Faster than C?

mcbethcg · Aug 24, 2005

People want to live forever, so they believe in the bible, quoran, etc. as a matter of faith, despite any evidence to the contrary. People want their science fiction dreams to come true, so they believe in superluminal travel as a matter of faith, despite all evidence to the contrary.

mooware · Aug 24, 2005

Says alot about the human condition does it not?

jatslo · Aug 24, 2005

If it is not too much trouble, would you be so kind as to define "C" in a past, present, and/or future environment, so that we can visualize your interpretation of "Supraliminal Travel" and how it relates to traversing two-points in space time please?

emperor_of_localgroup · Aug 24, 2005

I wouldn't put this religious notion and necessity for C in the same catagory. It's true if our speed is limited by C (speed of light), then the whole existence of humans become somewhat meaningless. It'd be very boring to be confined in a smaller region of this super sized universe. But do not forget talking to (phone, radio) and seeing (TV) a person thousands of miles away in the years before 1700 (?) seemed as impossible as breaking the C barrier. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> Earth is Boring </div>

paleo · Aug 24, 2005

mcbethcg: That's a good observation. It is very stunning in its simplicity. Every science student in the first year should take it to heart. It's usually not called 'faith' in science, however, but is called 'if'. The touble with 'if' is that if 'if' was true then everything else in the Universe would be wrong. Emperor your: "But do not forget talking to (phone, radio) and seeing (TV) a person thousands of miles away in the years before 1700 (?) seemed as impossible as breaking the C barrier" That is not logic or science. What is the relationship between one false set of evidence making another set of evidence true or false? Even simple algebraic functions can disprove the connection. The logic is no better than saying that "do not forget talking to (phone, radio) and seeing (TV) a person thousands of miles away in the years before 1700 (?) seemed as impossible as producing a real Santa Claus at the North Pole. Science is about evidence and proof and not about faith and hope.

emperor_of_localgroup · Aug 25, 2005

HAHAHA I think your opinion more resembles religious belief than mine. You are contemplating a stagnant human race based on present day findings. Are you a supporter of a particular claim, I have seen a few years back, that the most important discoveries are already made in this world. There is no more significant discoveries to be made. I would like to direct this claimers attention to the hundreds of scientific journals publihsed every month, all with newer discoveries. I dont claim faster than C is possible today. Note there are two types - physical transportation by FTL and info transmission by FTL. They are, in my opinion, different. Anyway, if FTL is totally impossible we humans have to find other means to travel the universe, such as extending life span to 1000 yrs or more. Creating special human species just for this purpose, etc. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> Earth is Boring </div>

le3119 · Aug 26, 2005

Yes, I think that faster-than-light travel must be possible, so I'm out searching all of the scientific literature for any evidence that we can make it work. Where there's a will, there's a way.....it would be a waste if the rest of the universe, beyond our solar system is off limits due to this "speed limit". So we always have immortality. Science cannot comment on this objectively.

Saiph · Aug 26, 2005

well, if there is no way around it (i.e. it is a physical law)...that means the rest of the universe wouldn't work without it...which would be a bigger waste. I've no problem with people looking though. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> --------------------SaiphMOD@gmail.com -------------------"This is my Timey Wimey Detector. Goes "bing" when there's stuff. It also fries eggs at 30 paces, wether you want it to or not actually. I've learned to stay away from hens: It's not pretty when they blow" -- The Tenth Doctor, "Blink" </div>

mcbethcg · Aug 26, 2005

It's a physical law. There is no way around it.

mcbethcg · Aug 26, 2005

"If it is not too much trouble, would you be so kind as to define "C" in a past, present, and/or future environment, so that we can visualize your interpretation of "Supraliminal Travel" and how it relates to traversing two-points in space time please? " You know, the speed of light in a vaccum, in the time and location where it happens to be.

raghara2 · Aug 26, 2005

"It's a physical law. There is no way around it. " What did you ment by it? I recall reading article about cold thing transfering heat to warmer thing.

raghara2 · Aug 26, 2005

"If I have the will to flap my arms and fly to the moon, it does not mean that it's going to happen. " If after stopping fliping you'd call a space ship, or teleport yourself to and back from it, then you'd get there in no time. Only thing that would nearly guarantee you will not arive at moon would be sitting on conference and throwing around scientific proofs it's impossible. ^_^

tomnackid · Aug 26, 2005

Actually there is nothing in physics that prohibits one from traveling anywhere in the universe within a normal human lifetime. Because of time dilation the faster you go the slower time passes. Of course what seems like a 20 year jaunt around the universe to you might be a billion years back home. That is inconvenient for SF writers (but not the really good ones!). But think of it this way. Most Polynesians who left their islands looking for new ones never expected to see there birth places again or have any kind of contact with those they left behind. Same for the vast majority of immigrants coming to the New World before the 20th century. Being stuck in a relativistic universe aint necessarily all bad.

