How.... To go FASTER then LIGHT!?

Hey guys, this was just put up on spikednation.com last night, forgot to post it



Mod Note:

15k.) Video links/embeds: You will not embed or Post a link to a video without a reasonable description of its content and why it interests you, is germane to the topics discussed on the Websites or the topic of an existing thread should you post it in a reply to an existing thread.

reply to post by WanderingThe3rd

Good ole STAR Trek for some inspiration, cool! Power source could be anti-matter? Unless someone has some dilythium crystals.
So is the concept mentioned similar to the warp drive premise. How fast is warp drive compared to speed of light anyways, fictionally/hypothetically speaking? What's the difference between warp and hyperspace?
What happens to matter within the craft as it travels?
I always liked the Traveler's from STNG method of traveling, with thought.

tantalizing speculations,
spec

well from what i under stand you're warping space so it moves you along, i got the feeling its pretty instant, maybe thats how the warp drive worked? lol

reply to post by WanderingThe3rd

I guess this is relative. I am curious about the stabilizing 'bubble."

"All you need is a bubble that warps space time."

Okay great.




So where do we get one of those?

reply to post by WanderingThe3rd


spikenation represent woopwoop

the amount of energy needed to do this kind of travel would almost certainly destroy anything known to man.

id settle for the speed of light but even to get to THAT you need some very durable stuff.

You laugh at such ideas, but have you considered the turbo encabulator?

reply to post by boncho


wallmart

Originally posted by boncho
"All you need is a bubble that warps space time."

Okay great.

So where do we get one of those?

Warp Bubbles 'r Us, I have a groupon if you want it.
Should I send it to [email protected], or didnt you get your official ats email addy yet?

I hear on they also have WarpBubbleWednesdays, but you have to travel at least warp1 to get in the parking lot....

I wonder if they are having TimeTravelTuesday this week?

How to go faster than light.

I have an answer that is flawless. I think.

Get an airtight, light-tight box.

Turn a flashlight on and put it and seal it in said box.

Obtain a friend that will agree to throw the box a short distance.

Drink a little coffee to stimulate your nervous system.

Line yourself up with the box and tell your friend to throw the box as fast and as far as he can.

When you start running at the same instant he throws the box record how much farther and faster you ran compared to the light in the box.

If you ran faster than the light. You are the winner.

I'll swear that in addition to the UFO debunking/denying posters that have a reason to do so, that there are at least two related but innocent areas that also have a a specific function. One revolves around the aircraft topic where breathless posters, fueled by the latest release from the aerospace industry trot out the latest gimmick to keep jet aircraft and rockets in the public's eye.

The other is the frequent coming of the threads that present and discuss (less-than-fact-based) theories and hypotheses on breaking the SOL limit Einstein imposed and some of the attendant "laws" of physics at far lesser velocities.

Up until it was proven wrong, most scientist on the day the first successful heavier-than-air powered flight thought that feat was impossible. Physics, the same used today, clearly shows that such a notion was impossible. Basically, man couldn't flap a set of artificial wings fast enough or strongly enough. Thus, it cannot be done: Humans cannot fly. That was despite the fact that the mechanics of building such a device was possible by the simplest of means. It merely took the dedication of a few people. They took that challenge because whenever they looked at a bird, they saw, plainly, that heavier-than-air vehicles were possible if only the proper techniques were assembled into the correct order. And so, it was done.

Einstein never allowed the idea that an object with no mass could exist. Perhaps if he has associated with Tesla, he would have assumed the laws of physics, though while constant to some degree, could be altered, even broken in a manner of speaking. --Not to say that Tesla knew how to do such, but we can bet he had some idea that he could fashion such a device.

The most evident fact about UFOs is that they defy what we expect of flying objects. That is because they do not "fly." They float. The ignore gravity. Not to suggest that they are anti-gravity. They are not. They simply make themselves immune to what is considered a universal, unalterable effect. UFOs exhibit in their sudden stops, starts and sharp turns at high speed that they are massless, not repelling gravity to allow themselves to merely float above it, but to be entirely massless as required for making sharp-angled maneuvers. Simply avoiding gravity will not allow that capability. Even it the ships could survive such actions, the crews would be blobs on the bulkheads.

Is it so hard for people to accept this principle of propulsion, lift and effortless maneuvering? We are talking about a simple energy field that is made by a small/large/humongous ships to surround itself and give it the capabilities mentioned? Why is that concept so difficult to become a simple, understood manner of motion AND to be greatly sought with R&D? Is there some lock on the imagination in most humans, especially engineers and developers that they cannot and will not discuss this simple solution to the long-hailed limit on interstellar travel?

