Why Can't we travel faster than the speed of light?

reply to post by johnsky


i agree. i bought this up a while ago. it all depends on what the point of reference.

reply to post by Damien_Hell


i think there are to many "cant"s in that last post.

Originally posted by Warlon
I understand the "basic" explanation of gravity, but doesn't it also state that the effect of gravity is proportional to it's mass and inversly (sp) proportional to the distance between the objects? So if a object has no mass then it wouldn't be effected by gravity? Correct??

Also something that confuses me (lots of things do

) is if mass is effected by speed then why arn't things that are hot (a by-product of speed) more massive than things that are cold? Why couldn't we erase our mass by lowering our temp to 0 deg. Kelvin? Also why don't I weigh more when I am traveling at 500 MPH in a jet than I do standing still on earth?

Wow,

I think I just nuked the batteries AND the charger.

It seems that people who want to sound smart, say light has no mass and they throw the rest of their logic in a "meat grinder". Molecules are made up of protons and neutrons. Light is a proton that travels an infinite distance until it is absorbed or reflected. Electricity is the "hand-off" of a molecule's electron from its outer-most valence shell to a molecule in close proximity. The faster a group of electrons travel, the greater the voltage. When greater number of electrons moving along the same path, the greater the current.

Light travels through space in what is called a waveform. Just like sound vibrations have amplitude and volume, so does radio frequency; they both cause vibrations in space that can be transmitted/received and converted to an electric pulse through a series of transistors, resistors and capacitors interconnected, and converted back (or picked up by) a speaker (or microphone).

Sound and radio frequencies do not have mass, they are just vibrations in space. Heat and light are forms of radiation. Heat has no mass, but is simply a state of flux that a molecule vibrates at. This state of flux can be transfered through gas in space (also known as air), and effect the molecules which are surrounded by the air.

The sun emits light and heat through in a complete spectrum. Photon particles sent out in a waveform, as a type of radiation can that be Visible, Ultra Violet, X-ray, and Gamma. Our eyes are sensitive to visible spectrum light, but can be damaged by photons emitted from a radiation above the visible spectrum.

Heat cannot be reflected. Sound, radio frequencies, and photon radiation can be reflected. Photon radiation can cause heat, but sound and radio frequencies cannot cause heat. So while radiation and vibrations have some of the same principles, they also exhibit different characteristics.

A photon is a particle, same as a neutron and proton. Electrons can be converted to photon radiation, by passing electrons through a filament within a sealed vacuum.

Should I go on, does anybody follow?

Now for the question that is on everyone's mind, but is explained like ground beef and called a T-Bone steak.

Light radiation travels through space in a waveform. Molecules are bonded together to form an object of a particular mass. Weight is gravity's force acting upon that mass. The large celestial bodies in space (planets and moons), each have gravity proportional to their size.

Molecules can travel at great speeds, but their molecular integrity of an object tends to disintegrate at speeds that are too great.

There is a way around this. The idea is to form a transverse magnetic wave barrier. Way beyond humans to achieve, but it does exist. It's like a tiny universe within a bubble, that shields the matter inside from the effects of gravity and radiation outside. You can create a wavefront by distending the "flux lines" of gravity from a distant celestial body, and have it sling-shot the bubble right up to the body (moon, or planet) at near the speed of light, without adversely affecting the vessel (or passenger) within.

[edit on 27-3-2008 by Kinesis]

reply to post by Phat_Pleiades

Hmm...if light is a particle, how does IT travel as fast as it does?

Am I making this too simple?

To Kinesis: You mean like a Warp Coil?



[edit on 28-3-2008 by Toelint]

[edit on 28-3-2008 by Toelint]

Originally posted by jfj123
Actually many of Einsteins predictions have been verified in lab.

But couldn't this be a case of making the science fit the theory? Rather than the theory fit the science? I hate to do it but... look at most of the gadgets creamed up by Gene Roddenberry for Star Trek, most of the Scientists today watched this show growing up and are thus working to make his theories a reality. So couldn't it be possible that scientists are treating Einsteins work with the same reverence? Working until they prove what a great man thought up, rather than risking upsetting the scientific community by proving him wrong?

I maybe wrong on this, and will openly admit that while I find the idea of FTL travel quite interesting I don't foresee our being able to achive anything even close to this in even the next 1000 years (baring any world changing events, similar to Roddenberry's idea's in Star Trek).


