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.

# I have a question?

page: 2
4
share:

posted on Nov, 14 2013 @ 11:29 PM
There is unknown irrational fractional values in the ratio, so who's to say we aren't already? The idea of how fast the speed of light is is referenced to time we understand as seconds because energy travels that fast. Think of different temperature gauges. In one gauge 99.9% of boiling water is 225F or it is 99.9C or it is some dumb number i don't feel like looking up in Kelvin.
If your asking what happens to the human body if we accelerate from 99.0 to 99.9% the speed of light the acceleration rate is all that's important. We can survive falling at an acceleration rate of 8.6m/s linear peak, but I don't know how long it would take the human body to accustomate itself to faster change then that, with or without inertia involved.
I like to think of it as changing skin color over generations, changing comfortable room temperature over years, and changing moods over dumb # like researching Kelvin temperatures. Change sucks.

posted on Nov, 14 2013 @ 11:32 PM

He is correct, there is no way scientist have observed a quantum connection between and object on Earth and another 1+ light year away from here. Today scientist have observed quantum entanglement between objects that are several miles apart (feel free to correct me if I am wrong).

But there is no way they can verify the effect beyond such points.

posted on Nov, 14 2013 @ 11:41 PM

InTheFlesh1980

I am pretty sure this experiment would result in a warm bowl of Relativistic Red Soup.

If the body were to somehow remain intact, which is impossible, then time would be flowing at significantly different rates within portions of the same body... which, I guess, would yield the same ultimate result as above. Certain death.

Mmmmmm. Relativistic Red Soup....

posted on Nov, 14 2013 @ 11:46 PM

We can only observe quantum entanglement facutally on a basis where we can measure quantum properties, I've never heard of Hubble doing that, no.

Why do GPS in cars work?

Even though there is or is not entanglment factors, the electrical properties remain stable at ~c transmission speeds and the trajectories are calculatable, so predictive electronics, no not AI, just well designed circuitry.

posted on Nov, 14 2013 @ 11:49 PM

Minus the inertia thing, you do have a ghetto time device.

Using current theory, the human would be able to move forward in time.

No different than traveling a distance at the same speed..

Since current theory also includes mass increasing when at that speed - inertia must be a factor.

Human soup will be the likely result.

But if you can do this without speed, just an edit in gravity, you should be able to do the same thing - minus the human soup. A time 'bubble' due to the gravity field should work.

posted on Nov, 14 2013 @ 11:51 PM

I feel Higg's Field's are time dialating based on the theory of inertial mass increase with velocity. Catching up?

posted on Nov, 15 2013 @ 12:02 AM

I am not addressing the issue of effectively making an object massless with a warp bubble. But for the sake of argument what would happen if acceleration exceeded that of light, in relation to a spin, is an interesting question?

Any thoughts?
edit on 15-11-2013 by Kashai because: Added content

posted on Nov, 15 2013 @ 12:03 AM

ChefSlug

I feel Higg's Field's are time dialating based on the theory of inertial mass increase with velocity. Catching up?

Just read the other responses....so yeah, I'm trying to catch up. My bad.

Think this theory was tested and proved legit with atomic clocks. The GPS satellite's are the icing on the cake. They are coded to adjust for the dialation stuff..

Ty.

posted on Nov, 15 2013 @ 12:09 AM

Kashai

I am not addressing the issue of effectively making an object massless with a warp bubble. But for the sake of argument what would happen if acceleration exceeded that of light, in relation to a spin, is an interesting question?

Any thoughts?
edit on 15-11-2013 by Kashai because: Added content

The mass within will see their time move slower than any normal relative time. Their time would be slowed down - the normal time would pass faster than their perspective.

They would age 1 day for every 33 years we do. At that speed..I think.

posted on Nov, 15 2013 @ 12:21 AM

ChuckNasty

Minus the inertia thing, you do have a ghetto time device.

Using current theory, the human would be able to move forward in time.

No different than traveling a distance at the same speed..

Since current theory also includes mass increasing when at that speed - inertia must be a factor.

Human soup will be the likely result.

But if you can do this without speed, just an edit in gravity, you should be able to do the same thing - minus the human soup. A time 'bubble' due to the gravity field should work.

If one generates a "Time Bubble" or "Warp Field", traveling into a solar system at that rate, could cause all kinds of problems. So in respect we need to find another way to avoid the effect of traveling into a solar system at 10 times the speed of light and running head on onto an asteroid roughly 10 times the mass of the vessel in question.

