The Faster Than Light Issue

originally posted by: moebius
How exactly is it "nonsense in physical terms"? Please elaborate.

Nearly impossible to keep up that kind of acceleration considering how much fuel is needed not only to push the ship but also overcome the drag generated by mass and radiation encountered en route.

a reply to: Blue Shift

Radition and drag? Lol. Drag is only for air and water.

originally posted by: yuppa
a reply to: Blue Shift

Radition and drag? Lol. Drag is only for air and water.

It ain't much, but it adds up, particularly as you start reaching relativistic speeds.

originally posted by: Grimpachi
Any group traveling the galaxy that is getting close to or surpassing lightspeed must be doing it through wormholes or warp or something other than just going faster.

I say that because the faster they go the more dangerous it is for a catastrophic collision. A ping-pong ball traveling at 99.999% of the speed of light could destroy a planet. A ship traveling that fast wouldn't survive a collision with a piece of space dust.

One of the things I've asked myself time and time again when thinking about a space craft that could travel at light speed, is how you could navigate around things like tiny meteors, etc. orbiting through space. All I could think of is perhaps some sort of force field. But then again, if you're going that fast, wouldn't you bend those things around you?

originally posted by: LSU2018
But then again, if you're going that fast, wouldn't you bend those things around you?

They might disintegrate into energy when they hit your shockwave. Then you scoop it up and use it for fuel. So your spaceship ends up looking like a cone, with the wide end pointing where you want to go. At least until you have to flip it halfway to your destination to decelerate as you approach your target.

Actually, given the amount of fuel you'd need, you might be better off with a ship that actually swallows stars for fuel along its route. Pretty big ship, obviously.

originally posted by: yuppa
a reply to: Blue Shift

Radition and drag? Lol. Drag is only for air and water.

At those speeds, spacetime itself introduces the drag. You. in effect, are pushing spacetime ahead of you (compressing it) like the bow wave of a boat on the water (or more accurately, a submarine under the surface which produces a 3-dimensional bow wave. Behind you more drag is introduced as your wake of spacetime cavatates causing spacetime eddies, again, like water does behind a craft.

Spacetime is a fluid, and follows the laws of fluid dynamics as well, albeit a fluid that has a very low viscosity.

a reply to: Krakatoa

Oh yeah forgot about that. Well black triangle craft use mass nullifiers to achieve their flight characteristics so I guess the largest ones for interstellar travel do as well.

originally posted by: yuppa
a reply to: Krakatoa

Oh yeah forgot about that. Well black triangle craft use mass nullifiers to achieve their flight characteristics so I guess the largest ones for interstellar travel do as well.

Or they essentially "implode" into non-space and how they vector into it determines where they end up. Bypassing all the junk.

originally posted by: LSU2018

originally posted by: Grimpachi
Any group traveling the galaxy that is getting close to or surpassing lightspeed must be doing it through wormholes or warp or something other than just going faster.

I say that because the faster they go the more dangerous it is for a catastrophic collision. A ping-pong ball traveling at 99.999% of the speed of light could destroy a planet. A ship traveling that fast wouldn't survive a collision with a piece of space dust.

One of the things I've asked myself time and time again when thinking about a space craft that could travel at light speed, is how you could navigate around things like tiny meteors, etc. orbiting through space. All I could think of is perhaps some sort of force field. But then again, if you're going that fast, wouldn't you bend those things around you?

With smaller objects I guess the craft would have to have a shield of sorts, but for travel at such high speeds through space a course would have to be already charted that takes into account all known objects of X size between source and destination, otherwise the craft could impact a planet, star, etc. At a speed that high could "navigation around" be actually physically possible? The collision would have to be know well in advance in order to "navigate around."

originally posted by: Alien Abduct

originally posted by: Harte

originally posted by: zatara
a reply to: Peeple

It is all quite simple..if you'd ask me. The speed of light is the fastest speed we can measure and have built absolutes around them. Which is of course obstructing your own progress in science. With this discovery of entenglement there is an confirmation of what is possible in nature. Maybe it has nothing to do with speed or time...but with something we are still to understand. We have been practising science for some ...lets say 3500 years.. and now have the arrogance to think we know it all, especially the most valueable equation of physics? Don't think so...it will take us sometime to figure it all out..if we will have to do it all by ourselves.

Talk about arrogance. You want to think you know about relativity but the above shows you are almost completely ignorant of the subject.
See, entanglement involves the instantaneous transfer of specific quantum state information.
If you pause for a moment, you might realize that the speed of light limit applies waves/particles, not information.

Also, the only people that "think we know it all" are straw men generated for internet forum fools to argue with.

Harte

I guess this is on the 'faster than light' topic. What's your take on the implications of the delayed choice quantum eraser experiment? Can you think of any new technologies that may be derived from this knowledge?

Nope. But someone might, eventually.

Harte

originally posted by: Blue Shift

originally posted by: moebius
How exactly is it "nonsense in physical terms"? Please elaborate.

Nearly impossible to keep up that kind of acceleration considering how much fuel is needed not only to push the ship but also overcome the drag generated by mass and radiation encountered en route.

Even so, what would be the point? You'd pass through the Andromeda Galaxy at near light speed. That is, you need to decelerate to arrive. Otherwise you might as well fly through empty space.

