Something can travel faster than the speed of light (Einstein quote)

page: 2
11
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join

posted on Aug, 17 2012 @ 04:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by PurpleVortex
What's faster than the speed of light? Speed of THOUGHT.

I can think my way to another galaxy much faster than light can reach...


This is partially correct. As Ingo Swann discovered in his remote viewing, perception is instantaneous. The same "communication" is seen in bound pairs of subatomic particles.

Light travels, so it is bound by law. But this universal communication, it doesn't travel. It exists outside the influence of time.

To the OP....you are doing nothing more than making a play on words. No, there can not be nothing. But when you say "nothing is faster than light" what you are actually saying is, "light travels faster than any thing else". If you state is as such, you place the limit and remove the idea of "nothing".




posted on Aug, 17 2012 @ 05:40 PM
link   
reply to post by PurpleVortex
 


If your gonna plagiarise something, then at least change the words up a little more:

www.dedoimedo.com...



posted on Aug, 18 2012 @ 04:01 AM
link   

Originally posted by 0mage
Einstein said "Nothing can travel faster than the speed of light"
What is your source for this quote? If you are going to quote Einstein, please provide the source.

His mathematics say as an object approaches the speed of light, its mass, and therefore the energy needed to accelerate it approaches infinity. This doesn't necessarily translate to the questionable quote you provided;

Do tachyons exist?

Now the fundamental fact of relativity is that
E² − p² = m²

where E is an object's energy, p is its momentum, and m is its rest mass, which we'll just call 'mass'. In case you're wondering, we are working in units where c=1. For any non-zero value of m, this is a hyperbola with branches in the timelike regions. It passes through the point (p,E) = (0,m), where the particle is at rest. Any particle with mass m is constrained to move on the upper branch of this hyperbola. (Otherwise, it is "off shell", a term you hear in association with virtual particles — but that's another topic.) For massless particles, E² = p², and the particle moves on the light-cone.

These two cases are given the names tardyon (or bradyon in more modern usage) and luxon, for "slow particle" and "light particle". Tachyon is the name given to the supposed "fast particle" which would move with v > c. Tachyons were first introduced into physics by Gerald Feinberg, in his seminal paper "On the possibility of faster-than-light particles" [Phys. Rev. 159, 1089—1105 (1967)].
In case you don't know the meaning of "v > c" it means velocity greater than the speed of light. As long as the theoretical faster than light particle never slowed down to the speed of light, it wouldn't have infinite mass.

Didn't you ever hear of Einstein's talk about "Spooky Action at a Distance" which is faster than the speed of light?



posted on Aug, 18 2012 @ 04:22 AM
link   
reply to post by Miccey
 

There you go! That's the ticket. Folding Space/Time. Shortest distance between two points is ZERO DISTANCE as in a One Dimensional State...all points of position in the Universe are the SAME point of position. This called SINGULARITY and since all dimensional states in our Universal Reality are governed to an extent by every other dimensional state...One Dimensionality is expressed as GRAVITY.

Thus using a Gravitic Drive....or having the ability to Generate a Massive amount of Energy to represent Mass as they are interchangeable....you could Fold Space. This would be done through a Cascade effect of a Matter/Antimatter Generation of Energy which would use the creation of such energy in more than one Universal Reality. But all these Universal Realities must be Divergent Universes to our own and within the same groupings of Physical Laws.

Thus the Speed of Light is not being broken but you would be Traveling without Moving. What would happen is that you would access all points of position in a One Dimensional Aspect of our Universal Multi-Dimensional Reality.
Split Infinity



posted on Aug, 18 2012 @ 04:49 AM
link   

Originally posted by benrl
reply to post by PurpleVortex
 





What's faster than the speed of light? Speed of THOUGHT. I can think my way to another galaxy much faster than light can reach


In neuroscience there is something of a mystery regarding how two sections of the brain can activate simultaneously.

