Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

10,000 times faster than the speed of light! - Speed faster than lightspeed is possible!

page: 2
17
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join

posted on Mar, 15 2013 @ 11:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by PhoenixOD
reply to post by arpgme
 


Quantum entanglement is nothing to do with traveling speed


Einstein called it "Spooky Action at a distance"

'snip'

So the laws of physics still stand..nothing new to see here


edit on 15-3-2013 by PhoenixOD because: (no reason given)


How can you say those words together. Because of a group of THEORIES the LAWS of physics still stand.

You do realize that that statement is an oxymoron.

P




posted on Mar, 15 2013 @ 11:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by pheonix358

Originally posted by PhoenixOD
reply to post by arpgme
 


Quantum entanglement is nothing to do with traveling speed


Einstein called it "Spooky Action at a distance"

'snip'

So the laws of physics still stand..nothing new to see here


edit on 15-3-2013 by PhoenixOD because: (no reason given)


How can you say those words together. Because of a group of THEORIES the LAWS of physics still stand.

You do realize that that statement is an oxymoron.

P


Im not to sure what your talking about as i didnt say those words together


But if you want to argue semantics of the word 'theory' when used in a scientific contex then maybe you should read this


Einstein stated that the theory of relativity belongs to a class of "principle-theories". As such it employs an analytic method. This means that the elements which comprise this theory are not based on hypothesis but on empirical discovery. The empirical discovery leads to understanding the general characteristics of natural processes. Mathematical models are then developed which separate the natural processes into theoretical-mathematical descriptions. Therefore, by analytical means the necessary conditions that have to be satisfied are deduced. Separate events must satisfy these conditions. Experience should then match the conclusions



A scientific theory is a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world, based on a body of knowledge that has been repeatedly confirmed through observation and experiment.[1][2] Scientists create scientific theories from hypotheses that have been corroborated through the scientific method, then gather evidence to test their accuracy. As with all forms of scientific knowledge, scientific theories are inductive in nature and do not make apodictic propositions; instead, they aim for predictive and explanatory force.


Is that clearer?


edit on 15-3-2013 by PhoenixOD because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 16 2013 @ 01:23 AM
link   
reply to post by PhoenixOD
 


A theory is a theory and a law is a law, well until someone comes along and disproves it as happens now and again.

Theory is unproven, law is proven. It is that simple.

Basing our science on theory is fine as long as we remember that it is only a conjecture that fits known facts.

P



posted on Mar, 16 2013 @ 01:55 AM
link   

Originally posted by pheonix358
Theory is unproven, law is proven. It is that simple.
Not even close. We keep laws that we know aren't true because they are useful, and in many cases theories are more powerful and better than laws:

www.wikihow.com...

theories are larger than laws, and that "upgrading" a theory to a law would actually be a downgrade. The Theory of Relativity will never be the Law of Relativity and the Theory of Evolution by Natural Selection will never be the Law of Evolution by Natural Selection. We know that Newton's Laws of motion are not, in fact, right. They break down when the objects are very small or moving very fast (relative to other objects). If your students go on to take a modern physics class at the college level, they will prove the inconsistencies (and, thus, the falsehood) within Newton's Laws. Why, then, do we keep them around? Because they are exceedingly good at predicting. They are so good, that engineers building skyscrapers need only consider them. One can even travel throughout the Solar System only considering them, but they are not correct.



posted on Mar, 16 2013 @ 02:08 AM
link   
reply to post by Arbitrageur
 


It's a problem when your knowledge of science comes from Wikihow.

Good grief Charlie Brown



posted on Mar, 16 2013 @ 02:11 AM
link   
reply to post by inverslyproportional
 




Or hell , they coule be somehow we dont understand bound to the fabric of spacetime itself, which does not care about the speed of light, otherwise it would stop expanding faster than it. Or even it is a charge connection on some level we dont understand, though I doubt that. 


I was thinking along those same lines. The photons might remain intimately connected, even when separated by vast distances, through a greater cosmic force similar to that of Nikola Tesla's cosmic 'Ether' (Aether).  A force from which all perceptible matter comes from and in turn interconnects everything  in the universe and all its stars on a cosmic level. Tesla's 'radiant energy' was a form of tapping into this cosmic force.