No. On the one hand with the professionals in the aerospace industry, we can entirely blame the government for not wanting any discussions of such a simple idea to reach the light of day. Government funds, employment and contracts on top of secrecy have a death-grip on such initiatives every coming into the public's knowledge via the usual routes. We know that UFOs fly that way and we have our own secret triangles that prove it. Really, it is a case of the emperor has no clothes. Everybody interested in the subject knows the truth.

The public's perception of what is possible and impossible is the key. And the public's awareness has been deftly tailored to be minimal about the subject. first, we had Sagan with his: "Yes, intelligent life is out there, but so far away that they can never get here (so Einstein says)." Good! Earth is safe, and, thus, those pesky UFOs can't be alien craft. Call them anything but alien craft.

Today, the tables are turning. the era for debunking and denying UFOs is at a near end. Those protestors you frequently find on ATS explaining away every UFO sighting regardless of collaborating evidence are in fewer and fewer in numbers. But some, probably professionals, must do so for the last hand they must play in the game. To allow any plain talk about the means of a massless transmission of material would automatically disallow Einstein’s rule being applied to limit the distance beings could travel in the Universe and possibly be here. Second, triangles making themselves plainly apparent as a new type of UFO must be treated as a UFO, unrecognized as anything indicative of substance. That is because they can never be acknowledged as a secret and new method of domestic locomotion because that automatically allows the aliens in their UFOs to be here too. Clearly, a double Catch-22 for TPTB.

I think we are about another 30 years from faster than light speed. In the Star Trek shows and movies, they had Ion drives. We now have Ion drives as well we are using on satillites. Very interesting time in science and technology.

I've always wondered, if nothing is faster than light, how come light can't overcome the force of a black hole?

I know this is a bit off topic but I dont know where else to ask this and if someone knows of a thread that could explain this to me, you could just leave a link which would be great.


Posted Via ATS Mobile: m.abovetopsecret.com

Originally posted by strafgod
I've always wondered, if nothing is faster than light, how come light can't overcome the force of a black hole?

I know this is a bit off topic but I dont know where else to ask this and if someone knows of a thread that could explain this to me, you could just leave a link which would be great.

 

Posted Via ATS Mobile: m.abovetopsecret.com

 

I suggest reading this book.

A Brief History of Time (subtitled "From the Big Bang to Black Holes") is a popular-science book written by British physicist Stephen Hawking and first published by the Bantam Dell Publishing Group in 1988.[1] It became a best-seller and has sold more than 10 million copies.[2] It was also on the London Sunday Times best-seller list for more than four years.[3]

In brief though, space is curved and folding in around the black hole, so light is still travelling but ending up at the same place.





Should mention the event horizon too:

Around a black hole there is a mathematically defined surface called an event horizon that marks the point of no return. It is called "black" because it absorbs all the light that hits the horizon, reflecting nothing, just like a perfect black body in thermodynamics.[2] Quantum mechanics predicts that black holes emit radiation like a black body with a finite temperature

Link

But yeah, Hawking does a good job in that book breaking the ideas down into something fun to read.

Reply to post by boncho

Thanks boncho ill give it a read, been curious about this for some time now.


Posted Via ATS Mobile: m.abovetopsecret.com

Honestly, I think the "warp" concept is fundamentally flawed. Black holes, for all their gravitational field density, do not seem to generate anything approaching a "warp field." ... I'm skeptical that such a field is possible; or that anything approaching classical motion is possible at faster than light velocities.

However, "there is more than one way to skin a cat." The problem, however, is that we have to understand that there is a 'correct' and 'preferred' reference frame. From there, simultaneity follows with common sense, and FTL through classical or non-classical methods is not going to do ridiculous things like send things back in time (or other fanciful delusions). The universe is "on the same page." ... Of course - interesting in this is that the effect of special relativity is an emergent phenomena of general relativity (that all mass attracts itself and that the phenomena of gravity is limited, for whatever reason, to propagating at the speed of light... which means any object attempting to travel faster than the speed of light will encounter and 'ride' atop its own gravitational attraction, resulting in all documented phenomena of particles moving at relativistic velocities).

However, with the universal frame of reference applied, quantum physics begins to play a critical role. Importantly, here, is Plank's set of constants and limitations. There can only be so much energy contained within a given region of space. At some point, a massive body continually accelerating will reach this limitation, and encounter a "light barrier" (if you will).

