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: 7
8
<< 4  5  6    8 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 22 2010 @ 04:06 PM
link   
But I firmly ascribe to the idea that the Mechanics behind it all, is of a “Technical” or “Scientific” nature.

But in saying this there are 2 fields of Science Involved…

a. The Science involving the end result i.e. what we experience.
b. The Science involving the Systems or Processes responsible for producing the Experience.

These two areas are completely different from each other.

A bit like the contents of a CD or DVD whether a "Program", "Music", or a "Movie", and the Process it is put through to be experienced as a Program, Music, Movie or whatever…

To understand our "experience" we need to understand what produces it and how...

I am Not suggesting anything or religious content.

But rather the fundamental “Mechanics” of what produces All, and how all this is being produced.

We are only looking at the “decoded version” Via the decoding systems of the Brain, in other words the Result of a processing system (Not based on Hex or Binary, Energy, Gravity, or anything of the Result i.e. your human form or Universe) and NOT the “Cause” or the Source.

We won't find the answers by analysing the end Result to discover the “Source” or “Mechanics” behind the Process.

We have to go back to the “Root” of All, and discover how it all started, where All came from i.e. its non-dimensional source.

And only then will we come to understand how this experience is produced, and the mechanics it is based on...

We only have a few of the cards, and we need more to really understand the All..

All that we experience is from a “non dimensional” source.

What we experience involves "Dimension", but this has been produced on/by Concepts of "Awareness" and "Communication" involving 2 Ends (Faces), within a process yet to be understood in this experience.

We (That which experiences the Human Species and its Environment) are actually Not in the universe at all (even though ewe believe we are) but instead look into the universe and experience the interactions between the Species we look from, and its environment.

So first we need to understand how this works, and then we will be able to understand the “Mechanics” of LIGHT as it is, and Not as we would like it to be...

What we understand as the “Speed of LIGHT” may in fact Not be the case, but instead a "Secondary" condition.

The reality is, that our origin is far stranger than we expect, and the manifestation of our experience is even stranger than seen and understood through the understanding of the "human species".

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




posted on Aug, 22 2010 @ 05:12 PM
link   
reply to post by The Matrix Traveller
 


That explanation almost takes relativity to the level of Protagoras -- Man is the Measure of All Things.

Read more at Suite101: Protagoras -- Man is the Measure of All Things: How Everything is True if Believed to be True western-philosophy.suite101.com...

Einstein felt that his theories of relativity would hold up in any laboratory investigation. If they are really creating mini black holes in the large accelerators these days than who is to say that there are not sub particles acting as clocks? Perhaps in these laboratory induced very small dimensions time does run backwards? Something like that would throw the whole question of speed out the window.



posted on Aug, 22 2010 @ 07:51 PM
link   
reply to post by Bordon81
 


It certainly makes you wonder doesn't it ???



posted on Aug, 22 2010 @ 10:48 PM
link   
reply to post by Arbitrageur
 


en.wikipedia.org... I only took from wikipedia the speed of light in meters per second and miles per second.

Obviously i was talking about the velocity of the object after one and two seconds. The object was a rock and it was released just inside the boundary from where light cannot escape.

This would mean that the gravity is making an object fall faster than the speed of light per second.

Sure as it travels faster time would slow down dramatically FOR IT. IF a human were on that rock, one second of falling from its point of view, may have been years passing on earth.

Also, As it travels its mass increases infinately, but that does't matter, it will just be pulled and pull the black hole towards each other.

But it will still end up moving faster than the speed of light.



posted on Aug, 23 2010 @ 12:23 AM
link   
reply to post by DaRAGE
 


Well your theory requires there to be no atmosphere or well anything at all in a black hole except a whole lot of gravity. So if there were nothing else in the black hole and gravity was at such a high force then it would be possible for something to fall at the speed of light or faster by your reasoning.

I ask though why does the force of gravity have to exceed the speed of light/match the speed of light/come even close to the speed of light.