"There is no thing endowed with life – from man, who is enslaving the elements, to the nimblest creature – in all this world that does not sway in turn. Whenever action is born from force, though it be infinitesimal, the cosmic balance is upset and universal motion results." - Tesla



posted on Mar, 16 2013 @ 12:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by pheonix358
reply to post by Arbitrageur
 

It's a problem when your knowledge of science comes from Wikihow.
My knowledge of science doesn't come from Wikihow but from years of learning, studying, and experimenting. I notice you fail to provide any other source you think is better.

So it's even more of a problem when you can't even debate the facts. I don't know if everything in Wikihow is correct or not. I use Wikipedia for a source a lot too but I know not everything in it is correct, but I try to only quote the parts I think are correct.

I do know the part I quoted about Newtons laws of motion being proven false in some circumstances is correct, and that's partly through evidence supporting Einstein's theory of relativity, which is what makes the theory of relativity more powerful than classical laws.

To the OP: regarding "Speed faster than lightspeed is possible!"

There is a wikipedia article on Faster-than-light observations and experiments that you might find interesting. "Spooky action at a distance" isn't the only thing that appears faster than light without violating relativity.



posted on Mar, 16 2013 @ 10:47 PM
link   
reply to post by arpgme
 


Misleading post. Lightspeed is still intact. No information is being sent. Not sure why I even bothered replying to such a terrible post where the post itself discredits the title.



posted on Mar, 16 2013 @ 10:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by HolgerTheDane2
What i want to know is how they can measure the speed.

Since we are talking entanglement we are talking about to entities that change state relative to each other.

If they are in the same lab how the blazes do they measure the time difference?

If they are far apart will not the clock being moved be slightly off compared to the stationary clock according to the well known clock-at-the-center-of-a-turntable-compared-to-the-clock-at-the-edge speculation?

Or is it a case of "Hmm, what should we tell the masses? Let's say 10.000. It's so much better than 5 and btw. Who the ***** can check it out anyway?"


They are not measuring it. What they have done is said it can not happen any SLOWER than this. The equipment needed to measure the actual time it takes does not exist.



posted on Mar, 17 2013 @ 07:14 PM
link   
Quantum Entanglements are instantaneous and has far as how one might define that?

That definition based upon inductive reasoning,
Is what is relative.

Any thoughts?
edit on 17-3-2013 by Kashai because: modifed content



posted on Mar, 17 2013 @ 07:45 PM
link   
I think speed of light is controlled by space/time. If you can get outside that...well who knows what is possible. Perhaps there is something space/time and everything else exists in that does not limit the speed of light. We don't know it all yet.



posted on Mar, 17 2013 @ 08:39 PM
link   
reply to post by arpgme
 


Doesn't faster than the speed of light have something to do with time travel? So if this is true, what I want to know is, if I sent my message today and I sent it using this faster than the speed of light process, would my message get there yesterday or tomorrow?



posted on Mar, 18 2013 @ 06:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by StarsInDust
reply to post by arpgme
 


Doesn't faster than the speed of light have something to do with time travel? So if this is true, what I want to know is, if I sent my message today and I sent it using this faster than the speed of light process, would my message get there yesterday or tomorrow?


If you sent a message at the speed of light, one light year away from your current location, it would take 1 year to get their.

If for example there was a satellite in the Oort cloud, that had the technology to respond in the same
way, it would take another year for it to respond.

With Quantum Entanglement if one had the technology to send a message 13.9 billion light years from here and if (hypothetically speaking) we had some technology their that could respond in the same way?

It would be more about the time it took to prepare the response to the first message and pressed send.


The rest of the process and in regard to the technology to send messages that far, in relation to QE would happen instantaneously,

edit on 18-3-2013 by Kashai because: Added and modifed content



posted on Mar, 19 2013 @ 03:12 PM
link   
Photons have zero mass...which can generate thrust when they are ejected from an object, such as a nuts an bolts starship. The same principle is proven when photons are ejected from from the poles of some black holes near the speed of light. These massive black holes are too large to have any photon ejecta push them around with any significance --- but a freebird such as a flying saucer --- can and will generate thrust, when it is equipped with the same magnetic properties of these black holes; only on a much smaller scale.

