Spaceship Could Fly Faster Than Light

[SUBMAN1]

I thought of this idea 15 years ago. Someone is just seeing the light? My idea involved a shield of some sort that would keep space/time still inside. Slightly different, still the same concept.

-S

http://a52.g.akamaitech.net/f/52/827/1d/www.space.com/images/080813-tech-spaceship-01.jpg

Travel by bubble might seem more appropriate for witches in Oz, but two physicists suggest that a future spaceship could fold a space-time bubble around itself to travel faster than the speed of light.


We're talking about the very distant future, of course.


The idea involves manipulating dark energy — the mysterious force behind the universe's ongoing expansion — to propel a spaceship forward without breaking the laws of physics.


"Think of it like a surfer riding a wave," said Gerald Cleaver, a physicist at Baylor University. "The ship would be pushed by the spatial bubble and the bubble would be traveling faster than the speed of light."


In theory, the universe grew faster than the speed of light (http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/mystery_monday_040524.html) for a very short time after the Big Bang, driven by the dark energy that represents about 74 percent of the total mass-energy budget in the universe. Dark matter constitutes 22 percent of the budget, and normal matter (stars, planets and everything you see) makes up the remaining 4 percent or so.


Strange as it sounds, current evidence supports the notion that the fabric of space-time can expand faster than the speed of light, because the reality in which light travels is itself expanding.


Cleaver and Richard Obousy, a Baylor graduate student, tapped the latest idea in string theory to devise how to manipulate dark energy (http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/080804-mm-dark-energy-superclusters.html) and accelerate a spaceship. Their notion is based on the Alcubierre drive (http://www.space.com/businesstechnology/060308_exotic_drive.html), which proposes expanding space-time behind the spaceship while also shrinking space-time in front.


String theorists had believed that a total of 10 dimensions exist, including height, width, length and time. The other six dimensions exist largely as unknowns, but everything is based on hypothetical one-dimensional strings. A newer theory, called M-theory, suggests that those strings all vibrate in yet another dimension.


Manipulating that additional dimension would alter dark energy in terms of height, width, and length, Cleaver and Obousy theorize. Such a capability would permit the altering of space-time (http://www.space.com/php/video/player.php?video_id=b010129_sp_warpdrives) for a spaceship, taking advantage of dark energy's effect on the universe.

"The dark energy is simultaneously decreased just in front of the ship to decrease (and bring to a stop) the expansion rate of the universe in front of the ship," Cleaver told SPACE.com. "If the dark energy can be made negative directly in front of the ship, then space in front of the ship would locally contract."


This loophole means that the spaceship would not conflict with Einstein's Theory of Relativity, which states that objects accelerating to the speed of light require an infinite amount of energy.


However, the Baylor physicists estimate that manipulating dark energy through the extra dimension requires energy equivalent to the converting the entire mass of Jupiter into pure energy — enough to move a ship measuring roughly 33 feet (10 meters) by 33 feet by 33 feet.


"That is an enormous amount of energy," Cleaver said. "We are still a very long ways off before we could create something to harness that type of energy."


The workaround solution may leave fans of Einstein pleased. But for now, faster-than-light travel remains, like Oz, a pleasant fantasy (http://www.space.com/entertainment/ap-080811-startrek-online.html).
http://www.space.com/businesstechnology/080813-tw-warp-speed.html

[Happy Times]

You should have written it down, now they stole it.

[SUBMAN1]

You should have written it down, now they stole it.I think it is. I mentioned it at one time I think in this GT forum! :D I'm gonna look.

-S

[Jimbuna]

Similarly, some fecka pinched my idea for a stargate :nope:

http://imgcash2.imageshack.us/img407/1073/vortex04lw6.gif http://imgcash6.imageshack.us/img407/8895/vortex05wo9.gif

[Happy Times]

You should have written it down, now they stole it.I think it is. I mentioned it at one time I think in this GT forum! :D I'm gonna look.

-S

Neal will love that, Subsim goes down in history, they will study our postings a thousand years from now.
I will be famous also.:rock:

[SUBMAN1]

Similarly, some fecka pinched my idea for a stargate :nope:

http://imgcash2.imageshack.us/img407/1073/vortex04lw6.gif http://imgcash6.imageshack.us/img407/8895/vortex05wo9.gifYeah yeah yeah! At least my idea was plausible!

By the way, I take pride in the idea that I was right! Thats all I care about.

-S

[SUBMAN1]

Can't find it. I wonder how far back the records go? Probably 2005 time frame I would guess.

Doesn't matter. We won't need this type of travel anyway - not with Cern able to make Micro Black Holes in the near future. With this kind of power, you just fold space time and warp the otherside of the universe to you, and you simply take one step over - one step, one instant in time, you travelled billions of light years in a single moment.

I guess its probably a good idea to know precisely where you are going though.

A vehicle could do this.

-S

[SUBMAN1]

One peice of the puzzle is the Z machine: http://www.sandia.gov/media/z290.htm
http://lh6.ggpht.com/jaroslav.urbar/RSNPLX4xABI/AAAAAAAAArc/6bo9QB5HRZ0/z.jpg

http://205.243.100.155/frames/z02d.jpg

[SUBMAN1]

Similarly, some fecka pinched my idea for a stargate :nope:

http://imgcash2.imageshack.us/img407/1073/vortex04lw6.gif http://imgcash6.imageshack.us/img407/8895/vortex05wo9.gifYa know? I was thinkin about your said Stargate. Suppose there is a collider in there, and they create micro black holes, and use it to do something similar to the above of stepping across the Universe? Maybe the Stargate idea has merit! :D :p

-S

[Onkel Neal]

Pfftt! Still not as fast as SUZUKI Hayabusa :ping:
http://i141.photobucket.com/albums/r46/Motorbiker_photos/NewsPics2/Hayabusa_artl.jpg

[Onkel Neal]

Can't find it. I wonder how far back the records go? Probably 2005 time frame I would guess.

(http://www.subsim.com/phpBB_2002/)

.



2002 (http://www.subsim.com/phpBB_2002/)

.

[SUBMAN1]

Pfftt! Still not as fast as SUZUKI Hayabusa :ping:
Wanna bet? That Z-Machine is also faster! It can accelerate a plate from 0 to 76,000 MPH in 1 second! :p :D We haven't even begun to talk space time folding!

Beat that on your bike! Even with that ramjet looking thing hanging out the back!

-S

[mapuc]

Here are something for you to think about:

Faster than light Look at this image subman1 has in his first posting

That would be impossible

I say that you will not be able to see becasue light(what your eyes sees) goes faster than your eyes can take input from.

that's my theory

Markus

[SUBMAN1]

Here we go. This may be old even, so they may be in 6 digits by now!

-S

Zero to 76,000 mph in a Second

By Leonard David (http://www.livescience.com/php/contactus/author.php?r=ld), LiveScience Senior Writer
posted: 07 June 2005 11:13 am ET


Scientists at the Sandia National Labs in Albuquerque, New Mexico have accelerated a small plate from zero to 76,000 mph in less than a second.



