post by TechUnique
 


yep it is....and this just makes it feel more fantastic..




posted on Jul, 9 2010 @ 08:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by heineken
reply to post by TechUnique
 


yep it is....and this just makes it feel more fantastic..


Ah, yes - the "revolting band will make you run off at better than C" technique.

I find I leave much faster with Barbra Streisand, but Coldplay is sufficient.



posted on Jul, 9 2010 @ 09:10 PM
link   
reply to post by dlifesjrny
 


Actually you would first have to find the point of origin of the "Big Bang", and the travel directly towards that point at exactly the same speed that the universe is expanding just to be standing still.

Picture this: A pedophile is thrown from a tall building. While he is falling, he tosses a coin out to the side, the coin is still traveling as fast as the perv. He would have to toss the coin straight up at the same speed that he is falling for the coin to be standing still.



posted on Jul, 9 2010 @ 10:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by GobbledokTChipeater
reply to post by dlifesjrny
 


In relation to other things in the universe, you are moving at above light speed.

However in relation to anything close by/meaningful, you are barely moving. It's all relative.


That first statement is simply not true under relativity. In relation to anything, no matter where, in the universe you are moving below the speed of light.

Take 3 points in the universe: A distant galaxy, the Earth, and you.
If Earth was moving away at .99c relative to the distant galaxy, and you suddently took off from Earth at .99c relative to Earth and moving away from the galaxy, then you'd still be traveling below c relative to the distant galaxy. That's what relativity says.

And for those that call me crazy, feel free to solve for the velocity yourselves:

u' = (vb-va)/ (1-vbva/c^2))

Can't say the same thing about things outside the universe, or maybe even at the very edge, but inside nothing exceeds c.



posted on Jul, 9 2010 @ 10:56 PM
link   
reply to post by daniel_g
 


If you substitute your example into your equation then don't you have to divide 0 ?

Vb - Va = 0

0 / (1-vbva/c^2) = ????????

[edit on 9/7/10 by GobbledokTChipeater]



posted on Jul, 9 2010 @ 11:09 PM
link   
I like that, somehow anchoring yourself and letting the universe zip by you. It would certainly solve the energy requirement problem of trying to reach light speed. I'd like to see that used in a sci-fi plot.



posted on Jul, 9 2010 @ 11:43 PM
link   
The reason why you can't let it come to you is the same as why you couldn't just hover in a helicopter and get somewhere even if the earth is turning... We are all moving at the speed of the universe... You need to go faster or slower in order to move...

Magnum



posted on Jul, 9 2010 @ 11:59 PM
link   
I've watched that show a couple of times before, its very interesting and it gives you some food for thought. But the more I think about it the more I keep falling back to a theory I have bee thinking of for a few years now, lets see if you can follow me on this one, if I'm wwwwway out in left field let me know, so here goes:

Physics tell us that we can not travel faster then the speed of light, but if we do then we will be traveling into our own future, right? Now if we could break light speed and travel to the future we are left with a problem, it wouldn't do us any good to travel to the future if we can't get back to the past.
So, using that logic, I figured that the only way to travel to the past is by going slower then stop. ok I know it sounds dumb but try to think about it this way.
Think of time as a train that is traveling at light speed and we are riding in a car in the middle. If we could move faster to get to the head of the train, we would be in our future. But if we could stop the movement of yourself and let the train pass by you, you would end up in the last car, which would be our past.
OK,ok, it makes since to me. But I still have to figure out what slower then stop is or how to achieve a state of motion that is out of out time stream.

Sorry to have hijacked the tread, but I've been thinking about it and it seemed like a good tread to post that in. I would have started a new thread, but I haven't reached my 20 posts yet

Vince



posted on Jul, 10 2010 @ 12:21 AM
link   
reply to post by modelerX
 


Actually 2 things... 1 the only reason why we theoretically can't go to the speed of light is because of mass... Our mass would get so incredibly dense/heavy that it would take an impossible amount of energy to reach it... but if something weighs nothing or almost nothing it would be possible...

Also reaching the speed of light would stop time as the faster you go the slower time goes... therefore going faster than the speed of light would theoretically make time go backwards...

Magnum



posted on Jul, 10 2010 @ 12:25 AM
link   

Originally posted by GobbledokTChipeater
reply to post by daniel_g
 


If you substitute your example into your equation then don't you have to divide 0 ?

Vb - Va = 0

0 / (1-vbva/c^2) = ????????


Place everything on a 1 dimension system. Set Earth at the origen (Vearth = 0), Vgalaxy is then -0.99c and Vspacecraft = +.99c

= (-0.99c - 0.99c) / (1-((-.99c)(0.99c)/c^2))
= -1.98c / 1+0.9801
= -1.98c / 1.9801
= -0.999949498c

don't ask me about the negative sign, but I think it's there to denote that the objects are moving away from each other.

the way you were doing it was for two objects moving in the same direction at equal velocity which ends up as
0/(1-vbva/c^2) = 0


[edit on 10-7-2010 by daniel_g]



posted on Jul, 10 2010 @ 12:28 AM
link   

Originally posted by The CuspI'd like to see that used in a sci-fi plot.


Too late. Alan Dean Foster already used it many years ago in a Flinx novel "The End of the Matter". The MacGuffin was a weapon that was the only thing in the universe that was motionless, and it stored up the potential energy caused by the motion of the universe around it for later release.



new topics

top topics



 
4
<<   2 >>

log in

join