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.

 

Here is why you CANNOT travel faster than light!

page: 5
8
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 20 2010 @ 12:51 PM
link   
reply to post by Arbitrageur
 


I don't think he gets it though Arb. So here Grim a vid on time dilation.(Courtesy of a document that was on Ronald Mallet.)



The vid was on Mallet's time travel hypothesis. This was a segment on them.




posted on Aug, 20 2010 @ 01:15 PM
link   
I have e few problems with Einsteins theories.

Firstly i think they should be termed theories of the photon as they don't really relate to much else.

Secondly, if the achievement of the speed of light requires infinite energy leading to the acquisition of infinite mass, how is the photon itself not reading infinite Mass/Energy?????

It is a contradiction that overturns the whole theory.



posted on Aug, 20 2010 @ 01:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by Cosmic4life
I have e few problems with Einsteins theories.

Firstly i think they should be termed theories of the photon as they don't really relate to much else.

Secondly, if the achievement of the speed of light requires infinite energy leading to the acquisition of infinite mass, how is the photon itself not reading infinite Mass/Energy?????

It is a contradiction that overturns the whole theory.


You seem to have a misunderstanding of it.

I had a misunderstanding of the whole mass and energy thing a few days ago.(I had a whole problem on how mass turns into energy.I had thought the only way to do it was through motion. Turns out it wasn't.)

Anyway

Motion doesn't change mass at all. It just increases INERTIAL MASS.

Meaning you will resist a change in motion.(Gets harder to increase speed.)

This means that if you have the inertial mass of a ton then you will be just as hard to accelerate to the same speed as an object of one ton at rest.

And here is a response to the part about a photon.....



[edit on 20-8-2010 by Gentill Abdulla]



posted on Aug, 20 2010 @ 03:03 PM
link   
reply to post by Cosmic4life
 


The photon does not have rest mass so can travel at C. It does have relativistic mass however due to its speed, although not a lot.

Having no rest mass means it has no inertial mass.



posted on Aug, 20 2010 @ 03:15 PM
link   
reply to post by LightFantastic
 


Wouldn't the photon having no rest mass infer that it also has no energy?

Mass/Energy equivalence?

What is relativistic mass? is it not Inertial mass? would that not infer a rest mass?

Again i ask..why does a photon not exhibit infinite Mass/Energy?



posted on Aug, 20 2010 @ 03:18 PM
link   
reply to post by Gentill Abdulla
 


The only way to travel faster than the speed of light is if you use an entire different kind of laws. The laws that are applicable in a blackhole...For as far as I know a blackhole is mathematically and with the current knowledge of the laws of physics not explainable.

Yet it does excist and is real. What about the behaviour of particles on quantum level. How does a particle know what his twin is doing at great or short distance apart? maybe we are looking at speeds faster than the speed of light the wrong way.......and is it possible.



posted on Aug, 20 2010 @ 03:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by Cosmic4life
reply to post by LightFantastic
 


Wouldn't the photon having no rest mass infer that it also has no energy?

Mass/Energy equivalence?

What is relativistic mass? is it not Inertial mass? would that not infer a rest mass?

Again i ask..why does a photon not exhibit infinite Mass/Energy?

A photon is never at rest. So the question about rest mass is kind of moot, it's always moving at the speed of light and always has energy of a very specific and quantifiable, not infinite amount.

The relativistic mass is inferred from the E=MC^2 formula, E is known (the energy) and c^2 is known so you can solve for M, that's the inertial mass. And no it doesn't infer a rest mass.

Your last question has already been answered, I'm not sure what good it will do to repeat the answer if you just repeat the question?

[edit on 21-8-2010 by Arbitrageur]



posted on Aug, 20 2010 @ 03:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by zatara
reply to post by Gentill Abdulla
 


The only way to travel faster than the speed of light is if you use an entire different kind of laws. The laws that are applicable in a blackhole...For as far as I know a blackhole is mathematically and with the current knowledge of the laws of physics not explainable.
Some people think they can explain what's inside the event horizon of a black hole, but since I know of no way to prove them right or wrong, it seems speculative. Even if you went in to make measurements I don't know of a way to get the measurement information back out. So yes there are mysterious aspects to a black hole that are beyond experimental confirmation. But extrapolating what we know doesn't predict faster than light travel related to a black hole, as far as I know. If you have information to the contrary, please post your sources, thanks.



posted on Aug, 20 2010 @ 03:44 PM
link   
reply to post by Gentill Abdulla
 


i've given this subject some thought over the years.

disclaimer: i'm not an expert at physics.

let me repeat that. i am not an expert at physics.

i don't think we know how fast we are going to begin with in reference to all else that exists or has a perspective.


what i mean by that is:
i don't think we do not know how fast we are going.



posted on Aug, 20 2010 @ 04:31 PM
link   
But not all light travels at the speed of light( like 186,000 mps 6 or 7)
So is "Einstein's famous equation" flawed?

And you can travel at the SOL all you need to do is disrupt the frequency of your body so much that the atoms of your body disperse.

