It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable 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: 6
<< 3  4  5    7  8 >>

log in


posted on Aug, 21 2010 @ 07:00 AM
reply to post by Phractal Phil

Now this is more like it Phractal Phil.

What you are describing sounds to me like Tesla's Dynamic Aether Theory.

Much more understandable than Einsteins Ambiguity.

I also lean towards the Dynamic Aether Theory as it provides a means of exploring the universe and unlimited energy.

Dynamic Aether Theory is the key to unlock the door of the Relativistic prison we find ourselves in.

I notice the priests of Relativistic Dogma have yet to respond to your post, i hope they take up the challenge rather than simply ignoring it.

posted on Aug, 21 2010 @ 01:27 PM
reply to post by Cosmic4life

I’m sorry to disappoint you, Cos, but Tesla’s ether was a gas; mine is a solid. I’m no mathematician, but I’m pretty sure both special and general relativity are compatible with my model (except that GR could use an adjustment to account for the finite speed of gravity). For that matter, it should be a simple matter for a mathematician to derive special relativity from my model of particles (pairs or groups of shear waves orbiting one another at the speed of light).

Dark energy, being many times faster than light, in no way hints that particles could ever travel faster than light. It does, however, lend credence to FTL communication.

Time reversal between successive universes complicates the question of cause preceding effect. A century or two of debate should determine whether the future is preordained, whether there are multiple universes existing in the same location, time and scale, or whether some other explanation can resolve the ambiguities.

posted on Aug, 21 2010 @ 04:44 PM
reply to post by Phractal Phil

That's ok Phil but now i have to correct you regarding Tesla's Dynamic Aether.
Actually Tesla described the Aether as being a solid to both heat and light but behaving as a fluid to solid matter.
Now do you see the similarity?

posted on Aug, 21 2010 @ 05:30 PM
reply to post by Cosmic4life

There’s still a huge difference between his ether and mine. In my model, the main difference between light and matter is that light is a shear wave which propagates in a relatively straight line (perfectly straight in Minkowski space-time), while the shear waves that constitute particles are propagating in tiny circles at the speed of light. So my ether is a solid for both light and matter.

Michelson-Morley proved that there is no ether dragging. I’d like to read Tesla’s explanation of how a solid object can move thru a fluid medium without dragging the medium.

posted on Aug, 21 2010 @ 08:54 PM
reply to post by Arbitrageur

Good to hear from you again..

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.

Remarks made by Arbitrageur...

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".

It was Not my intension to refer to the “Ether”, although I understand you interpreting this as the “Aether”…

The "Aether" however is a little different than what I have tried to explain…
(please excuse the poor English)

So here goes... I will attempt to explain in another way.

Please note;

I am referring to that which is accepted by the human species and is not necessarily my understanding of the All.

(The Follwing "Quotes" are for others as I know you already know this..)

In the main the Human Species Suggest that… Quote;

LIGHT is electromagnetic radiation of a wavelength that is visible to the human eye (in a range from about 380 or 400 nanometres to about 760 or 780 nm).[1] In physics, the term light sometimes refers to electromagnetic radiation of any wavelength, whether visible or not.[2][3]
Five primary properties of light are intensity, frequency or wavelength, polarization, phase and orbital angular momentum.
Light, which exists in tiny "packets" called photons, exhibits properties of both waves and particles. This property is referred to as the wave–particle duality. The study of light, known as optics, is an important research area in modern physics.

And... Electromagnetic radiation… Quote;

Electromagnetic radiation (often abbreviated E-M radiation or EMR) is a phenomenon that takes the form of self-propagating waves in a vacuum or in matter. It comprises electric and magnetic field components, which oscillate in phase perpendicular to each other and perpendicular to the direction of energy propagation. Electromagnetic radiation is classified into several types according to the frequency of its wave; these types include (in order of increasing frequency and decreasing wavelength): radio waves, microwaves, infrared radiation, visible light, ultraviolet radiation, X-rays and gamma rays. A small and somewhat variable window of frequencies is sensed by the eyes of various organisms; this is what is called the visible spectrum. The photon is the quantum of the electromagnetic interaction and the basic "unit" of light and all other forms of electromagnetic radiation and is also the force carrier for the electromagnetic force.
EM radiation carries energy and momentum that may be imparted to matter with which it interacts.

Now if LIGHT is electromagnetic radiation ???
(which incidentally I can’t ascribe to... even though LIGHT does behave as though being "electromagnetic radiation"...Long Story… LOL.)

Then this states a “Magnetic field” is naturally involved according to the human species ???

First there has to be a source… i.e. something which produces such a field…


Here is an example involving RF (as you know is in the lower overall spectrum, according to the human species)….