The speed of the thrust was a new record for Sandia's "Z Machine (http://www.livescience.com/imageoftheday/siod_041104.html)" - not only the fastest gun in the West, but in the world too.



The Z Machine is now able to propel small plates at 34 kilometers a second, faster than the 30 kilometers per second that Earth travels through space in its orbit about the Sun. That's 50 times faster than a rifle bullet, and three times the velocity needed to escape Earth's gravitational field.


The ultra-tiny aluminum plates, just 850 microns thick, are accelerated at 1010 g. One g is the force of Earth's gravity. Doing so without vaporizing the plates was possible because of the finer control now achievable of the magnetic field pulse that drives the flight.


Z's hurled plates strike a target after traveling only five millimeters, or less than a quarter-inch. The impact generates a shock wave -- in some cases, reaching 15 million times atmospheric pressure -- that passes through the target material. The waves are so powerful that they turn solids into liquids, liquids into gases, and gases into plasmas in the same way that heat melts ice to water or boils water into steam.


One purpose of these very rapid flights is to help understand the extreme conditions found within the interiors of giant planets in our solar system. By creating states of matter extremely difficult to achieve on Earth, the flyer plates provide hard data to astrophysicists speculating on the structure and even the formation of planets like Jupiter and Saturn.



Didier Saumon, an astrophysicist at Los Alamos National Laboratory, noted that the internal structures of Jupiter and Saturn are composed mostly of hydrogen. So knowing its equation of state -- how hydrogen and its isotopes behave at pressures from one to 50 million atmospheres -- is highly relevant to how scientists infer the interior properties of these planets.



An upgrade of the Z Machine is planned for next year and is expected to achieve higher plate velocities.
http://www.livescience.com/technology/050607_z_machine.html

[SUBMAN1]

Here are something for you to think about:

Faster than light Look at this image subman1 has in his first posting

That would be impossible

I say that you will not be able to see becasue light(what your eyes sees) goes faster than your eyes can take input from.

that's my theory

MarkusHow can you say what light would look like there? You must remember that your time and space is slowed down to normal inside the bubble. So maybe you see the traces just like that as it slows to enter your time and space? Think about it.

-S

[Thomen]

I m not really sure on this, but didn't Einstein or Hawkin proposed that the time constant is local in a sense that every object and being travels with it's own time bubble around it?

[SUBMAN1]

I m not really sure on this, but didn't Einstein or Hawkin proposed that the time constant is local in a sense that every object and being travels with it's own time bubble around it?I think that would be a matter of perception. Yours is different from a fly persay. I am no sure if either of them claimed this.

-S

[Peto]

This is great stuff! None-the-less, all I really want right now is to fold time back to this AM so I can reset the BIOS on that stupid computer before I reinstall the OS :damn: !

[mapuc]

Here are something for you to think about:

Faster than light Look at this image subman1 has in his first posting

That would be impossible

I say that you will not be able to see becasue light(what your eyes sees) goes faster than your eyes can take input from.

that's my theory

MarkusHow can you say what light would look like there? You must remember that your time and space is slowed down to normal inside the bubble. So maybe you see the traces just like that as it slows to enter your time and space? Think about it.

-S

Yes inside a bubble, but I stil say, that you will not be able to see further than the shell is.

IF the shell is 10 metres in front of you, you will only see those 10 metres no more.

Offcourse my theory can't be proven until they make the first warp-test

Markus

[SUBMAN1]

Yes inside a bubble, but I stil say, that you will not be able to see further than the shell is.

IF the shell is 10 metres in front of you, you will only see those 10 metres no more.

Offcourse my theory can't be proven until they make the first warp-test

MarkusYou first!

[mapuc]

Yes inside a bubble, but I stil say, that you will not be able to see further than the shell is.

IF the shell is 10 metres in front of you, you will only see those 10 metres no more.

Offcourse my theory can't be proven until they make the first warp-test

MarkusYou first!

Aye Aye Sir

I think it would be an fantastic journey

Markus

[Jimbuna]

Similarly, some fecka pinched my idea for a stargate :nope:

http://imgcash2.imageshack.us/img407/1073/vortex04lw6.gif http://imgcash6.imageshack.us/img407/8895/vortex05wo9.gifYa know? I was thinkin about your said Stargate. Suppose there is a collider in there, and they create micro black holes, and use it to do something similar to the above of stepping across the Universe? Maybe the Stargate idea has merit! :D :p

-S

Why don't we let STEED test it :lol:

[SUBMAN1]

Why don't we let STEED test it :lol:Nah! He would never come back to this Earth, at least not while the labor party is in charge! :D :p

-S

[Blacklight]

This theory has been around for quite a long time. The only catch is that it involves a type of energy (negative energy) that we have never detected before in nature but heck.. who knows...
We didn't know about dark matter/dark energy until recently so for all we know... negative energy could also exist. :hmm:

[Stealth Hunter]

This theory has been around for quite a long time. The only catch is that it involves a type of energy (negative energy) that we have never detected before in nature but heck.. who knows...
We didn't know about dark matter/dark energy until recently so for all we know... negative energy could also exist. :hmm:

Indeed. I recall a group of German and French scientists (along with one Swedish fellow) that proposed the idea during the late 1980s.

[kiwi_2005]

No no no!, why do you think flying saucers are round and small, how can Grey's travel millions of light yrs in a craft that seem would run out of fuel on the first light yr? Well according to some writer i read many years ago in a science mag is that the Greys flying saucers are run on magnets and energy, no fuel. - they have worked out a system where the magnets make the craft fly very fast speeds 1000's of times faster than light they can get from one point to the next that might be 100,000 light yrs away in minutes. Flying or jumping from one galazy to another is nothing to them. In the middle of the craft is a set of magnets all faced in a circle pointing to the main core that sits in the middle. The craft has to be round for the magnets to work.:yep:

Well that's what i read, with it explained more scientifically than mine.

:roll:

[SUBMAN1]

No no no!, why do you think flying saucers are round and small, how can Grey's travel millions of light yrs in a craft that seem would run out of fuel on the first light yr? Well according to some writer i read many years ago in a science mag is that the Greys flying saucers are run on magnets and energy, no fuel. - they have worked out a system where the magnets make the craft fly very fast speeds 1000's of times faster than light they can get from one point to the next that might be 100,000 light yrs away in minutes. Flying or jumping from one galazy to another is nothing to them. In the middle of the craft is a set of magnets all faced in a circle pointing to the main core that sits in the middle. The craft has to be round for the magnets to work.:yep:

Well that's what i read, with it explained more scientifically than mine.

:roll:Gravity man. Gravity. Grey run on Gravity. Control gravity, not only could you turn 90 degrees on a dime, but you would also avoid crushing the occupants of said craft.

-S

[UnderseaLcpl]

Gravity man. Gravity. Grey run on Gravity. Control gravity, not only could you turn 90 degrees on a dime, but you would also avoid crushing the occupants of said craft.

-S

I've always been a proponent of that type of propulsion for ftl. I once asked a physics professor what the speed of gravity was;

"9.8 meters per second"

"No, sir, that's acceleration due to gravity on Earth in a vacuum. What is the speed of gravity itself?"

