It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Thank you.

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

Help ATS via PayPal:

# about faster than light travel

page: 2
0
share:

posted on May, 15 2003 @ 12:50 PM
technically, the accelleration of gravity in the black hole, is greater than the accelleration of light...if you think about it in a linear way. However, as I understand it, this isn't the case. Instead, as was previously mentioned, it is the fact that the space is "curved" into the center of the black hole, and since light is travelling through space, it is curved likewise into the center, once the event horizon is reached, not a case of being faster, but of being redirected. (or something to that effect)

However, if we can master this same principle (i.e. folding space), then we wouldn't need faster than light travel. We'd bring the point in space to us, attach ourselves onto it, then let it "snap" back to normal, instantaneously taking us along for the ride, at a travel time of zero...

posted on May, 15 2003 @ 07:04 PM

Originally posted by Gazrok
technically, the accelleration of gravity in the black hole, is greater than the accelleration of light...if you think about it in a linear way. However, as I understand it, this isn't the case. Instead, as was previously mentioned, it is the fact that the space is "curved" into the center of the black hole, and since light is travelling through space, it is curved likewise into the center, once the event horizon is reached, not a case of being faster, but of being redirected. (or something to that effect)

However, if we can master this same principle (i.e. folding space), then we wouldn't need faster than light travel. We'd bring the point in space to us, attach ourselves onto it, then let it "snap" back to normal, instantaneously taking us along for the ride, at a travel time of zero...

Ok now I get it...Thanx Gazrok

posted on May, 18 2003 @ 07:06 PM

Originally posted by abstract_alao

Originally posted by Gazrok
technically, the accelleration of gravity in the black hole, is greater than the accelleration of light...if you think about it in a linear way. However, as I understand it, this isn't the case. Instead, as was previously mentioned, it is the fact that the space is "curved" into the center of the black hole, and since light is travelling through space, it is curved likewise into the center, once the event horizon is reached, not a case of being faster, but of being redirected. (or something to that effect)

However, if we can master this same principle (i.e. folding space), then we wouldn't need faster than light travel. We'd bring the point in space to us, attach ourselves onto it, then let it "snap" back to normal, instantaneously taking us along for the ride, at a travel time of zero...

Ok now I get it...Thanx Gazrok

You are almost correct. My main question is this: The speed of light is constant in any given medium, so how can it have an accelleration? Strike your first "technically" statement and you're there.

posted on May, 18 2003 @ 10:34 PM
for this example ill use planet A and planet B ok?

right

light takes 1 year exacally to travel from Planet A to Planet B, say you travel from Planet A to Planet B in 6months, leaving on january 1st 2004 and arriving june 1st 2004, you have traved 2 times the speed of light, yet you have still gone forward in time, see simple mathmatics

as soon as you stopped people would see you, because light from other sources would reflect your image so you wouldnt be invisable.

Time is constint so it is believed, so if you traved back from Planet B to Planet A again taking 6 months to travel the vast distance you would get back on January 1st 2005.

On a side note, If you were traveling north at 2 times the speed of light, would you be invisable to someone traveling at 1.9999999 times the speed of light directly following behind you traveling north beacause the light rays would not be able to hit you and rebound into the person behind?

[Edited on 19-5-2003 by seedy_sid]

posted on May, 20 2003 @ 12:14 PM

Originally posted by seedy_sid
for this example ill use planet A and planet B ok?

right

light takes 1 year exacally to travel from Planet A to Planet B, say you travel from Planet A to Planet B in 6months, leaving on january 1st 2004 and arriving june 1st 2004, you have traved 2 times the speed of light, yet you have still gone forward in time, see simple mathmatics

Well, not quite. You're basing this assumption off of the priciple of Galilean Relativity (whether you know it or not). This is used in everyday observations and is consistent with our intuitive notion of time in space.

Dealing with events that occur at or near the speed of light, this theory goes out the window, so to speak.