Radio frequency (RF) is a rate of oscillation in the range of about 30 kHz to 300 GHz, which corresponds to the frequency of electrical signals normally used to produce and detect radio waves. RF usually refers to electrical rather than mechanical oscillations, although mechanical RF systems do exist (see mechanical filter and RF MEMS).

which is below Infared, (IR) according to human Science.

Infrared (IR) light is electromagnetic radiation with a wavelength between 0.7 and 300 micrometres, which equates to a frequency range between approximately 1 and 430 THz.[1]
IR wavelengths are longer than that of visible light, but shorter than that of terahertz radiation microwaves. Bright sunlight provides an irradiance of just over 1 kilowatt per square meter at sea level. Of this energy, 527 watts is infrared radiation, 445 watts is visible light, and 32 watts is ultraviolet radiation.[2]

(Both electromagnetic and Electrostatic Antennas exist… How is your knowledge regarding the Modulation of Electrostatic fields???)

In the case of “RF” we need to understand the nature of propagating magnetic fields.

For example…

If we produce a strong magnetic field (which is understood as you know) “a state of Stress having Polarity” (which is produced from a dynamic source.. Either of/from the behaviour of an atomic structure or the Dynamic behaviour of an electrical phenomena in rotation about a single axis, whether Linier as in a straight coil or even in a toroid, having a curved axis or more correctly a “Compound” (having 2 axes) electromagnet).

Let us consider a “Permanent Magnetic field” (Static) as you know there is a given point where the magnetic force of the field produced by a magnet, is found to be equal to the force of a magnetic field (environment) the magnet is in, at the location in question in this case the Earths magnetic field…

You can’t detect a magnetic field (of the smaller magnet) once beyond a certain point. (unless passing something through such a field)

But if we vary the "amplitude" of a small magnetic field within a greater magnetic field, the source of the smaller field can now be detected…

So if we consider an RF "Transmitter"… The same applies to the magnetic fields involved.

There is also a point where such a Magnetic field produced by a "Transmitter" both the Magnetic field of the Transmitter is equal in force to that of the Larger Magnetic field in the location in question, Where they meet, in this case referring to the Earths Magnetic field.

This is the location of the “Coupling” or mutual transmission between the Antennas Magnetic field and the Earths Magnetic field.

So first the Modulation is produced by the “Antenna” but then "passes over" into the Earths Magnetic field, thus passing on such a signal.

Now the Earths Magnetic field is surrounded by the Suns Magnetic field, which exists in a Larger field again, and so on and so on….
So strictly speaking there is Not just one "Aether" as was suggested by some in past history.

So these "Magnetic fields" within each other, are what we call the “Transfer Media”. But involves innumerable Magnetic fields. (that is according to human understanding…)

As you can see I am referring to Magnetic fields only, and Not what the human species calls/called the “Aether


Now in the Case of LIGHT, a similar phenomena exists and behaves similar to that of Microwaves as in waves launched from a wave guide “Horn”…

The magnetic field is contained within a “Beam” in most cases (but other areas a little different, involving for example; technologies such as “Side Wave” radar) as is the “Electric” & "Magnetic fields", but the same applies when the “Inner” and “Outer” fields, which establish a point of “Coupling” at some point...

Hence the power required to detect or obtain clear images of objects over great distances involving "Radar" (the target returning the pulse as a result of induction in the target)…

Light being produced from a given source is an interesting one and involves both "Electric and "Magnetic" Geometry...
That is of course if LIGHT is in fact is "Electromagnetic Radiation" ???

My view is somewhat different and involves knowledge of different criterion…

But in saying this…. LIGHT could be said to behave as though having Magnetic properties i.e. of "Electromagnetic Radiation", as interpreted in Human Science of today…

But Please Note; there is much more to LIGHT than what the human Species can comprehend at this stage.. and no doubt we will find out more in the Not so distant future...

[edit on 22-8-2010 by The Matrix Traveller]

posted on Aug, 21 2010 @ 09:08 PM
Seriously i tend to disagree with this whole argument.

If a gravity well is projected in front of an object and said object falls towards gravity well, but gravity well stays in constant distance from falling object, greater than speed of light travel is possible.

Look at a black hole, light cannot escape its gravity, therefore light slows down enough and falls back to gravity object. Anything falling into black hole gravity will be moving faster than the speed of light (and i'm not talking about the light caught in the gravity well of a black hole.)

IF light is getting pulled back by gravity more than the speed of light at it black holes edge, Then an object of mass say a stone entering the perimeter of the black hole would be falling at more than the speed of light per second until it reaches its final destination. the centre of the black hole.

It would be like:

Gravity = speed of light
falling time: just say 5 seconds (why not lets start easy)
Object speed 5 seconds after entering the perimeter of a black hole. = 5 x speed of light.

