Faster than light theory!!

jatslo · Dec 4, 2005

Looks like some of these minions are quite hostile to your ideas, and stevehw33 is adding fuel to the fire. I posted a response similar to your ideas in the following thread: REF#145456456

Saiph · Dec 5, 2005

books don't have all the answeres. However the books quoted, and another "Black holes and warped spacetime" by Kip Thorne have answers to those specific questions. At the very least, they have well reasoned and supported answers that address many of the common issues with relativity. either way, it is only after learning about and understanding the current arguements and models fully, can one really begin to disagree in a productive fashion. Imagine someone who knows nothing about cars trying to critique a mechanic on some pretty complicated stuff. Odds are they may have some sort of point, but the mechanic knows all the standard solutions and answers that already exist to address those points. The same thing is happening here. The idea of getting on a train and firing a beam of light or projectile is a standard question and exercise in books addressing relativity. As such, those are the logical places to go to understand the material. <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>

zero_cool · Dec 5, 2005

jeeze, sorry if i offended anyone, it was a complicated question, yes i agree, but that is what the forums are for, to ask questions, im not really debating, im just asking more questions, why would i go out and spend 10-20$$ on a book, if i can go on here and ask?...im pretty sure this is the last post im ever going to make, just because of the rude responses i got in return!

unlearningthemistakes · Dec 5, 2005

does your words---> rude responses, count me in? I thought I responded calmly. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> pain is inevitablesuffering is optional </div>

zero_cool · Dec 5, 2005

no, unlearningthemistakes, youre fine, its just all these people, make it out to seem like me asking questions is a bad thing...and it pissed me off, thats all

unlearningthemistakes · Dec 5, 2005

eh, don't let them carry you away. continue posting. We all ask questions around here. No man is a jack of all trade. we all have our strengths as well as weaknesses. asking a question does not infer weakness. <img src="/images/icons/wink.gif" /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> pain is inevitablesuffering is optional </div>

jatslo · Dec 5, 2005

I offered my viewpoints in another thread, but I am not interested in talking within this hostile environment. Saiph is way cool though, try talking with him and ignore the rest. unlearningthemistakes is cool too; I have had a couple of nice conversations with him too.

averygoodspirit · Dec 6, 2005

If someone tries to tell you that FTL speeds are not possible, they are simply quoting what they have heard many scientist, including Doctor Albert Einstein say. Dr. Einstein once made the statement that theorizing the existence of a universal constant was his biggest mistake. Actually it wasn’t. His biggest mistake was making the statement that nothing can travel faster than the speed of light. What he should have said was, “Nothing known to mankind, at this point in time, can move faster than the speed of light.” I know it’s possible because I’ve done it. I’ve traveled faster than the speed of light more than once. There is more than one way to do it too. Don’t ask me how it’s done. I don’t have all the answers. I think it has something to do with surrounding the ship with a special, yet undiscovered by mankind, energy field. The universe doesn’t recognize the mass that is encapsulated in the field. It’s like a bubble of pure, mass less energy moving at faster than light speed. There is a loud bang when you drop under the speed of light. You don’t have to worry too much about atomic friction in deep space, the energy field takes care of that, but you do have to avoid larger objects of mass. It requires high speed, automated, computer controlled detection and avoidance equipment that we have yet to discover. Unless someone is clairvoyant and can see a million years of technological evolution into the future, I don’t care how smart they think they are, they are just blowing smoke. Never, and I mean never, say never. After all, “The Earth will never orbit the sun.” “Man will never fly.” “Man will never fly faster than the speed of sound” and “Man will never walk on the moon.” <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

xmo1 · Dec 6, 2005

Good thing you didn't. My theory is that particles in an enclosed, tightly packed environment cause a cascade atomic explosion due to entropic principles that unbind forces at L speed. You can read my ideas by searching my ID if you want. I'm not going to spew them here again. Yes, I've been told I'm wrong. Could be that prior to attaining entropy particles reform so that they are then detectable? I think so. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> DenniSys.com </div>

xmo1 · Dec 6, 2005

Could be the theory has exceptions. Historically, there are more wrongs than rights, and what I've learned is that there is always room for exceptions, which eventually break down or leave as obsolete what has gone before. Never under-estimate the power of ignorance, nor the strength of an exception. -me <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> DenniSys.com </div>

