Here is why you CANNOT travel faster than light!

Yeah everyone loves how they get banned for discussing the speed of light

Guess I will be doing other things like ipad ipod zune blah blah blah

[edit on 18-8-2010 by SupremeKnowledge]

[edit on 18-8-2010 by SupremeKnowledge]

reply to post by Gentill Abdulla


I'm pretty sure the speed of light is not the fastest moving thing out there in our world.

I haven't proven it to myself yet, but I know how to prove if its possible.

I'm pretty sure that the ether or cosmic energy is faster than light and that light is carried by the ether or by some sort of cosmic energy. I'm pretty sure that gravity is produced by this cosmic energy and can be reversed to create what some would state is anti-gravity.

Free energy exists and man will soon rediscover how to tap into this form of free energy.

Nikola Tesla discovered this free energy, and he was a genius at that kind of technology, and he flatly stated that "free energy exists" and it can be tapped into and used to do all kinds of work. He actually had a car with a 6 foot antenae that drew on this energy and propelled his car.

John Keeley discovered this free energy and tapped into it also. Others have tapped into this energy also, and it exists; but no one is tapping into it now apparently.

The positive part of this energy comes from the cosmos or Suns, amoungst other things. The negative part of this energy comes from planets, amounst other things.

I have discovered this free energy, and that it definitely exists, yet I haven't the knowledge of how to tap into this free energy; but it is unlimited and can be used by all.

Long, long ago, when I was interested in this positive energy, I used to point my tracking dish at different things and I could see if they were emitting positive energy or not; and many things do emit positive energy.

The thing that emits the most positive energy by far is of course the Sun. While using my tracking dish to track the Sun as it moved through the sky, I also discovered that my tracking dish could track the positive energy of the Sun penetrating right through the Earth itself, even after it was dark outside because the Sun had set.

It became apparent to me at that time that Sun Light is carried by this positive energy, or riding on this positive energy that could possibly be moving much faster than light.

In the future, after I make many of my discoveries known, I'm sure that many scientists will use my scientific processes in order to find out if this cosmic positive energy is faster that the speed of light.

They will use a simple process, but they will need better tracking equipment than what I was using. All they will have to do, is use a small diameter barrelled tracking dish and a sight right along side of the barrel and have something looking down the site to make sure that the barrel is about 10 minutes ahead of were the Sun is in the sky. If detection of the Sun takes place any place before where the light can come down the barrel of the tracking device, it will have proved that positive cosmic energy from the Sun is faster than the speed of light itself. So... I'm pretty sure that the positive cosmic energy coming from the Sun is faster than the speed of light itself.

You can see some of my old videos here, soon I will add many more, and I will expand upon this more in one of my newer videos. I talk about positive and negative energies in my videos even though most of the time I'm talking about how to "Detect and Map Earthquakes Before They Strike" by tracking down the negative piezoseismic energy that is detected up to hundreds of miles away from hypocenters of upcoming earthquakes by using piezoseismology.

www.youtube.com.../a/u/0/5jxJRtoOuDc

Tracking the Sun's positive energy through the sky is the same, except the tracking dish is on a tracking device on a tripod used to track stars in the sky.

"This one's got purple, purple is a fruit." - Statement that holds the same water as your arguement. from: - The Simpsons.





[all jokes of course]

reply to post by Gentill Abdulla


Good thread Gentill

Whether you can travel faster than the speed of light depends on your frame of reference and a little on semantics.

For a traveller travelling at 99.99% the speed of light time will be slowed greatly compared to their departure point. So from this travellers point of view the distance covered divided by the elapsed time recorded will give a speed much greater than the speed of light.

From the departure point's frame of reference the traveller will be travelling less than the speed of light.

So in short, with quick enough acceleration and deceleration and a top speed of 99.99% the speed of light anywhere in the visible universe is well within reach within a human lifetime, which could be called faster than light travel.

reply to post by LightFantastic


and the next person to reply has a homer simpson avatar.

********in the voice of Homer Simpson********

"hmmm. synchronicity"



haha. Ok I'll stop now.

Honestly though.

Very intriguing thread

reply to post by SupremeKnowledge


You've clearly not be banned or else you wouldnt be able to post in this thread.

The thread itself probably just got moved around a bit by the mods.

reply to post by Gentill Abdulla


Of course, the problem with Einstein's physics is that they lead to the potential for time-travel.

Instead, when you look at gravity as an entropic function, the possibility exists to travel faster than the speed of light without causing the headache of time-travel. Of course - instantaneous travel between two locations could be rather dangerous - 'jumping' from, say, the edge of our solar system to within a few thousand kilometers of the sun would require an entropic adjustment (like taking a hot piece of metal and tossing it in a glass of water).

What is not known is the method by which this would be possible, or whether the entropic difference would be absorbed in the energy necessary to make the 'jump,' or if jumping from a low gravitational density to a high gravitational density would lead you to appear in a burst of gamma radiation (or some other appropriate form).

