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.

# Here is why you CANNOT travel faster than light!

page: 2
8
share:

posted on Aug, 17 2010 @ 03:21 PM

Hi Phage.

Better yet, since you already know where it is, how about providing a source for the ability to accelerate particles to beyond the speed of light.

What do you know about "Travelling Wave Tubes" ???

Might be of interest... even though these have been around for a while now, used in Modulation of Micro Waves. (The "Wave Front" both propagates faster than, & decelerates to that of the speed of Light within the beam, causing a bunching effect ?)

posted on Aug, 17 2010 @ 05:00 PM

Originally posted by Gentill Abdulla
We all know of the equation e=mc^2.

Okay now we know you can't travel at light speed.But what about traveling faster than light?

It is wrong to because what happens?
The answer becomes a NEGATIVE SQUARE ROOT!

In english this means what number squared = -1 (when v^2 / c^2 is 2.)

So now we know that the domain of the function
f(x)=mc^2/ square root( 1 - x^2 / c^2)

f(x) = any real number where x < 1

So in english all of this means we cannot travel at a velocity faster than or equal to light.So to put it in real terms we knew our energy needed to become infinite.

Another thing that might be used for faster than light travel is a wormhole.

Unfortunately wormholes are very unstable. Kip Thorne proposed using a form of exotic matter that bends spacetime differently than normal matter to keep wormholes from collapsing. The closest thing we have to this is the Casimir effect.

The problem with these comments is that they are based on computations and equations divised by human minds within the limits of science also formed by human minds. There is much for us to learn by opening our minds, but unfortunately we will most likely not learn of any modern-day Einsteins due to all the computer games, iphones, ipad and reality/trash tv shows to distract our youth from expanding our huge brains to their full use.

posted on Aug, 17 2010 @ 05:22 PM
why hasnt anyone mentioned photon entanglement? faster than light has already been done.
news.discovery.com...[/url]

quote

"Teleportation-based telephone calls wouldn't travel any faster than existing networks, said Schumacher. Entangled information arrives faster than the speed of light, but to read it scientists would need a key to decode the information, which would arrive using traditional communication at slower-than-light speeds."

posted on Aug, 17 2010 @ 06:23 PM

The quantum state of entangled particles which are separated changes in synchronization. There is no information transmitted, there is no matter transmitted. Nothing is traveling faster than light.

posted on Aug, 17 2010 @ 06:36 PM
it would be funny if Einstiens theory is wrong, or perhaps someone figures out another one showing faster than light speed possible, as at the end of the day, its all just theory

posted on Aug, 17 2010 @ 06:39 PM

There are a lot of physicists who would love to prove Einstein wrong.
That would make them...the next Einstein.

posted on Aug, 17 2010 @ 06:42 PM
Firstly go easy on me because i admit i havent the faintest clue about any of this and i dont know if a documentary on the discovery channel is an acceptable source.

Anyway i was watching that stephen hawkings universe thingy and he said its impossible to go faster than the speed of light due to the fact that the faster you travel time slows down (dont know if this is true or not) and when you reach close to light speed time slows down for you dramatically. So say like you were inside a train and the train was travelling at 99.99999999 light speed and you started running up the train you would technically be travelling at or faster than the speed of light.

This cannot happen because time would slow down for you preventing you from breaking the lightspeed barrier. (Or something like that anyway??)

Im probably way off though so never mind me.

MooseVernel

posted on Aug, 17 2010 @ 07:17 PM

You don't need to have a physics degree to understand a theory. I believe that you have the basics of that down. For a simple explanation of this effect and the theory of general releativity (again I said simple) which are one and the same just picture yourself driving on a highway.

As traffic that is moving in the same direction approaches, passes you, or you pass them everyone appears to be moving at just a few miles per hour. When one of those cars passes you and they are moving 65 mph RELATIVE to a stationary object and you are moving 63 mph RELATIVE to a stationary object you will see them moving at 2 mph relative to you moving at 63 mph.

The same is true but in reverse for a car traveling on the opposite side of the highway. If they are traveling 60 mph and you are traveing 60 mph toward each other then relative to you that car is traveling 120 mph.

Now if we use light as our relative source then as you move faster and faster then light appears to move slower and slower until a time that you are both traveling at the same speed and it appears that neither party is moving at all. This becomes the basis for the appearance of time slowing.