Then you can use a laser,fiber-optic or some beam of light to send the atoms to another place before you stop disrupting the frequency. However i would not recommend this.


Am i wrong?



posted on Aug, 20 2010 @ 05:34 PM
link   
What you call LIGHT is a Secondary "Phenomena".

If LIGHT is electromagnetic ???
Then what you experience, is only the ability to detect the "Disturbance" within the electromagnetic media.

This is understood as electromagnetic waves.

What we call the speed of LIGHT is determined by the “Response of the electromagnetic media” i.e. the speed the "Wave" can propagate through the magnetic media.

___________________________________


Example....

If we drop a pebble into a pond we see "Waves"...
In this case The Shock Waves seen on the water behaves like LIGHT "Waves".

Where the Water is the "Transfer Media".

(But the "Magnetic Field" is the "Transfer Media" in the case of LIGHT.)

But what causes these "Waves" in water, is nothing like the "Waves" or the Water.

The Speed the "Waves" in the pond propagate at is determined by both the Source (Pebble and Gravity) and the response of the Wave Transfer Media (The Water).

___________________________________



But what produces these disturbances we refer to as LIGHT “Waves”, is totally different than what you call LIGHT.

So the “Primary” is the Source and what you call LIGHT is the “Secondary” in the response of the electromagnetic media.

LIGHT “Waves” or the detection of LIGHT “Waves” i.e. of the Electromagnetic spectrum is only one “Symptom of what produces these waves.

LIGHT is only one of the Results of the “Source” and Not the “Source” itself…

So at the end of the Day "the Speed of LIGHT" is determined by the "Transfer Media" (Electromagnetic)..... other wise we can't say LIGHT is "Electromagnetic Radiation" ???

[edit on 20-8-2010 by The Matrix Traveller]



posted on Aug, 20 2010 @ 05:45 PM
link   
i apologise if this has alrady been asked/answered but....

if light has no mass how can it be affected by the gravity of a black hole??

i have a high interest in this subject but a low understanding so please forgive me if i am being dumb


MooseVernel



posted on Aug, 20 2010 @ 05:52 PM
link   
reply to post by moosevernel
 


If Gravity affects LIGHT ???

Then regarding Gravity there must be a link to Electromagnetism, if so does this account for Gravity Waves ????

Read my Last post above....



posted on Aug, 20 2010 @ 06:21 PM
link   
reply to post by Arbitrageur
 


Hi Arbitrageur,

It comes down to our interpretation of what the Universe is, and how it is being Produced I guess.

Those billions of years ahead of the human species, may have an entirely different interpretation of all ???

How much do we really understand ???

Just because it is our "human understanding" does Not necessarily say we do understand correctly ???

In the thousands of years to come I guess our understanding will also change ???



posted on Aug, 20 2010 @ 06:31 PM
link   
reply to post by Arbitrageur
 


I heared or read somewhere that light is 'sucked' into
a blackhole so visious that at a certain point it goes in faster than it should, or should I say could?

I am sorry for not being able to give the source of this info.



posted on Aug, 20 2010 @ 07:20 PM
link   
reply to post by Gentill Abdulla
 


OK then , what if i were to create a warp bubble around my ship.

A warp bubble like the Alcubierre drive.

Although i would not be traveling FTL inside the bubble, i would be able to reach a given destination before any light outside of the bubble and there would be zero inertia or time dilation as the Alcubierre drive would contract spacetime in front of the craft and expand spacetime at the back.

All i would need is some exotic matter, the existence of which is implied by the Casimir Effect and The Accelerating Universe.

Of course actually acquiring some exotic matter maybe a stretch, not to mention the problem of accidentally creating a naked singularity in front of the craft. Some serious spaghettification there methinks.

But should we let these small details stop us from dreaming that one day in the far distant future.....




posted on Aug, 20 2010 @ 08:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by moosevernel
if light has no mass how can it be affected by the gravity of a black hole??


In Euclidean space (the kind you learn about in high school), light DOES have mass. All masses, including light, feel equal and opposite gravitational forces of attraction toward one another (in accordance with Newton’s law of universal gravitation). When gravity alters the direction of a photon, it imparts an impulse (change of momentum); Newton’s third law requires that an equal and opposite impulse must be imparted to the source of the gravity field. So light has its own, albeit extremely weak, gravitational field.

F = ma doesn’t even work for massive particles at relativistic speeds. A = dv/dt, so ma = mdv/dt. For a particle with rest mass, m, dp = mdv + vdm. So f = mdv/dt + vdm/dt = dp/dt ≠ ma. For a photon, which cannot rest, there is no rest mass, but f = dp/dt is valid even for a photon.


I am not much good at general relativity (GR), since I have no background in tensor analysis. But I think I understand it conceptually. Confusion over the mass of a photon results from the definition of Minkowski space-time, in which the path of light is the definition of a straight line. This tacitly alters the meanings of all the physical parameters. Mass in general relativity is not the same animal as mass in Euclidean space. The concept of force got so confusing in general relativity that it was dropped all together.


Straightening the path of light by definition causes the warp of space-time; the warp is NOT the cause of gravity.


