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: 2
7
share:

posted on Sep, 23 2013 @ 06:04 PM
I don't think that the variable 'c' is really real.

Lets imagine that light really does travel at 'c' and you shine a laser light into space. You also have to realise that the Earth is moving around the Sun, and the Sun is moving around a central point also. So, I would think that the total speed of light would be c+Earth's motion+Sun's motion. If you shine a light from a stationary spot (an imaginary spot that is not moving in space) that light would be 'c'. But it doesn't work like that, according to Relativity Theory and Special Relativity Theory. According to those theories the light being emitted from that stationary spot and the light being emmited from the laser on Earth are actually travelling at the same exact speeds.

I am not a physics person I just have taken a class about quantum mechanics and was very confused. If someone can explain or disprove my point I am open to that.

posted on Sep, 23 2013 @ 07:22 PM

Except the Mother Ship! Too much mass to enter so it ride's in Hyper Space.

Was reading some c=v' or something to that anyway. I think if you included Mass + Energy you would come up with something ending in the Neg and found it could not work anyway.

You could not turn; Hello Planet, Bang! You would be going so fast that you could not even move yourself to change anything unless done by a computer and how far can any things eyes see anything before you smack
into it.

Now the Star Gate idea has this worked out. Somewhat like the Lay Lines on Earth only spread out between
the whole idea of space! Only that it is Natural and has existed way before Time!

It somehow displaces Energy; displace might not be the word, but something changes it to over ride Matter.
Let's see, Light! As a star send's it's light it goes around planet's; or uses the planet to add to the light so more Energy.

So we have Energy, Mass, and Light using Natural pathway's already there.
How am I doing?

posted on Sep, 23 2013 @ 08:02 PM

Thank you that was an interesting read...

posted on Sep, 23 2013 @ 10:00 PM

tanka418

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.

Except that the link is actually a link to an aggregate of dozens of links. Which exact link among them all is the one you feel proves this demonstration the best?

posted on Sep, 23 2013 @ 10:32 PM

Bedlam

Except that the link is actually a link to an aggregate of dozens of links. Which exact link among them all is the one you feel proves this demonstration the best?

All of them

www.hpcc-space.de...

Actually several of them talk about the laboratory experiments, and describe the laboratory setup.

posted on Sep, 23 2013 @ 11:00 PM

tanka418
Actually several of them talk about the laboratory experiments, and describe the laboratory setup.

Pick a couple you think are the best. I'd love to take a look at them. However, my ATS experience is that when someone puts up a wall o' links, any one I look at they'll say that wasn't the one they meant. You know all of these, I don't want to read ALL of them, so you pick the one or two you think are the sui generis of your link pile, and I'd be happy to read it.

posted on Sep, 24 2013 @ 02:47 AM

ImagineFree
I don't think that the variable 'c' is really real.

Lets imagine that light really does travel at 'c' and you shine a laser light into space. You also have to realise that the Earth is moving around the Sun, and the Sun is moving around a central point also. So, I would think that the total speed of light would be c+Earth's motion+Sun's motion. If you shine a light from a stationary spot (an imaginary spot that is not moving in space) that light would be 'c'. But it doesn't work like that, according to Relativity Theory and Special Relativity Theory. According to those theories the light being emitted from that stationary spot and the light being emmited from the laser on Earth are actually travelling at the same exact speeds.

I am not a physics person I just have taken a class about quantum mechanics and was very confused. If someone can explain or disprove my point I am open to that.

That is exactly what you would think, it makes sense. It's wrong though. c is constant, and the light moves at c not at c+Earth's motion.

imagine.gsfc.nasa.gov...

posted on Sep, 24 2013 @ 02:51 AM

tanka418

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.

hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu...
There was an experiment that proved it in a roundabout way.

posted on Sep, 24 2013 @ 01:01 PM

OccamsRazor04

ImagineFree
I don't think that the variable 'c' is really real.

