FTL not going to happen in this universe?

[t_dog]

To just give you a bit of my background before jumping into this, I was a CS major for four years until I switched to financial analysis. I hate doing algorithmic analysis and the mathematical proofs that go along with it. Other than that I had to take a year of physics and got a C in two of the terms and a D in the third term. We had a 40-48% fail rate in ever class so I don't feel too bad about the grades I achieved. They were freaking hard!<br /><br />Anyhow, I have been reading a lot about Faster Than Light travel and well-- basic physics. <br /><br />I have come to this conclusion. Not to say that this conclusion is correct by any means, but I want to hear what others think. <br /><br />First off the fact the universe was created gives it a distinct sum of energy. This means that because energy has or should be distributed evenly means that faster than light speeds are just impossible. <br /><br />Because, to go faster than the speed of light you would need to add energy to the system and since a photon is the smallest particle known, then the same energy that propels a larger particle can never be faster, due to newtons laws of inertia. <br /><br />But faster than light travel and slower than light travel might be given in the same aspect. Given that another universe was created with more or less energy, than the rate at which a photon travels may be faster or slower. Meaning that the functions and equations stay the same but the numbers change. <br /><br />I really want to hear what others think though I do feel like I might get more than a mind full from this site...

 

[cache]

Maybe I'm missing something in the way you asked, so bear in mind that I'm probably misinterpreting your point. In any 'other/alternate' universe, the rules of physics could very well be different, but there will always remain a question of where the energy comes from. Unless some radical occurrence is happening to allow more energy being created in those universes, they will run into similar problems.<br /><br />That said, FTL is technically possible in this universe, provided that you're willing to accept that it is not possible for us to use, to observe, or to measure it in any way. Which, I suppose, entirely defeats the purpose.

 

[dryson]

The Universe was not created who created that which created the Universe? Creation is a paradox that goes knowhere except to put money back in pockets of the charolettons that profess it. <br /><br />Now to FTL travel. Put this in your pipe and smoke it.<br /><br /><blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p>I'm not an expert on magnetic fields but it seems to me that the spotty magnetic fields on mars are probably caused by iron ore deposits. Each iron molecule has it's own north and south pole but when connected to another molecule they combine. Put more and more iron molecules together and your magnet grows. Each deposit would have it's own north and south pole so that's why the instruments detected so much flipping. <br /><br />I'm not sure if the iron ore has to be formed (cooling magma high in iron content) in the presence of a magnetic field. If so maybe mars had one long ago and now we are only seeing what remains of it, large and small magnets across the planet.<p><hr /></p></p></blockquote><br /><br />-Dook-<br /><br />Now in order for gravity or electromagnetic fields to be present throughout the Universe, the above stated fact would imply that only planets and suns or gas giants generate a field large enough to keep a solar system together. When this is applied to a galaxy the same can be said to be true.<br /><br />But what about outside of a galaxy?<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p>Put more and more iron or other molecules together and your magnetic field grows.<p><hr /></p></p></blockquote><br /><br />With most matter being contained within a galaxy can it be safe to say that between galaxies there would hardly be any gravity if any at all, Given the stated fact made by Dook above? Another question to ask, are there areas of space between solar systems where the spacial bodies contained within each solar system produce just enough gravity to keep the system held together? Are there areas outside of these types of systems or between neighboring sol

 

[vogon13]

duplicate post, please delete<br /><br /><br /><img src="/images/icons/frown.gif" /><br /><br /><br /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><font color="#ff0000"><strong>TPTB went to Dallas and all I got was Plucked !!</strong></font></p><p><font color="#339966"><strong>So many people, so few recipes !!</strong></font></p><p><font color="#0000ff"><strong>Let's clean up this stinkhole !!</strong></font> </p> </div>

 

[lsbd]

<font color="yellow">The Universe was not created who created that which created the Universe? Creation is a paradox that goes knowhere except to put money back in pockets of the charolettons that profess it. <br /></font><br /><br />the same circuitous arguement can be used against evolution. what existed before the "big bang"? nothing? what is nothing?<br /><br /><br />evolution says first there was nothing and then "bang" there was something<br /><br />creationism says first there was nothing and then "bang" there was something<br /><br />the only difference is that creationism says that there was someone/something responsible for the "bang"

 

[shadow735]

""""""""""the same circuitous arguement can be used against evolution. what existed before the "big bang"? nothing? what is nothing? <br /><br /><br />evolution says first there was nothing and then "bang" there was something """""""""<br /><br /><br />Sorry but evolution is the process of things evolving from one form to another over millions of years evolution takes time, it doesnt happen in the blink of the eye or in 6 days.<br /><br />Evolution is a proven fact, by observation and as a result of environmental changes. By process of breeding as a result of the environment, or by adaptation and changing to fit the evironment.<br /><br />The one thing I have learned is never say something cannot be done. While it may not be possible now, it may be in the future.<br /><br />no matter how many theories are out there I refuse to put a "It cant be done, its impossible"<br /><br />a "It cant be done right now, currently its impossible"<br /><br />Whos to say if our species lives 100k years from now do you really think we will be using the current power and energy devices we have?<br />Theories are theories and as such they cannot be proven scientifically, we are just babies in the universe.<br />I just wish I could live for a really really long time to see the tech evolution that is going to happen in the next 10k years (If we dont destroy ourselves that is) <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[lsbd]

<font color="yellow"> just wish I could live for a really really long time to see the tech evolution that is going to happen in the next 10k years </font><br /><br />wouldn't it be ironic if, somehow, your wish was granted (ie immortality for 10k years) and then 50 years from now we blow ourselves up and you are left to spend 9,950 years wandering a dead planet, totally alone? Or worse yet, drifiting aimlessly through the vacuum of space.

