What needs to be done for faster than light travel?

originally posted by: IAmTheRumble
a reply to: yuppa

That graphene aerogel is pretty cool but, it's still going to take a lot to reduce somethings mass to zero. Which is needed if we're talking FTL under Einstein.

As for the magnetic vortex wormhole generator, i'll have to look into that later when I have more time on my hands. Same goes for the over unity theory.

Well remember that until someone actually tries going faster than light its still just a theory. Im thinking Einstein was directed to give that theory out to retard scientific research btw. Steven hawking was wrong why cant einstein be?

a reply to: yuppa

I think it's plausible that he could be wrong but, it will take a heck of a lot of manpower to replace him with new.

Read somewhere that at the speed of light you could travel the width of the visible universe within a lifetime because of time dilution so you really don't need faster than light speed to travel enormous distances. You can reach the speed of light in under one year at 1G acceleration.

originally posted by: stormbringer1701

originally posted by: nonjudgementalist
The inmates have outgrown the wheelchairs in the assylum?

it's all fun and games until i trade you to aliens for a star cruiser.

You think that would be me you're thinking of trading?

Hahahahahahhahaha

That would be your soul.

a reply to: glend

At the speed of light time technically "stops" but, it would take an infinite amount of energy to get to that speed. So as it seems at current state, to be very improbable.

In not going along with the concept of mass increase with increasing velocity, I am of the opinion that any propulsion system, which can produce and maintain a constant acceleration indefinitely will achieve an FTL velocity. The problem with an FTL velocity is it will take a long time to slow down.

a reply to: eManym

If time allegedly stops at light speed, how is one suppose to deactivate the engines!!??

This is another reason why I don't think time actually slows down, it's just an illusion as particles move slower.

I keep telling you guys, FTL "travel" is looking in the wrong place.

1. We are not suited for 'traveling' to explore the Galaxy, let alone the Universe.
2. Traveling somewhere still has the problem of getting the 'information' back to home base.
3. It's unlikely the you could use 'space warping' technology anywhere near a Solar System, or at least anywhere near Earth
4. What we want is not to 'go there', but to have the information. After all you can only 'go there' for planets that are not hostile for life.
5. It would take WAY TOO LONG (WTL) to go, to learn, to gather information.
6. Nanoprobes will not require huge expense, energy and can also do their job without disturbing the location they visit.

The way we will 'explore' the Galaxy (and then the Universe), is to send out nanoprobes which will do a limited self-replication and spread exponentially, and all the time also be sending back information to fill the 'Virtual Galaxy' database.

That way we can virtually voyage and visit any planet or star at the speed of a 'click'. You will be able to 'visit' that location because they can 'build' that world down to the fine details, and you can experience it in perfect safety, speed, comfort and accuracy, and you won't be picking up or delivering alien (or Earth) viruses and microorganisms.

HTH

a reply to: Maverick7

I've never thought of probing everything and then have it recorded onto a database. Certainly interesting but, the problem still remains, how are we going to get the probes out there in a reasonable amount of time, to make use of them?

originally posted by: IAmTheRumble
a reply to: Maverick7

I've never thought of probing everything and then have it recorded onto a database. Certainly interesting but, the problem still remains, how are we going to get the probes out there in a reasonable amount of time, to make use of them?

TIME in our scale is a man created thing. universal time is diffrent. ANd no ones gotten fast enough to prove time slows down. ALso no ones actually proved the mass increase either. mass isnt increasing just the force on the item itself from acceleration. Now say you have soemthing that stops that action. I dont know why people think E=mc squared is never going to be disproven when we advance to another level of science.einstein will be considered a idiot.

Also OP since you are saying there is a limit what was the threads point if you dont think it can be achieved?

originally posted by: IAmTheRumble
a reply to: Gothmog

Speaking of the atomic clocks, who's to say the particles in the clocks aren't just moving slower? That doesn't necessarily mean time is slowing down, if this is true.

Atomic clocks do not go by particle movement.They keep time by particle decay.

I think we will first make something that is run on electro-magnetic propulsion that compounds its output exponentially over a period of time. of course this would be viewed as primitive to apparent ET tech. But it would be a step in the right direction.....if it worked

a reply to: IAmTheRumble

At the speed of light time technically "stops" but, it would take an infinite amount of energy to get to that speed. So as it seems at current state, to be very improbable.

The weight of a spaceship doesn't mysteriously increase near light speed so if you had a spaceship capable of accelerating at 1G it could do so indefinitely given you had enough fuel. Frank Heile from Stanford University explains it here but its way over my head. If I understand the gist of it correctly there is no speed of light restriction for people within the spacecraft, only those observing the spacecraft will witness that restriction. But yes time would would slow down for anyone travelling at speed which equalizes everything between both parties.

a reply to: yuppa

It's not that it can't be achieved, the problem is there are two things standing in the way: General and Special Relativity. We either replace them with new theories or find as many loopholes as we can. I'm completely open to looking into new theories, Relativity is starting to grow old.

a reply to: Gothmog

Isn't that still technically particle movement

a reply to: Macenroe82

Any ideas on how to generate hundreds of thousands to a couple million volts in your backyard? Safely, without the government knocking on your front door? To my knowledge, it probably isn't easy to get funding for something like this. And unfortunately I haven't seen anyone get funding for this.

Lol.
Read the thread in my signature
a reply to: IAmTheRumble

a reply to: glend

Assuming Einstein's E=mc^2 is correct. If energy is equivalent to mass, the more energy you put into the system, is going to require the need for more energy to accelerate the craft to higher velocities.

In order to propel the craft faster (accelerate), the ship is going to constantly need more and more energy the faster the ship gets until it reaches an infinite amount of energy.

But, there's no need to use brute force when you can sidestep the problem with possible mass reduction, or using the warp drive to pull space closer to you. Fortunately, most physicists agree that the speed that space can warp does not have a limit.

originally posted by: IAmTheRumble
a reply to: yuppa

It's not that it can't be achieved, the problem is there are two things standing in the way: General and Special Relativity. We either replace them with new theories or find as many loopholes as we can. I'm completely open to looking into new theories, Relativity is starting to grow old.

Theory is only a theory and it does not stand in the way of achieving anything

a reply to: Nochzwei

I do agree with what you're saying in your thread. Space isn't necessarily warping, but we do know for a fact that something is happening to create these effects. For example, gravitational lensing to Relativist's proves that space is being warped but, how do we know for certain that there isn't a different mechanism in play that ISN'T space being bent? Personally I don't like the idea of warping space and time. I think it's wrong, proving it's wrong is going to be near impossible IMO.