Since we are unable to actually measure anything about a black hole then who's to say that there is not some crazy cosmic toilet bowl effect that sucks everything in but does not require gravity to do it?

Toilet bowl effect just came out of my wee brain the moment of typing and I mean no disrespect to anyone by the statement.

Cheers



posted on Aug, 23 2010 @ 03:19 AM
link   

Originally posted by DaRAGE
reply to post by Arbitrageur
 


en.wikipedia.org... I only took from wikipedia the speed of light in meters per second and miles per second.

Obviously i was talking about the velocity of the object after one and two seconds. The object was a rock and it was released just inside the boundary from where light cannot escape.

This would mean that the gravity is making an object fall faster than the speed of light per second.

Sure as it travels faster time would slow down dramatically FOR IT. IF a human were on that rock, one second of falling from its point of view, may have been years passing on earth.

Also, As it travels its mass increases infinately, but that does't matter, it will just be pulled and pull the black hole towards each other.

But it will still end up moving faster than the speed of light.



First you are spelling infinitely wrong.

Second gravity is just a bend in spacetime.

Third spacetime isn't restricted by the speed of light. This is why gravity, or more accurately a depression in spacetime, can allow things placed in such fields to move, for lack of a better word, at such high speeds.

So it is all due to spacetime. In which case spacetime has no mass, even if the object does, it is similar to an alcubierre warp drive if you still can't picture it.



posted on Aug, 24 2010 @ 05:47 PM
link   
Ok now i feel like i'm explaining things to a bunch of *^&*^s.

The gravity (aka what causes an object to fall towards that gravity object, in this instance, a black hole, has to make light that would otherwise move away from it (without the pull of gravity), and make light stop in its tracks and fall towards the gravity object (the black hole).

Therefore:
Object: Black Hole
Gravity (G) > 186,000 miles per second
Object falling into black hole:
Acceleration > 186, 000 miles per second per second.
Object falling into black hole after two seconds (considering no resistance):
Velocity > 372, 000 miles per second
Object after 3 seconds:
Velocity > 558,000 miles per second
Speed of object after 3 seconds > 3 times the speed of light

Does this make sense? Or am I just a fruit loop?
It seems logical to me apart from "we know nothing about black holes and it could be like a toilet and the object rotates clockwise or anti-clockwise depending on which hemisphere it enters the black hole"


It's also got nothing to do with "spacetime". It's just an object entering a black hole and accelerating towards the center of the black hole due to the pull of what we call gravity.

Ps. thanks for the spell check on infinately/infinitely ;-P

[edit on 24-8-2010 by DaRAGE]



posted on Aug, 24 2010 @ 08:03 PM
link   
Sort of off topic but as the speed of light is being discussed regarding "black holes".... Can a so called "Black Hole" be filled with Light or anything else for that matter ???


[edit on 24-8-2010 by The Matrix Traveller]



posted on Aug, 28 2010 @ 03:26 AM
link   

Originally posted by DaRAGE
Ok now i feel like i'm explaining things to a bunch of *^&*^s.

The gravity (aka what causes an object to fall towards that gravity object, in this instance, a black hole, has to make light that would otherwise move away from it (without the pull of gravity), and make light stop in its tracks and fall towards the gravity object (the black hole).

Therefore:
Object: Black Hole
Gravity (G) > 186,000 miles per second
Object falling into black hole:
Acceleration > 186, 000 miles per second per second.
Object falling into black hole after two seconds (considering no resistance):
Velocity > 372, 000 miles per second
Object after 3 seconds:
Velocity > 558,000 miles per second
Speed of object after 3 seconds > 3 times the speed of light

Does this make sense? Or am I just a fruit loop?
It seems logical to me apart from "we know nothing about black holes and it could be like a toilet and the object rotates clockwise or anti-clockwise depending on which hemisphere it enters the black hole"


It's also got nothing to do with "spacetime". It's just an object entering a black hole and accelerating towards the center of the black hole due to the pull of what we call gravity.