 

[shadow735]

hah hah with my luck it would probably happen.<br />How about this, man finds a way to live forever by transfering his conciousness to a computer. <br />Then there is a war using biological warfare and all life is destroyed, only 5% of humanity is saved bvut theya re all stuck in computers unable to move.<br />These computers would be powered by the sun or geothermal power so ther would be stuck forever (or till the earth died)<br />scary <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[lsbd]

how long do you think it would take before you were reduced to a gibbering idiot due to the sheer boredom?

 

[Kalstang]

<font color="yellow">The Universe was not created who created that which created the Universe? Creation is a paradox that goes knowhere except to put money back in pockets of the charolettons that profess it.</font><br /><br />To make such a bold statement as if it were fact must mean that you have some kind of proof. Show it. Or rephrase it. Or retract it. Thank you. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <font color="#ffff00"><p><font color="#3366ff">I have an answer for everything...you may not like the answer or it may not satisfy your curiosity..but it will still be an answer.</font> <br /><font color="#ff0000">"Imagination is more important then Knowledge" ~Albert Einstien~</font> <br /><font color="#cc99ff">Guns dont kill people. People kill people</font>.</p></font><p><font color="#ff6600">Solar System</font></p> </div>

 

[Kalstang]

No reply? I see you havent retracted it or anything....hrmm.... <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <font color="#ffff00"><p><font color="#3366ff">I have an answer for everything...you may not like the answer or it may not satisfy your curiosity..but it will still be an answer.</font> <br /><font color="#ff0000">"Imagination is more important then Knowledge" ~Albert Einstien~</font> <br /><font color="#cc99ff">Guns dont kill people. People kill people</font>.</p></font><p><font color="#ff6600">Solar System</font></p> </div>

 

[imageinvisible]

"First off the fact the universe was created gives it a distinct sum of energy. This means that because energy has or should be distributed evenly means that faster than light speeds are just impossible. "<br /><br />The above statement refers to the logical outcome of the 1st and 2nd Laws of Thermodynamics. The amount of available free energy was at it's highest peak at the very begining of the universe. Subsequently if FTL is possible in this universe, it would have been most likely to have occured at or shortly after the universe began, when the amount of available free energy was at it's peak. As the amount of available free energy decays over time the probability becomes less and less likely.<br /><br />I must say that I think it is premature to state that FTL is not possible. The reason being that we still lack a clear understanding of 'exactly' what light is. Dispite the fact that 'under certain conditions' light behaves 'like' a particle, to state that light is a particle maybe erronious, because 'under other conditons' light behaves 'like' a wave. (keep in mind that the term Photon still only exists in the relm of theoretical science it has yet to be proven empirically) Light is a peculiar energy emission, to say the least, and obtaining a clear defintion (not based on theories but observable repeatable experimentation that yields the same answer every time) is our first (but not our only) priority. Several other definitions or clear physical mechanisms (causes) for the properties exhibited by matter and its partner space must also be obtained. Specifically what is space? (that medium in which light spends most of its time) Is it empty nothingness or is it some form of energy that eludes definition. Secoundly; what is the physical mechanism (cause) behind that invisible illusive force we call gravity? While we may have a mathmatical representation of an apparent attractive force between material objects, it is still just that, a mathmatical representation; not

 

[imageinvisible]

Hmm. I felt reasonably certain that someone would challenge my questioning of the existance of Newtons gravitational force. Since no one has I can only assume one of the following:<br /><br />a. Newtons gravitational force has become so well established as 'fact' that no one in the scientific comunity dares to question it (and anyone who does is written off as a gibbering idiot).<br /><br />or<br /><br />b. we know there is a small problem with newtons gravitational force but we simply don't want to address it at this time.

 

[Mee_n_Mac]

<br />1) Gravity, as thought of by Newton, has been replaced by General Relativity. <br /><br />2) Why does thermodynamics require that a wave gain energy if it speeds up or lose energy if it slows down ? <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p>-----------------------------------------------------</p><p><font color="#ff0000">Ask not what your Forum Software can do do on you,</font></p><p><font color="#ff0000">Ask it to, please for the love of all that's Holy, <strong>STOP</strong> !</font></p> </div>

 

[imageinvisible]

I should point out that I'm not saying there isn't an attractive force between heavely bodies. (that much is apparent, and varies concerning the size and mass of said object) My main concern is that we give that force far too much credit.

 

[imageinvisible]

Since general relativity relies on Newtons gravitational force you realy can't says that it has been replaced, more like its been injested by GR chewed over and then reaplied.

 

[Mee_n_Mac]

Gravity as a geometry of warped spacetime is a pretty thourough chewing of Newton's force but OK ..... where does this tie back to the point ? Which I think is now FTL being possible or not. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p>-----------------------------------------------------</p><p><font color="#ff0000">Ask not what your Forum Software can do do on you,</font></p><p><font color="#ff0000">Ask it to, please for the love of all that's Holy, <strong>STOP</strong> !</font></p> </div>

 

[imageinvisible]

waves have energy packets just like particles do. The laws of thermodynamics apply to waves in the same way they apply to particles. When a wave slows down it loses some of its energy packets. If has any hope of speeding up again the wave must regain the energy it lost. For most waves the change in speed (energy loss/gain) is most noticable as a variation in wave length. As the wave slows down it's wave length increases. If the wave speeds up it's wave lenght should increase. You still have to 'balance the books' and account for any energy loss/gain. Waves cannot overcome the 2nd Law of thermodynamic. <br /><br />"Granted the variation in speed is fractional but it happens none the less." <br /><br />More like near (but not quite) infinitly small rather than fractional.

 

[imageinvisible]

If there 'is' a force which acts instantaniously across billions of km of space, then obviously there 'is' at least one thing in the universe that travels faster than light. <br /><br />