Faster than Light Travel Question....

Here is my understanding of what is needed in order to be able to travel faster than light. My understanding is that currently it's impossible to travel faster than light because a.) the force of gravity will crush the object into energy and b.) it will require a hell of a lot of fuel in order to allow this to happen and c.) nobody knows how to stop when going that fast.

Am i correct thus far?

To travel faster than light, then it was proposed that a.) an anti-gravity device could shield the ship by having the ship exist in a bubble, while the aft bends space-time, while the front contracts space-time? b.) using possibly a matter/antimatter reaction as a fuel source?

Is this correct thus far?

If I am correct thus far, outside of lack of money, why can't this damn thing be invented yet?

What i'm thinking is this..........theoretically is it possible to provide a certain stimulus for subatomic particles in order to form the proper atoms? If so, can't then these subatomic particles be stimulated so that once a certain object travels faster than light and must stop, that it re-forms back into it's original form? Basically what i'm thinking of is somewhat analogous to the transporter technology in star trek, but not quite.

Or Am I way too far off? I'm feeling that i am.

The reason you can't go faster than light is in the equation E=MC^2.

As you apporach the speed of light, energy requirements go up and your mass decreases. At lightspeed (c, your mass would be zero and your energy would be infinite. You can more the speed of light, provided that you are a photon, since you would then have zero rest mass and be pure energy.

[edit on 9-14-2004 by Esoterica]

We cant go faster than the speed of light, so what about travelling at the same speed of light?
Or even better if we cannot travel equal to or above the speed of light we can travel just below the speed of light.
I read somewhere that you can only get up to 99% the speed of light so whats wrong with this? I suppose its only a few thousand miles a second less but this is still good,right?

[edit]LESS

[edit on 14-9-2004 by markjaxson]

How then can mass decrease or be at zero? For mass to be at zero, that would mean that there would have to be matter. Since matter occupies space, then if something moves at the speed of light, that would mean that the object doesn't occupy space. Since light travels at the speed of light, that would mean that light does not occupy space. But that still makes no sense.

How can something travelling the speed of light have zero mass? That makes absolutely no sense. It's like saying that something that is moving possesses no mass.

off topic question.

Is it true that scientistst proven that the speed of light is much more than we think it is?

Originally posted by BeMoreCynical
How then can mass decrease or be at zero? For mass to be at zero, that would mean that there would have to be matter.

No, that's what zero mass is, a lack of matter. If matter were to suddenly have zero mass, it would cease to be matter at all. That's the definition fo matter, something with mass.

Since matter occupies space, then if something moves at the speed of light, that would mean that the object doesn't occupy space. Since light travels at the speed of light, that would mean that light does not occupy space. But that still makes no sense.

The only thing I can suggest is that you read up on physics. I personally cannot explain how it works, but I know that other people can. Do some research, and all your questions should be answered.

How can something travelling the speed of light have zero mass? That makes absolutely no sense. It's like saying that something that is moving possesses no mass.

It makes sense to physicists. And things that move do have mass. However, something that moves at the speed of light has no mass. It's just how the universe works.

To make a craft move at any speed, we must add energy to push it forward. Well, the faster you go, the more energy you need to accelerate a little bit, once you have reached the next step, it happens again, only the amount of energy that you need is raised, while the increase in velocity from the energy is decreased. It would not matter how much energy you gave to this craft, it would still never reach the speed of light. Physicists are able to accelerate electrons and protons up to 99.99999999879% of the speed of light, but only in a laboratory and it takes allot of energy to to get them that fast. But, it is true that so far only light travels at the speed of light. If it is made out of matter (like you, me, the craft, etc etc), it is thought that we cannot go that fast.

Anti-Matter would probably provide us with a great form of raw energy as it is almost pure energy that is produced when antimatter touches matter. The problem you have is cost, it costs something like 50 million US to produce just a gram or something like that. To make your own, you would have to have many kilometers long to accelerate the particles. The equipment alone would cost around 500,000,000 US dollars. Anti-matter safety is another huge issue. Probably solar Sails or the plasma drives would be better in this area.... well, at least for now.

[edit on 14-9-2004 by JCMinJapan]

Originally posted by markjaxson
We cant go faster than the speed of light, so what about travelling at the same speed of light?

If you did, you'd be pure energy. If we somehow get past the whole 'zero mass, ifinite enrgy' problem, then you'd still ahev the problem of turning yourself back into matter in the same configuration you were before.

Or even better if we cannot travel equal to or above the speed of light we can travel just below the speed of light.
I read somewhere that you can only get up to 99% the speed of light so whats wrong with this? I suppose its only a few thousand miles a second less

but this is still good,right?