Ps. thanks for the spell check on infinately/infinitely ;-P

[edit on 24-8-2010 by DaRAGE]


Okay let me tell you this one last time.

Mass bends spacetime.

This bend IS GRAVITY.

The gravity curves light because light travels in the straightest line possible in spacetime.(Even when its curved.)

When light interacts with a black hole the bend is so strong that the light, or anything else for that matter, cannot be released from the black hole.

It is in no way violating relativity because it isn't moving it the mass is just following the curve in spacetime.



posted on Aug, 28 2010 @ 04:43 AM
link   

Originally posted by DaRAGE
Therefore:
Object: Black Hole
Gravity (G) > 186,000 miles per second
Object falling into black hole:
Acceleration > 186, 000 miles per second per second.
Object falling into black hole after two seconds (considering no resistance):
Velocity > 372, 000 miles per second
Object after 3 seconds:
Velocity > 558,000 miles per second
Speed of object after 3 seconds > 3 times the speed of light

Does this make sense? Or am I just a fruit loop?
No it doesn't make you a fruit loop but it doesn't make sense either.

Gravity isn't measured in distance per second. Those units represent velocity. Gravity or gravitational acceleration, is measured in distance per second per second, for example gravity at the surface of the Earth is 32 feet per second per second. What you are actually calling gravity, I assume you are referring to escape velocity. You list a value for acceleration when you really don't know the value for the black hole.

Escape velocity is something else. Escape velocity from Earth is about 7 miles a second (11.2 km/s). Escape velocity from the event horizon of a black hole is the speed of light (186,000 miles a second).

Now you are saying that an object released at the event horizon of a black hole (the point where light cannot escape) will reach escape velocity after one second.

If this was true, then if we release a rock on Earth, then one second later it would be going the escape velocity of 7 miles per second. Obviously this does not happen, and instead one second later, the rock is only going at a speed of 32 feet per second, NOT 7 miles per second as your example suggests.

See how you've confused escape velocity (7 miles per second on earth) with acceleration rate (32 feet per second per second on earth)?



posted on Aug, 28 2010 @ 10:28 AM
link   

Originally posted by Gentill Abdulla

Okay let me tell you this one last time.

Mass bends spacetime.

This bend IS GRAVITY.

The gravity curves light because light travels in the straightest line possible in spacetime.(Even when its curved.)


Okay; I'm pretty sure this will not be the last time I tell you this. Not sure if I have said it on ATS, but I am sure you have read (or ignored) this many times in my posts at Y!A, Gintable.

What you are saying is the establishment view, so I can't really fault you for believing it; but in this case, the establishment is wrong. The warp of space-time is caused by gravity, not the other way around. We don't know what causes gravity; but it certainly is not caused by the warp of space-time.

In Euclidean space (the kind you learn about in high school), light has mass. All masses including light are attracted to one another in accordance with Newton's universal law of gravity. The gravity of a star bends the path of passing light. This changes the momentum of the light. Newton's third law of motion requires that an equal an opposite change of momentum must be imparted to the star. Thus, the light has both inertial and gravitational mass; it has a gravity field of its own.

In Minkowski space-time (the kind in which the formulas of general relativity are valid), light doesn't just follow the straightest line possible; instead, the path of light is the definition of a straight line. So gravity does not bend light in Minkowski space-time, and according to general relativists, light has no mass in Minkowski space-time.

DaRage; Velocities don't add up that way in general relativity. If you accelerate to ½c in one second, and continue accelerating at the same rate, you won't reach c in 2 seconds. The formula for adding velocities in relativity is


s = (v+u)/(1+vu/c²)


If v = u = ½c, then s = c/(1+¼) = .8c.

So, even if you could accelerate for ever at ½c/s, you would never reach c.

A photon falling into a black hole cannot exceed c because the distance traveled by a photon in one second is a light second by definition. Distance units in space-time are defined by how far light goes in a unit of time. And the ratio of distance to time is the speed of light, which is defined as 299,792,458 m/s.