"I don't take your meaning."

"If we have an earth-sized object in a pure vacuum, and instantly introduce another earth-size object 100,000 miles away, how long would it take for their gravitational pulls to effect each other?

"Well, instantly, I suppose"

"What makes you say that?"

"Last I checked, we were working on inertia, why can't you ever ask topical questions?"


Maybe I like the sound of gravitic propulsion because I don't understand gravity, which makes as good an excuse as any for a sci-fi propulsion source.:D

[SUBMAN1]

I've always been a proponent of that type of propulsion for ftl. I once asked a physics professor what the speed of gravity was;

"9.8 meters per second"

"No, sir, that's acceleration due to gravity on Earth in a vacuum. What is the speed of gravity itself?"

"I don't take your meaning."

"If we have an earth-sized object in a pure vacuum, and instantly introduce another earth-size object 100,000 miles away, how long would it take for their gravitational pulls to effect each other?

"Well, instantly, I suppose"

"What makes you say that?"

"Last I checked, we were working on inertia, why can't you ever ask topical questions?"


Maybe I like the sound of gravitic propulsion because I don't understand gravity, which makes as good an excuse as any for a sci-fi propulsion source.:DIf you can bend light with gravity, and even stop it and trap it, and you can rip open space with it, and you can manipulate time with it, why would it not be the ultimate propulsion system? You don't need to completely understand it to understand the emense power you would control if you had complete control over it. Small details like time travel and interdimensional doors being opened up are just a small neat thing you can learn about later. All you care about at first is directional travel, and pulling distant galaxies to you without actually moving them for quick travel.

-S

[UnderseaLcpl]

If you can bend light with gravity, and even stop it and trap it, and you can rip open space with it, and you can manipulate time with it, why would it not be the ultimate propulsion system? You don't need to completely understand it to understand the emense power you would control if you had complete control over it. Small details like time travel and interdimensional doors being opened up are just a small neat thing you can learn about later. All you care about at first is directional travel, and pulling distant galaxies to you without actually moving them for quick travel.

-S

I agree somewhat, but my idea of harnessing the power of gravity is using gravitic bubble as one would use an electromagnet in an electric motor. Pulling distant objects towards oneself without causing a cataclysm would be much more difficult.

It seems a bit like some mathematicians' views of black holes. Even Steven Hawkings has suggested that, due to the singular nature of their gravity well, they could be used as wormholes. I'm no genius, but this seems absurd. Yeah, in a mathematical perspective a black hole creates an infinite "vortex", thus leaving a hole at the apex, but in reality a black hole is just a ball of superdense matter, no matter what its' gravitic signature is. The only effect of generating another black hole would be to create another ball of superdense matter that would instantly collide with black hole being used for "transport", and thus resulting in a slightly larger black hole.

On the other hand, if one could harness the power of a black hole, in terms of gravity, in the same way that we harness the nature of electricity ( like in an electric motor) by alternating polarities, the possibilities are limitless. Anti-gravity has supposedly been proven to exist by NASA, to a very small degree.

Until such forces are understood, I can make no real argument for this type of propulsion. However, remain optimistic that, like all forces of nature studied thus far, a useable theory will emrege.

We still don't completly understand wind, and yet that has been a source of energy for thousands of years, perhaps gravity will follow suit, or perhaps not.

Being as powerful a force as it is, I believe gravity may have some potential as a means of propulsion.

Of course, I would never support anything but private research into this possibility.

[SUBMAN1]

You are part way there. A micro singularity could be magnetically suspended and not affect anything except what you want to.

We are also not talking about pulling these galaxies towards you, but instead warping space/time to bring them towards you without you having to physically travel to it - kind of like folding up the carpet in ripples, and then laying it out again after you step to the other side of it.

Getting the picture now? With gravity, you can do this.

-S

[Platapus]

Anti-gravity has supposedly been proven to exist by NASA, to a very small degree.

As an academic and a professional researcher, I always stub my eye on the word "Proven".

I am not aware of any proof of anti-gravity. That does not mean that the proof is not out there though. Anyone got a citation of this proof?
I would be most interested in reading it.

[UnderseaLcpl]

You are part way there. A micro singularity could be magnetically suspended and not affect anything except what you want to.

We are also not talking about pulling these galaxies towards you, but instead warping space/time to bring them towards you without you having to physically travel to it - kind of like folding up the carpet in ripples, and then laying it out again after you step to the other side of it.

Getting the picture now? With gravity, you can do this.

-S

I call bull$hit.

How can you fold nothing?

And the carpet analogy is a poor one. If you lay the carpet out, you are still moving yourself to stay at the end of it while you straghten it again.
Space-time is not a carpet that can be distorted at will.
Please tell me that I do not have to explain the special theory of relativity using the "beam of light orbiting the earth and reflecting bewixt two mirrors" example.

My argument is that gravity may be faster than light. After all, how long does it take the Moon's orbit to affect Earth's tides? None at all. Instant transmission of gravitic effect.

Naturally, we do not understand the reasons for such an instantaneous effect. Prhaps it is beyond our reach, or perhaps not.

Still, I would bet that we can harness gravity before we ever master the ability to bend "nothing"

At the last, I posit this; Lex Parsimoniae.

[SUBMAN1]

Anti-gravity has supposedly been proven to exist by NASA, to a very small degree.
As an academic and a professional researcher, I always stub my eye on the word "Proven".

I am not aware of any proof of anti-gravity. That does not mean that the proof is not out there though. Anyone got a citation of this proof?
I would be most interested in reading it.I know there are points of gravity neutrality which are known as Lagrange Points. And in a black hole, if gravity is so massive, does it fold over on itself and become anti-gravity? Just a thought.

-S

PS. There is a Lagrange point between the Earth and the moon at some point. Around 160,000 miles if I am not mistaken.

PPS. It is at 199,703 miles. I was close.

[Platapus]

I guess it depends on the definition of anti-gravity.

Do we mean free from gravity?
or do we mean an opposing force (gravity-like) in an opposing vector?

But Lagrange Points have nothing to do with anti-gravity if the meaning of anti-gravity means no gravity. Lagrange Points deal with equalizing gravity in a theoretical three-body problem space (which incidentally does not exist in nature) where two of the bodies exercise forces upon the third body to the perceived (observed) effect that the third body is not being affected (observed in a vector quantity) by any one of the two bodies.

This is not anti-gravity but gravity from opposing vectors with the congruent resultant of no relative observed movement on the vector as defined by the two foci.

For there to be anti-gravity, we would be restricted to a two body problem space (which also does not exist in nature) where one body is, at the same time, attracting the second body (gravity) and repelling the second body (anti-gravity) with the observed result of the second body having no gravity effects (null gravity).

[Blacklight]

"If we have an earth-sized object in a pure vacuum, and instantly introduce another earth-size object 100,000 miles away, how long would it take for their gravitational pulls to effect each other?


Gravity technicly moves at the speed of light (299,792,458 metres per second). It takes light about 9 minutes to reach us from the sun so if the sun suddenly dissapeared, the Earth wouldn't go flying away till about 9 minutes later.