[edit on 28-3-2008 by looneylupinsrevenge]

reply to post by Kinesis


This kinda answers a question of mine being. If light is made of particles and thier mass increases while traveling at 'light speed' how small must they be before they start and if they dont change in mass why should we....?

Another question I have. As stupid as it sounds, many people have been talking about a 'bubble' in which we/something could travel at light speed 'safely'. As an analogy, for my simple mind to comprehend, would that be the same principle as standing at the front of a plane in flight and I jump why I do not end up at the back of the plane?

Originally posted by VIKINGANT
reply to post by Kinesis

 

This kinda answers a question of mine being. If light is made of particles and thier mass increases while traveling at 'light speed' how small must they be before they start and if they dont change in mass why should we....?

Photons are massless. Any other particle would have their mass increased the close to c they get.

reply to post by sardion2000


But that as far as I understand it is contradictory to Kinesis and others. So now I must ask...which is it? Mass or no mass? If it is described as particles, then it should be something tangable therefore mass. Right?

The current thinking is that photons are massless energy packets but they do have momentum due to their high velocity. They have a 'relativistic' mass which is proportional to their frequency so an ultraviolet photon shows more apparent 'mass' than an infrared photon.

The application of gravitational lensing demonstrates the use of this 'relativistic' mass which responds to extreme gravity fields.

The rest mass of a photon is zero but they're never at rest.

Originally posted by sardion2000

Photons are massless. Any other particle would have their mass increased the close to c they get.

I don't know where you get that idea. As the momentum of force on an object increases, so does its speed of travel. How would you say mass is added to an object just by decreasing its inertia?

[edit on 28-3-2008 by Kinesis]

Originally posted by Toelint
Hmm...if light is a particle, how does IT travel as fast as it does?

Am I making this too simple?

To Kinesis: You mean like a Warp Coil?

It's not defined as a warp coil. It's a gravity A amplifier. Gravity A is the force that binds all matter, and keeps it from crumbling. Gravity B is the force we know as "gravity" in general. Planets and moons radiate a force strong enough to draw objects of considerable less mass closer to it, into its orbit. This Gravity B force is what can be tapped into with Gravity A amplifier (of the vessel) from a very distant point of reference.

Magnets radiate force, exhibited by lines of flux. The lines of flux join in opposite ends of polarity (North attracts South), and the lines of flux of similar poles try to bend around each other to repel (South repels South).

I believe that gravity has similar characteristics. Gravity A is essentially one polarity, and Gravity B is the opposite. (Actually, grav A can either attract or repel grav B). If you where to vector these "flux lines" of the gravity B of a distant celestial body by the vessel's gravity A amplifier, so that the Transverse Magnetic Wave (which would surround your vessel) could in effect be drawn in by the planet's gravity and pull the vessel toward it, much like a sling shot.

The velocity travelled over the distance between the point of origin and the celestial body is much greater than any conventional propulsion.

The only element known to power a grav A amplifier is the superheavy Element 115. Experiments done with electromagnetism haven't yielded significant results.

[edit on 28-3-2008 by Kinesis]

Originally posted by VIKINGANT
Another question I have. As stupid as it sounds, many people have been talking about a 'bubble' in which we/something could travel at light speed 'safely'. As an analogy, for my simple mind to comprehend, would that be the same principle as standing at the front of a plane in flight and I jump why I do not end up at the back of the plane?

The best example I can think of is when Chuck Yeager broke the sound barrier across the Mojave desert, with the sonic boom. The problem was, when the jet approached speeds nearing Mach 1 (approx. 740 mph), navigation controls weren't responding. They realized that the jetstreams began to form around the fuselage and wings of the jet. The jet should would begin to shake and rattle as disturbances around the jet began to build, and all controls were rendered useless. Innovations in design, changing the aerodynamic shape, as well as using the whole wing rather than a wing flap would solve the problem of maneuvering through jetstreams above Mach 1.

Flying through jetstreams that build up to a sonic boom, could be somewhat similar in nature to travelling within a Transverse Magnetic Wave barrier during transit to a distant celestial body.

To answer your question; the plane, and everything inside will carry the same momentum in flight. If the plane was to suddenly slow down and stall while you were jumping, then you would be thrown forward.
It's too bad technology hasn't mastered physics well enough to blunt the effects of momentum in a car accident, except with the use of an airbag.

