Hazards of speed of light travel.

originally posted by: Oldcarpy2

originally posted by: Wide-Eyes
a reply to: EdisonintheFM

The biggest hurdle in space travel is inertial dampening.

No propulsion system will be effective without it.

Inertia. Change course at relativist speeds will turn you into jam.

Dan Simmons and Catholics in space springs to mind!

Seems like the universe is fairly pointless really as there is almost no chance we travel beyond our solar system or those of our nearest neighbours. Currently everything points to physics limiting our ability to travel far at all, certainly not across the galaxy and never to another galaxy. My best hope is that we know nothing, and the older I get the more I realise this is true. Just wish the damn ET’s would hurry up, disclose themselves and show us how easy it is to hop from star system to star system. I mean, right now I’d love to stand on Mars before I die, but I don’t see that happening. Still, the stars are nice to look at on a clear night and maybe, as usual, imagination is infinitely better than reality.

a reply to: ARM1968

I wouldnt call aspiration pointless. That said, I don't even like being near water, so I'm sure I'd stay on earth... the water planet... Ah, I didn't think that one through... Crap. The universe is a big place, though. Interplanetary travel is inevitable. Just not in my lifetime.

a reply to: CyberBuddha

Have you considered the problem of Time Dilation?

Another reason that FTL isn't possible.

Learn More

originally posted by: sine.nomine
a reply to: Gothmog

Do you think if one were to achieve space warping, the planets and other celestrial bodies in the way would just be f'd up beyond any reason? Lol. Never thought about that..

Space "warping" (not sure what you mean there) would take just as much energy .
Infinite or near infinite.
Learn physics .

a reply to: gb540

False equivalence my friend, big difference between space travel and light speed travel and crossing an ocean.

originally posted by: Gothmog

originally posted by: sine.nomine
a reply to: Gothmog

Do you think if one were to achieve space warping, the planets and other celestrial bodies in the way would just be f'd up beyond any reason? Lol. Never thought about that..

Space "warping" (not sure what you mean there) would take just as much energy .
Infinite or near infinite.
Learn physics .

C'mon man, I was friendly. You know what I meant. Wormhole theories and whatnot. I actually excelled top of my class in advanced physics. And yes, creating a wormhole would effectively warp space. That's kinda the whole theory.

But yes, it would take much more energy than we could know how to obtain or use.

originally posted by: sine.nomine

originally posted by: Gothmog

originally posted by: sine.nomine
a reply to: Gothmog

Do you think if one were to achieve space warping, the planets and other celestrial bodies in the way would just be f'd up beyond any reason? Lol. Never thought about that..

Space "warping" (not sure what you mean there) would take just as much energy .
Infinite or near infinite.
Learn physics .

C'mon man, I was friendly. You know what I meant. Wormhole theories and whatnot. I actually excelled top of my class in advanced physics. And yes, creating a wormhole would effectively warp space. That's kinda the whole theory.

But yes, it would take much more energy than we could know how to obtain or use.

"Warp" or "Fold" ?

a reply to: Gothmog

Is folding space not warping space? Jesus, man, this is pointless semantics.

I dont wanna be this guy, but look up the definition of warp.

Man, we're nearly lockstep in agreement on this topic. I'm just throwing ideas because it's fun.

originally posted by: sine.nomine
a reply to: Gothmog

Is folding space not warping space? Jesus, man, this is pointless semantics.

Warping space is using the 11 (12?) dimensions to travel through space.
Folding is using gravity to compress space in front and expand behind. Something like the expanding universe does.

Lesson provided .

originally posted by: Gothmog

originally posted by: sine.nomine
a reply to: Gothmog

Is folding space not warping space? Jesus, man, this is pointless semantics.

Warping space is using the 11 (12?) dimensions to travel through space.
Folding is using gravity to compress space in front and expand behind. Something like the expanding universe does.

Lesson provided .

Refer to my last edit, which I'm sorry if you missed. Lesson provided.

BTW: That apology is sincere. That's not on you.