Of course, the problem is that you are looking at it as actually moving. We don't actually need to move in order to be in a different location. Instantaneous transfer of information is possible (and has been demonstrated in the shifts of quantum states of entangled particles). Thus, Einstein was brilliant - but he failed to understand the implications of what he had found and reconcile it with subatomic behavior.

Something that was immediately apparent to me from a young age - if "time" slows down, it can only mean one thing - quantum behavior is fundamentally altered by the locality of other particles. I recognize even this is drastically over-simplified - but when you accept time as an abstract concept rather than a physical dimension, it all balances out almost perfectly.

For example - you send a frequency through a "worm hole" (for lack of a better term) - you send it from a location near the event horizon of a black hole. Let's say it's a laser signal. It would emerge from the other end (say, near the galactic void) as ELF radiation instantly. Now - the observant would realize that an ELF wave contains much less energy per unit of time than a visible-spectrum frequency. Thus, for the amount of energy to be proportional, that ELF radiation would have to emit for a time span much longer than the source was actually radiating.

However, gravity is not a force, but an entropic function - so, the cost of instantaneous transportation between two locations of different gravitational density is energy.

Inverting the above scenario will have the end near the black-hole emitting gamma radiation or above.

Since information cannot be sent across an event horizon, it is therefor impossible to create or destroy energy given this method. You cannot achieve an 'infinite frequency' - nor could you muster enough energy to escape the event horizon.

The universe remains unbroken, you can't be your grandfather, etc.

Of course - sending light is a little different than sending a ship full of people. Obviously, you can't be so easily converted into ELF radiation (or gamma bursts). So it may be a case of "we can send you to another galaxy instantly, but you'll arrive as a Bose-Einstein Condensate, or a massive explosion - IE - dead."

Some way of mitigating this would be necessary - even for communications. When the concept of time becomes floating - a 800MHz signal sent instantly would be 200MHz to some and 8GHz to others - which would pose obvious problems for trying to set up FTL communication networks.

Good opening post!

Originally posted by Gentill Abdulla
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.

Here is a link....

www.scientificamerican.com...

I pretty much followed and agreed with most of our post until you got to the Casimir effect. I know and understand that the Casimir effect is, but I don't understand why you said: "The closest thing we have to this is the Casimir effect." I read the link you posted and that makes sense but I didn't see anything in there about how the Casimir effect might be used to prevent a wormhole from collapsing?

Originally posted by SupremeKnowledge
wow i got banned for talking about the speed of light,
LMAO @ AboveTopSecret;

You sure are making a lot of posts for someone who is banned... LMAO is right!

In other words, you aren't banned! If you were I wouldn't be able to see your post or reply to it like this.

Originally posted by Aim64C
Of course, the problem with Einstein's physics is that they lead to the potential for time-travel.

Why is that a problem? As long as you can only travel forward in time (relative to other inertial frames of reference) you can't go back and kill your grandfather, or perform any of the other backwards time-travel paradoxes, right?

Originally posted by Arbitrageur
Good opening post!

I pretty much followed and agreed with most of our post until you got to the Casimir effect. I know and understand that the Casimir effect is, but I don't understand why you said: "The closest thing we have to this is the Casimir effect." I read the link you posted and that makes sense but I didn't see anything in there about how the Casimir effect might be used to prevent a wormhole from collapsing?

www.xs4all.nl...

Casimir realised that between two plates, only those virtual photons whose wavelengths fit a whole number of times into the gap should be counted when calculating the vacuum energy. The energy density decreases as the plates are moved closer, which implies that there is a small force drawing them together.

Decreasing the energy density enough to allow for the energy density to become negative. I.e. equal to applying negative pressure inside the wormhole.

How is any of this possible? I wouldnt know how anyone anywhere at anytime would be able to get mass to travel at the speed of light or faster. Even if by some way human kind could develop the technology, how would this be possible for humans? A human would not be able to travel at this speed as it would damage tissues, or damage the body at even an atomic/molecular level. Would it not?

Originally posted by AzoriaCorp
How is any of this possible? I wouldnt know how anyone anywhere at anytime would be able to get mass to travel at the speed of light or faster. Even if by some way human kind could develop the technology, how would this be possible for humans? A human would not be able to travel at this speed as it would damage tissues, or damage the body at even an atomic/molecular level. Would it not?

Nobody knows if the Alcubierre drive is possible or not, it's very speculative. But it allows you to travel faster than the speed of light on a cosmic scale without traveling faster than the speed of light locally, so if it were possible, it might not tear apart human tissue.

Then again, the problem damaging to humans might not be the speed, but the radiation emitted by the power source, adequate shielding, etc. I've seen speculations that it might take a star larger than our sun to power such a drive, so you might get cooked from radiation rather than torn apart by speed using that kind of power source. We might be able to send robots that way though, if they can be made to sustain higher levels of radiation than humans, which I suspect is possible.

Originally posted by Gentill Abdulla
Decreasing the energy density enough to allow for the energy density to become negative. I.e. equal to applying negative pressure inside the wormhole.

