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.

 

when will light speed be here

page: 2
0
<< 1   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 30 2004 @ 08:55 AM
link   

Originally posted by rufi0o
Theoretically if you have a propulsion system which doesnt expel mass eg field effect prpulsion then the speed of light may beable to be overcome.

Ok, but what will happen then with the passengers of that spacecraft? Their mass will be > than infinity, length will be imaginary and possibly they will travel backwards thought the time. Possibly, they will turn into a black hole.




posted on Oct, 30 2004 @ 10:45 AM
link   

Originally posted by CookieMonster000
just get a flashlight and flyyyyyyyyy

but im sure its not anytime soon because so far the fastest man made object moves at 150,000 mph (helios 2)

i guess that is pretty close to the speed of light, its only 186,000 mph

theoretically....

[edit on 29-10-2004 by CookieMonster000]

[edit on 29-10-2004 by CookieMonster000]

[edit on 29-10-2004 by CookieMonster000]



Actually helios does trtavel 150,000MPH however spedd of light is 186,000MPS...still a ways away.



posted on Oct, 30 2004 @ 12:51 PM
link   
www.physics.hku.hk...

Negative Energy, Wormholes and Warp drive, ideas explained


Fraser



posted on Oct, 30 2004 @ 01:23 PM
link   

jesterbr549
In fact, though some may find this hard to believe, I think the pyramid was built with the knowledge of Quantaum Physics and, under the right circumsances, teleportation would be possible through it.

I have never heard of any thing like this? Any links?

BTW, the speed of light is 670,616,629 mph.



posted on Oct, 30 2004 @ 02:48 PM
link   
you can have theories on how to do it but we test it with computer simulations, but in space it might work differantly then in the simulation

so as I have posted earlier and I hope a bilionair or milionair is going to start up a Xprize look a like event based on dragraces.

In space robotic satelites in a dragrace in space to have people design probes which got radical or some how different aproches to get to light speed or above.

with several point for winning a prize.

1. Travel a pre defined distance as quick as possible.

2. do it with as less fuel as possible

3 and do it efficient

4 privat or semi privat company or groups may do it.



posted on Oct, 30 2004 @ 03:50 PM
link   
There may be some confusion here about the term 'mass' in relativity.

Does mass change with velocity?



There is sometimes confusion surrounding the subject of mass in relativity. This is because there are two separate uses of the term. Sometimes people say "mass" when they mean "relativistic mass", mr but at other times they say "mass" when they mean "invariant mass", m0. These two meanings are not the same. The invariant mass of a particle is independent of its velocity v, whereas relativistic mass increases with velocity and tends to infinity as the velocity approaches the speed of light c. They can be defined as follows:

mr = E/c2
m0 = sqrt(E2/c4 - p2/c2)

where E is energy, p is momentum and c is the speed of light in a vacuum. The velocity dependent relation between the two is

mr = m0 /sqrt(1 - v2/c2)

Of the two, the definition of invariant mass is much preferred over the definition of relativistic mass. These days, when physicists talk about mass in their research, they always mean invariant mass. The symbol m for invariant mass is used without the subscript 0. Although the idea of relativistic mass is not wrong, it often leads to confusion, and is less useful in advanced applications such as quantum field theory and general relativity. Using the word "mass" unqualified to mean relativistic mass is wrong because the word on its own will usually be taken to mean invariant mass. For example, when physicists quote a value for "the mass of the electron" they mean its invariant mass.


____________________________________________________________


A useful corrolary is the subject of a 'massless' particle, namely a photon.
The math says it would be massless at rest, which it never is.

What is the mass of a photon?



posted on Nov, 3 2004 @ 10:38 PM
link   
Sorry to rain on your parades everyone but according to the laws of physics it is impossible to travel at or above the speed of light. One major reason is that every atom in your body is constantly moving at the speed of light along with every other atom. Because of this you would encounter some real problems. The only way to travel from pt A to pt B quickly would be to form a wormhole and travel through it. ALthough wormholes are rather small in diameter they can be enlarged using negative energy which would enlarge it and alow someone to pass through. This is also the only effective way of creating a time machine that may travel forwards and backwards in time. A note on that; one may only travel back to the day the time machine was created or it will cease to exist.



posted on Nov, 4 2004 @ 03:17 AM
link   
since speed of light is the mathematical limit that any physical material with positive mass and positive energy can travel

then either in order to go from A to B in less time then traveling at the speed of light would require

1. bending of space
2. have negative mass or energy

otherwise, a physical material cannot travel at or beyound speed of light



posted on Nov, 4 2004 @ 01:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by charlesspy
Sorry to rain on your parades everyone but according to the laws of physics it is impossible to travel at or above the speed of light.


excerpt:

They demonstrated that when a thin optical barrier was placed in the path of one of the photons, it tunneled through the obstacle at a velocity 1.7 times that of light.

link

Originally posted by charlesspyOne major reason is that every atom in your body is constantly moving at the speed of light along with every other atom. Because of this you would encounter some real problems.



What problems? With relative speed? What are the considerations and assumptions that you are making about you coordinate frames?

Evolution of the science of how things move:

1. Newtonian mechanics.
2. Einstein's theories.
3. Quantum mechanics and the rest of modern physics.
4. How do you possibly know what is next??


