The Ontagon

Consider the possibility that traveling faster than the speed of light will not result in achieving infinite density because our definition of what is infinite density, in relation the Theoretical Physics is mistaken. Suggesting that a particle in fact when achieving such speeds conforms to such conditions. So, therefore, can travel at the speed of light, perhaps. faster because of what is inherent to an undiscovered factor in Nature.

Thoughts?

a reply to: Kashai

yeah..... huh?

originally posted by: Kashai
Consider the possibility that traveling faster than the speed of light will not result in achieving infinite density because our definition of what is infinite density, in relation the Theoretical Physics is mistaken. Suggesting that a particle in fact when achieving such speeds conforms to such conditions. So, therefore, can travel at the speed of light, perhaps. faster because of what is inherent to an undiscovered factor in Nature.

Thoughts?

Hmm...interesting thought. Guessing there is some theoretical equation by someone much smarter that gives a logical explanation for what happens after we reach the speed of light, but since nothing has we can only hypothesize on what happens.

I like this....nice OP!

Maybe the particle becomes light itself....hence how the "beam me up Scotty" phrase was thought of. Vibrate particles faster than the speed of light to become light itself, point and shoot, slow the particles back down once in place and voila....whole again.

a reply to: Kashai

I think it's been measured the faster you go the more energy it takes to accelerate further.

a reply to: FHomerK

Consider that in relation to Nature whatever limitations we comprehend today relate more to the human condition, rather than interpretations of reality, within our comprehension. That in fact what Albert Einstein, offered is a conclusion whose. the basis is an interpretation of our environment, subject to his intellectual capacity, in relation
to his personal ability to comprehend it,

Given the extent civilization at the time was able to afford him.

All things considered.

Thoughts?

a reply to: Kashai



You have to create a gravity wave.

originally posted by: Kashai
a reply to: FHomerK

Consider that in relation to Nature whatever limitations we comprehend today relate more to the human condition, rather than interpretations of reality, within our comprehension. That in fact what Albert Einstein, offered is a conclusion whose. the basis is an interpretation of our environment, subject to his intellectual capacity, in relation
to his personal ability to comprehend it,

Given the extent civilization at the time was able to afford him.

All things considered.

Thoughts?

A product of his environment....likely to an extent. His ability to think beyond and to this day have relevance is pretty astounding. Think of what he could have achieved in the future had he been born today and given the same abilities he had.

Trouble is you have to account for the reasons why someone thought how they did when they did.

a reply to: dfnj2015

A point would be perhaps akin to the idea of modifying aircraft to travel faster than sound.

in this case, nature provides an equivalent by providing the necessaries to as allow material to travel faster than light.

originally posted by: Kashai
a reply to: dfnj2015

A point would be perhaps akin to the idea of modifying aircraft to travel faster than sound.

in this case, nature provides an equivalent by providing the necessaries to as allow material to travel faster than light.

It should also be taken into account that light can be slowed such as that in fiber optics versus a vacuum.

a reply to: Kashai

Consider that UFOs transit themselves in devices that make themselves without mass. That system would, thus, negate a lot of Einsteinian problems for SOL velocities which science has always used to say, as Sagan continually did say, "Yes, ETIs are out there, but they can't get here from there."

(My signature line has been explaining that simple fact of it for years but most people can't bend their heard around it.)

Consider that it is possible that an object with mass that as a result of achieving the speed of light inherently conforms physically to such speeds in no different a way than mechanically we design aircraft differently if what we expect them to do is travel faster than sound.

This is what I am suggesting is possible in this thread.

originally posted by: Kashai
a reply to: dfnj2015

A point would be perhaps akin to the idea of modifying aircraft to travel faster than sound.

in this case, nature provides an equivalent by providing the necessaries to as allow material to travel faster than light.

I think what happens is with your thrusters at maximum as you go fast you do not have enough trust to accelerate any faster because mass becomes so heavy to accelerate. I don't think it's like a sound barrier that you just pass through. You just run out of energy.