Another fun fact about the speed of light (In extreme conditions): Black holes shoot out particles in jets at their poles due to their massive magnetic fields. Some of these particles are ejected faster than the speed of light and even travel backward in time as they go.

[UnderseaLcpl]

Gravity technicly moves at the speed of light (299,792,458 metres per second). It takes light about 9 minutes to reach us from the sun so if the sun suddenly dissapeared, the Earth wouldn't go flying away till about 9 minutes later.

Another fun fact about the speed of light (In extreme conditions): Black holes shoot out particles in jets at their poles due to their massive magnetic fields. Some of these particles are ejected faster than the speed of light and even travel backward in time as they go.


Give me links to sources that support these ideas and I will add you to the list of "smartest people I have ever not met".
Seriously.

It would resolve some questions that have been bugging me for a decade if the source is credible.

Please, plz plzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz post links. With a cherry on top.

[Blacklight]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Blacklight

Gravity technicly moves at the speed of light (299,792,458 metres per second). It takes light about 9 minutes to reach us from the sun so if the sun suddenly dissapeared, the Earth wouldn't go flying away till about 9 minutes later.

Another fun fact about the speed of light (In extreme conditions): Black holes shoot out particles in jets at their poles due to their massive magnetic fields. Some of these particles are ejected faster than the speed of light and even travel backward in time as they go.



Give me links to sources that support these ideas and I will add you to the list of "smartest people I have ever not met".
Seriously.

It would resolve some questions that have been bugging me for a decade if the source is credible.

Please, plz plzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz post links. With a cherry on top.

Okay... Here is a well done video that illustrates how it works really well. Go to the video called "A New Picture of Gravity" and watch it for the first several minutes. It illustrates what gravity is and how it works as well as the fact that the effects of gravity travels at the speed of light. Nice animations are done to show how everything works.
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/elegant/program.html

This whole program is up on this page and is very interesting if you're interested in string theory. It's about three hours and well worth watching. I'm not an advocate of string theory, but it does include some interesting ideas.

As for the particles flying out of the black holes traveling faster than the speed of light and backwards in time, that may take some more work as I read that in various books (Possibly Stephen Hawking's books and several others). I'll try to find a link describing it.

[UnderseaLcpl]

Okay... Here is a well done video that illustrates how it works really well. Go to the video called "A New Picture of Gravity" and watch it for the first several minutes. It illustrates what gravity is and how it works as well as the fact that the effects of gravity travels at the speed of light. Nice animations are done to show how everything works.
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/elegant/program.html

This whole program is up on this page and is very interesting if you're interested in string theory. It's about three hours and well worth watching. I'm not an advocate of string theory, but it does include some interesting ideas.

As for the particles flying out of the black holes traveling faster than the speed of light and backwards in time, that may take some more work as I read that in various books (Possibly Stephen Hawking's books and several others). I'll try to find a link describing it.


THANK YOU!

I'm setting tommorrow aside solely for watching this stuff. Unfortunately, I have to go to work soon, so I'll get back to you later via PM if that's ok.
Thanks again!:up:

[Blacklight]

As for the particles flying out of the black holes traveling faster than the speed of light and backwards in time, that may take some more work as I read that in various books (Possibly Stephen Hawking's books and several others). I'll try to find a link describing it.

THANK YOU!

I'm setting tommorrow aside solely for watching this stuff. Unfortunately, I have to go to work soon, so I'll get back to you later via PM if that's ok.
Thanks again!:up:

That's okay. I read a LOT of books on this stuff.
If you want to research the particle/black hole thing, it deals with the theory of Hawking Radiation (Which we don't have the technology to actually detect yet). It involves the part of the theory where particle pairs are created near the event horizon. One regular particle and one anti-particle. One of them falls into the black hole and the other flies out. I've found a lot of articles about Hawking Radiation online, but none of them have gone into detail about the particles traveleing backward through time. I know I've read it in several of my books, but the maker knows which ones and I have a LOT. :doh:

[baggygreen]

This stuff about being able to travel faster than light and warping and twisting time, it fascinates me no end but by god it does my head in!:doh:

[Blacklight]

This stuff about being able to travel faster than light and warping and twisting time, it fascinates me no end but by god it does my head in!:doh:

There's a college professor, Ronald Mallett in my state who believes that he has a formula for a working time machine that would actually be buildable and testable involving rotating beams of light in a ring lazer. Right now, the only thing that could be sent back in time this way would be a single particle and nothing can travel back to before the machine is turned on. He's aquireing funding to build the machine in order to test it.
He's written a really good book (kind of his autobiography combined with how he ultimately got the idea for the equasions for this method of time travel). Spike Lee aparently read the book and is now going to make a movie from it.

Video:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EWnoMaSgYPY

This is a link to Ronald Malletts' website:
http://www.physics.uconn.edu/~mallett/main/main.htm

This is an article that was written several years ago about Malletts' theory:
http://www.spacedaily.com/news/timetravel-01a.html

And for those who understand theoretical physics equasions, this is the actual paper Mallett published about his theory:
http://www.physics.uconn.edu/~mallett/Mallett2003.pdf

Yeah... I read as much of this stuff as I can. It fascinates me... and yes.. it makes my head spin. :D

[SUBMAN1]

I call bull$hit.

How can you fold nothing?

I'm not full of BS! But I will not argue since you are wrong.

Research the project Ligo for the warp in space time caused by gravity. If it were BS, gravity waves from a Super Nova would hit the Earth at the same time precisely. Problem is, and Einstein theorized this, they don't. Ligo has now proved it.

So go fathom my carpet idea. It is real. :D Might make your head hurt though! :p Poke poke!

-S

PS. Let me help you on your journey! http://www.ligo.caltech.edu/

PPS. If your head doesn't explode, we can then move on to String Theory. Then it will. Be sure to keep a cam on it. I want to see the after effects!! :p :D:D:D

PPPS. I will even post some relevant information for you:

GRAVITATIONAL WAVES:
RIPPLES IN THE FABRIC OF SPACE-TIME

Albert Einstein predicted the existence of gravitational waves in 1916 as part of the theory of general relativity. He described space and time as different aspects of reality in which matter and energy are ultimately the same. Space-time can be thought of as a "fabric" defined by the measuring of distances by rulers and the measuring of time by clocks. The presence of large amounts of mass or energy distorts space-time -- in essence causing the fabric to "warp" -- and we observe this as gravity. Freely falling objects -- whether a soccer ball, a satellite, or a beam of starlight -- simply follow the most direct path in this curved space-time.

When large masses move suddenly, some of this space-time curvature ripples outward, spreading in much the way ripples do the surface of an agitated pond. Imagine two neutron stars orbiting each other. A neutron star is the burned-out core often left behind after a star explodes. It is an incredibly dense object that can carry as much mass as a star like our sun, in a sphere only a few miles wide. When two such dense objects orbit each other, space-time is stirred by their motion, and gravitational energy ripples throughout the universe.


