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.


Physics, anyone?

page: 2
<< 1   >>

log in


posted on May, 16 2011 @ 10:01 PM
reply to post by mb2591

Time exists as much as left, right, up, and down exist. It just goes in a different direction.

posted on May, 16 2011 @ 10:12 PM
reply to post by vexati0n

If you insist

posted on May, 16 2011 @ 11:06 PM

Originally posted by wasco2
Einstein says faster than, or even at, the speed of light travel is impossible. One physicist says it might be without violating general relativity. Of course we have no way to create a space time bubble but maybe one day we will, although it's extremely doubtful. Interesting concept anyway:
edit on 14-5-2011 by wasco2 because: typo

Superluminal motion

In astronomy, superluminal motion is the apparently faster-than-light motion seen in some radio galaxies, quasars and recently also in some galactic sources called microquasars. All of these sources are thought to contain a black hole, responsible for the ejection of mass at high velocities.
When first observed in the early 1980s, superluminal motion was taken to be a piece of evidence against quasars having cosmological distances. Although a few astrophysicists still argue in favor of this view, most believe that apparent velocities greater than the velocity of light are optical illusions and involve no physics incompatible with the theory of special relativity.

The ability to see super luminal motion is a quirky effect of general relativity and can explain the “apparent” motion as a frame of reference to the “object” being looked at, as well as the observers own frame of reference.

this would be "faster than light" without breaking the rules of GR or SR


posted on May, 16 2011 @ 11:23 PM
Everybody knows if u went faster than light, u wouldn't be able too see it would be dark, so u would have to stop.


posted on May, 17 2011 @ 11:59 AM

Originally posted by vexati0n
I think I get it ... sort of. Just posting to answer my own question...

The only way to cheat this rule would be to somehow separate mass from gravity (create a force field around your gravity field which makes your craft effectively "disappear" from space - warp bubble?), or find a different method of going from Point A to Point B that doesn't involve moving through the space between those points (wormholes, teleportation, etc.).

That's exactly correct.
We are limited to the speed of light due to the constraints of our understanding of the physical universe.

Just as when Lord Kelvin had stated that heavier than air aircraft were an impossibility.
He was exactly correct in respect to the constraints imposed by that of Newton's Laws of Gravity.

But by negating the effects of gravity upon a heavier than air body by aerodynamics we were able to fly.

The concept of speed of light is primarily due to the constraints imposed by the theory of relativity.
And also within the realm and the constraints of Newton's Laws.

By negating the effects of gravity and the accumulating mass incurred. We Will be capable of travel beyond the speed of light.

This is how the ET's have done it for ages by simply negating the effects of gravity.
Plain and Simple.

We simply are not there yet. But will be one day...

posted on May, 17 2011 @ 11:39 PM
I have only a high school education in math, so I'm starting from square one with relativity. Actual science and mathematical literature is waaaay too dry for me, so thus far I've been able to condense it to this (I'm still getting to the speed of light part....):

1. Start with an absolutely empty vacuum stretching infinitely in all directions (Space, with nothing in it.)

2. Add a single particle. This particle could move in any direction, for any length of time, at any velocity, but, because it is the only particle in space it doesn't matter what it's velocity or direction is - it might as well be absolutely motionless, because in an otherwise empty vacuum, motion is meaningless (the vacuum goes on forever and there's no other particle against which to judge whether the particle is moving).

3. Add a second particle. This particle could also move in any direction, for any length of time, at any velocity.

4. Put the first particle on a direct collision course with the second particle, each moving at say 100 miles per hour. From the perspective of the first particle, it would seem that it is not moving at all, but the second particle is hurtling toward it at 200 miles per hour. Likewise for the first particle from the perspective of the second particle.

5. To realize that both particles are in fact moving, you need to view both from a third location - a third particle.

6. The problem, of course, is that the third particle (and indeed all particles) might also be moving, but that motion would be undetectable from the perspective of that third particle. So you can't be sure, in a truly objective sense, what direction or speed anything is moving: motion is meaningless without an observer, and the observer's point of view may itself be moving. So any motion in the universe is measured differently, depending on the point from which you measure it. This I assume is the principle that all measured interactions are affected by act of observing it.

Am I doing OK so far?

posted on May, 17 2011 @ 11:58 PM
Inertial frame of reference.

Particularly with the theory of special relativity, one of the consequences being time dilation (calculated by Lorentz I think)...

Perhaps our (false?) perception of space-time is what's holding us back from observing anything faster than the speed of light ?

... okay, now my brain hurts.

posted on May, 18 2011 @ 10:05 AM

Scientists Make Radio Waves Travel Faster Than Light

As I'd surmised. It has already been accomplished here terrestrially as well by us Humans.

There is even a thread here on ATS from years ago about this most excellent scientific achievement.

The original article dates back to 2009...not that long ago.

Interesting concept though but as with the example I'd presented, our theories also sometimes unfortunately impose our limitations.

Thanks for posting though....we need more thinking individuals here on ATS for we are here to Deny Ignorance.


posted on May, 18 2011 @ 10:33 AM
reply to post by vexati0n

I think you've got the concept down pretty good, up to this point. In fact, this is more than most people can comprehend... the concept of pure "relativity" (being the inability to judge which reference frame is the "right" one) isn't one that comes naturally to us.

new topics

top topics

<< 1   >>

log in