Visit our Popular Forums

Therapy · 27-10-2008, 17:49

I would like to put my name on the list (first, like before, for those who may not already know or have forgotten) for a free STAR CRUISER.
Say in the 8-2100 foot range.

Something reasonably fast but comfortable.

Not too plush as I don't mind simplicity and plain looks as long as all systems are A-OK and easy to access/work on.

Thanks.

anotherT34C · 27-10-2008, 17:52

Quote:

Peoples views of what can be accomplished are much different now than 50 + yeares ago, and although there is definately much to thank science for there are those who while the scientist argue and study simply go and do. Maybe they were never told they couldn't do it or maybe they just got lucky, but advancements come in leaps brought on by slow periods of study.
It will be done my friends, Some day someone will find the way to exceed the speed of light and perhaps, just perhaps the government already knows how but doesn't want to tell us about the alien technology they have reverse engenered.
If you study crossing the field you will never get there unless you believe you can and intend to prove it.
__________________

Mmm, I'm just trying to underline how exceeding the speed of light is a problem with the fundamental laws of the universe, rather than an engineering problem.

Interestingly, you don't really need to exceed lightspeed to travel great distances in your lifetime. As you approach the speed of light through space, your speed through time 'slows down' accordingly. There is really no limit on how far you can travel in your lifetime, as long as you can get ever closer to lightspeed (relative to the planets or whatever). What you see as a fast traveller, is that the distance magically shrinks. In that sense, interstellar travel is reduced to an engineering problem (albeit a doozy).

On a related note; Had we continued the Orion project in the 60's, we would probably just now have the first interstellar craft approaching the nearby stars. Too bad. It breaks the heart to watch the old tapes of Carl Sagan rolling out the Orion stardrive plans, and excitedly explaining how we can get to Alpha Centauri in 50 years.

First Mate · 27-10-2008, 18:06

"

Quote:

Originally Posted by David_Old_Jersey

That's not a good poll

I want to see who has been "probed"

(I bet they are Multihullers - would explain a lot).

"

I want to see how many replies can be posted to the average thread before SOMEONE brings up the old hack of multi versus mono hulls!

We all know multi hulls are superior...really! Just let it lie. It's such a worn out subject. Quit hi-jacking legitimate serious threads with this subject ;=>

But back to the intent of the thread:

Me, I want to be among the first to terra farm Mars, but I think I was born 150 years too soon.

Dave the Canuck · 27-10-2008, 18:39

When it's late at night and I'm on the bow deck, looking at the Milky Way, I understand that I can't comprehend billions of years.(Might be the rum). I also understand that I can't comprehend billions of miles. (Might be the rum). But looking into the universe, I believe that it's only vanity that allows some to say that we're alone in this immenseness. They must be out there. However, I doubt that they're doing the UFO equivelent of wheelies through the atmosphere.

MidLandOne · 27-10-2008, 18:50

Shu - One needs to keep in mind that it is very unusual for a widely proven theory of physics to be later proven to be wrong (in fact, off hand I cannot think of any) but that does not preclude that they cannot be incrementally improved without disproving the originally proven theory.

A commonly given example is the Laws of Newton which have never been proven to be wrong even though Einstein (with the help of others both before and after him) came along and showed that they were not exact when relativistic effects became involved. But no one has, or ever will, prove that the force required to accelerate a mass is not proportional in some way to the rate of acceleration of the mass - however, there may be ways of circumventing that if one finds a way of giving the same effect as velocity without accelerating the mass to get it to that velocity or indeed arriving at any velocity at all.

By way of an example, from any point in space due to the accelerating inflation of space, galaxies far away seem to us (if we could see them) to be travelling at greater than the speed of light. But this does not contravene relativity because in fact in space they are barely moving away from each other at all - they only appear to us to be doing so because space is inflating in a time space manner. Einstein does not prohibit space from expanding in this way such that galaxies are moving away from each other at a speed greater than that of light, he only talks about motion against this inflation. This leads to, and I alluded to this earlier, a cosmic horizon beyond which we can never see nor be seen from as they are too far apart for light to have travelled between them since the time of the big bang.

So, after that tiresome stuff, it would seem that the speed of light is unlikely to be able to be exceeded in the sense which we normally speak eg starting from earth and accelerating a spaceship up to and beyond the speed of light. But it does not preclude the possibilies of ways in which it appears that we are exceeding the speed of light (as do the galaxies in inflating space), but in fact are not. For example, "short cuts" through space (and time) may be possible and one such way that has been hypothesised is via "wormholes" which utilise a path which only exists in the space that is about us at its ends.

That is only one of a number of hypotheses (maybe far fetched, maybe not) and is open to proof or disproof, but that is different to Einstein's relativity which has been proven and is only open to incremental refinement just as the Laws of Newton have been. For example, relativity does not appear to apply at the quantum level which infers an area of missing understanding. I don't think anyone really claims that when that understanding is reached and proved that it will do anything other than just incrementally improve on Einstein and/or on quantum theory.