In 1974 Joseph Taylor and Russell Hulse found such a pair of neutron stars in our own galaxy. One of the stars is a pulsar, meaning it beams regular pulses of radio waves toward Earth. Taylor and his colleagues were able to use these radio pulses, like the ticks of a very precise clock, to study the orbiting of neutron stars. Over two decades, these scientists watched for and found the tell-tale shift in timing of these pulses, which indicated a loss of energy from the orbiting stars -- energy that had been carried away as gravitational waves. The result was just as Einstein's theory predicted.

[UnderseaLcpl]

Damn. Doublepost.

[UnderseaLcpl]

Research the project Ligo for the warp in space time caused by gravity. If it were BS, gravity waves from a Super Nova would hit the Earth at the same time precisely. Problem is, and Einstein theorized this, they don't. Ligo has now proved it.
After thorough peer review, Advanced LIGO proposal was approved by the National Science Board in October, 2004, and appears in the President's budget for a recommended start of funding in 2008. We plan to start observations in 2013. The science that follows may well revolutionize our view of the Universe.

According to their site and related articles, Advanced LIGO isn't even operational yet, and initial LIGO has yet to detect a gravity wave. Neither they nor any other installation have detected one yet. I don't know enough to really disagree with you, but LIGO certainly doesn't prove or disprove anything at this point.

So go fathom my carpet idea. It is real. :D Might make your head hurt though! :p Poke poke!

I'm trying to. I'll have to get through the links Blacklight gave me and get back to you. Head is hurting already:damn:



PPS. If your head doesn't explode, we can then move on to String Theory. Then it will. Be sure to keep a cam on it. I want to see the after effects!! :p :D:D:D

We'll see;)

[SUBMAN1]

Wrong! :D LIGO has been operational for quite some time. Advanced upgrades version has not. I was involved in its electronic work back in the 90's.

Pretty impressive to stand on top of it and see a Semi truck halfway down the pipe/tunnel and it looks like a matchbox truck! The size/scope of the place is so big, I think it plays an optical illusion on your brain that you can only see if you have another object to reference in the distance.

-S

PS. Here is an article observed by LIGO on a Neutron star that is not behaving as expected: http://www.astroengine.com/?p=270 Ligo is operational and has been for years. I may be wrong by the way that it has proved what it set out to do.

PPS. Some science from that article:

This is another important observation, the LIGO group observe a slow-down in rotation rate, but less than 4 % of the energy loss can be attributed to gravitational wave production. Therefore the neutron star in the Crab Nebula has a smooth surface with very little variation in surface topography causing drag. After all, LIGO should be able to observe gravitational waves produced by a surface deformation only a few meters high.
“The physics world has been waiting eagerly for scientific results from LIGO. It is exciting that we now know something concrete about how nearly spherical a neutron star must be, and we have definite limits on the strength of its internal magnetic field.” - Nobel Prize-winning radio astronomer and professor at Princeton University, Joseph Taylor.

[Blacklight]

I don't agree with him often... but Subman1 is 100% correct on this one. :D

[UnderseaLcpl]

Wrong! :D LIGO has been operational for quite some time. Advanced upgrades version has not. I was involved in its electronic work back in the 90's.



PS. Here is an article observed by LIGO on a Neutron star that is not behaving as expected: http://www.astroengine.com/?p=270 Ligo is operational and has been for years. I may be wrong by the way that it has proved what it set out to do.



Precisely what I was saying. LIGO has not detected a gravitational wave. It has proven nothing in the context of gravity, which is what we were talking about, right?

I don't doubt that you may be right. Like I said before, I haven't the knowledge to really make a decent case.

[SUBMAN1]

Well let me put this all into the simplest layman's terms possible:

Time and space is simply a local affair

What I mean by that is, your reality on time may be different than the guy down the block depending on your environment. You won't find that written in any textbook, but I think it quite clearly explains the whole concept.

Another thing to blow your mind - speed effects time/space/reality as well. Go read up on SR-71 pilots. I read up once that after long trips, their watches were about 2 seconds different on average from when they started it vs real world time. :p

-S

[Blacklight]

Another thing to blow your mind - speed effects time/space/reality as well. Go read up on SR-71 pilots. I read up once that after long trips, their watches were about 2 seconds different on average from when they started it vs real world time. :p


This is also why they have to constantly update the clocks on the International Space Station. Also.. they have done experiments where they discovered that clocks on the tops of really high places move faster than ones at sea level or below.

[UnderseaLcpl]

Well let me put this all into the simplest layman's terms possible:

Time and space is simply a local affair

What I mean by that is, your reality on time may be different than the guy down the block depending on your environment. You won't find that written in any textbook, but I think it quite clearly explains the whole concept.

Another thing to blow your mind - speed effects time/space/reality as well. Go read up on SR-71 pilots. I read up once that after long trips, their watches were about 2 seconds different on average from when they started it vs real world time. :p

-S



Are we talking about something different now?
I'm familiar with General and Special Relativity. Despite my inability to comprehend the mathematics, I mostly understand the concept.

I thought we were discussing the nature of gravity. If I remember correctly, I disagreed that space could be folded. Actually, I said space-time, when I should have just said space. Sorry, I fudge up like that sometimes.:oops:

That PBS vid that Blacklight provided was informative, but I have to do some more research to understand some of the fundamental concepts. Space does act like a fabric in the presence of gravity, but that doesn't prove that it IS a fabric.

A good example, IMO, is the black hole. I have been shown graphical representations of a black hole's gravity well that are basically funnels. There's a hole at the bottom of them. A friend tried to point out to me that Hawking (well, I think it was Hawking) had postulated that these holes suggested gravity could be used to warp space back around itself, and may have potential for FTL travel.

Now, I'm no scientist or mathmetician, but this sounds like nonsense to me.
For one thing, the "hole" in the graphical representation of a black hole isn't actually there. There is a ball of superdense matter there. That makes utilizing such a thing for travel quite hazardous, as well as impossible.

Secondly, as I mentioned before, these theories assume you can bend space. But you can't bend space. That's because space is nothing. Excepting the one atom of hydrogen per cubic meter or kilometer or whatever it is. Gravity only affects objects in space, not space itself. There is a lot of matter and energy in space that I don't understand. Dark Matter and the like, but space is just.....space.
It's the physical equivalent of zero.

I admit that I tend to oversimplify things, especially things I don't understand, and spacetime is no exception.


So let's continue the debate:D
I want to be convinced, but I'm not yet.

[Blacklight]

Space and time can be folded especially very close to a massive gravitational object like a black hole. The Casimir Effect proved that space could be warped in a way that would be conducive to creating wormholes (IE folding space). The ammount of energy needed to do this would be well beyond the energy range that we could generate here on Earth in order to fold space, but it CAN be done.

[baggygreen]

OK, so if time is different up high than down low, and is directly affected by gravity, how are we going to keep track of time when we start sending people off around the solar system? We're gonna have to come up with a completely new method of timekeeping

[August]

Assuming this wave can be created how could a spacecraft survive riding on the "crest" of it?

For example what would a tiny grain of matter or even a gas molecule do to a spaceship if it hit at those speeds?