day07 · Aug 26, 2005

<blockquote>In reply to:<hr /> "It's a physical law. There is no way around it." <hr /></blockquote> Not all Theoretical Physicist believe this is an absolute truth. I have observed reports that the laws of Space and Time break down before crossing the Event Horizon of Supermassive Black Holes. Because of the BH's extreme mass, it is said that Spinning Supermassive BH's actually drag space around with them. Theoretically this moving Space would be like running on a moving sidewalk; it would allow particles to exceed C, relative to an observer, without actually having to break the laws of physics and exceed the speed of light. I'm not saying this theory is definately correct, but its plausability makes the 'Never' argument seem less valid to me. I will agree that it is impossible to take advantage of this Property Today, but without an Index detailing the Fate of Technological Evolution from here until the End of Time, I'm not certain we can assume Impossible.

frobozz · Aug 26, 2005

Do you have a link?

day07 · Aug 26, 2005

Hello, I can not find a direct link to the Work of Ron (not Paul) Mallet, I will edit my previous post to exclude his name. I have found a few links to the principle he spoke of... It is called frame dragging. Google Search: blackholes dragging space Good site for info on frame dragging, and just about anything else you could imagine.... http://www.physicsdaily.com/physics/Frame_dragging Hope this helps. I do not deny that this lies in the realm of Theoretical (not yet observable) physics.

jatslo · Aug 26, 2005

You know, the speed of light in a vaccum, in the time and location where it happens to be. Oh, really? How fast is that?

mcbethcg · Aug 27, 2005

Look, this is an easy thing to look up. You obviously have some agenda or point you want to make- why don't you just launch into it, instead of trying to draw out some statement you can twist?

siarad · Aug 27, 2005

So far there's no way round it buy it's a calculation not a law surely. Just as Newton's calculation weren't the end nor Maxwell's 'famous 4' div & curl added to by Einstein. The 'laws' of quantum mechanics are being broken in all our PC right now. This causes unwanted heat by electrons, not knowing how to read laws & thus tunnelling thro' barriers they can't cross over due to low quanta of energy. Maybe we just haven't found an energy saving way to tunnel through the light barrier. Of course using the word barrier assumes it's existence but is not proven but a nice day-dream that gets oft repeated <img src="/images/icons/laugh.gif" />

jatslo · Aug 27, 2005

trying to draw out some statement you can twist Listen, I am not going to twist anything. If you are going to talk about "C", and if "C" is the speed of light, then how fast is that?

jatslo · Aug 27, 2005

Maybe we just haven't found an energy saving way to tunnel through the light barrier At what speed is the light barrier? Is the light barrier measured in speed, like the sound barrier? You speak of tunneling, so what will be tunneling through what?

cuddlyrocket · Aug 27, 2005

As far as I am aware, there is no physical law that prohibits faster than light travel. If there is, perhaps you can state it. In fact there is no physical law that prevents an object with mass travelling at c (special relativity is silent on what happens to an object with mass at c). Most scientists suspect that faster than light travel is impossible. Then again, most think that time travel is impossible, although there is no physical law that prevents that either.

jatslo · Aug 27, 2005

no physical law that prevents Would that depend on the subject, and its environment?

jatslo · Aug 27, 2005

If inertia is applied as constant force in a somatic free healthy environment over a period of time, then the order would suggest that infinite energy is not necessary, only constant energy is required, right? With respect to infinite barrier, wouldn’t time define this barrier? For instance, if "A" traveled at a constant safe speed for "X" amount of time, at some point in space-time, "A" will contact its opposite "-A" in paradox at around the time that both subjects "A" and "-A" attempt time-travel, right (assuming everything has an opposite)? Some say subjects "A" and "-A" will annihilate one another; others say that pieces of the subjects might pass one another; others say that it is possible to survive time-travel, right? Nevertheless, all of this depends on environmental impact to the subject, right?

Saiph · Aug 27, 2005

I'll agree we may find a way around it, but sheer acceleration will never do it. Now, how are the laws of quantum mechanics being broken in all our computers? <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> --------------------SaiphMOD@gmail.com -------------------"This is my Timey Wimey Detector. Goes "bing" when there's stuff. It also fries eggs at 30 paces, wether you want it to or not actually. I've learned to stay away from hens: It's not pretty when they blow" -- The Tenth Doctor, "Blink" </div>

Faster than C?

mcbethcg

Guest

mooware

Guest

jatslo

Guest

emperor_of_localgroup

Guest

paleo

Guest

emperor_of_localgroup

Guest

le3119

Guest

Saiph

Guest

mcbethcg

Guest

mcbethcg

Guest

raghara2

Guest

raghara2

Guest

tomnackid

Guest

day07

Guest

frobozz

Guest

day07

Guest

jatslo

Guest

mcbethcg

Guest

siarad

Guest

jatslo

Guest

jatslo

Guest

cuddlyrocket

Guest

jatslo

Guest

jatslo

Guest

Saiph

Guest

Similar threads

TRENDING THREADS

Latest posts

Moderators online

Share this page