Faster than the signal should be able to travel to that section, it has lead research into the idea that the brain is a quantum computer of some kind, using entanglement to operation.

So you are more right than you even suggested.


When people astral project, they visit other worlds by using thought. Physical distance does not matter.

So Einsteins law may be true for this physical dimension, but thats a very tiny part of the universe. Also I think scientists will find plenty of things travelling faster than light in the future. They just need to realize that everything that is between objects is where all the content is (what they call empty space today). We just cant see any content with our primitive instruments or physical bodies yet.

Its much like they are calling most of our DNA "junk DNA" because they dont see its purpose in this physical world.


edit on 18-8-2012 by PrimitiveWorld because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 19 2012 @ 05:06 PM
link   
reply to post by PurpleVortex
 



If by "nothing" you mean "space" then it's always there, thus doesn't need to travel from here to there because it exists everywhere.

BOOOOOOM!!!!!!!!! With the line right there, you just destroyed a few thousand skeptics, as well as the careers of many.

I've been thinking this and saying this for years. Once we figure out how to manipulate the fabric of time and space is when we will travel faster than light. Worm hole tech comes to mind. We've already re-created tiny black holes in the lab ....so were almost there.

They'll eventually create a stabilized black hold and send some kind of camera/robot down it that can still remotely send back images. HEre we are sending rover to mars..... shi..... send rover into mini black holes



posted on Aug, 22 2012 @ 11:08 AM
link   

Originally posted by Chrisfishenstein
reply to post by 0mage
 


For something to be qualified as nothing, you would need something to be nothing......Nothing would then need to be something and then you have something being nothing....As long as this is true, then nothing really is something, but only in the effect of something being nothing to begin with......

I am sure you follow me......


completely LOL



posted on Aug, 22 2012 @ 11:22 AM
link   

Originally posted by Arbitrageur

Originally posted by 0mage
Einstein said "Nothing can travel faster than the speed of light"
What is your source for this quote? If you are going to quote Einstein, please provide the source.

His mathematics say as an object approaches the speed of light, its mass, and therefore the energy needed to accelerate it approaches infinity. This doesn't necessarily translate to the questionable quote you provided;

Do tachyons exist?

Now the fundamental fact of relativity is that
E² − p² = m²

where E is an object's energy, p is its momentum, and m is its rest mass, which we'll just call 'mass'. In case you're wondering, we are working in units where c=1. For any non-zero value of m, this is a hyperbola with branches in the timelike regions. It passes through the point (p,E) = (0,m), where the particle is at rest. Any particle with mass m is constrained to move on the upper branch of this hyperbola. (Otherwise, it is "off shell", a term you hear in association with virtual particles — but that's another topic.) For massless particles, E² = p², and the particle moves on the light-cone.

These two cases are given the names tardyon (or bradyon in more modern usage) and luxon, for "slow particle" and "light particle". Tachyon is the name given to the supposed "fast particle" which would move with v > c. Tachyons were first introduced into physics by Gerald Feinberg, in his seminal paper "On the possibility of faster-than-light particles" [Phys. Rev. 159, 1089—1105 (1967)].
In case you don't know the meaning of "v > c" it means velocity greater than the speed of light. As long as the theoretical faster than light particle never slowed down to the speed of light, it wouldn't have infinite mass.

Didn't you ever hear of Einstein's talk about "Spooky Action at a Distance" which is faster than the speed of light?



www.godlikeproductions.com...

referencing

phys.org...

but if u can interpret maths this is what Einstein was saying in his equation for the theory of relativity.

No "Thing" (suggesting material 3d object or or which has mass and dimension) can exceed the speed of light.)

so there are a few what-shall-we-call-them.. 'nothings' LOL that can travel faster than the speed of light.. but 'things' cannot.. not in a vaccuum and certainly not in atmosphere facing wind resistance etc.

unless Einstein was wrong. it is as stated .. the item would have to convert to "nothing", then make it's travel and then reconvert itself back into 'a thing' once more to reach its destination.

folding space/time is known as the "Event Horizon" they made a movie about it as well.. within the script of the cast they discuss greatly the scientific explanation around this theory. with "a touch of the macabre" for suspense and entertainment of course.



posted on Aug, 22 2012 @ 11:44 AM
link   
reply to post by 0mage
 

So I ask you for a source for your Einstein quote, and you basically provide me with a couple of links that say he never said that, right?