[SUBMAN1]

You guys are missing the point.

Let me put it into perspective for you from Carl Segans perspective.

He described a world where he had flat man - a 2D person that went around life only knowing 2 dimensions. One day, he fell off the table....

This is us and time. Time is the 4th dimension. You know its there, just like Flat man knew the 3rd (up and down) knew the 3rd was there. We are only beginning to understand.

Now let me challenge you with a real challenge to show you how screwed up theorizing something that you know is there, but cannot describe properly what it is. Flat man would have the same problem trying to describe up and down:

Give me a definition of 'time' without using 'time' in the definition, and still make it accurate! :D :p

-S

[Happy Times]

http://gizmodo.com/assets/resources/1970/01/einsteinshow.php.jpeg

[SUBMAN1]

I think the biggest misconception in this thread is that people here assume time is a constant. Not so.

-S

[August]

No thoughts on my question above?

[SUBMAN1]

No thoughts on my question above?Simple - nothing happens to said spacecraft if it never approaches the speed of light (It may not even physically hardly move). Get close to the speed of light however, and I expect disaster since mathematically, the spacecraft would turn to pure energy at some point, and at this point, said occupants would be killed instantly from said radiation.

Just my two cents on your idea.

-S

[SUBMAN1]

Drinking my Maritime Pacific Double Dry Hopped Ale Here (9.0% +) and a thought just popped into my head - are those of us that 'think' faster than the next guy, is our reality longer than those that do not think so fast? Someone answer this question. I already know the answer, but I would like to hear the responses.

-S

[Platapus]

Here is a kicker also.

We don't really know what the speed of light is.

We have never been able to measure a single photon traveling from point A to point B unimpeded by the environment.

All the experiments for determining the Speed of Light use mirrors (or other frequency reflectors) and lenses (or other refracting media).

A mirror does not reflect light.

A mirror absorbs a photon; resulting in a flux of energy inside the mirror material. The material then emits a different photon according to the geometry of the reflecting surface. This absorption, flux, and emission is not instantaneous and there is a tiny amount of energy loss. There is a delay. A pretty fricking short delay but when measuring the speed of light any delay is a significant delay. These delays can add up when you are using 32 mirrors (which was used in an early experiment).

Can we measure these delays? We can pretty close but not exactly as the recording devices will have error in them also.

Lenses also do not transmit the same photon either.

A photon is absorbed at one side of the lens and there is an energy flux inside the lens material. A separate photon is emitted on the other side according to the geometry of the material. There is a significant delay in this absorption, flux transfer, and emission. Just as with mirrors we can measure this delay pretty close.

The Speed of light is designated by agreement at exactly 299,792,458 metres per second in a free and perfect vacuum. This is actually a circular-logic measurement.

In 1983 an agreement was made that the "metre is the length of the path travelled by light in vacuum during a time interval of 1/299 792 458 of a second."
http://www.bipm.org/en/si/si_brochure/chapter2/2-1/metre.html

Working backward we can calculate the 299...million meters per second figure. But this is based on international agreement not by direct measurement of one photon traveling freely in a vacuum between point A and point B.

Our experiments can determine that the speed of the effect of light is 299...Million meters per second but that is not the same as the actual speed of light.

Our experiments can demonstrate that whatever the speed of light is, it is a constant in a specified environment. This was documented in the Einstein one-way two-way postulate.

So before we get all excited about speeds faster than light, we might want to work on the technology that will allows us to actually measure the speed of a photon.

So the speed of light is pretty close to 299,792,458 metres per second in a free and perfect vacuum, but how close we still don't really know.

The good news is that for all practical purposes the 299... Million metres per second is good enough....for now.

The bad news is that if we start formulating more and more theories that rely on the speed of light being 299...Million metres per second, they may, just may, be a little off.

Aint that a kick in the head?

[baggygreen]

I think the biggest misconception in this thread is that people here assume time is a constant. Not so.

-Splease enlighten me, fast thinker!

[Platapus]

Oh don't even get me started on time. :damn: :damn: :damn:

[SUBMAN1]

Oh don't even get me started on time. :damn: :damn: :damn:For Baggygreen above - Seee Platapus's statement here. Beer is already going o me head for the night. If you have problem with that, come over, I will feed you 9.0% abv beer constant, and we shall see how fast your photons travel. :p:D

-S

[Platapus]

Here is a teaser

Not only can we not measure time but we can't even detect time. :know:

Snicker

[SUBMAN1]

Here is a teaser

Not only can we not measure time but we can't even detect time. :know:

SnickerHow can you not only measure, but detect something that you can't even define oh wise one? :D :p <...High Alc currently Destroying Submans Brain cells and he will not be able to help you till after the effect is gone tomorrow!...>

-S

[Platapus]

Here is a teaser

Not only can we not measure time but we can't even detect time. :know:

SnickerHow can you not only measure, but detect something that you can't even define oh wise one? :D :p <...High Alc currently Destroying Submans Brain cells and he will not be able to help you till after the effect is gone tomorrow!...>

-S

Ding we have a winner! :up:

How can we measure time when we don't even know what it is?

One of our space alien scientists we keep locked up in the basement gave me the closest answer

Time is the perception of the comparison of the observations of at least two separate set of physical changes.

Now you know why we don't let these people out much. :yep:

What is a second? It is defined by agreement as

"The duration of 9 192 631 770 periods of the radiation corresponding to the transition between the two hyperfine levels of the ground state of the caesium 133 atom."

http://www.bipm.org/en/si/si_brochure/chapter2/2-1/second.html

But just like the speed of light, this definition is based solely on an international agreement as opposed to any direct observation of the "something" called "time".

[SUBMAN1]

Here is a teaser

Not only can we not measure time but we can't even detect time. :know:

SnickerHow can you not only measure, but detect something that you can't even define oh wise one? :D :p <...High Alc currently Destroying Submans Brain cells and he will not be able to help you till after the effect is gone tomorrow!...>

-S
Ding we have a winner! :up:

How can we measure time when we don't even know what it is?

One of our space alien scientists we keep locked up in the basement gave me the closest answer

Time is the perception of the comparison of the observations of at least two separate set of physical changes.

Now you know why we don't let these people out much. :yep:You better lock me back up then.

-S

[Blacklight]

Give me a definition of 'time' without using 'time' in the definition, and still make it accurate! :D :p


Well the most accurate description I've ever heard came from one of my old physics professors: Time=Change

As far as we're concerned, we don't even know what time really is and it may not even exist at all as a few professors have found that when you remove time from the equasion, Relativity and Quantum Mechanics nestle nicely into each other. I've read several books on that subject.

The thing with the universe that we also have to take into account is our observations. When something is being observed by anything, it appears to be doing one thing, but when it's not being observed, it's in every possible state. This is especially true in the particle world.

There is a famous experiment that proved that observation changes what particles do and it's said that if you could figure out what's truely going on, we'd understand Quantum Mechanics.

Take a photon gun that fires a single particle. Put a wall with one hole in it in front of it. Put a wall with two holes behind that. Then put detector screens behind the holes.