One we did not see in time.

Forget the issue of human soup, consider that 10,000 years from now technology has advanced to a point, where that is possible.

edit on 15-11-2013 by Kashai because: Added content

posted on Nov, 15 2013 @ 12:37 AM

Kashai

I am not addressing the issue of effectively making an object massless with a warp bubble. But for the sake of argument what would happen if acceleration exceeded that of light, in relation to a spin, is an interesting question?

Any thoughts?

Yeah, I'm thinking that light does not accelerate, therefore you can't have acceleration that exceeds that of light. Or any acceleration exceeds that of light, since light's acceleration is zero.

Acceleration is the rate of change of velocity, not velocity.

eta:

the sphere would have to be made of some mighty strong material, the mechanical stress on it will approach infinity as you approach c.

etaa:

if it's nearly infinitely dense, you might get closed time-like paths around it as you become relativistic, ala Tipler.

edit on 15-11-2013 by Bedlam because: (no reason given)

posted on Nov, 15 2013 @ 12:56 AM

"Acceleration is the rate of change of velocity, not velocity."

Can you elaborate on that point and explain how it is relevant?

Sorry to be so picky

edit on 15-11-2013 by Kashai because: Added content

posted on Nov, 15 2013 @ 01:04 AM

The field for a vessel vs a planet is night and day different.

The gravity field would be no different than a mass similar in size. You don't see planets shifting due to asteroids.

We should reach 'light' speed within 33 years...unmanned of course. The math will be there.

posted on Nov, 15 2013 @ 01:07 AM

Kashai

"Acceleration is the rate of change of velocity, not velocity."

Can you elaborate on that point and explain how it is relevant?

Sorry to be so picky

edit on 15-11-2013 by Kashai because: Added content

I think what he/she means is since d=v*t , that a consistent rate of v does not change, thus noting consistency, therefore acceleration does not take place.

posted on Nov, 15 2013 @ 01:09 AM

I happen to be a he.

posted on Nov, 15 2013 @ 01:14 AM

Kashai

"Acceleration is the rate of change of velocity, not velocity."

Can you elaborate on that point and explain how it is relevant?

You said "But for the sake of argument what would happen if acceleration exceeded that of light, in relation to a spin, is an interesting question?"

Light HAS no acceleration. It is always the same speed. Therefore there is no dv/dt. In which case, any acceleration at all exceeds that of light.

What you might have meant was 'what would happen if velocity exceeded that of light", because light actually has a velocity. However, you can't reach the speed of light in a vacuum in an Einsteinian universe, much less exceed it, so that question is moot.

posted on Nov, 15 2013 @ 01:15 AM

Yes but planets do affect asteroids and in this case an object moving at 10 to the power of c, could send an object slightly larger than it on another trajectory. It is possible we could use a massive body like a planet or a star to accelerate beyond c to the power of ten, if we were traveling that fast prior to contact.

Any thoughts?

posted on Nov, 15 2013 @ 01:15 AM
Suggesting that light is a constant.

posted on Nov, 15 2013 @ 01:16 AM

I studied this first in Philosophy class, then reading meta-physics online and epstilogical understandings, then finally through some science all proving this untrue.

It lies in a belief that was proven false by quantum theorists dating back to Einstein with the Uncertainty Principle.

The belief was the question of universal stability vs. expansion and contraction.

I took no side for the issue but listened and read.

I discussed it through many metaphors with teachers and scholars, some funny.

My conclusion is the the same as main stream, the universe constantly contracts and expands to some uncertain level.

With Einstein's theory of Relativity E=MC^2 taken as a closed system of energy and mass within the universe, the ratio of energy and mass is conserved.

Matter is not created universally to stabilize and sustain constance of the speed of light, or any variable to a definitive degree, thanks to the fallibility clause of non objective perspective and measurement therefore, the speed of light is not a definitive constant, but an accepted range considered one value.

posted on Nov, 15 2013 @ 01:19 AM

ChefSlug
...therefore, the speed of light is not a definitive constant, but an accepted range considered one value.

Sure it is. Light is not relative. It has one speed in vacuum, c, as far as we can tell. That is verified by many, many, many experiments of numerous types.

eta: in philosophy class, I made the prof eat his words on 'argument from authority' by asking him to attempt to refute a proof he was unqualified to judge. He had to admit that if you are insufficiently educated in the subject to understand the proof, you are unable to argue the point.
edit on 15-11-2013 by Bedlam because: (no reason given)

new topics

top topics

4