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:

# FTL

page: 1
7
share:

posted on Sep, 22 2013 @ 04:50 PM
Something I've always had an issue with is the common belief that it is impossible to go faster than light. Some have said that it would require infinite energy, no true by the way; others have said that Mass would become infinite, again, not true.

"Mass increases with velocity:
m' = m/sqrt[1-(v/c)^2]
where m is the mass of an object at rest and m' is the mass at velocity v. "

If we presume that "c" is the speed of light.

So then: this equation when solved for any v < c : m' < m. when v = c : m' = m.

I did a search for this and received the same equation...

This equation does not tell me that I can't exceed the speed of light; It simply tells me that I can't predict anything a velocities faster than light. By the way; it does tell me that I can go the speed of light.

So then, if this equation is not the equation that tells us that we cant go faster than light, which one does?

posted on Sep, 22 2013 @ 05:03 PM
I'll give you a star for the info. It seems that you are doing your math. As for a flag, might want to change the title; FTL?

For us non text user's I thought it was code

I'm sure you could go faster then light speed, head toward's the sun very fast and swing around it! Of course
the G Force would kill anything that tried that trick!

Now the bending of Space would be possible, Like a Star Gate if any of them are laying around here on Earth.

One in Mexico, England, China only them are considered Story's from far long ago. Had to come from somewhere
though!

What would be the math concept for that?

posted on Sep, 22 2013 @ 05:30 PM

Why are you on ATS then and not out there breaking all known sciences and describing new technologies?

This is the problem. You're all sitting on your hands.

Go.. Go make things. I want to see Jupiter with my own peepers, and I won't be able to do it with you clever clogs NOT making FTL a reality by next week, as you've got the maths down pat over all the people who;ve spent their entire lives trying to work it out.

If you invent a ftl maching and then point it at itself, will it go back in time?

posted on Sep, 22 2013 @ 05:32 PM

Im pretty sure it requires energy to accelerate a mass. In particle accelerators im pretty sure they accelerate particles with mass very very very near the speed of light. I think its thought nothing can travel faster then the speed of light, because its easier to accelerate things with less mass for starters, (less energy to accelerate a bullet then a cannon ball perhaps), and that there is an exponential amount of energy needed to be expended in order to increase the velocity of a mass to faster then light. Its not like its feasible to accelerate a mass from rest state to faster then light instantly, though this maybe is how light occurs. So because acceleration occurs incrementally and requires energy expenditure to increase the velocity each increment, as the mass is traveling very fast, there needs to be energy expended to make it go that much faster, all the while maintaining its velocity, and again pushing it a little faster, etc.

To me the nature of light is still rather confusing, but an interesting idea regarding this intrigue and topic, is the thought experiments and maybe real experiments of a car or space ship traveling relatively quickly, and then turning on headlights, is that light traveling faster then light? Well its thought since light doesnt have mass, the momentum of the material prior to light coming into existence has no affect on the speed limit and production of light.

So for example, you think it may be possible to have something travel faster then light. Just for example, what type of thing are you thinking, or you think it may be possible for multiple things like, light itself, a small mass like a fundamental particle, atoms, and potentially things like spaceships?

posted on Sep, 22 2013 @ 07:13 PM

God would it be nice to go traveling out to space!
Actually light speed would piss me off, I might miss something!

No time travel wanted here; would hate to see me as a child growing up.
Just telling my younger self something not to do would end up in something far worst.

I do not think time travel is possible anyway. Even going to say looking and opp's stepped on something
living would change it all later. Or shift timelines, so getting back would be out the window either way!

Yep! All that time wasted on something not worth anything later; okay to ponder things some, only would it
be better to create something like compassion and love?

These are hard time's and if someone could create a big LOVE BOOM, Happyness just might come around later!

posted on Sep, 22 2013 @ 07:26 PM

Light! I'm sure that there will no explaining it, ever. Light has so many spectrums.
It's one of them so-called ideas that man has an answere for and yet not even the tip
touched yet.

What has it been? less then 100yrs and man has come up with so many things.
Just ideas in the wind, passing though's through the mind wasting time.

Some are good though, and other's like the big bang actually do nothing for us. We haven't gone beyond
our solar system yet and someone has the understanding of it all.

We can't even feed all the people here now, Planet is sick and we waste money doing brain twister's on
things that will not do us any good later.

posted on Sep, 22 2013 @ 08:03 PM

tanka418
Something I've always had an issue with is the common belief that it is impossible to go faster than light. Some have said that it would require infinite energy, no true by the way; others have said that Mass would become infinite, again, not true.