I didn't think he said that. There's a lot of misunderstanding over this topic, but somebody speculating about what they think Einstein might say doesn't give you any justification to say Einstein said "xyz" and put quotes around it when Einstein never said xyz. I hope you appreciate how wrong that is and don't do it anymore.

Also there are a couple of good posts in that GLP link. About the 9th post down by Dr House says something similar to my response which from your reply you've completely failed to grasp, so maybe try reading the Dr House reply and see if you can grasp that one.

Also near the end of that page is a quote of what Einstein actually said which is the quote you should have provided instead of the fictitious quote you cited:


He actually said that he had nothing to say about it. He said (or wrote) "For velocities greater than that of light our deliberations become meaningless;"
There are already too many misunderstandings about what Einstein said, without you quoting him as saying something he didn't say, so please, don't do that.



posted on Aug, 22 2012 @ 12:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by 0mage


unless Einstein was wrong. it is as stated .. the item would have to convert to "nothing", then make it's travel and then reconvert itself back into 'a thing' once more to reach its destination.


Lol thats a nice one.



posted on Aug, 22 2012 @ 12:46 PM
link   
reply to post by Arbitrageur
 


did you miss this part?

"According to Einstein's theory of special relativity, published in 1905, nothing can exceed the speed of light"

Read more at: phys.org..."


do we have a problem with english in this forum? please let me know your native tongue and ill respond in it



www.dummies.com...


en.wikipedia.org...
faster-than-light travel is forbidden by special relativity.

i dont know why u want to ask for proof of this.. have u ever studied physics? this was taught as a fundamental in school. Einstein derived from his theory that nothing can exceed the speed of light. why is this so alien to you?
edit on 22-8-2012 by 0mage because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 23 2012 @ 12:49 AM
link   
Wait a minute, wait a minute first.. Is Light a Wave or a Particle? Umm Lemme guess, BOTH!!
a Wavicle. Still , I long to be every where at once sometime in the future....



posted on Aug, 23 2012 @ 03:17 AM
link   

Originally posted by 0mage
"According to Einstein's theory of special relativity, published in 1905, nothing can exceed the speed of light"

do we have a problem with english in this forum?
You claimed Einstein said something that he didn't say. Remember this?


Originally posted by 0mage
Einstein said "Nothing can travel faster than the speed of light"


YOU posted a source which pointed out that what Einstein actually said is this:
"For velocities greater than that of light our deliberations become meaningless"

You don't see the difference?

Now you're pointing me to someone else who is interpreting Einstein's theory, and claiming that's a quote from Einstein. It's not. It doesn't even say what you quoted Einstein as saying, though it's similar. So I think you fail to understand the concept of a quotation. When you quote somebody, the quote must be said by the person you claim said it. You have improperly quoted Einstein and you have a cognitive issue if you don't understand this.

Now if you had posted the source you posted and quoted that as: "According to Einstein's theory of special relativity, published in 1905, nothing can exceed the speed of light", then we wouldn't be having this discussion, as that would be a valid quote of the source you cited. One of the problems of course is that source may have well misinterpreted Einstein's theory, which happens quite a bit, especially in non-science media, but it would be understood that there was some interpretation involved if you had quoted that source instead of saying Einstein said it.



posted on Aug, 24 2012 @ 11:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by 0mage
Einstein said "Nothing can travel faster than the speed of light"
Not only did Einstein not say that, but anyone who claims Einstein said that is also wrong, though it's a commonly stated oversimplification of his theory. This video shows shows something faster than light which doesn't violate Einstein's theory and there are other examples as well.