The photons are sucked into the flying saucer to feed the hungry black hole photon engine, and ejected with tremendous thrust...so as the starship easily gets to the speed of light ---- and increases speed exponentially squared --- too many times the speed of light; into the superluminal realm.

The starship is protected from the dangers of superluminal speeds --- with the application of a computer controlled magnetic field --- that is generated from the black hole photon engine.

edit on 19-3-2013 by Erno86 because: spelling



posted on Mar, 19 2013 @ 05:46 PM
link   
reply to post by arpgme
 


Doesn't really mean anything as for now. There is no traveling faster than the speed of light. All they are saying are quantum interactions take place faster than the speed of light. The experiment was with quantum entanglements, we don't know which photon would be true so can't really be used for communication.

You are partially right with what you are saying- Lets take 2 frame references, I shine light at the speed c towards the north and you to the south with the same speed. These frames are moving apart from each other at 2c. What if you were to imagine that the light I was shining is at 0 does yours become 2c? Simple answer is no. We work with probability at the quantum level. When we come to a point where we know what will happen in the future we can theoretically send messages faster than light, however this is the same as predicting the future. All we need is a computer with more computation than the universe; it maybe possible to do it on a smaller scale thousands of years into the future.



posted on Mar, 19 2013 @ 06:51 PM
link   
reply to post by arpgme
 


What does E=mc2 mean?

Does it mean that light can not travel any faster ? Does it mean that e=mc2 is the maximum speed for light in a vaccum?

Because it sure aint the equation for "c" the speed of light.

"c" in the equation e=mc2 is the speed of light in a vacuum.



posted on Mar, 19 2013 @ 07:09 PM
link   
reply to post by spy66
 


It is the energy mass equivalent. Example- In a fusion reaction when 2 hydrogen fuse to helium there is a small mass deficit. That mass is now energy E= mass X (speed of light)^2. That is how nuclear energy works.



posted on Mar, 19 2013 @ 07:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by spy66
reply to post by arpgme
 


What does E=mc2 mean?

Does it mean that light can not travel any faster ? Does it mean that e=mc2 is the maximum speed for light in a vaccum?

Because it sure aint the equation for "c" the speed of light.

"c" in the equation e=mc2 is the speed of light in a vacuum.





E=mc2 where the C2 component equals the speed of light squared.

Care to define the speed of light squared?

Any thoughts?



posted on Mar, 19 2013 @ 09:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by spy66
reply to post by arpgme
 


What does E=mc2 mean?

Does it mean that light can not travel any faster ? Does it mean that e=mc2 is the maximum speed for light in a vaccum?

Because it sure aint the equation for "c" the speed of light.

"c" in the equation e=mc2 is the speed of light in a vacuum.


so I ask the question again that I asked on page 1. If you have a certain amount of energy and there is such a beast as faster than the speed of light, then as c (hence c squared) goes up, the mass will reduce. ie they are inversely proportional in this equation. so where did arp get the increase in mass ?????????



posted on Mar, 20 2013 @ 01:37 AM
link   

Originally posted by greatfriendbadfoe
so I ask the question again that I asked on page 1. If you have a certain amount of energy and there is such a beast as faster than the speed of light, then as c (hence c squared) goes up, the mass will reduce. ie they are inversely proportional in this equation. so where did arp get the increase in mass ?????????
The question doesn't make sense. c is the speed of light in a vacuum, which is a constant. So you can't talk about c going up or down.

You may be trying to ask about a variable velocity of an object with mass. In that case, mass does appear to increase as relativistic speeds are approached, but E=mc² has nothing to do with that. However Einstein didn't like the concept of relativistic mass, and instead referred to talk of rest mass, and look at the momentum and energy of the body in motion:

en.wikipedia.org...

It is not good to introduce the concept of the mass

of a moving body for which no clear definition can be given. It is better to introduce no other mass concept than the ’rest mass’ m. Instead of introducing M it is better to mention the expression for the momentum and energy of a body in motion.

— Albert Einstein in letter to Lincoln Barnett, 19 June 1948 (quote from L. B. Okun (1989), p. 42[1])
So in this view, the extra mass doesn't really have to come from anywhere as the speed of light is approached.

Since we've never measured any massive object going faster than light, you don't have to worry about what happens in that case. At least not until you can actually find out if it even happens. The OP story doesn't suggest that it does.





new topics

top topics



 
17
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join