Aside from stargazing space travel really doesnt hold a ton of interest with me. There's just too many places to explore, and too much to learn here still I feel. As to light speed travel. I don't think it's possible. Maybe like other posters have said wormholes might be the way to go. Maybe one day we will find a map to them.

’m wondering if near speed of light travel is even possible considering a few practical things.

Yeah.
The thought of one's atomic structure being stretched across space.
I like mine just the way it is.

Traveling at or near the speed of light, according to theory, your spacecraft would be very dense and small. Your ship would pass through a grain of sand or even a planet with no effect. The acceleration to the speed of light would be worrisome about hitting something.

Once again, you isolate yourself from the regular frame of reference of “normal” universe stuff (the interactions like splatting against the back wall of your space craft). Momentum, acceleration, etc is not anything like a rocket engine pushing you through space. So all the stupid E=mc^2 arguments are not applicable.

The real question is “how” can this be achieved?? If you read the patents by Pais, that is the secret on how to get near relativistic speeds, if not FTL.

My best guess/understanding is that you use a 2D material (no, nothing to do with 3D objects like experience in the real world but how EM radiation can travel and interact along the surface of material).that “blasts an energetic bubble” along the surface that “shields” you crafts from the local frame of reference: no mass, FTL.

That is what the reports say. Our friend, Astr0, said as much the same. And from a physics perspective, it would work.

The question becomes “how”?? How do you you take a mass and turn it into a quantum object where relativity no longer applies.

Could just be a pipe dream. Could be how (according to a couple of post here on ATS) how we are already traveling around the galaxy. Could be total disinfo. But you shouldn’t say that you “know” anything when you already limit what you will accept as possible.

Everything is permitted.

Can you imagine it? (E.g., if it takes a gianormous power source then maybe Lockheed’s fusion reactor already exists, which makes any “logical” argument down that line of reasoning moot). Can you connect dots that “don’t exist”?? And when all the wink, wink, nudge, nudge, is over, can your narrow horizons expand to larger bubble of the understanding??

FTL is not us pushing each other on a merry go round!!

Everyone says you need huge gobs of power to go near lightspeed, but what are they powering up? What kind of engine or propulsion system and how does it work?


Like a nuclear powered aircraft carrier, huge amount of power, what it boils down to is it’s just basically a steam powered turbine. With endless amounts of boiled water from the nuclear reactor, simple.

The nearest star is equivalent to a huge beach ball representing the star on a North Carolina beach and a small bb representing earth on a California beach.

Phase conjunction is the future of space travel. Conventional methods we use, will never get much beyond what they are today. Not because it's not possible, but because it's impractical

Why travel billions of light-years through space to get somewhere, when you are already there?

You shrink space down around/through matter, then expand it at a different point within space using phase conjunction (like with EM vortices)

We just need to understand how to stabalise with, and/or, phase through focus points (like the sun), to shift to the realm/world we want to be in

This is a very long way off though. We would need to learn how to synthesize biological life first in order to ensure we understand cellular harmonics enough to risk transporting lifeforms through phased linear space

Also E=MC2 is a incomplete equation, without knowing what C= and what M=. It's like saying "Babies are equal to male and female square". It may/might sound like I'm trying to be comical, but the equations are almost exactly the same. Think about it. They don't really tell you anything

Relativity isn't proclivity

But, if we really wanted to travel around, near or beyond the speed of light, it can be done using centrifugal (gravity) displacement

Most of the orb-shaped (flying) technology would use some type of centrifugal gravity-displacement drive

The basic (mechanical) design has a large rotating centre disk, with (free-spinning) displacement carriers built into the disk around the outside at a very particular ratio and length (5/8 returning 1/2). These distribute inertia outside the centre of gravity while the disk is spinning

The distributed inertia, pushing against it's own centrifugal force creates equalised force against gravity which cancels it out

The force can't push in. It can't push out

It's the same principle as orbital mechanics, like with planets orbiting the sun being held in place under a pocket of displaced gravitational return

