# Faster than light. FTL. 38 replies

jackripped

People say I post too much

50 XP

1st December 2009

1,430 Posts

#1 11 years ago

Human scientists mostly agree time started with thebig bang, and they mostly agree light is the fastest 'thing' measureable. They agree that time and light are connected. Via the big bang through its creation. They agree that no partical with rest mass can be moved to a speed greater than that of light in a vacuum. But are humans correct ? Putting all the actual science we have asside, thinking slightly outside the box of norm, what do you people think ? A poll for your enjoyment.

Junk angel

Huh, sound?

166,880 XP

28th January 2007

15,678 Posts

#2 11 years ago

Technically FTL is possibly by the equations. The problem is lightspeed itself. If I remember the equation correctly, the closer you get to lightspeed the closer your mass comes to infinite, reaching this once you yourself hit lightspeed. aka barring acceleration.

The thing is, that the moment you get past the speed of light, your mass instead becomes negative and one would assume that you are able to accelerate once more with negative mass.

Not to mention that there are ways to get particles that move at the speed of light to get to 3xtimes or 4xtimes the speed.

Showd0wN

Skeptic Extraordinaire.

50 XP

7th February 2009

1,253 Posts

#3 11 years ago
Human scientists mostly agree time started with thebig bang

No, this really isn't true at all.

They agree that no partical with rest mass can be moved to a speed greater than that of light in a vacuum.

particle, but yes, greater than or equal to. Also all massless particles travel at the speed of light when free.

Putting all the actual science we have asside,

Errr... yeah so if we just ignore science what is my opinion on a matter of science? Not a lot I guess. It would just be a guess, a stab in the dark without some attempt to test it.

and @Junk Angel - I imagine you're referring to the "negative square-root" behavior in the special relativity equations, or early-tachyonic behavior. There are other "equations" that actual do block this behavior. And even if it were to not be blocked, the behavior would not be to be "able to accelerate once more with negative mass", you would naturally accelerate away from the speed of light, much like things on this side of the line decelerate away from. But in anycase, this is just speculation on a behavior based on equations that specifically restrict that behavior, just thought you'd like to know :)

I would recommend having a look at "Faster than the speed of light" by Prof. Joao Magueijo, while the topic is more on "variable speed of light" it does give some ground level discussion to faster than light theories.

[COLOR="Magenta"]necro xx[/COLOR]

shaken - not stirred

50 XP

8th June 2009

8,262 Posts

#4 11 years ago

If you travel at light speed, you require an infinite ammount of energy. It just isn't possible. Yet.

Yannick

A psychedelic experience.

50 XP

16th April 2004

10,644 Posts

#5 11 years ago

From what we know it is not yet possible to accelerate normal matter to c and beyond.

However, being constrained by normal matter is becoming a thing of the past.

Yannick

A psychedelic experience.

50 XP

16th April 2004

10,644 Posts

#6 11 years ago

From what we know it is not yet possible to accelerate normal matter to c and beyond.

However, being constrained by normal matter is becoming a thing of the past.

Junk angel

Huh, sound?

166,880 XP

28th January 2007

15,678 Posts

#7 11 years ago
and @Junk Angel - I imagine you're referring to the "negative square-root" behavior in the special relativity equations, or early-tachyonic behavior. There are other "equations" that actual do block this behavior. And even if it were to not be blocked, the behavior would not be to be "able to accelerate once more with negative mass", you would naturally accelerate away from the speed of light, much like things on this side of the line decelerate away from. But in anycase, this is just speculation on a behavior based on equations that specifically restrict that behavior, just thought you'd like to know

Ah I thought it was just the extended uh acceleration? Speed? No idea right now. Ah this seems to be it Though looking at the wikki there seem to be two modern views, which we never did at physics. (Having a guy who thought future kindergarten uh teachers? is not good for physics :P)

Voice of joy and sunshine

299,207 XP

26th May 2003

28,209 Posts

#8 11 years ago

The sciencey folks tell me it can't be done; I might be tempted to reply that the laws of physics are the same when measured from within any inertial frame of reference with respect to the measuring device. But since I don't have the years required, or any practical use, for an education in physics I just take it on faith that's not so and relativity holds.

emonkies

I'm too cool to Post

50 XP

16th July 2003

15,096 Posts

#9 11 years ago

IMHO I dont think we will ever develop FTL drives.

I do think it will be possible to build Jumpgates, something similar to a wormhole that possibly travels through a different dimension then re emerges in our space and time.

Whiteshield

No retreat, No surrender!

50 XP

20th April 2008