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.

 

Achieving light speed?

page: 2
1
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 4 2011 @ 01:24 AM
link   
This has been talked over and over and over and over...... Light speed=bad everyone on board the ship would be dead as soon as the ship drops back to normal space. Think of it of a rubber band snapping back on you when you stretch it. So Bad for all aboard.




posted on Sep, 4 2011 @ 01:35 AM
link   
Just like to say how much I appreciate this thread and others similar on ATS.
Iam not sure I understand ll the concepts in relation to Einsteins theories but Iam trying , so thanks for giving me food for thought

edit on 4-9-2011 by Dr Expired because: spelling



posted on Sep, 4 2011 @ 01:50 AM
link   
Well if E=MC² are correct then no matter what method you use to accelerate to the speed of light.
Once the speed of light is reached you would have infinite mass. You would have more mass than the entire universe if E=MC² are correct.


That's the argument that scientists use to prove that light or photons have no mass, since they would attain infinite mass when they reached the speed of light with Einstein's rule.

But not to fret... Einstein may be partially right, and wrong as well...


and that is what string theory is trying to figure out.


also some proposals to get around that infinite mass problem


Some scientists propose changing the frequency of mass to a higher state by applying high frequency waves of energy, the "Alcubierre drive", and the "traversable wormhole", although the physical plausibility of some of these solutions is uncertain.

Alcubierre drive - en.wikipedia.org...

Traversable wormholes - en.wikipedia.org...



posted on Sep, 4 2011 @ 06:26 PM
link   
infinite mass ? I dont believe that.
If you are in deep space. and you have nothing around you.
there is nothing to effect you. no abject to gauge your speed by.
I think the mad scientist are very wrong. or lye to use!
can you tell me what is Zero speed in space?
or if two abject in space travel away from each other.
travel at .75% of the speed of light each.
the speed between them is 150% of the speed of light??
so speed is relative to the object near you?
I wont you to think about this!

so if you can make a field around your ship to stop all effects.
there is No zero speed so you can say what your speed is?
do you even know how fast you are travelling now? no!
the earth spins, the solar system spins, the galaxy spins,
and how many other points in space are we moving from?
But we can Not say what true speed are we travelling at.
there is nothing that is Not moving in space!
if there was its moved on!



posted on Sep, 4 2011 @ 06:41 PM
link   
reply to post by TechVampyre
 


Yes, the light from your headlight would leave you at the speed of light. Ask me why.



posted on Sep, 4 2011 @ 06:44 PM
link   
I love this cute little video. Is it wrong?




posted on Sep, 5 2011 @ 06:36 AM
link   
The equation of Einstein E=mc^2 where E is energy, M is mass and c is speed of light. So for the equation apply how much energy it would need where for it to reach the speed of light is infinite, AS IF your body can take the pressure or the transport that you are aboard, and if you get past it? +∞ = going back to the past. Not to discourage you but a paradox gonna occur, killing yourself in the past Buttttttt who knows and i am typing random useless info rite now.

edit on 5-9-2011 by Figgi26 because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 5 2011 @ 06:59 AM
link   
I'm pretty sure it take's three weeks with the gray alien technology to travel between their star system and ours. And we have their level of technology due to treaties from the 70's. The key is with gravity fields. You generate a gravity field for your occupants, thus they feel no motion at all, just the supplied gravity field. We pull the star's closer with gravity, then push away to slow down. I think the speeds and forces are unimaginable at light speed or above, but we will one day (soon?) discover through disclosure that we have already broken that barrier with alien technology.



posted on Sep, 5 2011 @ 09:15 AM
link   
I have yet to figure out why people keep using E = mc² to establish that mass goes to infinity as velocity approaches the speed of light.
E = mc² is half of the mass-energy equivalence equation - the full equation being E² = (mc²)² + (pc)².

The mass-energy equivalence equation is derived from two foundational Relativistic equations:

Relativistic energy: E' = γmc²
Relativistic momentum: p' = γmv

Solving to eliminate v gives the mass-energy equivalence equation.

It's the first equation, E' = γmc², that leads to infinite mass at the speed of light, given the corresponding mass equation:

m' = γm = m/[1-(v²/c²)]

This is why the mass of an object approaching the speed of light goes to infinity - or, more specifically, 1/0.
edit on 5-9-2011 by CLPrime because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 5 2011 @ 09:37 AM
link   
reply to post by CLPrime
 



So does that mean that your mass if it were to hit somthing stationary, that was in the way, you and craft would have an effective mass increased by the forumula, rather than going the speed of light and turning your self into a blackhole (approching infinate mass and all, you would collapse on yourself)
edit on 5-9-2011 by Biigs because: (no reason given)

edit on 5-9-2011 by Biigs because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 5 2011 @ 09:51 AM
link   

Originally posted by TechVampyre
Let me ask you a question. "If you are in a spaceship that is traveling at the speed of light, and you turn on the headlights, does anything happen ?"



Hahaha, that is brilliant!!!

The questions people should be asking is what happens when an object approaches the speed of light. we know the mass of the object increases, the force that pulls apart the object increases. Everything comes apart at the speed of light



posted on Sep, 5 2011 @ 10:00 AM
link   

Originally posted by Biigs

So does that mean that your mass if it were to hit somthing not moving in the way, would have an effective mass increased by the forumula, rather than going the speed of light and turning your self into a blackhole (approching infinate mass and all, would you collapse on yourself?)


It would, but you'd still have to go the speed of light to have infinite mass, no matter how much extra mass you ran into (though, I suppose, if you kept hitting things forever, you'd eventually pick up infinite mass). Assuming I understand what you're asking.