There's no point trying to disprove a definition. You can argue that the definition is silly, but you can't say it is wrong.



posted on Aug, 28 2010 @ 11:31 AM
link   

Originally posted by Phractal Phil

Originally posted by Gentill Abdulla

Okay let me tell you this one last time.

Mass bends spacetime.

This bend IS GRAVITY.

The gravity curves light because light travels in the straightest line possible in spacetime.(Even when its curved.)


Okay; I'm pretty sure this will not be the last time I tell you this. Not sure if I have said it on ATS, but I am sure you have read (or ignored) this many times in my posts at Y!A, Gintable.

What you are saying is the establishment view, so I can't really fault you for believing it; but in this case, the establishment is wrong. The warp of space-time is caused by gravity, not the other way around.

There's no point trying to disprove a definition. You can argue that the definition is silly, but you can't say it is wrong.


You clearly didn't read my post well.

Einstein's theories show gravity AS a warp in a four dimensional manifold called spacetime CREATED BY mass and energy.

THIS GRAVITATIONAL FORCE is just the depression that is caused by mass.

WHICH IS WHY EINSTEIN NEVER THOUGHT GRAVITY WAS CONSIDERED A FORCE.

This is as you said the Mainstream view.(Which I surprisingly follow!)

But as you then say again arguing about definitions is silly as we all know gravity is CAUSED BY MASS.



posted on Aug, 29 2010 @ 07:39 PM
link   
Good post!

Well layed out and plenty of resources and you will defo get a star for effort and for generating a good debate BUT....

All science is theory not fact and mathematics as we know it is exactly that, as for space it does have mass, variable mass and since we can only measure whats in our reach we cant possibly work on the assumption that its consistant. From what we understand in our stage of evolution this could be accepted easily but I have read many proofs which suggest otherwise. Some as you have you have mentioned are wormholes but the most interesting are the ones that involve gravity engines since we already have similar technology which gives us a good basis for calculations.

Before I start I will say I aint going to post lots of resources on this if at all, there lots available on the net and even on youtube which are quite easy to find so dont ask me to run around and find some because its late I have been working since five this morning and to be honest cant be bothered lol I might have a dig around for some of my bookmarks tomorrow and post them up.

Ok the basics of it is this. Space is more like a fabric than a void, as a fabric it can be manipulated by objects, fields and energy. All space within a galaxy is variable while the space between galaxies is... well to be honest we dont quite know but we presume it is fabric without disturbance. Now to travel through variable space is difficult because of various anomalies and forces which we cannot calulate or predict, the fact of the matter is we just aint that clever but travelling through space without disturbance is completely different making faster than light travel totally possible.. theoretically anyway.

Gravity is actualy quite a weak force and is generated through motion, the larger the object the larger the gravitational field. Now since we will never have a planet sized ship we have to manipulate gravity using super heavy elements which in itself is a whole other matter. Anyway if such elements could be created and maintained we could use them to create an artificial gravity field which would literally defy physics allowing an object to fold space. Now there is a key point in this. You couldnt fold space then magically reappear anywhere you wanted. You could travel as far as your generated mass would allow so if you generated a mass the size of our sun your not gonna get much further than the expanse of our solar system but if you could generate a mass the size of say one of the cephi's then you could find a planet pitch a tent and your great great great grandkids might be able to catch the light from our sun you left when you set off. It really isnt as far out there as you would think. If you was really into this stuff you could say well ET's got here so it must be possible???

I know this is a bit vague and in simpleton terms but am rockin on for 21 hours plus now and my mind is really not in it but when I come out of hibernation tomorrow I will endevour to make a much more scientific attempt, if there are any typo's you have my apologies, I have checked but its all a bit blurry to be honest



posted on Aug, 29 2010 @ 07:54 PM
link   
There was a young lady named Bright..

Who travelled much faster than Light..

She departed one day in a Relative way...

