We have moved to new forum software and posting here is closed!

PLEASE BOOKMARK THE NEW FORUMS

Posted By: Aeawyn Feb 12, 2005 - 06:18 pm

question in title. Supposedly if we can hit that we can travel through time. It's been proven that the faster you go the slower time goes (Aircraft carried clock...at the end it was like .00001 off of the clock that had stayed on the ground.)

Posted By: Magus Feb 12, 2005 - 06:47 pm

Who knows? If so then I'm positive it won't be anytime soon.

Posted By: Aeawyn Feb 13, 2005 - 07:56 am

w00t for the activity of this post.


Yeah, i think we will, just not anytime soon. God, i wish I could live longer than humans are suppose to, we are just hitting a gigantic burst in space, i want to see it all! of, course, im only [Age Disclosure Removed. Magus], but still, I think most of us will be dead when/if any of our wild dreams come true.

Posted By: Magus Feb 13, 2005 - 08:21 am

Yeah. That'll very likely be the case.

And, remember Aeawyn, it's the weekend. This site dies on the weekend and is reborn on Monday.

Posted By: Aldan Feb 13, 2005 - 10:05 am

It comes up out of the grave like a zombie... scratching and clawing its way to the surface of our minds and moaning its cries to the world...

I believe that if it's possible, it wil require a breakthrough, and breakthroughs can only be guessed at when speaking of something like this...

Posted By: Hyperion Feb 14, 2005 - 08:36 am

Hey Great Question and topic for debate

I don't think we will ever get passed light speed, as in going faster than light...

BUT I do have high hopes and also faith in the Human spirit as far as finding other ways to overcome the light speed obstacle..

I have faith in use going around the light speed barrier, or under it what-ever the case may be..

Tunneling through space, via rips in space time, or dimensional travel...

One day if the species lives long enough, I have the feeling we will overcome

Regards Hyperion

Posted By: Aeawyn Feb 14, 2005 - 06:45 pm

ah, your not aloud to post your age magus? Or are you just saving me from myself

Posted By: Magus Feb 15, 2005 - 12:09 pm

You're not supposed to post your age. It's site policy.

Posted By: gnollslayer Feb 15, 2005 - 01:28 pm

The light speed barrier will be broken. No doubt about it.

Posted By: Magus Feb 15, 2005 - 02:56 pm

Yay for attempting to go faster then 3.00 X 10 to the seventeenth power meters per second!

In case you couldn't tell, I had a Chemistry test today relating to light...

Posted By: Axzazz De`Nyde Feb 15, 2005 - 04:57 pm

hmm...

Something reflective with relatively high mass is moving at less than, but near, lightspeed. A photon, traveling at lightspeed, hits the something and bounces off. It's a head-on collision. If the photon reflects and continues traveling at lightspeed, (because it can't exceed the lightspeed limit) then none of the greater momentum of the massive object is transferred to the photon, thus the object doesn't slow down at all, despite having been in a head-on collision.

But that would negate the concept of solar sails, (at least using them to decelerate). If solar sails do function, if they do decelerate the object, then some of the momentum of the object must be transferred to the reflected photons, which must therefore either travel faster than lightspeed (impossible)...or gain mass (because the formula is momentum = mass * acceleration, right?).

So, if a solar sail can decelerate an object, then either it is possible (at least for photons) to exceed the speed of light, or else there are abnormally massive photons zinging around. If I understand correctly, it is impossible to exceed the speed of light, therefore, the 'massive photon' solution must be correct.

Take a bunch of these massive photons and bounce them back and forth off of things until they're extremely massive. Now shoot them at a ship equipped with a solar sail which is less massive than the photons. They should transfer their excess mass to the ship in the form of energy, right? Thereby accelerating it to the speed of light and then, since it can't exceed the speed of light, adding to its mass, making it supermassive. Perhaps so massive that it bends (aka warps) space-time, thereby pulling its destination towards itself even as it travels. Assuming the ship is now travelling at lightspeed, and the destination is being pulled toward the ship at some speed 's', then the ship is effectively traveling at c+s, right?