Is this logic wrong?

[edit on 21-8-2010 by DaRAGE]

[edit on 21-8-2010 by DaRAGE]

posted on Aug, 21 2010 @ 10:25 PM
reply to post by DaRAGE

Remembering this is all just theory... Established by the human species...

Based on the human understanding or perhaps a lack of understanding of LIGHT.

We only have some of the cards.... i.e. our understanding is incomplete no matter which way we look at it.

If this were Not the Case you and I would probably be on holiday somewhere else in this little universe.

posted on Aug, 21 2010 @ 11:34 PM
If nothing can travel faster than the speed of light including *information* then the photon cloning methods I have read about should not work.

I'm sure the understanding of quantum physics has added a lot of corollaries to the early 20th Century postulates.

posted on Aug, 22 2010 @ 12:04 AM
reply to post by Arbitrageur

That is not true they just showed that high energy gamma rays go slower low levels go the same speed but high levels go slower. So not all light goes the same speed.

Edit: Sorry i was mistaken here is a quote and ill post the link

"The speed of light is the speed of light, and that's that. Right? Well, maybe not. Try and figure this out. Astronomers studying radiation coming from a distant galaxy found that the high energy gamma rays arrived a few minutes after the lower-energy photons, even though they were emitted at the same time. If true, this result would overturn Einstein's theory of relativity,"

They have seen it but it looks like they have to study more because they do say "IF TRUE" But hey you can still go as fast if you go back to my older post you will see what i mean.

Here is The Link

[edit on 22-8-2010 by GunzCoty]

posted on Aug, 22 2010 @ 12:19 AM
reply to post by DaRAGE

Hey i just thought of something now you said

"It would be like:Gravity = speed of light"

But if light can't escape a black hole then the gravity must be faster no? If it was the same then the light should just bend. But is it speed or force that we need to factor?

posted on Aug, 22 2010 @ 12:39 AM

Originally posted by The Matrix Traveller
As you can see I am referring to Magnetic fields only, and Not what the human species calls/called the “Aether
Hi The Matrix Traveller and thanks for the clarification. Glad to know it's not aether but I have to ask why you use the word magnetic instead of electromagnetic?

You really can't refer to "magnetic fields only" when discussing light, because electric fields are required also and that's the reason we call it electromagnetic radiation. Check out the JAVA applet at the beginning of this thread to show why you can't have one without the other, when you're discussing light:

This youtube video also posted at that link explains why it's not ONLY a magnetic field:

PHS-120 Chapter 13_1 Electromagnetic Waves

posted on Aug, 22 2010 @ 01:09 AM
reply to post by GunzCoty

I see two possible false assumptions in the USA Today article.

1) How can be certain that all the radiation was emitted at the same time? What if the blazer blazes visibly for a time and four minutes later lets out a burst of gamma rays?

2) How can we be certain the radiation did not pass thru a gas cloud thick enough to delay the gamma rays four minutes longer than it delayed the visible light? I realize that would take a very dense gas cloud. The radiation would have to be in the cloud for quite some time—perhaps several hours. That much gas ought to collapse to form a planet or even a star. Nevertheless, someone should do the math to determine if such a gas cloud is a possibility.

I’m not ready to accept the conclusion that gamma rays are slower than visible light. We need confirmation from other sources at various distances. Do we see a similar effect with pulsars? I was under the impression that pulsars are observed as rapid clicks (when the light is amplified to drive a speaker).

posted on Aug, 22 2010 @ 02:37 AM
the problem with einstien was he thought too much. imagine if we tried to hold a 100 pound weight over our head constantly, everyday all day, what would happen? i think you know. to truly understand these kinds of things, you must look at it like a child would. as you probably know, the faster something goes, the more energy it requires, right? well take mathmatics out of the equation, (haha punny) and think of the literal, needs energy. faster, needs more. lightspeed would require the energy of light, thank you mr newton, equal or opposite force (i think it was newton...) and this is true. lightspeed?possible. faster? possible. however compared to galactic standards, its very slow.

posted on Aug, 22 2010 @ 02:42 AM
reply to post by Arbitrageur

You really can't refer to "magnetic fields only" when discussing light, because electric fields are required also and that's the reason we call it electromagnetic radiation. Check out the JAVA applet at the beginning of this thread to show why you can't have one without the other, when you're discussing light:

Thanks for the link... Was fully aware of this....

This is why I referred to "Electrostatics".

A "Magnetic field" such as with a permanent magnet, also has a "Static" electric field... (Not to be confused with electrostatics)

If this wasn't the case, then we could Not have electric motors or Generators !

Both the "Electric" and Magnetic fields exist as a "pair".

Just as there exists a "Magnetic field" as well as an "Electric field" between the plates of a charged capacitor ???