Example: Suppose a light pulse is sent out by an observer ( S' ) standing in a boxcar moving with velocity v relative to a stationary observer (S) standing alongside the track. The light pulse has speed c relative to S'. According to Galilean relativity, the pulse speed relative to S should be c+v. This is not the case and is where Einstein's Special Theory of Relativity comes into play.

From here, there are a lot of things like time dilation, length contration and other mind-bending things that contribute to Einstien's Special Theory of Relativity.

The math involved in proving this is not difficult and uses what is called Lorentz Velocity Transformation Equations. Here is an example from one of my old physics books:

Problem: Imagine a motorcycle moving with speed 0.80c past a stationary observer. IF the rider tosses a ball in the forward direction with a speed of 0.70c relative to himself, what is the speed of the ball relative to the stationary observer?

Solution: The speed of the motorcycle relative to the stationary observer is v=0.80c. The speed of the ball in the frame of reference of the motorcyclist is u'x=0.70c. Therefore, using the Lorentz velocity transformation equation the speed ux of the ball relative to the stationary observer is:

ux=(u'x+v)/(1+(u'x*v/c^2))=(0.70c+0.80c)/(1+((0.70c*0.80c)/c^2)) = 0.96c

Q.E.D.

This PROVES that faster than light travel is IMPOSSIBLE contrary to what many people who have posted in this forum believe. If you can prove otherwise, go for it. You'll be famous.

[Edited on 20-5-2003 by SeaBass]

posted on May, 20 2003 @ 12:41 PM
As far as I know it's impossible to travel beyond the speed of light according to Einstein's theory of relativity. When or if you reach the speed of light you will become pure energy or light. The dilemma isn't to reach the speed of light, but to find a shortcut that is shorter than the straight line. This may seem impossible, but it isn't. For space bends due to it's enormous mass that's creating a great gravitational field, so what seems to be straight ahead could infact be somewhere behind you! When I had my revelation some years back, I saw a fourth dimention or space itself seen in birds' perspective, and it was like an inverted ball. Invisible to the eye, but with a massive gravitational "drive" going through the origo of the dimention. Since a dimention isn't an object, but more like a canvas or a direction or a border, it has no gravity itself, but the gravitational attributes of such an inverted plane could be used to tweak the laws of nature, such as the laws of gravity etc. if it really exists that is...

Blessings,
Mikromarius

posted on May, 21 2003 @ 09:54 AM
This PROVES that faster than light travel is IMPOSSIBLE contrary to what many people who have posted in this forum believe. If you can prove otherwise, go for it. You'll be famous.

[Edited on 20-5-2003 by SeaBass]

If you just proved that nothing can surpass the speed of light, then how do you account for the instantaneous opposite spins of entangled electrons? According to Bell's theorem, it is a faster-than-light phenom.

posted on May, 21 2003 @ 10:17 AM

Originally posted by 29MV29
...
[Edited on 20-5-2003 by SeaBass]

If you just proved that nothing can surpass the speed of light, then how do you account for the instantaneous opposite spins of entangled electrons? According to Bell's theorem, it is a faster-than-light phenom.

It's probably possible that some particles can move faster than the speed of light, but I thought we were talking about space traveling here

According to Einstein gravity moves with the speed of light (perhaps even faster for it seems to accelerate...). Perhaps this is the secret about the black holes, that the mass of the "hole" is so great that gravity accelerates beyond the speed of light through the "hole's" body and transformes the whole hole (hehe) into pure energy with a gravity so great that it swallows everything, even light

I'm a total fool in these matters, but I love to read about it. I wish I had the capacity and time to study these things, for in here lies the answers to all mysteries it seems....

Blessings,
Mikromarius

posted on May, 21 2003 @ 11:30 AM

If you just proved that nothing can surpass the speed of light, then how do you account for the instantaneous opposite spins of entangled electrons? According to Bell's theorem, it is a faster-than-light phenom.

Not familiar with Bell's Theorem, but will read up on it. I did, however, find a point paper refuting Bell's theorem located at this URL: arxiv.org...