Lets imagine that light really does travel at 'c' and you shine a laser light into space. You also have to realise that the Earth is moving around the Sun, and the Sun is moving around a central point also. So, I would think that the total speed of light would be c+Earth's motion+Sun's motion. If you shine a light from a stationary spot (an imaginary spot that is not moving in space) that light would be 'c'. But it doesn't work like that, according to Relativity Theory and Special Relativity Theory. According to those theories the light being emitted from that stationary spot and the light being emmited from the laser on Earth are actually travelling at the same exact speeds.

I am not a physics person I just have taken a class about quantum mechanics and was very confused. If someone can explain or disprove my point I am open to that.

That is exactly what you would think, it makes sense. It's wrong though. c is constant, and the light moves at c not at c+Earth's motion.

imagine.gsfc.nasa.gov...

Well first off, I know that c is a constant rather than a variable. I haven't taken any classes for awhile so my terminology isn't that correct. Also, that link explains the phenomenon of light travel pretty well, but it still doesn't make sense to me. Personally I think that something must be wrong with the theories. I think that there is a way to describe lightspeed more accurately.

posted on Sep, 24 2013 @ 02:09 PM
The common misconception is that mass changes with speed. That isn't so. Mass always remains constant.

What changes is the force of momentum. Or something called the "energy-momentum 4-vector" which is normally described with this equation:
sqrt(E^2-P^2c^2)=mc^2

Basically, what this means is that the faster you go, the more energy you need to reach and maintain that speed.

A good example would be your car. A car requires gas. When you want to speed up, what do you do? Step on the accelerator. This runs the engine faster and uses more fuel. More energy to reach a faster speed.

The faster you go, the more energy you need, multiplied by how much mass you are trying to move.

How does light move so fast? It has practically no mass and is made entirely of energy.

posted on Sep, 25 2013 @ 09:20 PM

allenidaho

Basically, what this means is that the faster you go, the more energy you need to reach and maintain that speed.

This too will become myth. Although it will always apply to old school propulsion systems.

This "field" drive I propose will always require the same amount of energy to product the same gravity well; Velocity will be irrelevant.

Although, the idea of mass increasing as One approaches light speed might be useful. If that small area of the "curve" can be properly controlled, we may be able to completely offset time dilation, perhaps even "reverse" it; maybe provide a sort of low-tech "virtual" FTL.

posted on Sep, 25 2013 @ 09:33 PM

ImagineFree

OccamsRazor04

ImagineFree
I don't think that the variable 'c' is really real.

Lets imagine that light really does travel at 'c' and you shine a laser light into space. You also have to realise that the Earth is moving around the Sun, and the Sun is moving around a central point also. So, I would think that the total speed of light would be c+Earth's motion+Sun's motion. If you shine a light from a stationary spot (an imaginary spot that is not moving in space) that light would be 'c'. But it doesn't work like that, according to Relativity Theory and Special Relativity Theory. According to those theories the light being emitted from that stationary spot and the light being emmited from the laser on Earth are actually travelling at the same exact speeds.

I am not a physics person I just have taken a class about quantum mechanics and was very confused. If someone can explain or disprove my point I am open to that.

That is exactly what you would think, it makes sense. It's wrong though. c is constant, and the light moves at c not at c+Earth's motion.

imagine.gsfc.nasa.gov...

Well first off, I know that c is a constant rather than a variable. I haven't taken any classes for awhile so my terminology isn't that correct. Also, that link explains the phenomenon of light travel pretty well, but it still doesn't make sense to me. Personally I think that something must be wrong with the theories. I think that there is a way to describe lightspeed more accurately.

It's verifiable and proven. So the theory is not wrong, your thinking is wrong. Now it's counterintuitive, so it's understandable. Now that you have been corrected, it is no longer understandable for you to have an incorrect view. Again, this is verifiable and has been verified.

Light does not act like most "objects". A baseball's natural speed is 0. It requires force to make it move. So if you are in a car going 10mph, the car is the force making the ball move. Then you throw the ball 20mph. The ball now has 20mpg or "force" making it move 20mph.

Light's natural speed is the speed of light. It requires no force to make light move, force has no effect on light. That is why when you are going 20mpg and shine a light the force of the car moving 20mph has no effect. The only thing that effects the speed of light is the medium it moves through.

new topics

top topics

7