You spin the disk at a very particular speed and you create a pocket around the sphere with tremendous energy potential. It takes very little to power the drive, because the power comes from the Earths natural forces

You displace this (very carefully) and it translates into lift. Or angular propulsion. Massive and very, very rapid propulsion. Though it is not actually propulsion. It is more like entering a slipstream or bubble in the atmosphere, where you pulled along and pushed along at the same time, to 'slip' between the atmospheric pressures

You can literally go from standing still, to thousands of KM's per hour in a split-second

The beauty of this, is that you experience no (or very little) inertia within the vehicle. This is why the sphere shape is important within the atmosphere (or 36* or "Cigar" shape craft for high-altitude (linear travel) "variant pressure") because atmospheric pressures must be matched and equalised around the craft to move effectively using displacement, around the centre of that displacement

Meaning, close to the planetary centre of gravity, you need a sphere. Higher in the plane, near the atmosphere, or in space, you need 36* closed in 5/8

a reply to: CyberBuddha
Yes for the first I think without some kind of deflector shield, from all directions, it's will be a hell of a ride.

For the second I think that for things like NSL, FTL or warp stuff, it's not going to be like pressing a button but the quality of maps, computer power. I think it's going to be like positioning the craft, computer tells the next "shot" window and then prayers...ignition. Maybe it even starts slow but the course would need to be plotted and gravitational influence from planets or star systems included.

I once read a physics approach that an object traveling at light speed gains mass ergo gravitation. That it would leave a devastating trail literally behind it as planets or small objects are influenced or dragged behind, at least disturb their path.

For this it seems that the greatest hazard would be coming from the craft, not towards it. Could a big craft going 99.999999 light speed gain enough mass so it collapses into a black hole? Beginners question.

originally posted by: ThatDamnDuckAgain
I once read a physics approach that an object traveling at light speed gains mass ergo gravitation. That it would leave a devastating trail literally behind it as planets or small objects are influenced or dragged behind, at least disturb their path.

There are so many misunderstandings about this since there are some physics textbooks that talk about relativistic mass, but, Einstein himself cautioned against such a concept of relativistic mass and said it's best to think of rest mass as the only meaningful mass. When a mass stars moving, what's gained are momentum and energy, not mass.

This is still interesting, because you don't need mass to exert gravity in Einstein's math (set aside Newton's math for now which only works at non-relativistic velocities). For example, in the LHC, the protons have energy 7460 times larger than their mass, so the gravity from those protons is 7460 times greater than the gravity from a proton at rest.

It would be much harder to accelerate a massive spaceship to the velocity of those LHC protons, in fact we don't know of any way that could be done, but even if you could do it, multiply the mass of the space craft by 7460 and compare it to the planet's mass. If it creates a disturbance, I don't expect it to be very large.

originally posted by: ThatDamnDuckAgain
For this it seems that the greatest hazard would be coming from the craft, not towards it. Could a big craft going 99.999999 light speed gain enough mass so it collapses into a black hole? Beginners question.

As I said we don't have any idea how it would even be possible to do that, but that's more or less same speed as the LHC protons which travel at 99.9999991% of the speed of light and their energy is "only" 7460 times their mass and that doesn't create black holes as far as we can tell. Some LHC scientists were hoping to see some microscopic black hole signatures where protons collide with protons going the opposite direction, but, they never saw any.

At one time it was thought that planes could not exceed the sound barrier. The tip of a propeller would break the barrier well before the base, and create a sonic wave through the blade that would destroy the propeller and engine. This is still true. Although some prop planes came close in sheer dives, they mostly crashed. There are no prop engines that go faster than sound for any length of time (that I know of). But then the jet engine was developed, and Chuck Yeager just jumped in the X-1 and did it!.

What will happen in the future? I don't know. But maybe there is another Chuck Yeager out there in grade school who will one day fly the next thing based on new tech that will somehow go “very fast.”

I think it will happen.

a reply to: Arbitrageur

Thank you for the explanation / correction