And returned on the Previous Night...



posted on Aug, 29 2010 @ 11:13 PM
link   
reply to post by Ascensi0n
 


You have some really good ideas and some really bad ones. I’ll start with the good stuff.

Space does have mass, and it is more like a fabric than a void. Actually, I believe the ether has inertial mass only; it has no gravitational mass because it is the medium of gravity as well as light.

Space may have variable density beyond the distances we can see with our telescopes, as well as below the scale of electrons and quarks. Minkowski space-time is also variable in the vicinity of masses; it is warped because gravity bends light in Euclidean space, and the path of light is the definition of a straight line in space-time.

“Empty” space is space without disturbance. At least it has no matter in it, but it does have light passing thru, and light is ethereal shear waves. (In my model, though, even empty space is also very noisy in longitudinal pressure waves, i.e. dark energy.)

That much we can agree on. The rest is pure fantasy. Wormholes larger than an atomic nucleus are science fiction; to create one as big as a person would take more than all the energy in the known universe, and that assuming the math is scalable. Gravity engines are also science fiction. You can’t create elements out of nothing, and super-heavy elements are science fiction. And matter can’t go faster than light, in case you failed to notice the title of this discussion. This is not supposed to be a science fiction forum, and I will not discuss such matters here.



posted on Aug, 30 2010 @ 04:30 AM
link   
reply to post by Phractal Phil
 


All science is fiction as there is no such thing as scientific fact which is why all scientific papers are labelled as theorys including einsteins which you refer to in your original post.

Super heavy elements do exist infact I think all elements above 104 are considered to be super heavy with 117 being the latest addition, if you search ununseptium you probably find quite a bit about it. However this still isnt the element we require, the golden number I always find references to is 118. Now both the russians and the US have claimed to have generated this element but its hard to verify because the atom is highly unstable and only has a life of about .1 of a millisecond. As i said in my last post to create and maintain such elements is a whole other matter.

As for gravity engines..... I dont know why on earth you dont believe these exist. If i took 2 neo magnets of opposite ends and put them together one would levitate above the other, although basic would that not be considered a gravity engine as after all it is defying gravity? now i could make an electromagnetic coil and using a sound amplifier scroll the frequencies until i find the magic number for the surface/enviroment it is in and make it levitate. Sound or harmonics is key to this and I have seen it with just a transformer an amplifier and a $%^& load of copper wiring. as before there is lots of info on this on the net, a simple google search will enlighten you to its applications.

Check this video out and a couple of following parts, he explains quite well.

www.youtube.com...