*blink*

Posted By: Magus Feb 15, 2005 - 05:57 pm

...Ummmm... yes... I followed that well enough...

Posted By: Aeawyn Feb 24, 2005 - 04:28 pm

the formula for momentum is mass times speed. or m x v.

other than that, it sounds like a good idea..im in physics now and learning about all this crap. I dont know what c+s is though.

But yes, the ship would need some kind of boost because mass gets greater the faster you go.

Posted By: aldan Feb 24, 2005 - 07:26 pm

Do you know why speed is represented by 'v'? Speed in physics is actually velocity.

Posted By: Aeawyn Feb 25, 2005 - 03:13 pm

velocity is speed with a direction. "v" isnt the actual sign its v with a swirve on the left...upper slash thingy.


Are you asking a question...or informing me... I cant tell.

Posted By: aldan Feb 25, 2005 - 10:06 pm

It wasn't directed, it was general info, essplaining your terminology.

Posted By: Magus Feb 26, 2005 - 06:48 am

Essplaining, Aldan?

Please...

Posted By: alpheios Mar 15, 2005 - 01:44 pm

well

Posted By: Aeawyn Mar 16, 2005 - 04:34 pm

yes

Posted By: Aeawyn Mar 16, 2005 - 04:35 pm

oh yeah! I sent this to my friend who is really interested in this type of stuff. here is his response to Axzazz.

"The assumption of a large mass moving at
"near, lightspeed" struck me as just that...a large assumption, much like
the "how to become a millionaire" joke. It leaves out a major detail...how
do you achieve that near lightspeed mass in the first place? But, assuming
that, why does it matter that it be a "reflective" mass? He assumes the
photon will "reflect", but doesn't see that as a change in speed? I see it
as an immensely significant change in speed, one netting twice the speed of
light relative to it's original line of travel.

I assume a photon is a photon only if it travels at the speed of light. If
it travels at any other speed, is it still a photon? Isn't momentum transfer
evidenced by the radical change of direction itself of the photon? WHAT MORE
DO THEY WANT LORD!?

And, as we know from practical application of astronomical telescopes, no
object is perfectly reflective. We manage only 99.?% reflection of any
wavelength under the best of circumstances. What of the rest? It becomes
another form of energy does it not? Say perhaps "HEAT!"? So whether the
massive object is very reflective or relatively non-reflective, some light
will reflect and some will transfer to other energy. I can show you an
elegantly simple demonstration of that, although you've probably already
seen it.

No, the concept of solar sails isn't negated, because the premise is,
well... incomplete. Batting a photon back at it's source at the speed of
light is no small thing (unless you're trying to measure it). (Catching one
in your eye is pretty cool too). You miss a few and, either way, energy is
transferred. Is not the reflected photon traveling at twice the speed of
light relative to its original line of travel (from the perspective of the
proposed massive object), while from its own perspective it's simply doing
what photons do, traveling at the speed of light? Faster than lightspeed?
That depends upon your perspective in a relative universe. I suggest to your
friend that he/she rethink his/hers. Either step farther outside the box or
get a bigger one. Both work.

I'm impressed with the reasoning of your friend's analysis. Pretty
sophisticated for only a few years contemplation. I suspect further
consideration might reveal that travel at even near the speed of light would
prove too "dense".

Consider this: If all speed is relative, what then does really count? The
book I gave you provides an adequate explanation of the answer. I had the
ring of accuracy to me. And, that is the base key to your friend's
mass/momentum trade quandary...in my less than humble opinion. I could be
wrong and would enjoy being proven just that. Oh, also, I apologize for the
Socratic habit of asking questions rather than answering them."

Posted By: alpheios Mar 24, 2005 - 10:55 am

Hmmmm well if somebody achieves that it will sure be in distant future. And most important of all; the ones who will be achieving that would be machines rather than humans. We already have been beaten out in the two categories by the machines : Most quickly calculating and the biggest amount of data analysis. What has left to us are the bigger imagination and the feelings by heart. Although superior organisms (or machines) who will be achieving that may exist in the future; i think they would hardly remind of the human beings of today.