Also, going the speed of light and gaining infinite mass does not turn you into a black hole.



posted on Sep, 5 2011 @ 10:10 AM
link   
If you were going the speed of light you will get to anything lights would normally illumitnate, before the light could be refliected back to you, so basicly there would be no piont in using lights at all. You'd just have Use the natural light thats already coming at you.

The same way planes use radar radars and subs use sonar, the wave must be able to travel faster through the medium you are traveling through by a significant amount.

Using RADAR is baiscly the same as using headlights would be, only one uses invisable EM radio waves and the other visable light. The waves travel the same speed so they would work equally well till your own speed approches that of the detection wave.



posted on Sep, 5 2011 @ 10:13 AM
link   

Originally posted by CLPrime

Originally posted by Biigs
Also, going the speed of light and gaining infinite mass does not turn you into a black hole.



Why wouldnt it?

Surly if black holes happen when a stars mass reaches a critcal amount, if that star was traveling near the speed of light, would the amount of mass to trigger a black hole be less due to the increase in speed (and thus the mass per volume)?
edit on 5-9-2011 by Biigs because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 5 2011 @ 10:17 AM
link   

Originally posted by Biigs

Originally posted by CynicalDrivel
Even if vibration could get you to travel in a practical manner, the material vibrated has got to be able to withstand it. The ammount of vibration it would take to get to enough speed to be a viable mode of transportation could shatter the vessel.


what does vibration havce to do with moving in space, am i missing somthing here.
What you missed was that the OP's bright idea for a propulaion source could be vibration. Ignoring whatever light speed can or can't do to us, vibrating as propulsion (something like riding an internally sourced soundwave), would shatter us long before any other problem arises.



posted on Sep, 5 2011 @ 10:20 AM
link   
reply to post by Biigs
 


The mass gained due to velocity is entirely relativistic - that is, it's pretty much just a result of kinetic energy/momentum, rather than being actual mass. In the case of black holes, the only mass that truly matters is rest mass.

Here's a good way to remember it. For an object to be a black hole, it must be a black hole in all reference frames. In the case of a moving object, the increase in mass is measured only according to an external observer. According to the object moving, it has had no increase in mass, and, therefore, is not a black hole. So, it's not a black hole in any reference frame.



posted on Sep, 5 2011 @ 10:29 AM
link   
reply to post by CynicalDrivel
 


how does the vibration create any thrust?

How does it actually propel itself alone by just vibrating.

Its like saying a loudspeaker is a source for thrust, just fire sound waves out the back!!! But theres no air to vibrate and no waves would come out the back. (not that it would move forward if there was any air to move anyway!)
edit on 5-9-2011 by Biigs because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 5 2011 @ 10:45 AM
link   

Originally posted by Cito
Well if E=MC² are correct then no matter what method you use to accelerate to the speed of light.
Once the speed of light is reached you would have infinite mass. You would have more mass than the entire universe if E=MC² are correct.
C stands for the speed of light as a constant. The problem is that you can change the speed of light.

Now, math is a mapping system for our universe. It is not THE universe. It could just so coincidentally happen that the way to figure out energy quantity is to multiply mass times the general speed of light squared in an uninterrupted vacuum, which we once believed was a constant. It might mean that as the speed of light changes energy and mass change, but I find this highly unlikely. I suspect for the latter to be true, the speed of light wouldn't be changing, but speed in the flow of time would have to be changing, keeping the speed of light truely constant but making time a new unavoidable variable. Since we're subject to time, that gets hard to prove.

Except:
"But what about time not being the same for a man on earth as it is for a man in space?"
The biggest problem I've had with the atomic clock test was the assumption that the atomic clock runs like clockwork in all situations. Thankfully it does not run on radioactive decay, which in our time changes minutely with the seasons.How the atomic clock works It works the same way we jude the length of a year by (how long it takes for the earth to travel around the sun)--osciliation. I personally wouldn't be satisfied that it is as consistent in space as on Earth until they build one in space, then bring it back to earth and check that against the earth made ones. The reason: does gravity affect time or the way mass reacts through time? We know gravity keeps us grounded, but is that the only effect it has on matter? Do we have to jump to the conclusion that time is affected or is it matter that's been affected this whole time? It's much more glamorous to assume that time was affected. Hell, I'd find it much more fun to assume time is affected.

By the way, it's easy to travel faster than the speed of light if you can slow down the speed of light.
you just won't be getting to the places you want to go. It would be better said that we desire to go faster than the speed of light usually is in a vacuum.



posted on Sep, 5 2011 @ 10:59 AM
link   

Originally posted by CynicalDrivel

The problem is that you can change the speed of light.


No, you can't. "Slowing" the speed of light is a description of the phase velocity of the light through a given medium. While the phase velocity may be slower (or faster, in some instances - such as through a plasma) than the speed of light, the actual velocity of the photons still has a magnitude equal to the speed of light, c.

In all instances, in all reference frame, under all conditions, the speed of light is constant.



posted on Sep, 5 2011 @ 11:02 AM
link   

Originally posted by CLPrime

Originally posted by CynicalDrivel

The problem is that you can change the speed of light.


No, you can't. "Slowing" the speed of light is a description of the phase velocity of the light through a given medium. While the phase velocity may be slower (or faster, in some instances - such as through a plasma) than the speed of light, the actual velocity of the photons still has a magnitude equal to the speed of light, c.

In all instances, in all reference frame, under all conditions, the speed of light is constant.
That my change that some. Definately been weirded out by that. Will read up on it later, to see what I need to change in my statement. *sigh*



new topics

top topics



 
1
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join