posted on Aug, 30 2010 @ 04:49 AM
link   
...Come and See: Black holes are solid(antimatter-quasiparticles) this is why a Black Hole emits two gamma rays jets..and moves faster than light(Dark matter)..Humans and everything solid or(phonons and polaritons)...Humans(solids)..move beyond the speed of light example...like when a fly is in your car and it begins to fly around it's speed is not the same as the car. Yet it takes on the cars speed .. if it was to move out of the car it would be swept away by the wind which is also a (solid).. the same principle works within a galaxy...Because the Universe expanded beyond the speed of light, Black holes are able to be solid and move beyond the speed of light giving birth to Solid Matter within the galaxy which inturn gave birth to humanity.. When apply this principle to LIGHT ...light does not change in speed because the black holes move .999999 times the velocity of light ..light must be bent to be seen from outside the galaxy but can be seen by us because light waves are bent within the galaxy by the Black Hole.. Because the Black holes are the driving force of a galaxy, the galaxy itself moves faster than light...that is why we see galaxies receding from us and yet the recessions would be faster as they get farther way from each other....That is why once 2 galaxies move far enough away from each other the light waves will soon fade causing distant galaxys to seem to disappear...for the distance of travel between each other is to far for the light waves to reach both of them. Because they move faster than light.. Time for us has slowed to the formation of Solid matter..
..now the Process of the (Dumping of material explains the (Black Hole) becoming a form of solid(antimatter -quasiparticles)...expelling the + charged particles and - charge particles in a form of 2 jets of GAMMA RAY..(from what we can see visually from observation of black holes ..(phonons and Polari tons)...expelling away from each other.. which leads to Solids and(the formation of a galaxy... simple enough...(which moves at a speed faster than light.. which formed behind the Black hole ... still being connected to it through a form we call electromagnetisms(gravity) because of this material would also be slowed into a state of matter as well ..and still moving beyond the speed of light=(Dark Matter)..which means the Universe is a form of light, this (Black Hole)particle is a wave of light which moving beyond the speed of light at the same speed of our expanding Universe in one direction like light does only as it formed into a solid matter it began to curve its own direction until the straight line became a perfect circle forever meeting up with it self and appearing to stop...because it still matches the speed of the Universe......This goes on to prove that the thought of a parallel dimension is not just a theory but a fact.. that beyond our Galaxy is the Realm of all Possible out comes of our(galactic/universe) repeating a never ending cycle along a different path...(and any galaxy mixed within this realm is merely a different version of us(our galaxy which traveled a different path meeting up with it self...so using this principle (when you look at other galaxies they inturn are you and just maybe ..you are there looking back.
(Dimensional-theory) .. we are the center of the Universe and the Universe is us .. (I think I heard this before)
my (Dejavu Theory)
...this means that .. the Galactic electromagnetic wave pulse emitting from the center of our galaxy is wave of which we can only scratch the surface of...A space time rift... which means this is a rift in time from the future and a version of your energy is carried within it =1 version of yourself in space time ... which will meet up with yourself =1 version .. (1+1)=2(a second version within space time) ..and you may not even remember any of your past self.. for there can only be one of you at one given time meaning the 2 will merge =1(complete different version of yourself within time and you would never have known.. and the negative particles ejected from your body will carry to the ends of the Universe(Galaxy) to be drawn back into the Black Hole ..the (black hole=god particle)a dimensional rift in space time ...this goes to prove because Solid matter is Part of the (Black hole - dimensional particle) and outside the Black Hole are + solid particles(which are still part of the Black hole) are still in contact with each other in space time and as the Black hole pulses out the + solid particles of space time(the Galactic Wave)...is a version of a future or (dimensional future self(energy the Soul)..of man..
the pulse of the Black Hole =9802 means this would be a future .. rift of 9802 years of space time headed our way .. so (I will see you in the Future)... at a certain time and place maybe .. somewhere in time
...
my theory (of everything)

[edit on 30-8-2010 by Vonour]



posted on Aug, 31 2010 @ 07:20 AM
link   
I used to think warp drive was the way to go, afterall space can move faster than the speed of light

but considering the vastness of the universe, even warp 9 just won't cut it... especially since the universe is expanding

but the more i ponder it, the more i believe the tardis has it right.. drop out into hyperspace then back into realspace at another location



posted on Sep, 28 2010 @ 05:27 AM
link   
I think the term bending spacetime is inappropriate.
What we do know is that mass drags time.
IE the difference between satellite and Earth atomic clocks.
The greater the mass the slower time proceeds.
If space is connected to time as Einstein postulates then space is also dragged by mass, not bent.
Or maybe time is dragged and space is bent and Einstein was half-right.



posted on Sep, 28 2010 @ 06:37 AM
link   
reply to post by Cosmic4life
 


Minkowski space-time is warped because of its definition of a straight line.

In Euclidean space, light has mass and all masses including light feel a gravitational force of attraction toward one another. F = ma doesn't work at relativistic speeds; the correct formula is f = dp/dt (time rate of change of momentum). So the path of a photon passing near a star is bent toward the star, and the star receives an equal and opposite change of momentum toward the photon.

But that bent path of light is the definition of a straight line in Minkowski space-time. Straightening the path of light by definition results in a warped space-time in which the internal angles of a triangle don't necessarily add up to 180°, and two straight lines may intersect more than once.




top topics



 
8
<< 4  5  6    8 >>

log in

join