xmo1 · Dec 6, 2005

There is a state where matter and energy can convert from one form to another. Could be possible, I suppose, that the state could be artifically created, localized, and used to do work. You have to be careful with that, because, as I said in other posts, it's my theory that the state begins with an atomic explosion (in a release of bound particles in the evaporation of the binding forces). Ever notice how people began identifying subatomic particles? Could be the same thing with forces. There could be innumerable, yet undiscovered, forces at work. My guess is that forces are variable. The key to using those forces -may be- investigated properly by examining how they relate to the lattice structures of elements. Could be that each element represents a classification system for a set of universal objects, such as structures, particles, forces, and properties that can be acted upon by equally discrete and specific methods. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> DenniSys.com </div>

nexium · Dec 6, 2005

There is strong support for the speed limit among the best educated persons in related fields. Have they personally gone though the details of the more important experiments supporting c as the ultiment speed? With rare exceptions, they are accepting the conclusions without the details being pesonally confirmed. This has happened repeatedly thoughout the history of science, and most of the new facts of a century ago have important amendments and/or are mostly forgotton. Perhaps we really have reached enlightenment in 2005: Time will tell. Neil

dragon04 · Dec 6, 2005

why would i go out and spend 10-20$$ on a book, if i can go on here and ask? Rarely, I have no answer to a question. This is one of those times. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> "2012.. Year of the Dragon!! Get on the Dragon Wagon!". </div>

one_billy · Dec 6, 2005

I don't know why I bother with you geeks.You can't see past the frames of your milk bottle glasses. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

zero_cool · Dec 6, 2005

I realize the fact that numerous scientist and physicist have made theories that not thing can go FTL, but thats all done mathematically, so all in all theyre all just speculations, so that is why i hate it when people tell me NOTHING can go FTL. Nothing is impossible in a universe where everyone barely knows anything about it, just because of the simple fact that theyre just not knowledgable enough to justify it.....yet lol

jatslo · Dec 6, 2005

There is strong support that the speed limit will break, so wake up people.

zero_cool · Dec 6, 2005

Thanks Jatslo, youre are probably the only one on here that actually has an open mind, that ive ran into at least, im sure there are others, they just need to come out and show themselves lol

Saiph · Dec 6, 2005

actually, many of the experiments and mathematics behind the speed of light limit are: 1) Re-examined in modern experiments explicitly on a regular basis. 2) Consequences of the speed of light limit crop up in experiments that don't explicitly look for it. (and no, the scientists don't look for it, quite often they scratch their heads for a while until they realize it can be explained as such). 3) The classical experiments are often repeated by graduate students going into the field. 4) The mathematics are re-derived and taught to those graduate students during their classes (yes, I actually see, learn about, and often do the derivations myself in classes). So, the results aren't just being accepted without being examined. And even if a large portion of the graduate students don't pay really close attention, there are always a handful that do, because they work that hard, and/or they're that interested in the material. <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>

Saiph · Dec 6, 2005

zero: First, it appears my apology wasn't actually posted the other day. My previous response about the material being in books was not an admonishment on your asking questions here. I actually encourage you to do so. I was just defending the use of books as a tool for self-education, and explicitly using your question as an example of how the exact information you're looking for is often in the books. However, asking here is a great first step (even a last step for many), especially as you may not know where the material is in book form (or what books are any good if there's tons of them). Anyway, as far as the "anti-FTL theories being only math", I'd like to point out that the math is intimately associated with physical models that very accurately predict what we see. The math and logical structures behind relativity have correctly predicted experimental results decades before the hardware was sensitive enough to measure it. If FTL is possible, and it's in direct violation of relativity (as opposed to a way around it, or to use it to find a "loop hole"), then one must re-examine one of the most successful theories in human history and figure out why the wrong theory was giving the right answers (and relativity is actually under fire quite a bit, directly and indirectly). <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>

jatslo · Dec 6, 2005

Cherenkov Radiation <---- FTL Research Platform(s) ----> Teleportation

averygoodspirit · Dec 6, 2005

Conservation of energy is possibly the most important, and certainly the most practically useful of several conservation laws in physics. The law states that the total inflow of energy into a system must equal the total outflow of energy from the system, plus the change in the energy contained within the system. In other words, energy can be converted from one form to another, but it cannot be created or destroyed. Many astrophysist are now of the opinion that this LAW may not be true. They are saying that eventually the universe will no longer have any energy and will, one day in the far distant future, cease to exist. It has also been stated that the mass, and therefore energy, contained within the singularity of a black hole will escape one atom at a time until the singularity no longer exists. If actual physical LAWS can be disproven, I don’t see how one can consider the special relativity therory as irrefutable and without exceptions, especially when the universe as a whole is considered. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