Normally, this will result in a burst of Cerenkov radiation with showers of exotic particles (the net reaction being related to the mass, EM emissions, and force attempting to accelerate the mass). However, Spin-Zero particles can tunnel with a net FTL effect. With enough energy applied to those particles upon encountering this barrier - they can tunnel beyond the barrier and continue their journey at sub-luminous velocity.

Applying that to a form suitable for the propulsion of solid matter will require more R&D, however (not to mention the fact that dogmatic interpretations of Special Relativity will have to be overturned by experimentation and a few academic wars before this really starts to appear in any kind of model).

Other ideas are a little more far-flung... because we have such a limited understanding of the physics involved (or just make it all up as a hypothetical to begin with) - but involve such concepts as linking two regions of space to be the same, allowing for an object to briefly exist in two locations before finally preferring one over the other (in spite of locality) as the two regions separate.

While I like that idea, and find it to be more plausible than 'warp' drives... to my knowledge, we've never observed or created such a phenomena, and can only speculate as to how to create one (often requiring technology and/or forces that simply have no precedent).

Which makes much of the speculation merely that. It's fun to think about how it may be done - but we must realize just how limited the tools we have at our disposal are, as well as our understanding of the universe at large.

i mentioned this video to my parents and they looked at me like a nut

This article (about warp-drive) just in (March 12, 2012)...

"The annihilating effects of space travel"
www.physorg.com...

reply to post by JibbyJedi


I can not tell you how glad I am to find an even partial remidy for my somsordial repleneration.

It has been giving my transferintial burm casing a beating since my last fromal lassing to Tralfamidore.

Originally posted by strafgod
I've always wondered, if nothing is faster than light, how come light can't overcome the force of a black hole?

I know this is a bit off topic but I dont know where else to ask this and if someone knows of a thread that could explain this to me, you could just leave a link which would be great.

 

Posted Via ATS Mobile: m.abovetopsecret.com

 

That question alone proves that black holes are idiotic nonsense. Supposedly, nothing, not even light, can escape the gravity well of a black hole. Except when, yeah, it shoots stuff out for hundreds of lightyears, sometimes. Or, maybe, that's not a black hole.

The bleating of the herd called "scientists" will try to drown this out, bleating that it is wrong. However, no one has ever seen a black hole, there is ZERO evidence. It is merely a trick to make their incorrect gravity theories work out.

Crothers has done his historical and mathematical homework and delivered a paper, The Schwarzschild solution and its implications for gravitational waves, at the Conference of the German Physical Society, Munich, March 9-13, 2009. He concludes, inter alia, that: • “Schwarzschild’s solution” is not Schwarzschild’s solution. Schwarzschild’s actual solution does not predict black holes. The quantity ‘r’ appearing in the so-called “Schwarzschild solution” is not a distance of any kind. This simple fact completely subverts all claims for black holes.

• Despite claims for discovery of black holes, nobody has ever found a black hole; no infinitely dense point-mass singularity and no event horizon have ever been found. There is no physical evidence for the existence of infinitely dense point-masses.

• It takes an infinite amount of observer time to verify the presence of an event horizon, but nobody has been and nobody will be around for an infinite amount of time. No observer, no observing instruments, no photons, no matter can be present in a spacetime that by construction contains no matter.

• The black hole is fictitious and so there are no black hole generated gravitational waves. The international search for black holes and their gravitational waves is ill-fated.

• The Michell-Laplace dark body is not a black hole. Newton’s theory of gravitation does not predict black holes. General Relativity does not predict black holes. Black holes were spawned by (incorrect) theory, not by observation. The search for black holes is destined to find none.

• No celestial body has ever been observed to undergo irresistible gravitational collapse. There is no laboratory evidence for irresistible gravitational collapse. Infinitely dense point-mass singularities howsoever formed cannot be reconciled with Special Relativity, i.e. they violate Special Relativity, and therefore violate General Relativity.

• General Relativity cannot account for the simple experimental fact that two fixed bodies will approach one another upon release. There are no known solutions to Einstein’s field equations for two or more masses and there is no existence theorem by which it can even be asserted that his field equations contain latent solutions for such configurations of matter. All claims for black hole interactions are invalid.

• Einstein’s gravitational waves are fictitious; Einstein’s gravitational energy cannot be localised; so the international search for Einstein’s gravitational waves is destined to detect nothing. No gravitational waves have been detected.

• Einstein’s field equations violate the experimentally well-established usual conservation of energy and momentum, and therefore violate the experimental evidence.

www.holoscience.com...