[edit]LESS

[edit on 14-9-2004 by markjaxson]

Technically, yes, you could get up to 99.999999...% SOL.

Originally posted by pennyforyourthoughts
off topic question.

Is it true that scientistst proven that the speed of light is much more than we think it is?

If they have, they've managed to keep it one hell of a secret

NOTE: This is not an adovcation of a world-wide science conspiracy, it is a humorous way to answer 'no'

what would happen if theoretically you were travelling at the speed of light in a car and then you turned the lights on-arent they then moving faster than the speed of the car if not just for a second?

The speed of light is only relative to the person observing it.

It just sounds like something is missing. I still can't understand how something can have zero mass. I've checked my physics textbooks, and it still makes no sense. Either there is a problem with semantics, or Einstein seriously erred or both.

This is a good thread for headlights and the speed of light.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Originally posted by optimus fett
what would happen if theoretically you were travelling at the speed of light in a car and then you turned the lights on-arent they then moving faster than the speed of the car if not just for a second?

Since your car cannot travel at the speed of light, this would never occur. This also measn that we have absolutely no clue as to what would happen if this did occur.

Explained much more throughly here

Originally posted by BeMoreCynical
It just sounds like something is missing. I still can't understand how something can have zero mass. I've checked my physics textbooks, and it still makes no sense. Either there is a problem with semantics, or Einstein seriously erred or both.

Something has zero mass if it is energy. It's simply a characteristic of it beign energy, just like having mass si a characteristic of matter.

The same question could be asked how something can have mass. It just does, it's the way things work. I probably can't explain to you how a ion drive works, but I do know that it does work.

EDIT: Changed word 'matter' to 'mass'

[edit on 9-14-2004 by Esoterica]

But even then energy has to have mass because it still would occupy space.

Originally posted by BeMoreCynical
But even then energy has to have mass because it still would occupy space.

Well, first, I had a brain fart . As SOL is approached, mass increases. But the rule still applies that objects with mass cannot achieve SOL, due to the infinite energy/infinite mass ordeal.

Basically, the energy required to speed up an obejct increases as speed increases. Mass also increases a sspeed increases. When you reach lightspeed, there is an infintie energy requirement due to the infinite mass.

Also, I said zero rest mass. A photon sitting still does have zero mass. A photon moving, though, does have mass. Just an extremely tiny amount.





[edit on 9-14-2004 by Esoterica]

[edit on 9-14-2004 by Esoterica]

ok. It has been proven that an object moving at speed actually goes slower through time right? Now just because time slows down, that does not meen that the amount of distance traveled is any less cause time has slowed, am I right on that too? That would meen the closer to lightspeed an object of mass moves, the further it would travel over a certian amount of time.

does this make any sence?

In 1 earth year, light travels a certian distance that we know as well duh: the speed of light. Because there is no real mass to photons, They move at a certian speed over a certain amount of time and for a certain distance in that time. Now, an object with mass will slow time. So that would meen that (lets say a space ship) moved at 50% the speed of light, (change of thought right here ) I guess it would essentually travel at 50% of time but that meens that it would cover the same distance in the same amount of time.. Grrrr if I explain it this way, my whole first part doesn't make sence. I was going somewhere else with this at some point... ummmm now I'm lost.. ugh

I don't want to delete this since I have in a way shown evidence that the speed of light its the absolute speed of an any object. Though that wasn't my intentions from the start.

Does anyone know the project name or a link to when whoever did the experiment with the syncro clocks on a plane and a clocks on the surface?

Originally posted by DrpKeeGTZ
ok. It has been proven that an object moving at speed actually goes slower through time right? Now just because time slows down, that does not meen that the amount of distance traveled is any less cause time has slowed, am I right on that too? That would meen the closer to lightspeed an object of mass moves, the further it would travel over a certian amount of time.

does this make any sence?

In 1 earth year, light travels a certian distance that we know as well duh: the speed of light. Because there is no real mass to photons, They move at a certian speed over a certain amount of time and for a certain distance in that time. Now, an object with mass will slow time. So that would meen that (lets say a space ship) moved at 50% the speed of light, (change of thought right here

) I guess it would essentually travel at 50% of time but that meens that it would cover the same distance in the same amount of time.. Grrrr if I explain it this way, my whole first part doesn't make sence. I was going somewhere else with this at some point... ummmm now I'm lost.. ugh

I don't want to delete this since I have in a way shown evidence that the speed of light its the absolute speed of an any object. Though that wasn't my intentions from the start.

Does anyone know the project name or a link to when whoever did the experiment with the syncro clocks on a plane and a clocks on the surface?

It's hard to explain. Do some reading on Time Dilation. It's not easy to comprehend, but it will give you an idea bout what's going on.