I don't know, it seems to me like the reason the wormhole is unstable is because it pinches off too quickly. Creating negative pressure inside the wormhole (as in attracting the plates with the Casimir effect) seems like it would only make the wormhole pinch off that much more quickly, would it not? It seems like you need something to keep the wormhole open, not pinch it shut.

Originally posted by Arbitrageur

Originally posted by Gentill Abdulla
Decreasing the energy density enough to allow for the energy density to become negative. I.e. equal to applying negative pressure inside the wormhole.

I don't know, it seems to me like the reason the wormhole is unstable is because it pinches off too quickly. Creating negative pressure inside the wormhole (as in attracting the plates with the Casimir effect) seems like it would only make the wormhole pinch off that much more quickly, would it not? It seems like you need something to keep the wormhole open, not pinch it shut.

The energy density of the wormhole overall is positive. This relates to a gravitational pull.(By that I mean it attracts itself.)

With the negative energy density it allows it to NOT attract itself.(It will stay in it's original shape.)Allowing things to go through without the wormhole collapsing.

Think of it like a really flimsy rubber band.

If I place it upright vertically it will most likely close. But if I hold it open then it will stay open.

The negative energy helps create negative pressure in the throat of the wormhole. Thus keeping it from pinching off.

Did that help at all?

reply to post by Arbitrageur


"Time Travel" in the sense of "go fast enough and you'll appear to stop to the rest of the world" is akin to sticking an apple in a freezer, then taking it out a few months later, claiming that it's traveled through time.

Time had nothing to do with it. Time, in fact, doesn't exist. All that happened was rates of quantum activity have -relatively- slowed. Radioactive decay slows, liquids more readily form, etc. It's entropic. It's not a force any more than temperature is.

It simply applies at a level below molecular activity.

Standard Einstein physics allow for travel through time in any direction. Ideas such as the "worm hole" allow for time travel to a past time - which is just silly. Einstein didn't like it. Neither do I.

reply to post by Aim64C


What if our sun were to instantaneously disappear from our reality / dimension, I understand that we would not see the event for approx 8 minutes due to the speed of light but would the earth lose the sun's gravitational pull instantaneously ?
ie what is the speed of gravity ? and if it has no mass surely it may travel faster than the speed of light due to e=MC2 therefore not applying.

It makes my brain hurt pondering this one

[edit on 19/8/10 by IMOVERHERE]

Originally posted by Gentill Abdulla
With the negative energy density it allows it to NOT attract itself.(It will stay in it's original shape.)Allowing things to go through without the wormhole collapsing.

Exactly! That's how you keep it from collapsing!

Now, look at what you said about the Casimir effect:

Originally posted by Gentill Abdulla
www.scientificamerican.com...

Thus, the mirrors will attract each other, just as two objects held together by a stretched spring will move together as the energy stored in the spring decreases.

So it seems to me like you're contradicting yourself or else I'm misunderstanding you. You say we want it to NOT attract itself to avoid collapse of the wormhole (which is correct and I agree), then you give an example of the Casimir effect where the mirrors attract each other, which seems like the opposite of what you want to happen. What am I missing?

Originally posted by Arbitrageur

Originally posted by Gentill Abdulla
With the negative energy density it allows it to NOT attract itself.(It will stay in it's original shape.)Allowing things to go through without the wormhole collapsing.

Exactly! That's how you keep it from collapsing!

Now, look at what you said about the Casimir effect:

Originally posted by Gentill Abdulla
www.scientificamerican.com...

Thus, the mirrors will attract each other, just as two objects held together by a stretched spring will move together as the energy stored in the spring decreases.

So it seems to me like you're contradicting yourself or else I'm misunderstanding you. You say we want it to NOT attract itself to avoid collapse of the wormhole (which is correct and I agree), then you give an example of the Casimir effect where the mirrors attract each other, which seems like the opposite of what you want to happen. What am I missing?

Yes the mirrors attract each other BUT the energy density between them is negative.

You could just keep both of them at the mouths of the wormhole or preferably at the throat of the wormhole because that is where it will tend to collapse.

Is that better?

[edit on 19-8-2010 by Gentill Abdulla]

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.

technically speaking if either A or B is right they both are right if our understanding of physics is wrong then light isnt the constant we believe it to be and if light is not the constant its because our understanding of physics is wrong. so basically using broken or incomplete science to argue reality is like using the bible to justify the bible. clearly nobody has any idea what the hell is going on.

Originally posted by Gentill Abdulla
You could just keep both of them at the mouths of the wormhole or preferably at the throat of the wormhole because that is where it will tend to collapse.

So it will tend to collapse at the throat. and you're suggesting the way to prevent this collapse is by putting mirrors there at the throat that are attracted to each other? Won't the attractive force between the mirrors simply accelerate the collapse? You're trying to keep it open, not pull it shut.

[edit on 19-8-2010 by Arbitrageur]