Harte

Instead of trying to move faster that light. Why not use actual light to move us at it's own speed, It may end up being like anti gravity where the gravity moves with you so you only get a percentage of it's effects,
I think at the big bang moment the universe started it's expansion, It started a fraction before that huge amount of energy escaped creating light. The light energy pushed the Universe out infront of it expanding untill now, I think that may explain the speed of the expanding Universe,

originally posted by: moebius
Speed of light is only an issue for direct communication. It is not an issue for interstellar or even intergalactic travel.

In a relativistic rocket at a constant 1g acceleration it would take you only 28 years to travel to Andromeda Galaxy, 2 million light years away.

I'm not sure in what sense you mean "not an issue"?

Yes, if you accelerate 1g you will be roughly the speed of light and after 28 years ship time you will be in your new galaxy. However 2.5 million years will have passed on earth and any message you send back will take another 2.5 million years. So it will be at least 5 million years before your wife gets the text telling her you left the oven on, by which time you could be facing a really nasty bill from your utlities company.

That's presuming you've worked out how to slow down from 0.9999999999 the speed of light, and just don't go hurtling through universe until you hit something - like a spec of dust, which would be catastrophic.

That's without the current practical impossiblity of accelerating at 1g for that time - have you done the fuel calculations?

a reply to: Peeple

scientists changed the speed of light in 2208 so they could achieve faster than light speeds !

originally posted by: Liquesence

originally posted by: LSU2018

originally posted by: Grimpachi
Any group traveling the galaxy that is getting close to or surpassing lightspeed must be doing it through wormholes or warp or something other than just going faster.

I say that because the faster they go the more dangerous it is for a catastrophic collision. A ping-pong ball traveling at 99.999% of the speed of light could destroy a planet. A ship traveling that fast wouldn't survive a collision with a piece of space dust.

One of the things I've asked myself time and time again when thinking about a space craft that could travel at light speed, is how you could navigate around things like tiny meteors, etc. orbiting through space. All I could think of is perhaps some sort of force field. But then again, if you're going that fast, wouldn't you bend those things around you?

With smaller objects I guess the craft would have to have a shield of sorts, but for travel at such high speeds through space a course would have to be already charted that takes into account all known objects of X size between source and destination, otherwise the craft could impact a planet, star, etc. At a speed that high could "navigation around" be actually physically possible? The collision would have to be know well in advance in order to "navigate around."

I'm speculating that any interstellar capable starship would have to go into sub-light speed, once it reaches the outer limits of any star system; that it wants to traverse into.

a reply to: TheRedneck

Fantastic detailed answer. However if you are on a travelator at an airport. If you stay still you are moving at say 5mph but if you start walking your speed relative to the ground increases to approx 9 mph and you reach the end quicker. In a space ship
a mile long traveling at the speed of light you are at the back . There is a finish line to your journey. If you run the mile from the back to the front of the ship you will pass the finish line a micron of a split second faster than if you stayed seated at the back. Thus you must have exceeded the speed of light ?

originally posted by: Harte
Even so, what would be the point? You'd pass through the Andromeda Galaxy at near light speed. That is, you need to decelerate to arrive. Otherwise you might as well fly through empty space.

Like we're doing right now at a ripping speed of around 390 kilometers/second toward the constellation of Leo.

Just more evidence suggesting that even if human beings eventually make it to other planets in our solar system, any intergalactic trips will require us to have some sort of paradigm shift or breakthrough we have no clue about at the present.

a reply to: tarifa37

Say you are wearing a special watch that logs your start and finish time over a set distance. The ship is a mile long and travels at light speed you sit at the back . At some point you run to the front. When you reach the finish line the time you as a person with your watch crosses it will be slightly quicker than if you had stayed at the back. Therefore your overall speed will be a fraction over the speed of light.

originally posted by: tarifa37
a reply to: tarifa37

Say you are wearing a special watch that logs your start and finish time over a set distance. The ship is a mile long and travels at light speed you sit at the back . At some point you run to the front. When you reach the finish line the time you as a person with your watch crosses it will be slightly quicker than if you had stayed at the back. Therefore your overall speed will be a fraction over the speed of light.

Nope. See above.

originally posted by: FatherLukeDuke

originally posted by: moebius
Speed of light is only an issue for direct communication. It is not an issue for interstellar or even intergalactic travel.

In a relativistic rocket at a constant 1g acceleration it would take you only 28 years to travel to Andromeda Galaxy, 2 million light years away.

I'm not sure in what sense you mean "not an issue"?

Yes, if you accelerate 1g you will be roughly the speed of light and after 28 years ship time you will be in your new galaxy. However 2.5 million years will have passed on earth and any message you send back will take another 2.5 million years. So it will be at least 5 million years before your wife gets the text telling her you left the oven on, by which time you could be facing a really nasty bill from your utlities company.

That's presuming you've worked out how to slow down from 0.9999999999 the speed of light, and just don't go hurtling through universe until you hit something - like a spec of dust, which would be catastrophic.

That's without the current practical impossiblity of accelerating at 1g for that time - have you done the fuel calculations?

Ion drives are capable of that, but (of course) they are solar.

Harte