So it would seem to me that the speed of light, in the way we perceive travel from A to B in a route through our space, is very unlikely to be able to be exceeded. But that does not necessarily preclude the possibility of giving the impression of travelling faster than the speed of light in going from A to B by another route.

Beam me up, Scotty!

Therapy · 27-10-2008, 19:07

Quote:

Originally Posted by MidLandOne

So it would seem to me that the speed of light, in the way we perceive travel from A to B in a route through our space, is very unlikely to be able to be exceeded. But that does not necessarily preclude the possibility of giving the impression of travelling faster than the speed of light in going from A to B by another route.

Beam me up, Scotty!

Heavy stuff.

I have never done drugs so I have not had that impression............

Shu · 27-10-2008, 20:04

I am not trying to disprove anyone's theories or say that science is wrong about anything. However I do truly feel that the speed of light will be exceeded some day. We may never live to see it but it will happen. You have stated yourself you do not have to disprove a theory to accomplish something before believed to be impossible but rather improve the theory through corrections or "New Information" of sorts.
I can promise you this though, if science holds the belife that it cannot be done, they will never do it! Before you can accomplish anything you must seriously believe it CAN be done, then fully intend to do it. If you say you can't, then you can't.

**David M** · 27-10-2008, 20:07

I still dont see how something with mass is going to be accelerated to the speed of light if it takes infinite energy. Not that it can't be done someday..somehow.

anotherT34C · 27-10-2008, 21:09

Quote:

Originally Posted by MidLandOne

...That is only one of a number of hypotheses (maybe far fetched, maybe not) and is open to proof or disproof, but that is different to Einstein's relativity which has been proven and is only open to incremental refinement just as the Laws of Newton have been. For example, relativity does not appear to apply at the quantum level which infers an area of missing understanding. I don't think anyone really claims that when that understanding is reached and proved that it will do anything other than just incrementally improve on Einstein and/or on quantum theory.

So it would seem to me that the speed of light, in the way we perceive travel from A to B in a route through our space, is very unlikely to be able to be exceeded. But that does not necessarily preclude the possibility of giving the impression of travelling faster than the speed of light in going from A to B by another route.

Beam me up, Scotty!

I wouldn't put my money on macroscopic wormholes, but your best hope for a 'warp drive' is probably as you say, in manipulating expansion. There's a big hole in physics at the corner of Relativity and QM, as you say. The layman's jist is when you combine the fundamental constants to give you a length, this is a minimum defineable length. Relativity claims no lengths are definable in principle. So which of the constants isn't a constant? c, h, or G? The best money is probably on G, which is exactly the one you want non-constant if your goal is warp drive.

Of course, c could be wavelength dependent in extrema. I was hoping for this one myself. I'd trade warp-drive for a Nobel Prize.

mangomuffins · 27-10-2008, 21:18

Quote:

Originally Posted by anotherT34C

It's not friction that stops you, it's the way the laws of nature are set up. Strictly speaking, space plus time are in a combined geometry, and the unchangeable 'velocity' of every object through that four dimensional space is exactly the speed of light. You can never go faster or slower than the speed of light. In physics-speak, you can only 'boost', trading some of one for another. Faster through space equals slower through time, and vice versa.

hmm... really?

[physics/0009023] Experimental Evidence of Near-field Superluminally Propagating Electromagnetic Fields

mm

MidLandOne · 27-10-2008, 21:29

Quote:

Originally Posted by mangomuffins

hmm... really?

[physics/0009023] Experimental Evidence of Near-field Superluminally Propagating Electromagnetic Fields

mm

Without any need to investigate the veracity of his "Experimental Evidence" (so not proven), for what has been said here it is important to note that electromagnetic fields have no mass to accelerate so are not "objects". They are a fundamental force in the same way as gravity is a fundamental force.

There is a Nobel prize waiting for the person who fully explains the nature of either

.

anotherT34C · 27-10-2008, 22:31

It's a common misconception to think "nothing can go faster than the speed of light". Lots of ethereal phenomena can and do. A simple example is a laser-dot. The 'speed' of the dot is proportional to the distance from the source. Make the distance large enough, and the dot goes faster than the speed of light.

It's more proper to say; nothing with mass can go at or exceed the speed of light. This isn't even completely proper, because you can well violate this as long as you do it and then make it up before it can be detected (no joke).

As for William's paper, he seems to want to claim that EM fields propogate faster than light in the near field, then reduce to lightspeed when measured. I'm skeptical of his use of truncated series in what should be analytical work (not uncommon practice for an engineer), and also the fact that an eight year old paper was never submitted (AFAIK) for review. However, nothing he claims violates any physics as far as I can see from a cursory reading.

Just like you cannot manipulate a passing superluminal laser-dot to send information faster than light, you cannot manipulate near-field 'signals' to communicate superluminally, even if they did so (which I doubt).

**Ex-Calif** · 28-10-2008, 01:24

I am totally curious about the 6 members that were probed but I am too afraid to ask...

RickD · 28-10-2008, 07:00

I used to be the Forum Administrator for the Anomalies Network. Lots of stories over there about UFOs, Bigfoot, Conspiracy theories and a lot of other strange things.