[edit on 28-3-2008 by Kinesis]

Originally posted by Kinesis
The best example I can think of is when Chuck Yeager broke the sound barrier across the Mojave desert, with the sonic boom. The problem was, when the jet approached speeds nearing Mach 1 (approx. 740 mph), navigation controls weren't responding. They realized that the jetstreams began to form around the fuselage and wings of the jet. The jet should would begin to shake and rattle as disturbances around the jet began to build, and all controls were rendered useless. Innovations in design, changing the aerodynamic shape, as well as using the whole wing rather than a wing flap would solve the problem of maneuvering through jetstreams above Mach 1.

[edit on 28-3-2008 by Kinesis]

One problem with this, when Col. Yeager broke the sound barrier his control surfaces didn't freeze up or anything of the sort. What happened is the X-1 experienced a phenomanon known as "Compressability" that caused the shaking that he reported. As he approched the SOS (speed of sound) compressability caused tremmors in the fusalage ans the control inputs to increase (the X-1's control surfaces where moved by wires and push/pull tubes, no force augmentation systems) as it had "arm-strong" controls. As the X-1 hit the SOS and broke the sound barrier, the compressability waves broke from the wings and the control inputs returned to normal. It never froze up.

Originally posted by Warlon
As the X-1 hit the SOS and broke the sound barrier, the compressability waves broke from the wings and the control inputs returned to normal. It never froze up.

Many important structural and aerodynamic advances were first employed in the Bell X-1, including extremely thin yet exceptionally strong wing sections and a horizontal stabilizer that could be adjusted up and down to improve control, especially at transonic (near the speed of sound) speeds. Because of the stabilizer's success, later transonic military aircraft were designed with all moving horizontal stabilizers as standard equipment.
The X-1's fuselage was shaped like a .50 caliber bullet. Even the windscreen was specially flaired to retain the bullet shape. The X-1 carried more than 230 kilograms (500 pounds) of flight test instruments.

www.nasm.si.edu...

I might not have properly explained the design flaws and problems that were leading up to the Bell X-1, but there you have it. (Just to clear things up)

Originally posted by Kinesis
Many important structural and aerodynamic advances were first employed in the Bell X-1, including extremely thin yet exceptionally strong wing sections and a horizontal stabilizer that could be adjusted up and down to improve control, especially at transonic (near the speed of sound) speeds. Because of the stabilizer's success, later transonic military aircraft were designed with all moving horizontal stabilizers as standard equipment.
The X-1's fuselage was shaped like a .50 caliber bullet. Even the windscreen was specially flaired to retain the bullet shape. The X-1 carried more than 230 kilograms (500 pounds) of flight test instruments.

www.nasm.si.edu...

I might not have properly explained the design flaws and problems that were leading up to the Bell X-1, but there you have it. (Just to clear things up)

True many other elements to come from the X-1 were:
Laminar Flow Wings
All trimming cruciform tail
and a pilot with 3 busted ribs

WOW we are getting WAY away from the topic of this thread.

Sorry to all, when I get started on aircraft, it can get real UGLY, real FAST.

Originally posted by Kinesis

Originally posted by sardion2000

Photons are massless. Any other particle would have their mass increased the close to c they get.

How would you say mass is added to an object just by decreasing its inertia?

[edit on 28-3-2008 by Kinesis]

I didn't, I meant the exact opposite about inertia.... sorry for not making that clear.

Inertia and momentum — as an object's speed approaches the speed of light from an observer's point of view, its mass appears to increase thereby making it more and more difficult to accelerate it from within the observer's frame of reference.

en.wikipedia.org...

[edit on 28-3-2008 by sardion2000]

[edit on 28-3-2008 by sardion2000]

reply to post by VIKINGANT

In response to your question about jumping inside a moving plane, imagine this. The thing allowing you to travel at 600 mph is two-fold.

!. You have a number of engines attatched to your plane, and...

2. The plane is shielding your body from 600 mph wind shear.

Of course, it might be very different at take off and upon landing, which is why that HOT stewardess checks your seat belt.

Sorry...erasing images in my head.........

Okay, that's over.