"Mass increases with velocity:
m' = m/sqrt[1-(v/c)^2]
where m is the mass of an object at rest and m' is the mass at velocity v. "

The kinetic energy of an object moving at a speed v can be written as
E = mc^2 / sqrt[1 - (v/c)^2]
which you can see approaches infinity as v->c.

For v>c, the inside of the square root is negative and so the energy is imaginary. You can use more sophisticated arguments (beyond the scope of basic relativity) to prove that any system with imaginary energy isn't a mathematically consistent system to talk about, and there's no other version of that formula that works for v>c.

The less conclusive, but more elementary argument for that is by noting that imaginary energy would completely break the structure of ordinary kinematics in unacceptable ways (which is not really surprising).

posted on Sep, 22 2013 @ 08:35 PM
I have always wondered; if a field could be created and everything the field encompassed loss mass artificially (if) it would not be possible to break the FTL barrier. The faster you go the more drain on the power source but basically you would want zero mass or even less than within the field. Zero mass at the speed of light is still zero mass..... Unless a tractor beam or anti gravity system could be developed for a propulsion system you would still just be a glorified kite at the mercy of earthly winds or cosmic rays.. There might be several advantages to something with zero mass besides the FTL scenario. There have been papers (mostly rubbish and untrue) about objects losing mass in certain high powered electrical fields and at certain frequencies but I have not read anything lately (actually in a long time) worth mentioning much less remembering. unfortunately myself and everyone I know have not seen any field generators as described laying around...

posted on Sep, 22 2013 @ 08:41 PM
Hmmmm. Very good topic. In my opinion speed is relative. I mean a car can go 60 mph ... but if its headed in the direction the earth spins in isn't it really going much faster? Our world travels through the solar system at a certain speed and our solar system moves through our galaxy at a certain speed but if both directions are the same would theearths speed be much greater?

posted on Sep, 22 2013 @ 08:46 PM

So then, if this equation is not the equation that tells us that we cant go faster than light, which one does?

Such a large amount of matter moving so quickly may seem extremely close to light speed, but the energy required to move even a little faster is nearly infinite. To understand this, Einstein’s famous E=mc2 equation is useful. But there's a more complex version, however, which accounts for velocity (v):

E=γmc2 where γ=1/(√ 1-v2/c2)

www.livescience.com...
edit on 22-9-2013 by NeoParadigm because: (no reason given)

posted on Sep, 22 2013 @ 09:02 PM

your point is interesting, but that equation m=m'/sqrt[1-(v/c)^2] also says that as v approaches c, mass approaches infinity and at c we lose all ability to accelerate up OR down.

the reason I like your post is that equations are just descriptions of what we think in a precise form. when someone travels FTL that eq will have to be rewritten !!

posted on Sep, 23 2013 @ 08:17 AM

Moduli

The kinetic energy of an object moving at a speed v can be written as
E = mc^2 / sqrt[1 - (v/c)^2]
which you can see approaches infinity as v->c.

Yes. Actually, I mis-interpreted the equation at first, and that was the source of my initial confusion. I was about to have issue with some other aspects, but you pointed out that some values become "imaginary". I always has problems with "imaginary numbers"; mostly that they never "appeared" very "imaginary". But, be that as it may; the appearance of imaginary numbers in relativity should not be an "earth shaking" event as it simply means the end of relativistic observation. I believe that part of the reason that it is believed that the speed of light is a "barrier" is because it is impossible to collect data from super luminal events at the present time.

My next question I think would be: has this ever been demonstrated in the laboratory? The whole idea of something gaining mass simply because of movement seems a wee bit counter initiative.

Although, in this instance, perhaps fortuitous.

posted on Sep, 23 2013 @ 08:39 AM

There is a device known as a "sweet triode" that is supposed to provide "free energy". Supposedly, when this device is near full energy output, it looses its mass. My thoughts are that perhaps it interferes with the Higgs field in some way.

As for the artificial gravity however; that's been done. www.hpcc-space.de...

But that only solves a part of the propulsion issue. Although, a drive like this should be able to propel One to super-luminal velocities.

Course, then again, it also serves to "poke" a few holes in the idea that it takes "infinite energy" to go super luminal. With this gravity drive the same amount of energy is always required to produce any given gravity; thus if I set up a 1G acceleration using this drive, there should be no additional energy requirements, even as I pass through "light speed".

posted on Sep, 23 2013 @ 09:26 AM

Well, it also tells you that at c, the mass becomes undefined. As your v becomes c, you get 1-1/1 in the denominator, which makes the mass approach infinity as the velocity approaches c. As the mass approaches infinity, the force required to accelerate it becomes infinite as well. This means you need infinite energy to reach the limit. Sorry, but that's the way it goes.