A warp bubble or dimensional travel is what you need for FTL.

a reply to: dfnj2015

That is what is currently acknowledged and in consideration what is known today. Despite dogma is not in an of itself evidence that traveling faster than the speed of light as natural, so to speak. Would not result in matter changing to conform to such an environment, rather than the image of what happens when an egg is thrown at 100 mph 100 ft into a wall.

originally posted by: Kashai
Consider the possibility that traveling faster than the speed of light will not result in achieving infinite density because our definition of what is infinite density, in relation the Theoretical Physics is mistaken. Suggesting that a particle in fact when achieving such speeds conforms to such conditions. So, therefore, can travel at the speed of light, perhaps. faster because of what is inherent to an undiscovered factor in Nature.

Thoughts?

FTL doesn't make any sense in a relativistic universe.

The faster you go, the shorter the distances become - Lorentz contraction.

At speed of light all distances become zero. So speed of light is the ultimate velocity.

originally posted by: moebius

originally posted by: Kashai
Consider the possibility that traveling faster than the speed of light will not result in achieving infinite density because our definition of what is infinite density, in relation the Theoretical Physics is mistaken. Suggesting that a particle in fact when achieving such speeds conforms to such conditions. So, therefore, can travel at the speed of light, perhaps. faster because of what is inherent to an undiscovered factor in Nature.

Thoughts?

FTL doesn't make any sense in a relativistic universe.

The faster you go, the shorter the distances become - Lorentz contraction.

At speed of light all distances become zero. So speed of light is the ultimate velocity.

All distance does not become zero.
It takes 10,000 to 170,000 years for a photon to travel from the core of the Sun past the outer layer of the sun because of collisions. If all them collision distances were zero then it would take zero added time.

a reply to: moebius

Relativistically as one approaches the speed of light a portent would be zero.

An implication is the FTL would constitute a negative in a manner of speaking.

Counterintuitive but nonetheless possible given electron migration back in time in nature.

Just to give you a rough idea of what it means for a particle to "move backwards in time" in the technical sense: in quantum field theory, particles carry with them amounts of various conserved quantities as they move. These quantities may include energy, momentum, electric charge, "flavour," and others. As the particles move, these conserved quantities produce "currents," which have a direction based on the motion and sign of the conserved quantity. If you apply the time reversal operator (which is a purely mathematical concept, not something that actually reverses time), you reverse the direction of the current flow, which is equivalent to reversing the sign of the conserved quantity, thus (roughly speaking) turning the particle into its antiparticle.

physics.stackexchange.com...

As something speeds up, its mass increases compared with its mass at rest, with the mass of the moving object determined by multiplying its rest mass by the Lorentz factor. This increase in relativistic mass makes every extra unit of energy you put into speeding up the object less effective at making it actually move faster. This is why nothing can travel faster than light – at or near light speed, any extra energy you put into an object does not make it move faster but just increases its mass. Mass and energy are the same thing . Also the length of the object would be reduced to zero. By compressing the space in front of your vehicle and expanding the space behind you, so that you surf on a tidal wave of warped space or use a wormhole. a reply to: Kashai

a reply to: Kashai

If exceeding the speed of sound results in a sonic boom, then imagine what would happen if we broke the light barrier....

a reply to: BELIEVERpriest

In consideration mass, as we understand it would change in such a way that would allow it to continue to accelerate.

Hopefully

Music break.

a reply to: Kashai

I don't think mechanical acceleration alone can be used to achieve light speed. Instead, we would have to find a way to cancel the affect of mass to attain an approximate state of absolute inertia. Basically, we would have to become more massless than a photon, which I believe actually has an immeasurably small 'non-zero' mass. Perhaps that could be used to break the light speed barrier, but it would take you to a lower energy dimension. Its not really a means of getting from point A to B, unless you use the lower energy dimension as short cut for re-entry into our dimension at point B. Same basic principle as a "worm hole", minus the tubular structure.