If we put a particle detector in one of the holes in the wall with two holes, this happens:
The particle will fire from the gun.. go through the first hole.. and then go through either one or the other of the two holes in the next wall and hit one of the detectors behind one of the holes.

However... if we remove the detector from one of those holes and fire the particle through... (We aren't observing which of the two holes the particle is going through), both the detectors behind each of the holes will register being hit. The single particle will go through both holes at the same time and hit both detectors.
Boggles the mind. :D

Anyway.. back to time. The theory about time not existing is a very interesting one. In it, each instant of the universe exists in separate slices, each slightly different from the one before it and they all exist frozen together at the same time. So each moment is like a frame of a film, comepletely timeless but together as a unit. The human mind is known to have some kind of innate logic in it where it puts things in a logical cronological order. Our perception of time could be our mind simply becomeing aware of each of these frames and putting them in cronological order. This is what we percieve as time moving relentlessly forward. It's a very interesting theory.

[SUBMAN1]

Give me a definition of 'time' without using 'time' in the definition, and still make it accurate! :D :p

Well the most accurate description I've ever heard came from one of my old physics professors: Time=ChangeHahahahaha! How? Good attempt, but you Pro was not doing so good.

-S

[UnderseaLcpl]

Drinking my Maritime Pacific Double Dry Hopped Ale Here (9.0% +) and a thought just popped into my head - are those of us that 'think' faster than the next guy, is our reality longer than those that do not think so fast? Someone answer this question. I already know the answer, but I would like to hear the responses.

-S


Ok let me try that one.

Yes, people can think and even react faster than others, but everyone has a virtually identical threshold for the transmission of electrical impulses along neurons. As such, while some may seem to think and act faster than others, this is more a matter of conditioning of the nervous system than an actual acceleration neurological processes.



Was that close?

[SUBMAN1]

Drinking my Maritime Pacific Double Dry Hopped Ale Here (9.0% +) and a thought just popped into my head - are those of us that 'think' faster than the next guy, is our reality longer than those that do not think so fast? Someone answer this question. I already know the answer, but I would like to hear the responses.

-S

Ok let me try that one.

Yes, people can think and even react faster than others, but everyone has a virtually identical threshold for the transmission of electrical impulses along neurons. As such, while some may seem to think and act faster than others, this is more a matter of conditioning of the nervous system than an actual acceleration neurological processes.



Was that close?Let me fully absorb that one when the alc wears off, but I must admit you process of thought is not bad!!!

Preliminary of course - Someone that thinks in shorter terms and slower in responses lives not as long in their on mind, though the question is, is it even measurable?

Is 10 years measurable to a turtles 200 yr/ old brain as the same as our own? It's chemical process is similar to your own.

Big question. One that may never be answered.

-S

[baggygreen]

bloody hell....

well i guess it all gives credence to the adage "you're only as young as you feel".

if time doesnt really exist, then who can say if someone is old or not! if they feel young, they are young. simple! or maybe not??:doh:

[Blacklight]

Thought processes for humans, animals and insects are pretty much all the same speed. The difference is reaction times which is usually based on how efficiently the brain is wired up to the muscles in the rest of the body as the signals have to travel through the nerves to get to the muscles. I believe that a housefly has the fastest reaction time (though don't quote me on it.. there may be faster but it's one of the fastest). Then again, it has 10000000 eyes, a massive field of vision, and the signals from the brain which is pretty much just a reflex, not really a thought, doesn't have to travel that far to tell the muscles to move.
This is why hitting that damn annoying fly is so hard !

[SUBMAN1]

Thought processes for humans, animals and insects are pretty much all the same speed. The difference is reaction times which is usually based on how efficiently the brain is wired up to the muscles in the rest of the body as the signals have to travel through the nerves to get to the muscles. I believe that a housefly has the fastest reaction time (though don't quote me on it.. there may be faster but it's one of the fastest). Then again, it has 10000000 eyes, a massive field of vision, and the signals from the brain which is pretty much just a reflex, not really a thought, doesn't have to travel that far to tell the muscles to move.
This is why hitting that damn annoying fly is so hard !

I was studying house flies while I had to kill two last week! There is a flaw in their programming! :D Sitting on a surface, you will never be able to catch them/kill them if you move fast. However, if an object starts out slow, they don't treat it as a threat, allowing you to speed up said object to fast while they only lazily try and get away. This allows one to catch or kill a housefly as needed with nothing more than a piece of paper towel, or even ones hand for that matter! :p

-S

[UnderseaLcpl]

I was studying house flies while I had to kill two last week! There is a flaw in their programming! :D Sitting on a surface, you will never be able to catch them/kill them if you move fast. However, if an object starts out slow, they don't treat it as a threat, allowing you to speed up said object to fast while they only lazily try and get away. This allows one to catch or kill a housefly as needed with nothing more than a piece of paper towel, or even ones hand for that matter! :p

-S

You forgot to mention that flies move backwards a bit when they take off, but your are spot on about moving the object you intend to swat them with slowly.
If one approaches a fly from behind, slowly, and then executes the swatting motion rapidly, they almost never get away. The ones that do are usually young flies that seem to have ADD. I may never have killed an insurgent in Iraq (that I know of) but I killed a hell of a lot of flies. You can even catch one with your eyelid if it lights on it while you're snoozing.

Weren't we talking about gravity or FTL or something?

[Zayphod]

Travel by bubble might seem more appropriate for witches in Oz, but two physicists suggest that a future spaceship could fold a space-time bubble around itself to travel faster than the speed of light.


We're talking about the very distant future, of course.


The idea involves manipulating dark energy — the mysterious force behind the universe's ongoing expansion — to propel a spaceship forward without breaking the laws of physics.


"Think of it like a surfer riding a wave," said Gerald Cleaver, a physicist at Baylor University. "The ship would be pushed by the spatial bubble and the bubble would be traveling faster than the speed of light."


Old news. Zephram Cochran designed the Warp Drive on that very thesis.

Since nothing in this universe can match or exceed c the idea is to slip under the rug of the unverse, so-to-speak, using the warp engines to evelope the ship in a bubble of distorted time-space. The ship is stationary within that bubble, staying below c, while the bubble zips along at faster-than-light speeds.

These guys need to watch Star Trek more often. :|\\

[SUBMAN1]

You forgot to mention that flies move backwards a bit when they take off, but your are spot on about moving the object you intend to swat them with slowly.
If one approaches a fly from behind, slowly, and then executes the swatting motion rapidly, they almost never get away. The ones that do are usually young flies that seem to have ADD. I may never have killed an insurgent in Iraq (that I know of) but I killed a hell of a lot of flies. You can even catch one with your eyelid if it lights on it while you're snoozing.