jatslo · Dec 6, 2005

If someone tries to tell you that FTL speeds are not possible, they are simply quoting what they have heard many scientist, including Doctor Albert Einstein say. Dr. Einstein once made the statement that theorizing the existence of a universal constant was his biggest mistake. Actually it wasn’t. His biggest mistake was making the statement that nothing can travel faster than the speed of light. What he should have said was, “Nothing known to mankind, at this point in time, can move faster than the speed of light.” I tried the following compromise: (E = m(c v + c i) 2), whereas (E) = Energy; (m) = Mass; (c v) = Visible Speed of Light; (c i) = Invisible Speed of Light. It is quite possible that the visible speed of light has a barrier, or two barriers respectively. For example, sub-light or light traveling slower than zero would also be invisible, so (c i) could also be a negative number as in: (E = m(c v - c i) 2), but this is relative to our position in space-time: velocity; speed. If we could slow down, these slower moving objects would shift into the visible frame of reference, and if we could speed up, those faster objects would shift into our visible frame of reference. I know it’s possible because I’ve done it. I’ve traveled faster than the speed of light more than once. There is more than one way to do it too. Don’t ask me how it’s done. I don’t have all the answers. I think it has something to do with surrounding the ship with a special, yet undiscovered by mankind, energy field. The universe doesn’t recognize the mass that is encapsulated in the field. It’s like a bubble of pure, mass less energy moving at faster than light speed. There is a loud bang when you drop under the speed of light. You don’t have to worry too much about atomic friction in deep space, the energy field takes ca

zero_cool · Dec 6, 2005

Ok everyone, i apologize for spouting off, i know i really shouldnt have done it, but you know how teenagers are...always have to have the last word lol, so sorry guys, i shouldnt even have tried to "run with the big dogs" ( you astrophysicist guys) but i sometimes follow the old saying "if you cant run with the big dogs, stay on the porch" Well the porch is pretty boring and the old couch thats out there is getting pretty stinky, lol so i had to jump off, and try to keep up with you guys...lol, but once again, i apologize for spouting off..

Saiph · Dec 6, 2005

zero: feel free to keep contributing. I started around here as a senior in high-school (nearly 6 years ago! ack!) avery: <blockquote>In reply to:<hr />Many astrophysist are now of the opinion that this LAW may not be true. They are saying that eventually the universe will no longer have any energy and will, one day in the far distant future, cease to exist. It has also been stated that the mass, and therefore energy, contained within the singularity of a black hole will escape one atom at a time until the singularity no longer exists.<hr /></blockquote> Well, these are where the realms of relativity and quantum mechanics begin to merge. Every theory has it's realm of validity, it's "jurisdiction". Relativity does well with large scale things, large distances, velocities, etc. Quantum does well with small scale things. However, when the two areas begin to overlap (strong gravity over small distances, high speeds on atomic scales, etc) you have to make allowances for one theory in the other. Take things escaping a black hole: Relativity says it can't happen, as the basis of relativity deals with "continous" phenomena (a particle can be here, there, or anywhere in between). Quantum says there are some odd cases where it can happen (because a particle is either here, or there, and not in between). Normally, it doesn't matter, as quantum effects only become significant (where they can actually change your answer) at small scales. However, the region of an event horizon of a black hole is just such a small scale region. You're either inside it, or you're outside. The laws aren't being violated, they're being fleshed out. <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>

neutron_star69 · Dec 6, 2005

Hmmm, interesting. Goes back to the question, How was the universe made? there had to have been energy and mass. o was it created or has it always been here? So I dont see how energy can run out.

Faster than light theory!!

jatslo

Guest

Saiph

Guest

zero_cool

Guest

unlearningthemistakes

Guest

zero_cool

Guest

unlearningthemistakes

Guest

jatslo

Guest

averygoodspirit

Guest

xmo1

Guest

xmo1

Guest

xmo1

Guest

nexium

Guest

dragon04

Guest

one_billy

Guest

zero_cool

Guest

jatslo

Guest

zero_cool

Guest

Saiph

Guest

Saiph

Guest

jatslo

Guest

averygoodspirit

Guest

jatslo

Guest

zero_cool

Guest

Saiph

Guest

neutron_star69

Guest

Similar threads

TRENDING THREADS

Latest posts

Share this page