In GR, a photon’s momentum and energy are affected by gravity, but not its direction. In astronomy, gravity lensing alters the direction of light in Euclidean space, but not in Minkowski space-time. If we see the same light source on opposite sides of a gravity lens, it is because two straight lines can intersect more than once in Minkowski space time. The light is radiated toward opposite sides of the gravity lens from a point source; billions of years later, it is seen on opposite sides of the lens at by a point observer. Yet, the light did not bend in Minkowski space-time. Instead, it followed two straight lines in warped space-time.



posted on Aug, 21 2010 @ 02:29 AM
link   

Originally posted by GunzCoty
But not all light travels at the speed of light( like 186,000 mps 6 or 7)
So is "Einstein's famous equation" flawed?

Am i wrong?
Yes, you're wrong and you haven't been keeping up with the thread, I've already posted repeatedly that light always travels at about 300,000,000 km/s (or about 186,000 mps). ALWAYS. Even when light appears to slow sown passing through glass, it's still traveling at that speed. The measured decrease in speed is a result of the photons being absorbed and re-emitted, not a result of light slowing down.



posted on Aug, 21 2010 @ 02:54 AM
link   

Originally posted by The Matrix Traveller
reply to post by Arbitrageur
 


Hi Arbitrageur,

How much do we really understand ???

Just because it is our "human understanding" does Not necessarily say we do understand correctly ???

In the thousands of years to come I guess our understanding will also change ???
Of course we would have to ignore history to say our understanding of the universe won't improve as new discoveries are made. It has been happening for centuries and unless we let the young earth creationists take over the public schools, our knowledge will continue to grow for centuries to come.

We can say whether or not observations are consistent with a certain theory. So if that theory is wrong, and the true explanation for those observations is something other than what we think, we can hopefully discover our errors and continue to learn. As we discovered our error in assuming there was a propagation media called Aether:


Originally posted by The Matrix Traveller
What we call the speed of LIGHT is determined by the “Response of the electromagnetic media” i.e. the speed the "Wave" can propagate through the magnetic media.
I have no idea what you mean by magnetic media. There used to be a belief in something called Aether which was believed to be a media for propagation, but proof that Einstein's theory is correct pretty much dispelled the notion of the propagation media, it doesn't match observational results whether you call it Aether or something else like a "magnetic media".

Top 10 Most Famous Scientific Theories (That Turned out to be Wrong)


The aether, also known as the ether, was a mysterious substance that was long believed to be the means through which light was transmitted through the universe.
How it was Proven Wrong: In traditional scientific fashion, the notion of a luminiferous aether was only gradually phased out as more sophisticated theories came into play. Experiments in the diffraction and refraction of light had long rendered traditional models of the aether outdated, but it was only when Einstein’s special theory of relativity came along and completely reconfigured physics that the idea lost the last of its major adherents. The theory still exists in various forms, though, and many have argued that modern scientists simply use terms like “fields” and “fabric” in place of the more taboo term “aether.”



posted on Aug, 21 2010 @ 04:23 AM
link   

Originally posted by Arbitrageur


The aether, also known as the ether, was a mysterious substance that was long believed to be the means through which light was transmitted through the universe.
How it was Proven Wrong: In traditional scientific fashion, the notion of a luminiferous aether was only gradually phased out as more sophisticated theories came into play. Experiments in the diffraction and refraction of light had long rendered traditional models of the aether outdated, but it was only when Einstein’s special theory of relativity came along and completely reconfigured physics that the idea lost the last of its major adherents. The theory still exists in various forms, though, and many have argued that modern scientists simply use terms like “fields” and “fabric” in place of the more taboo term “aether.”


Count me among those who still believe in ether. All waves must have a medium. Fields are just a mathematical description of an effect; a description of an effect is not the cause. “Fabric” is a term associated with the mistaken notion that the warp of space-time is the cause of gravity. As I said in my previous post, the warp is caused by the redefinition of “straight line”. Again, we have a description of an effect being proclaimed as the cause.

Chief among those experiments proclaimed to have disproved the existence of ether is Michelson-Morley. It merely proved that masses, such as the Earth do not drag the ether. Since the two leading ether theories of the day both predicted some form of ether dragging, they concluded there is no ether. What form of logic is that?

In my own model, there is one ether for all the forces. The main thing missing from all previous ether models is the existence of longitudinal waves (dark energy) which propagate at least 20 billion times faster than light. It has long been known that e/m waves are transverse and propagate at the speed of light. There is an exchange of momentum when a longitudinal wave collides with a transverse wave. That exchange of momentum is responsible for all the forces of nature.

To get back on topic: The speed of light is determined by the properties of the medium, namely shear modulus, G, and inertial density, ρ. Since e/m waves are transverse, the ether has to be a solid. The formula for speed of a transverse wave in a solid is c = √(G/ρ). As I explained in my first post to this thread, particles consist of orbiting pairs or groups of transverse waves, held in orbit by the exchange of momentum with longitudinal waves. Since an orbital path is longer than the path of the center of the orbit, a particle can’t go as fast as its constituent transverse waves, which orbit at the speed of light.







 
8
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join