How to break the speed of light


You can break the speed of light in your back yard! (but don't worry, Einstein is still right)


Another example of something that can travel faster than light is the phase velocity of light:

Phase velocities above c


The phase velocity of an electromagnetic wave, when traveling through a medium, can routinely exceed c, the vacuum velocity of light.
So are you starting to see why Einstein never said "Nothing can travel faster than the speed of light"? Because it's not exactly true. There's a whole list of things that travel faster than light at that link, none of which violate Einstein's theory.


Originally posted by 0mage
have u ever studied physics? this was taught as a fundamental in school. Einstein derived from his theory that nothing can exceed the speed of light. why is this so alien to you?
I suspect it's because I've studied advanced concepts in physics and you've only studied the fundamentals that I'm aware of these nuances which you are not.
edit on 24-8-2012 by Arbitrageur because: clarification



posted on Sep, 9 2012 @ 12:28 AM
link   

Originally posted by Arbitrageur

Originally posted by 0mage
Einstein said "Nothing can travel faster than the speed of light"
Not only did Einstein not say that, but anyone who claims Einstein said that is also wrong, though it's a commonly stated oversimplification of his theory. This video shows shows something faster than light which doesn't violate Einstein's theory and there are other examples as well.

How to break the speed of light


You can break the speed of light in your back yard! (but don't worry, Einstein is still right)


this is because light itself does not travel anywhere. light is brought to a dark room via an apparatus that does not project light as general science would presume. instead it excited dark matter to illuminate. our apparatus such as a lightbulb of flashlight will project a 'field' which causes all dark matter in it's presence to illuminate.

so there you go.. making light travel further distances is not about making brighter bulbs. it's really about throwing the 'field' further.


the major point is that by moving the laser pointer across the surface of the moon.. it is only the field that is moving and exciting dark matter in it's path. but the dark matter which is illuminating was at that position before the field got there. it's a different look at the operation of light.

Originally posted by Arbitrageur
Another example of something that can travel faster than light is the phase velocity of light:

Phase velocities above c


The phase velocity of an electromagnetic wave, when traveling through a medium, can routinely exceed c, the vacuum velocity of light.
So are you starting to see why Einstein never said "Nothing can travel faster than the speed of light"? Because it's not exactly true. There's a whole list of things that travel faster than light at that link, none of which violate Einstein's theory.


here 'reading comprehension' has failed you. together with what i said above. let us remember the quote "no thing can exceed the speed of light". now.. you refer to the phase velocity of an electromagnetic wave. is an 'electromagnetic wave' a 'thing'? is it an object made out of matter? is it tangible? the answer is no. so we are still fully adhered to the inference and interpretation of the mathematical equation. it is a language and this is what it says. to deny this you will have to present an object that can travel faster than the speed of light in a vacuum. a tangible thing! and it's easier in a vacuum there's no drag etc.


Originally posted by Arbitrageur

Originally posted by 0mage
have u ever studied physics? this was taught as a fundamental in school. Einstein derived from his theory that nothing can exceed the speed of light. why is this so alien to you?
I suspect it's because I've studied advanced concepts in physics and you've only studied the fundamentals that I'm aware of these nuances which you are not.
edit on 24-8-2012 by Arbitrageur because: clarification


perhaps you did not study far enough? how familiar are you with quantum physics principles and findings? believe me when i say i mean no harm to your ego whatsoever. but you seem to have problems interpretting information you are reading. having been someone who's been in that same position before. pushing myself and studying for higher understanding at times in areas slightly out of my league. i must say i know this to be an everpresent indicator of level of knowledge and experience in a topic.

how well you interpret is how well u will understand. when you're confused seek a different perspective. information on all levels of science is very easy for me to understand. and that is because i understand the root principles underlying the foundation of reality as we perceive it.
edit on 9-9-2012 by 0mage because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 9 2012 @ 07:55 AM
link   

Originally posted by 0mage
this is because light itself does not travel anywhere. light is brought to a dark room via an apparatus that does not project light as general science would presume.
If you're saying that general science presumes wrong, and you're right, why do you care what education I've had? I've been taught by professors that think science is right, and that people who say general science is wrong and haven't published a paper to back up their claims are usually full of hot air and have no idea what they're talking about. In my experience, these professors are right a lot more often than they are wrong.