Weren't we talking about gravity or FTL or something?Its part of the discussion! Flies brains (Or should I say nervous system) was that part of the topic. I just took this a little further sideways is all! :p

-S

[Blacklight]

What's actually going on in that theory is this... A ship would have to inject MASSIVE ammounts of energy in front of the ship. What this does is compress the space and time in front of the ship. Basically space and time get squeezed up as if a heavy object like a black hole were forming there in front of the ship. The next step is to inject vast ammounts of negative energy (A type of energy we've never observed in the universe, but mathimatically it could exist) behind the ship. What this does is expands the space and time behind the ship. Coordinating the two effects together can allow the ship to travel faster than the speed of light because it's not the spacecraft moving, but the space around it due to the compressing and expansion of space in front and behind it.
(I may have the negative and positive energys reversed. I forgot which one went to the front of the spacecraft but this is basically how it works.)

The universe is a LOT wierder than we take for granted. :doh:

[SUBMAN1]

Yes, that is why a micro black hole will solve your problem - It removes the energy from the equation. It is the energy.

-S

[Zayphod]

Yes, that is why a micro black hole will solve your problem - It removes the energy from the equation. It is the energy.

-S

That sounds very zen-like, doesn't it?

"Be the energy." :)

[SUBMAN1]

That sounds very zen-like, doesn't it?

"Be the energy." :)Yes it does! :p

-S

[SS107.9MHz]

...

Our experiments can demonstrate that whatever the speed of light is, it is a constant in a specified environment. This was documented in the Einstein one-way two-way postulate.

So before we get all excited about speeds faster than light, we might want to work on the technology that will allows us to actually measure the speed of a photon.

So the speed of light is pretty close to 299,792,458 metres per second in a free and perfect vacuum, but how close we still don't really know.

The good news is that for all practical purposes the 299... Million metres per second is good enough....for now.

The bad news is that if we start formulating more and more theories that rely on the speed of light being 299...Million metres per second, they may, just may, be a little off.

Aint that a kick in the head?

Damn sweet post:up: SO if we take the premisseof Lil' old Albert of a specific environment speed of light, and the whole thing about the time bubble effect, would't that brinhg the speed of light barrier to a sound barrier-like frontier, with a sort of "light-Boom"? Before breaking the sound barrier some said that a human who would passit wouldn't be able to hear too, so if one breaks the light barrier. maybe it all turns black except for the bodies travelling at the same speed

[NealT]

Well that one is easy. Just look at

Star Trek - when you break into Warp you get a big flash of light.
Babylon 5 - when you break into hyperspace you get a dark hole surrounded by light and a lot of pretty lights on the other side.
Star Wars - when you break lightspeed you get a lot of swirlie lights.

Problem solved.

:doh::doh::doh:

[antikristuseke]

Or the Mass Effect version

Light travels slower through glass then it does through open air; light also moves slower in conventional space then it does in a high-speed mass effect field. This causes refraction - any light entering at an angle is bent and separated into a spectrum. Objects outside the ship will appear refracted. The greater the difference between the objective (exterior) and subjective (interior) speeds of light, the greater the refraction.

As the subjective speed of lights is raised within the field, objects outside will appear to red-shift, eventually becoming visible only to radio telescope antennae. High-energy electromagnetic sources normally hidden to the eye become visible on the spectrum. As the speed of light continues to be raised, x-ray, gamma ray, and eventfully cosmic ray sources become visible. Stars will be replaced by pulsars, the accretion discs of black holes, quasars, and gamma ray bursts.

To an outside observer, a ship within a mass effect drive envelope appears to blue-shifted. If within a field that allows travel at twice the speed of light, any radiation it emits has twice the energy as normal. If the ship is in a field of about 200 times light speed, it radiates visible light as x-ray and gamma rays, and the infrared heat from the hull is blue-shifted up into the visible spectrum or higher.

Ships moving at FTL are visible at great distances, though their signature will only propagate at the speed of light. According to Engineer Adams, the Normandy's stealth system does not work at FTL speeds because that blue-shifts the ship's emissions into frequencies too high to capture in the hull sinks.

[FIREWALL]

Any fool knows that SUPERMAN can fly faster than light. :p :know:

[Blacklight]

The wierd thing about the speed of light is that it's always the same speed nomatter how fast you're going and how you measure it.
Consider this... if you're in a space ship.... and you're racing a photon of light.... it's not like you're racing a car where as you speed up.. the car you're chasing seems to slow down as your speed increases. In the case of the photon... it will seem to increase speed WITH you in the exact same ammount that you accelerated. Now if you come to a standstill suddenly... the photon will also fly past you still seeming the exact same speed that it was when you were racing it.

[UnderseaLcpl]

The wierd thing about the speed of light is that it's always the same speed nomatter how fast you're going and how you measure it.
Consider this... if you're in a space ship.... and you're racing a photon of light.... it's not like you're racing a car where as you speed up.. the car you're chasing seems to slow down as your speed increases. In the case of the photon... it will seem to increase speed WITH you in the exact same ammount that you accelerated. Now if you come to a standstill suddenly... the photon will also fly past you still seeming the exact same speed that it was when you were racing it.

No matter how much it blows my mind I still love this stuff.:up:

I've been told before that time and speed are two sides of the same coin, i.e. If you're moving at the speed of light you do not experience the passage of time at all, whereas if you were completely stopped relative to the universe (how would you do that?) everything ever would seem to happen instantaneously.

I'm sure I got some of that wrong, but if anyone knows anything about it I'd appreciate the input.
Also, what is the ratio of speed to time distortion? Is it directly proportional as you approach the speed of light, or is it more of a j-curve?

[Zayphod]

The wierd thing about the speed of light is that it's always the same speed nomatter how fast you're going and how you measure it.
Consider this... if you're in a space ship.... and you're racing a photon of light.... it's not like you're racing a car where as you speed up.. the car you're chasing seems to slow down as your speed increases. In the case of the photon... it will seem to increase speed WITH you in the exact same ammount that you accelerated. Now if you come to a standstill suddenly... the photon will also fly past you still seeming the exact same speed that it was when you were racing it.

No matter how much it blows my mind I still love this stuff.:up:

I've been told before that time and speed are two sides of the same coin, i.e. If you're moving at the speed of light you do not experience the passage of time at all, whereas if you were completely stopped relative to the universe (how would you do that?) everything ever would seem to happen instantaneously.

I'm sure I got some of that wrong, but if anyone knows anything about it I'd appreciate the input.
Also, what is the ratio of speed to time distortion? Is it directly proportional as you approach the speed of light, or is it more of a j-curve?

I believe time slows down by a factor of Delta. :)

BTW, the reason you'd never experience that non-passage of time is because you cannot MATCH the speed of light; you'll always be a hair below it. Star Trek got around this little detail by explaining that as the ship went FTL, it was AT the speed of light for "less than Planck(sp?) time" (that's the smallest unit of time that can be measured currently).

[Rhodes]

Well that one is easy. Just look at

Star Trek - when you break into Warp you get a big flash of light.
Babylon 5 - when you break into hyperspace you get a dark hole surrounded by light and a lot of pretty lights on the other side.
Star Wars - when you break lightspeed you get a lot of swirlie lights.

Problem solved.

:doh::doh::doh:

But in Star Trek, they travel in subspace, and only the TNG (and beyond) and TMP had the flash of light. In TOS, we didn't see any flash, they just warped...
Hyperspace, in other hand, is different from subspace, and the hijack is over...:p