Quick test that can be fun. When you or someone you know is traveling a great distance by plane set your watches to be as close to the same as possible. When the traveling party lands reach them on the telephone and see what the difference is between their time and your time. For a simple control set your watches and stay in the same city for a day and see what the difference in time is after the same amount of time as the flight.

posted on Aug, 17 2010 @ 07:25 PM
Visible light determines our observed reality and is the speed of reality. We absorb light and emit it so we are connected to it. Without getting too metaphysical I thi k the reason we can't travel at the speed of light is because we already are traveling at the speed of light. How can 2 objects occupy the same time/space.

Having said that light does have mass. If it didn't it wouldn't be effected by gravity. Any particle that exists in This reality has to have a mass of some sort.

posted on Aug, 17 2010 @ 07:25 PM
My only issue or quandary on this subject is say somehow there became a system to travel faster than the speed of light how would a human or any photographic or videographic device capture images. At the time of superluminal travel the human eye or any of this electronic equipment would be bombarded by these photons and produce only white with no way to make out shadows. This would be due to the fact that shadows or colors or anything else related to light would not be able to form prior to the "crafts arrival".

So at such a time that superluminal travel occurs who steers?

Before I get the whole bending space-time or wormhole thing please note that these occurrences do not require superluminal travel and as such do not fit into the question posed.

posted on Aug, 18 2010 @ 09:23 AM

Originally posted by TiM3LoRd
Visible light determines our observed reality and is the speed of reality. We absorb light and emit it so we are connected to it. Without getting too metaphysical I thi k the reason we can't travel at the speed of light is because we already are traveling at the speed of light. How can 2 objects occupy the same time/space.

Having said that light does have mass. If it didn't it wouldn't be effected by gravity. Any particle that exists in This reality has to have a mass of some sort.

Originally posted by who_sright?
My only issue or quandary on this subject is say somehow there became a system to travel faster than the speed of light how would a human or any photographic or videographic device capture images. At the time of superluminal travel the human eye or any of this electronic equipment would be bombarded by these photons and produce only white with no way to make out shadows. This would be due to the fact that shadows or colors or anything else related to light would not be able to form prior to the "crafts arrival".

So at such a time that superluminal travel occurs who steers?

Before I get the whole bending space-time or wormhole thing please note that these occurrences do not require superluminal travel and as such do not fit into the question posed.

That is a really great theory,
But if we were already traveling at MC2 then light would appear to not move at all relative to our velocity hence everything would be all covered in this white light cloud or mass,
But then the light that we emit would be superluminal which would have a an effect on energy mass and time.....

People need to stop saying the speed of light when they are referring to MC2

MC2 is the speed of light multiplied by itself
The speed of light is just the speed of light

I just realized at the velocity of MC2, TIME STOPS!!!!!

[edit on 18-8-2010 by SupremeKnowledge]

posted on Aug, 18 2010 @ 12:50 PM
Well to "travel faster" is a matter of the velocity of an object, and velocity is a matter of time, distance, and direction. The reason light is used as basis for this argument is because it has no mass, and as a result it can move faster than any object with mass.

But let's take a look at what velocity really is. Velocity is made up by two things.
1. The position in space of the object you are trying to measure.
2. The time it takes to get to it's next point in space.

Already we have a problem. Time. The speed of light is dependent on time. The velocity of any object is dependent on time. Is time as we experience it a constant? No. It is far from a constant because our only current measurement of time is based on our experience of it.

If we were to travel half the speed of light, what we would consider a light year would be much longer, because our experience of time would slow down significantly. But light doesn't slow down at all. Perspective doesn't change the speed of an object, it changes our perspective of speed.

For a moment forget about what can travel faster than the speed of light and lets look at how SLOW an object can move. What is the slowest any object can move? Can any object STOP moving entirely?

The answer is no, an object can't stop moving. At the atomic level, even non-living things still experience movement. At the sub-atomic level, all matter experiences movement. Think the movement of electrons around an atom can be stopped? What about below that level?

Any object that exists is moving. The question everyone wonders is how fast or slow?

Well let us take a different approach to time than the conventional approach. Look at time at a universal level. Look at time as change. What is the quickest (or slowest) anything in the universe can change from one position in space to another?

Some would suggest that an object with no mass would move the fastest since it can change position the quickest of all things. That would certainly be logical. Certainly something with no mass can get from point A in space to point B in space faster than anything right?

Well, that is not entirely accurate. With our current understanding, or lack there of, of physics, small sub-atomic particles can not only out do the speed of light, but out do speed itself by existing in more than one place at a time.