Also I recommend you don't refer to dark matter unless you really mean dark matter because it's confusing if you do that:

www.sciencedaily.com...

In astrophysics and cosmology, dark matter is hypothetical matter of unknown composition that does not emit or reflect enough electromagnetic radiation to be observed directly, but whose presence can be inferred from gravitational effects on visible matter.
In this context dark matter doesn't reflect light but you may have used the term in another context?



posted on Sep, 9 2012 @ 08:49 AM
link   
information can.
Two people have a task of opening an envelope and reading a letter inside. The two people know each other and have planned this. If two people on opposite sides of the globe synchronize watches and perform a task at the same exact time, is that information contained in the envelope is traveling faster then light? It is the same information printed or written from the same person. The information is new, and has never been read before, only by the person who wrote it. Now, that information spreads faster then light. The people could theoretically be on two planets in two different galaxies, but synchronize their watches to "earth time". The people reading the letter nor its contents will gain mass, or slow time around them down. You could say that the information had to get there, and it took light years. But does information exist until a conscious entity knows about it, or is everything always there?



posted on Sep, 9 2012 @ 01:05 PM
link   
reply to post by Arbitrageur
 


ur right.. they are usually full of hot air or dont know how to convey their message in a way that their audience can understand..

but if that is the case here.. u may never know. however.. when science begins to take a step back and stress test its presumptions based on observations you will see EVERYTHING i have spoken about in my posts on ats to come to fruition.

to me this scientific analysis is very much lower than my level of understanding.. hence why it is so easy. crystal clear.. literally is how i see it all. maybe im special.. maybe im the one. i refuse to believe that tho. i think anyone can do what i have done and discover what ive discovered.. to find answers.. to understand.. to know the truth.

sorry im past the point of arguing. or debate. i cannot show you the other side of the wall if you refuse to look.. and at least entertain the perspective im providing. i never said u MUST accept it. but entertain it.. experiment with it.. and then see if u can avoid NOT entertaining it. from my viewpoint.. everything is clear. and that is no metaphor, joke or pun.

science is attempting to reverse engineer a system created by an entity so advanced that reverse engineering it is not possible by human hands.

ur right to some extent tho. i am a joke. a jest. a meaningless noone who's authority and international acclaim is made by no reputable authority. after all.. that is the only place meaningful reliable information comes from. not so?

however.. my point is not for you the scientist to further your science. my point is for you the scientist to embrace esoterism as an operator. that spirituality is another form of matter.. and you will never.. Never.. get anywhere near the whole truth without embracing it.



posted on Jan, 29 2013 @ 06:12 AM
link   
Here's an question from someone with a simple mind. If light moves faster than anything in the universe, then why cant it escape the force of a blackhole. Instead of having this action and reaction, why not combine both forces to create a force that can move faster than the speed of light. To me, this thought should not be out of the ordinary, so a reply would be appreciated.



posted on Jan, 29 2013 @ 07:22 AM
link   
reply to post by 0mage
 


I think it's more the time it got posted. And the fact that it's Yet Another Play On Words.

You see, in physics, we don't use words to try to prove things, generally. We may describe things in words, but we don't play weird little pedantic games with "if he said 'nothing', then he must literally mean a 'nothing' can travel faster than light!!", we'd whup out the GR equations.

This is similar to another endlessly dragged out thread where someone, I won't say who, is mind-locked on a matter-free volume of space being 'nothing' and therefore 'non-existent', because 'nothing' can't exist.

It's one of many reasons why physics uses math.





new topics
top topics
 
11
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join