You can actually see this in action in particle accelerators. The faster it goes, the "stiffer" the beam becomes, it's harder and harder to swing it. As it becomes relativistic, it's harder than hell to bend it.

posted on Sep, 23 2013 @ 09:27 AM

"Sparky" Sweet is mostly an invention of Tom Bearden. He did do some wild stuff that's mostly crap, but a lot of what you hear you get from Tom. Tom believes in Zog. 'Nuff said, AFAIC.

posted on Sep, 23 2013 @ 09:30 AM

tanka418

But that only solves a part of the propulsion issue. Although, a drive like this should be able to propel One to super-luminal velocities.

Course, then again, it also serves to "poke" a few holes in the idea that it takes "infinite energy" to go super luminal. With this gravity drive the same amount of energy is always required to produce any given gravity; thus if I set up a 1G acceleration using this drive, there should be no additional energy requirements, even as I pass through "light speed".

Except that artificial gravity's never been demonstrated. Links to pseudo-science websites not withstanding. Not that I don't think there's a way to do it, it's just that that's not it. PS: magnetic fields aren't gravity, no matter how many links tell you it is

posted on Sep, 23 2013 @ 01:39 PM

Bedlam

"Sparky" Sweet is mostly an invention of Tom Bearden. He did do some wild stuff that's mostly crap, but a lot of what you hear you get from Tom. Tom believes in Zog. 'Nuff said, AFAIC.

Yeah, I thought that too at one time. However, I'm beginning to understand how such a device can operate. Although, most of the stuff you find on the system seems to be misunderstanding and BS.

Anyway, that really is a wholly different subject.

posted on Sep, 23 2013 @ 01:44 PM

Bedlam

tanka418

But that only solves a part of the propulsion issue. Although, a drive like this should be able to propel One to super-luminal velocities.

Course, then again, it also serves to "poke" a few holes in the idea that it takes "infinite energy" to go super luminal. With this gravity drive the same amount of energy is always required to produce any given gravity; thus if I set up a 1G acceleration using this drive, there should be no additional energy requirements, even as I pass through "light speed".

Except that artificial gravity's never been demonstrated. Links to pseudo-science websites not withstanding. Not that I don't think there's a way to do it, it's just that that's not it. PS: magnetic fields aren't gravity, no matter how many links tell you it is

Okay, please go read at the link I provided. This artificial gravity system has been demonstrated in the laboratory, back in 2003. The website I'm sending you to is NOT pseudo-science...it is the European Space Agency...no "pseudo-science" there.

posted on Sep, 23 2013 @ 04:04 PM

infoseeker26754
I'll give you a star for the info. It seems that you are doing your math. As for a flag, might want to change the title; FTL?

For us non text user's I thought it was code

I'm sure you could go faster then light speed, head toward's the sun very fast and swing around it! Of course
the G Force would kill anything that tried that trick!

Now the bending of Space would be possible, Like a Star Gate if any of them are laying around here on Earth.

One in Mexico, England, China only them are considered Story's from far long ago. Had to come from somewhere
though!

What would be the math concept for that?

Little known fact, we have already bent and distorted time and space, so have the Russians, happened during nuclear testing. You won't read about in any press releases or text books. The nazis were doing it a different way. Who needs to go as fast as light when you can just fold space and just be there. Haven't you ever wondered why we don't see the alien species flying in from outer space.

Their seen all over the planet, but very rare in deep space, reason for that, they don't have to. Have you also not wondered why most of the eggheads stopped working on that long ago, they figured out they don't need to.

The Bot

posted on Sep, 23 2013 @ 05:51 PM
Man has always put limits on things and then claimed those limits weren't able to be broken. Speed of sound, how to get to the Moon, running a sub 4 min mile.

There was math "proving" their belief too.

We bested all of those through determination and a lot of money.

The speed of light will be the same thing, just science needs to progress to actually work at the velocities and in beyond a few atoms.

If you had asked Chris Columbus to build a 1,000 ft ship that could go 25 knots under water, he'd've said it couldn't be done as the technology he had couldn't do it.

That's the problem today.

Remember the speed of light is a measure of time as well as distance.

I sat through plenty a class @ Eberly (PSU's science dept) and a lot of the suppositions were a failure of imagination more than science "fact".

Derek

new topics

top topics

7