This claim sounds to me suspiciously like the fabled "sound barrier".
There was a reason they called it a barrier, it was because they thought that it could not be broken. And 'they' (well respected engineers and scientists) were WRONG!



posted on Nov, 4 2004 @ 10:37 PM
link   
Bump!

I have refuted a couple of claims in this thread without one single rebuttal.

Are we discussing possibilities in technology or just making claims based on one singular equation or theory?



posted on Nov, 6 2004 @ 03:57 AM
link   

Originally posted by AeroSpace Case
I have refuted a couple of claims in this thread without one single rebuttal.

Are we discussing possibilities in technology or just making claims based on one singular equation or theory?

Not quite.

Others were talking about the macro world, and its true that within it you cant beat the light barrier.

On the other hand, in the world of elementary particles it is possible to overcome the light barrier, but still unanswered is the question, how to dematerialize the object and then materialize it somewhere?


[edit on 6-11-2004 by Agnis]

[edit on 6-11-2004 by Agnis]



posted on Nov, 6 2004 @ 10:35 AM
link   
my response to the question would be this: scientific advances are often not about slow and steady progression over time, they are often about discoveries which are very radical and transform thinking. so its hard to say, and i wouldnt even want to begin to predict how long it will be, if ever. 10 years before the wright brothers who would have accurately predicted when cloning would happen?



posted on Nov, 6 2004 @ 07:59 PM
link   
Never u can't go that fast ( get a physics book )
It's not about tech, its about laws of physics

[edit on 6-11-2004 by Pavel]



posted on Nov, 7 2004 @ 11:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by Pavel
Never u can't go that fast ( get a physics book )
It's not about tech, its about laws of physics

[edit on 6-11-2004 by Pavel]


I stated that the laws of physics are being continually rewritten, can you refute that?



posted on Nov, 8 2004 @ 12:09 AM
link   

Originally posted by spangbr
my response to the question would be this: scientific advances are often not about slow and steady progression over time, they are often about discoveries which are very radical and transform thinking. \


This is the kind of optimism I like to hear! How are we to possibly know what is right around the corner?



posted on Nov, 8 2004 @ 12:41 AM
link   
I think that a good concept for FTL travel is the Alcubierre warp drive.

www.lerc.nasa.gov...

It works by coating the ship in negative energy, (Normal physics states that negative energy does not exist, well quantum physics says there is a good chance it does.
Instead of the ship moving faster than light, the system takes the chunk of space the ship is in and moves it faster than light.

Gene Roddenbery got it pretty close with StarTrek.



posted on Nov, 8 2004 @ 12:49 AM
link   

Originally posted by AeroSpace Case
I stated that the laws of physics are being continually rewritten, can you refute that?

I can refute that.

What people dont understand is that the new theory doesnt mean that the old one is wrong. It shows limitations of the old theory.

We still use Newtons mechanics when we talk about everyday things. Relativity is used if we talk about the universe, stars, planets etc. or about objects that move with the speed close to the speed of light. Quantum mechanics is used to describe micro world. Relativistic Quantum mechanics describe a situation when elementary particles move at the speeds close to the speed of light.

My physics teacher once said: Everything that was easily discoverable is already discovered. I guess thats the best explanation.


[edit on 8-11-2004 by Agnis]



posted on Nov, 9 2004 @ 01:57 PM
link   
Who needs light speed when we can learn to travel at the speed of thought?

Aliens travel at the speed of thought, that's why they can be here from clear across the galaxy and universe and we "have no idea how they could travel so far so fast", because we are stuck thinking in our 3D world, where traveling at light speed is the absolute fastest.



posted on Nov, 10 2004 @ 05:10 PM
link   
Meh. If we are ever going to travel at the speed of light, it isn't going to be soon. Quantum teleportation is being done, but only with photons, and "teleportation" here has a special meaning - it's not actually moving the photon from point A to point B... it's transfering the quantum state of the photon at point A to a photon at point B. This is the way it works (yes, this is dumbed down, but IANAPhysicist [yet!]):

You get a pair of entangled photons, which means that their quantum states are superimposed - you cant' measure something about one (momentum, usually) without affecting the other.
You keep one at point A, and take the other to point B.
You make another photon, which carries your information, interact with photon A. This affects photon B according to heisenberg's principle.
The crew at point B then measures photon B, and deduces what the interacted photon did to the AB pair.

Not exactly efficient, not exactly for big things - their de broglie wavelengths are far too gigantic for a person - on the order of 10^30 m for a normal person. Too little uncertainty for it to work.

On the large scale, look towards brane theory - an extension of string theory. It postulates that the unviverse is actuall a sheet-type thing, which is folded over on itself in higher dimensions. Gravitational waves can travel through those extra dimensions - the cause of "dark energy" and potentially a way to send info.

In any case, remember, physicists only have to deal with nice theory, while those poor engineers have to deal with real life. Theoretically, we should all be flying in antigrav fusion-powered cars, but the engineers have had a bit more trouble at it...



posted on Nov, 11 2004 @ 08:09 PM
link   
*doo doo* Two to beam aboard, Mr. Spock. *doo doo*




top topics



 
0
<< 1   >>

log in

join