In just skimming the article, it looks like some assumptions were made in Bell's Theroem that cannot be proven. I would like to find out more so any info explaining Bell's Theorem would be greatly appreciated.

- SeaBass

posted on May, 21 2003 @ 11:49 AM

Originally posted by abstract_alao
If traveling faster than the speed of light is impossible, how is that light can't escape a black hole. This vaccum is space shows that there is a lot that we don't understand. Mabey our understanding of physics is only relative to this reality/Dimension

Light can't escape a blackhole. They are detected from the presence of X-rays emitted by an accretion disk that is formed when matter ( most commonly stars ) falls into a blackhole.

posted on Jun, 4 2003 @ 04:46 PM
Actually you can travel faster than light, the only problem is though is that you can't accelerate up to and past the speed of light. If you were to look on a graph, the speed of light would represent an asymptote on that graph and it would look like this (please excuse the horrible picture, but you get the idea).

Basically what this say is that you can go faster than the speed of light, but you would have to blink out of reality and then blink back into reality going faster than the speed of light. Also once you are going faster than the speed of light, you cannot slow down to the speed of light and you must continue going faster than the speed of light until you blink out of reality and blink back into reality going slow than the speed of light.

This is the only way you can possibly go faster than the speed of light.

posted on Jun, 5 2003 @ 12:11 PM
Looks like your hypothesis is based mainly on opinion versus what really matters - fact.

What are you graphing? Speed vs. Time or what?

I'd be interested in any equations or mathmatical proof you have to support this besides an un-labeled graph.

I already proved that it can't be done. Read my post that was posted on 20-5-2003 at 11:14 AM.

[Edited on 5-6-2003 by SeaBass]

posted on Jun, 5 2003 @ 03:33 PM
Damnit, you're right I forgot to label the graph. It's supposed to be a graph of speed vs. time (where speed is the y-axis).

Physicist have theorized that some particles (like neutrinos or tachyons) do travel faster than light, but they have not observed them.

posted on Jun, 5 2003 @ 08:52 PM
I've heard that too. It's a pretty cool field and will be interesting to see if they come up with anything.

posted on Jun, 5 2003 @ 09:10 PM

Originally posted by abstract_alao
Mabey our understanding of physics is only relative to this reality/Dimension

Now there is an interesting observation. And it would be density, I believe. Density goes up, dimension goes to the side. Density is finite, dimension is infinite. Just my 2 cents.

Why does the speed of light have to be the determining factor for the speed of time?

Phimes

posted on Jun, 5 2003 @ 10:05 PM

Originally posted by Phimes
Why does the speed of light have to be the determining factor for the speed of time?

I don't know much about physics, but this I know: Time is but an illusion. The only thing that's real and fit the concept of time is movement. Through the Spirit I can speek with people while they live thousands of years ago. Time isn't relative, it doesn't exist, other as a system or a concept for determining stages in Life. Time is but meridians on a map. Neither the meridians nor the map is real, but it gives us a clue about how reality is...

Blessings,
Mikromarius

posted on Jun, 6 2003 @ 04:02 AM

Originally posted by Phimes

Why does the speed of light have to be the determining factor for the speed of time?

Phimes

Ths reason for this is that light is the fastest thing that our modern physics has observed up to this point. The speed of something is a magnitude that is measured with respect to time, and since "time" is our frame of reference, the speed of light depends upon that.

posted on Jun, 6 2003 @ 06:15 AM
I don't know if its already been mentioned but im going to say it anyway. It is widely accepted that with current theorys in physics the following occurs as you speed up.

1. Time slows down. It will not go backwards but at the speed of light no time will be passing outside of whatever is traveling this fast. Yes with atomic clocks and aircraft they have established that time does definately slow down the faster you go.

and 2. this is the one which says that with conventional technology we cannot exceed or reach the speed of light.
The closer you get to the speed of light the more your apparent mass increases. To the point where at the speed of light you have an undefined (infinite for the uneducated) mass. So the closer you get the more energy will be required to accelerate the new apprent mass of you faster.
Also the theory is that past the speed of light matter becomes energy.

top topics

0