Remember when skeptics said it was impossible to break the lightspeed barrier?

Originally posted by Kruel
Our part of space already travels faster than light (relative to other parts of the universe). What we can't do is accelerate past light speed. So the trick is to move around without accelerating. Doing so would also nullify time dilation.

I do not mean to sound rude, as I usually do so well, but I am confused here. Accelerate simply means change in direction or velocity. So how do we travel faster than light without having accelerated there to begin with. I am actually sure you have a valid explanation to shut me up there but.... the next part...eh. The trick is to move around without accelerating. Unless we are traveling in a perfectly straight line at a constant speed, we will be accelerating. There is no way to "move around" without acceleration.

And there's no such thing as anti-gravity as all of space is connected by gravity... though it may some day be possible to focus the attraction of gravity in certain directions, basically pulling yourself around space rather than using our currently primitive forms of propulsion.

You should know by now that "anti-gravity" is really only for people who theorize about UFO travel and believe Hutchinson's terrible little films. Any decent physicist should be able to clear up that "anti-gravity" is just the imaginary nickname that sci-fi lovers and dreamers have given an actual variety of different concepts - all of which are anything but ANTI anything.

Originally posted by sir_chancealot
I hate to steal anyone's thunder, but the speed of light was broken back in '98 or '99. Scientists reported it. Several other labs immediately replicated the results. Even more labs replicated the results several days later. This was HUGE news on the internet, but didn't make mainsteam newspapers. Do you wonder why? Then..... it all went away. Surprise, surprise.

Judging by the points you have and frequency with which I have read your posts as a lurker, I have to assume you have been a member long enough to be well aware that claims like this are rather pointless without some kind of source or evidence, proof. Even just saying what the material was that was used to speed past light would have been interesting. Any elaboration would be pretty cool at this point.

Originally posted by Luciferdescending

Originally posted by Kruel
Our part of space already travels faster than light (relative to other parts of the universe). What we can't do is accelerate past light speed. So the trick is to move around without accelerating. Doing so would also nullify time dilation.

I do not mean to sound rude, as I usually do so well, but I am confused here. Accelerate simply means change in direction or velocity. So how do we travel faster than light without having accelerated there to begin with. I am actually sure you have a valid explanation to shut me up there but.... the next part...eh. The trick is to move around without accelerating. Unless we are traveling in a perfectly straight line at a constant speed, we will be accelerating. There is no way to "move around" without acceleration.

You accelerate by moving through space. If instead you move the space around you, technically you wouldn't be moving through space.

There was a story on a similar speculative approach a while back but I'm too lazy to find it.

Originally posted by Kruel

Originally posted by Luciferdescending

Originally posted by Kruel
Our part of space already travels faster than light (relative to other parts of the universe). What we can't do is accelerate past light speed. So the trick is to move around without accelerating. Doing so would also nullify time dilation.

I do not mean to sound rude, as I usually do so well, but I am confused here. Accelerate simply means change in direction or velocity. So how do we travel faster than light without having accelerated there to begin with. I am actually sure you have a valid explanation to shut me up there but.... the next part...eh. The trick is to move around without accelerating. Unless we are traveling in a perfectly straight line at a constant speed, we will be accelerating. There is no way to "move around" without acceleration.

You accelerate by moving through space. If instead you move the space around you, technically you wouldn't be moving through space.

There was a story on a similar speculative approach a while back but I'm too lazy to find it.

But then you would not be moving around in space would you? Your first post contradicts the second. Are you moving space or you? Something has to be moved and that thing is accelerating whether it is going faster or not as long as it is turning.

Originally posted by Luciferdescending
But then you would not be moving around in space would you? Your first post contradicts the second. Are you moving space or you? Something has to be moved and that thing is accelerating whether it is going faster or not as long as it is turning.

I see where the confusion arises.

I suppose it depends on how you define "moving". Does it mean ceasing to be in one place and then being in another? Or moving through space within the confines of general relativity? I used the word in both contexts assuming that it would be understood.

What I meant was moving the space around you, but since you would be in a different location you could consider that moving yourself as well. Same word, two different definitions.

Originally posted by Kruel

Originally posted by Luciferdescending
But then you would not be moving around in space would you? Your first post contradicts the second. Are you moving space or you? Something has to be moved and that thing is accelerating whether it is going faster or not as long as it is turning.

I see where the confusion arises.

I suppose it depends on how you define "moving". Does it mean ceasing to be in one place and then being in another? Or moving through space within the confines of general relativity? I used the word in both contexts assuming that it would be understood.

What I meant was moving the space around you, but since you would be in a different location you could consider that moving yourself as well. Same word, two different definitions.

And how many definitions for accelerate do you have? I did not realize that we could just use all the definitions we wanted to to just make things fit what we had already said.

Originally posted by Luciferdescending

Originally posted by sir_chancealot
I hate to steal anyone's thunder, but the speed of light was broken back in '98 or '99. Scientists reported it. Several other labs immediately replicated the results. Even more labs replicated the results several days later. This was HUGE news on the internet, but didn't make mainsteam newspapers. Do you wonder why? Then..... it all went away. Surprise, surprise.

Judging by the points you have and frequency with which I have read your posts as a lurker, I have to assume you have been a member long enough to be well aware that claims like this are rather pointless without some kind of source or evidence, proof. Even just saying what the material was that was used to speed past light would have been interesting. Any elaboration would be pretty cool at this point.

www.aei.mpg.de...

That should get you started. Is it too hard to type "faster than light experiments" into your search engine?

Or is it that you just want to believe such things cannot happen, and want others to believe it also?

Edit to add: Here's a simpler page to view: news.bbc.co.uk...

[edit on 24-1-2009 by sir_chancealot]

If you get it worked out, save me a spot in line...I'll buy a ticket.

math.ucr.edu...

Originally posted by sir_chancealot
Or is it that you just want to believe such things cannot happen, and want others to believe it also?

Was it? I was simply pointing out that you offered up something without a link and that is always followed up by "source?" I just thought that since you were offering the knowledge, you could do the typing. Why should I have to verify what you say?