Some years ago I was involved with modulating Electrostatic fields (about 20 feet in diam) This was achieved through inducting an electrostatic field and modulating the field using a harmonically designed continuous toroid coupled inductively to a microwave source.

But this area of research would take a number of papers to explain...

This produced as a side effect a 20 foot diam sphere of Light... lol.

Not the purpose of this R&D, but none the less spectacular to see at night... lol.

Some (outsiders) reported seeing a UFO.... LOL but it was only us experimenting... LOL

If the "Modulation of Electrostatic Fields" is of interest to you feel to U2U me.

[edit on 22-8-2010 by The Matrix Traveller]

posted on Aug, 22 2010 @ 05:33 AM
reply to post by GunzCoty

yeah see thats what i mean. If light is affected by gravity, and it is, and the pull of a black hole is so much that even light cannot escape it, the amount of gravity in a black hole is making light fall back towards it.

So if we place an inanimate object just say a rock and just say it can stay intact. There is no air therefore no resistance. And that rock is just inside the gravity well of where light cannot escape. Once we let go of that rock, it should be falling at a speed faster than the speed of light "Its value is exactly 299,792,458 metres per second[1] (approximately 186,282 miles per second)" - taken from wikipedia..

So at the one second mark it should be going faster than approximately 186,282 miles per second, and after two seconds is should be going faster than approximately 186,282 miles per second x 2 = about: 372,564 miles per second Which of course is faster than the speed of light.

Topic debunked! ;-P

Like on earth an object falls at 9.8 meters a second per second minus air resistance.

an object in our sky falls for two seconds...

from 0 - 1 second it reaches velocity of 9.8 meters, from 1 - 2 seconds it reaches velocity of 19.6 meters a second minus air resistance.

Same theory just with a black hole instead.


posted on Aug, 22 2010 @ 07:29 AM
reply to post by DaRAGE

This gets explained away by doing the math in reference frames. The mistake people make is assuming that there is a universal time over great distances. Most everything on earth has been accelerated in a similar reference plane so our clocks don't go out of synch. Back in the 60's my uncle called me from the west coast before they adjusted the LEO communication sat clocks for relativistic effects. Maybe they should do something like that today to raise awareness?

posted on Aug, 22 2010 @ 01:02 PM

Originally posted by DaRAGE
Once we let go of that rock, it should be falling at a speed faster than the speed of light "Its value is exactly 299,792,458 metres per second[1] (approximately 186,282 miles per second)" - taken from wikipedia..
I think you're misquoting Wikipedia, but if I'm wrong, provide the link and the exact quote.

There is nothing in Wikipedia that says that rock will be going at the speed of light once you let go of it, and it won't. It will accelerate quickly to be sure, but you can't say what the rate of acceleration is without defining some parameters like the mass of the black hole, the distance of the rock from the center of the black hole, etc.

posted on Aug, 22 2010 @ 01:14 PM
Most people just go with the simplistic explanation of "the faster you go, the more your mass increases", so as you approach the speed of light, your mass increases as well, eventually you can no longer accelerate your near-infinite mass.

That is grossly simplistic, but is easier for the layperson than throwing equations at them.

Also, experiments have shown that you CAN exceed the speed of light, if the light is travelling slower than usual, like through an ultra-cold medium. Theoretically particles (tachyons) could go faster than the slowed photons. It has not yet been proven though, along with the theory that passing the speed of light would reverse time itself (we do know for sure that travelling near the speed of light slows time down ((depending on your observation point)), so who knows).

[edit on 22-8-2010 by Blazer]

posted on Aug, 22 2010 @ 01:19 PM

Originally posted by Bordon81
If nothing can travel faster than the speed of light including *information* then the photon cloning methods I have read about should not work.

Sorry for the delay; it seems we all ignored this post 'til now. You will find this matter discussed in some depth at “Quantum teleportation achieved over ten miles of free space.

The information apparently does not hitch a ride on the photons as they propagate at the speed of light. Instead, it is conveyed by some unknown other means. My money (if I had any) would be on dark enery, which in my model consists of ethereal pressure (longitudinal) waves which propagate at least 20 billion times faster than light. If I am right, then the information transfer is indistinguishable from instantaneous. It could cross the galaxy in about two minutes. In my model, the dark energy waves are actually going backward in time from effect toward cause, which might somehow enable instantaneous transfer of information.

posted on Aug, 22 2010 @ 01:32 PM
I was to the understanding that time itself travels faster than the speed of light. Also some information can FTL travel.

I think the speed of thought also travels faster than light. Gives a new meaning of "think fast".

As for breaking or achieving TSOL, at the moment no but one day yes even if the maths say different!


top topics

<< 3  4  5    7  8 >>

log in