Why We Will Never Travel At Light Speed Or Anywhere Near To It.

What if you could superconduct the vacuum itself and all matter not just EM in the effected field.

What if you match impedance with virtual positron electrons in the vacuum and reduce the time sponaneous photon emission takes thus greatly increasing the speed of light and getting around the relativity thing by changing the goal posts.

Sorry, had to step away from ATS earlier.

OP asked "At lightspeed or a significant percentage of it" (IE not FTL).

As I said in my first post: if you have the tech to achieve close to lightspeed, you have the tech to make a type of shield that can either absorb impact or deflect it.

Next question was: what about larger objects (planets and miles across rocks).

Answer is the same: Technical level by that point would be able to detect large objects in your path and your navigational system would adjust your course to avoid those.

The tech level would be high enough to detect even very small objects from very far away. Your course is simply changed to avoid it.

At our current level of tech, we can detect small objects (less than a mile across) many millions of miles away. Larger objects many times greater distances away. If we can do that now, then I'd imagine the tech of a civilization that can almost achieve lightspeed would be able to have detection resolution much higher by then, and navigation computers that can react fast enough to avoid the much larger object.

a reply to: alldaylong

Actually, I don't think there'd be much time for an "ouch"... Not even an "OH, shi...".

According to what we know of physics today, it's not going to be an issue anytime soon. But who knows what the next Einstein or whomever will come up with. Why play Einstienian physics if you can go "around" them? Or some other way...?

originally posted by: carewemust
When we are smart enough to achieve light-speed we will also be smart enough to have Hull strength and plating that allows the ship to blast through asteroids planets and anything else.

It will only be used to make rockets to blow more earthlings up in futile disputes about whos god has a bigger beard or why is my oil less than yours.

What will defeat attempts to reach transluminal speeds is not ‘fist-sized rocks’ but photons blue-shifted to insane energies and subatomic particles which, due to the relativistic mass they have acquired through their velocity relative to the starship, would have the momentum to punch through any shield we could manufacture.

a reply to: Astyanax

Arriving in a colander would look terrible.

originally posted by: alldaylong
This is just my opinion.

In our own Solar System alone there are around 500,000 asteroids already discovered. There are possibly much larger numbers out there.

Travelling at light speed or a good percentage off it, you could hit an asteroid before you even knew it was there. End of journey.

Anyone agree ?

Doesnt matter . To travel at light speed would take an infinite amount of energy . (actually to even get near light speed) . Theory states at least as much as the universe has produced in its lifespan .

originally posted by: Macenroe82
a reply to: carewemust

Like an ice breaker on the ocean. Just Plowright through them

Why do that when it be easier to just access hyperspace instead by increasing the vibrational frequency of the ships matter.

originally posted by: Gothmog

originally posted by: alldaylong
This is just my opinion.

In our own Solar System alone there are around 500,000 asteroids already discovered. There are possibly much larger numbers out there.

Travelling at light speed or a good percentage off it, you could hit an asteroid before you even knew it was there. End of journey.

Anyone agree ?

Doesnt matter . To travel at light speed would take an infinite amount of energy . (actually to even get near light speed) . Theory states at least as much as the universe has produced in its lifespan .

That assumming you go through the theory and not around like I do with cancelling out the "mass" of the object. Cancell out the mass,and that negates gravitys pull on it. Negating that drop energy requirements.

a reply to: Astyanax

True enough. I'm trying to visualize that, and failing miserably...which is probably just as well. Messy.

Jeez, the amount of technobabble in this thread is nauseating.

No. humans wont travel anywhere near the speed of light. But for a wholly different reason. The energy (and thus resources) requirements are simply ridiculous.

Space colonization will most probably happen in form of one way trips in generational spaceships. You will have faster robotic spacecraft, tasked with setting up the colony (probably do some terraforming) long before the colonists arrive.

a reply to: alldaylong

If a tornado can peirce a tree with an undamaged straw of hay, im pretty sure if one were to travel at light speed, you wouldnt have to worry about smashing into anything. You might just go through everything like a pro linebacker running through a team of pee wee football players.... Unless something of near equal to greater speed comes in contact with you, that could change your day abruptly.

Sci-fi has you covered, "The forward deflector array". Star Trek, Star Wars, pretty much all of the genre that features ftl or similar has a variation, except of course Dune with its Folding Space, bilocation thing. Even the recent movie Passengers has one. It would be more important in sub light speed scenarios tbh because, if you are are travelling at light speed using the warp field method, then every object mentioned in the op post will travel around the calm bubble somewhat like detritus floating around eddies in a stream.

originally posted by: moebius
Jeez, the amount of technobabble in this thread is nauseating.

No. humans wont travel anywhere near the speed of light. But for a wholly different reason. The energy (and thus resources) requirements are simply ridiculous.

Unless we find a way to "trick" spacetime into thinking we're not accelerating through it. That's what the proposed warp drives are supposed to do. You would be in your own "bubble" of spacetime which would travel through space without having to accelerate any matter.

originally posted by: Astyanax
What will defeat attempts to reach transluminal speeds is not ‘fist-sized rocks’ but photons blue-shifted to insane energies and subatomic particles which, due to the relativistic mass they have acquired through their velocity relative to the starship, would have the momentum to punch through any shield we could manufacture.

Indeed, that's a very serious danger, even if you're travelling through completely empty space. The resulting gamma ray photons will not so much punch through the shields or hull, but simply vaporise it.

Instantaneous travel would not be FTL, and no asteroids.

a reply to: yuppa

Good point about the mass. Superconductors have demonstrated an ability to lower mass under the right conditions. However it seems like they are missing a crucial componant to the set up to achieve complete mass nullification. Probably havent dialed in on the exact frequency that undoos everything. Or found a way publically to mitigate completely the winding up of the test mass reference frames.

One can look at it from a rueda haisch angle of stochiastic EM vacuum dynamics matching impedance with the vacuum and changing the conditions that lead up to inertial reduction and alter the value of C. Or the znidarsic way of resonating and vibrating the test mass in accord with the quantum transitions velocity. Which would release the weak and nuclear force too along with EM.

Anyways i think its interesting to see the research being dobe that correlates the compton wavelength of the photon with the electrons energy level that eminated it and the phonons of the debroglie frequency of same electron when in motion. The are in accord when you account for the doppler shifting. Theres a connection between the forces. Resonate at it and you match impedance things come undone and all the forces may act like they are in a superconducting.

I don't understand the concept that if you travel faster than light ... time gets messed up.

Help me understand !


Ship goes away from me for one hour faster than light .
For the ship crew one hour has passed.

Ship turns round and travels another hour to its point of origin.

For me looking on from the point of origin the same two hours have passed.


From my simple view of this... why has time been messed up.

Genuinely would like an explanation from smart people who undestand.

a reply to: alldaylong

Most of the answers negate objects of any size.