Now, just as the wind shear would blow apart an nonconforming aircraft design, so might the laws of matter physics blow apart your spaceship when it reaches lightspeed. The answer? Disquise it. How? Make it look like something the Universe shouldn't try to slow down. Perhaps we really can do this with EM fields or something more exotic. I'm no physics major don't look for the "numbers" to come from me.

Sorry if I over personified all of this, but hey, whatever works.

If the existing theories hold up, breaking the light speed barrier may involve a means of placing our ship & contents 'out of phase' with the influence of external mass effects like gravity and inertia - a balancing act to give us an effective mass of zero. It's the only way I could explain the 'impossible' high G maneuvers of reported UFOs

On the idea of the mass of a photon - consider a tungsten filament in an inert gas being heated by an electic current. It's atoms are energised by electrical heating to the point where they emit photons at white heat but the mass of the filament doesn't change which indicates that no mass is being emitted, just energy being converted in line with conservation of matter and energy.

[edit on 29/3/2008 by Pilgrum]

[edit on 29/3/2008 by Pilgrum]

Will we conquer this any time before I heve to get back to work? I'd love to just beam in and out!

Strictly as a side comment, I watched a movie this past weekend called The Last Mimzy where the star of the movie uses something akin to a wormhole to transport a can of soda over to his sister, about 12 feet away, then later to knock a golf ball out to the 300 yd. limit of the driving range. Not trying to be facetious, but might this actually be the "do all" and "know all" of all our technology and manpower?

Might we actually learn every practical thing about space we're capable of learning before we ever grip the technology to travel there?




[edit on 30-3-2008 by Toelint]

Originally posted by Kinesis
It seems that people who want to sound smart, say light has no mass[...] Molecules are made up of protons and neutrons. Light is a proton that travels an infinite distance until it is absorbed or reflected. [...] The faster a group of electrons travel, the greater the voltage. When greater number of electrons moving along the same path, the greater the current.

so then good news: you dont nearly sound smart
mixing up protons and photons, what a "meat grinder"-kind of flaw
your first and your last sentences of this section reference in no way (and its use of definitions is...)
voltage isnt the speed of an electron cloud it is only the accelerating potential difference in the electric field also your medium where your electrons move can slow them down

most easy to comprehend in a vacuum tube: puting an accelerating voltage the electron gets a higher velocity as longer it goes through the field and at all points its energy (and thereby (E=p²/2m nonrel.) its momentum and velocity) is as large as the potential difference between its starting point in the field and its current position

if the electron collides with an other particle it transferes part of this kinetic energy to the other particle and slows down (and is therefore slower than in vacuum)

Light travels through space in what is called a waveform. Just like sound vibrations have amplitude and volume, so does radio frequency; they both cause vibrations in space that can be transmitted/received and converted to an electric pulse [...]

argh.. soundwaves and lightwaves are pretty different and to mix them up produces more chaos than it could ever explain

sound is a longitudinal density fluctuation of a medium due to collisions and moving particles

light is a transverse fluctuation of an electromagnetic field radiated by a moving charge

if one gets totally exact both cause vibrations in space.. but something tells me you did not mean gravitational waves (all moving energy (and therefore also matter and light) causes gravitational bending of spacetime (and if accelerated, even in periodic propagating (wave) shapes))
those waves would first be smaller than all what is measurable due to quantum mechanics so there effect is really neglectable (they would distort our whole (visible) universe by less then a plank length)

so no vibrations in space are causing those waves to interact with matter

light interacts (since it is a em-field) with charged particles and can of cource accelerate them (with enough energy it can punch electrons out of there position)

sound also interacts due to charged particles but in a significantly different way: if two particles (as we are used to hear sound in air lats take some N2) collide their electron shells meet at first and if they get close enough together their negative charge repells them so that the kinetic energy from the incident particle gets transfered (partly) to the other

Sound and radio frequencies do not have mass, they are just vibrations in space.

sound (if u understand it as our comprehension of moving air) has no mass, but the moving air (which is the whole phenomenon) has
light (and all of the rest of the em-spectrum) has no rest mass

Heat and light are forms of radiation.

correct

Heat has no mass, but is simply a state of flux that a molecule vibrates at.

no, you mixe the cause and the effect.. heat is the radiation of a moving molecule (and its therefore also moving e-shells) not the movement of the molecule itself

Heat cannot be reflected.

any type of metallic mirror will do..