At this point it quickly becomes evident that either
A. Our understanding of physics is fundamentally wrong.
B. Light is not the constant we once believed it to be.
Instead of measuring in light years, lets call the ability for light to travel from point A to point B in space a Unit of Light Traveling. The reason being is that a light year is a measurement based on one earth year, which is a subjective measurement of time. One Unit of Light Traveling is the rate of change that occurs while light is traveling from one point to another point right next to it in space.

So now the question becomes what is the rate of change in the universe? Is it constant?

To answer that, we must figure out what is the quickest anything that exists in the physical world can change states. What is the quickest that any object, atomic or sub-atomic, can change from one position in space to another, or one state of existence to another state of existence.

Through testing, we have found an answer to that very question. Simultaneous.

Simultaneous is an odd answer, but the truthful one. An object, at a sub-atomic scale, can exist in multiple places at once, in multiple states at once. This means the rate of change in the universe is simultaneous. There is no point in time where change definitively occurs. It occurs simultaneously.

That has big implications for time as a measuring tool. Time as a measuring tool ceases to be accurate at this scale. The reason being, even 1 Unit of Light Traveling is variable and unmeasurable. Time itself is variable. Time is not a constant any more than earth is a constant to measure it.

What implication does that have for traveling faster than light though? If time is a measurement of change, and change exists simultaneously, than that must mean that time too exists simultaneously. If time exists simultaneously, then theoretically, things should be able to move faster than light, though "move" isn't in the traditional sense of moving. The object can exist both where light exists, and where light is going to exist.

The problem lies in practicalities. We can already "smear" an atom to be at two places at once, but how do we "smear" a person to two places at once, and how do we increase the distance? We don't yet have a full understanding of physics to answer these questions.

Hopefully my rant doesn't come off as completely insane. My basic point was to try and show how time as we understand it, does not really exist, therefore the speed of light as we know it, also doesn't really exist. How can we know if something can or can't travel faster than it, if we don't know how fast it is really traveling?

posted on Aug, 18 2010 @ 01:09 PM
If we are already traveling at the speed of light, maybe we exist already in a black hole. Changing our position outside of the black hole maybe faster than light is possible. Also how do we know that light from different stars don't have a different light speed than in our own galaxy?

posted on Aug, 18 2010 @ 04:42 PM
reply to post by Gentill Abdulla

What are we really measuring when we relate to the velocity of light ???

Are we measuring the change in the Amplitude of the Wave (interpreted as the Velocity of Light) ???

Or are we measuring the Propagating Wave Front (interpreted as the Velocity of Light) ???

Or is it bi-directional (Oscillating both in Amplitude and Propagation)

Or is Light we see, the Modulation of the existing Magnetic environment (That is if, LIGHT is Electromagnetic Radiation alone ???

Perhaps the electromagnetic interpretation is only one component of LIGHT ???

Where “a.” in the above drawing represents the Average Ref of the Magnetic transfer media.

Do we ever see the Propagation of Light in space i.e. the leading end of a beam of Light or wave, travelling or propagating at any time ???

Is there any record of this happening

As there are huge clouds of gasses in the Universe surely we would see the leading wave travelling through such at times ??? i.e. the change in luminosity travelling through such gas clouds or other clouds in space containing partials.

If we look at multi-slits producing an interference pattern, does this only involve the inter-phasing of Light Amplitude, or are we looking at the edge of light beams, being opened by angular shift and inter-phasing with each other ???

All our experimentation is subject to interpretation by the human species….

Is our interpretation always correct???

posted on Aug, 18 2010 @ 08:38 PM
I think that if an object is traveling near superluminal and produces a light beam then it would be far beyond superluminal

posted on Aug, 18 2010 @ 08:49 PM
Looks like I have banned from abovetopsecret;
I am now Belowtop secret;
I dont even know why...

posted on Aug, 18 2010 @ 08:53 PM
Banning members for no reason reminds me of the internet service called America Online;
I think everyone boycotted them

posted on Aug, 18 2010 @ 08:55 PM

How can you be in two places at once when you're not anywhere at all?

Doesn't look like you're banned to me.

posted on Aug, 18 2010 @ 08:59 PM
They have banned me to BELOWTOPSECRET;
I have no idea what I did wrong;
But it was really nice chatting with you guys;
I dont think I will be returning....
GG

DjSharperimage aka SupremeKnowledge

[edit on 18-8-2010 by SupremeKnowledge]

posted on Aug, 18 2010 @ 09:07 PM
wow i got banned for talking about the speed of light,
LMAO @ AboveTopSecret;

More like Government Propaganda!!!

I will now boycott your website

[edit on 18-8-2010 by SupremeKnowledge]

new topics

top topics

8