# Faster than light. FTL. 38 replies

jackripped

People say I post too much

50 XP

2nd December 2009

1,430 Posts

#31 10 years ago

Yea but if you can actually fold the fabric of space, so to speak, and bring to points together in time, from a long distance away, one would assume you have just ripped a hole in time, how is that possible at all ? We understand time to travel in one direction, farward. If you did fold space , does that mean you can only fold space moving away from the centre of the universe ? Another unusual question is this, if you rip space time, the fabric itself, does that open up a realm of universe we havent seen that does not have the same laws of physic's binding our atoms together ? Possibly even outside our universe so to speak.

What if lightspeed, is just that, a speed.

How is it not questionable, that an object thats is pushed to light speed by man made thrust, only requires infinite energy when it gets to light speed, when it doesnt require anywhere near infinite amounts of energy to get it almost to light speed ? And what of different masses , one object with rest mass of 1kg will require less energy to get to light speed than a 2kg rest mass object, how does that work just before light speed and at lightspeed ? How can the mass majicly dissapear on the 2kg one ? Or how did the 1kg one gain mass ? They must require different amounts of energy to get to almost the speed of light according to e=mc². And why is it assumed it will require infinite energy to keep an object at or above light speed ? go for it nec. Doesnt really make sence when e-mc² tells us two different stories like that ?

I am a mean boss ⬆️⬆️⬇️⬇️⬅️➡️⬅️➡️??

184,643 XP

6th April 2000

14,592 Posts

#32 10 years ago

With our current understanding of the universe it cannot be done. But, we're still just on our home planet without the level of technology to leave our solar system. I think perhaps in the future it will be possible. I do not believe that they will try to accelerate to FTL to gain the speed needed to travel the stars efficiently.

What about Einstein's theory on folding space/time? While it's still a theory, perhaps it could be studied more and used as a method to travel great distances in a short period of time. To those that laugh that off and think I've been watching too much star trek, they probably said the same thing back in the 60's and 70's about personal computers sitting on someone's desk or communication devices that can fit in your pocket. While the comparison is like apples to apple trees, I believe I made my point.

Product Manager | GameFront.com

Mr. Pedantic

I would die without GF

234,620 XP

8th October 2006

23,127 Posts

#33 10 years ago
when it doesnt require anywhere near infinite amounts of energy to get it almost to light speed ?

It depends on how close to light speed you want to get.

And what of different masses , one object with rest mass of 1kg will require less energy to get to light speed than a 2kg rest mass object, how does that work just before light speed and at lightspeed ?

The thing about the infinite energy means that neither object could be accelerated to c full stop, therefore it's a moot point arguing which one requires more energy to accelerate to that speed. But unless I am very greatly mistaken, the 2kg rest mass object will always require more energy to accelerate to a given velocity than the 1kg rest mass object.

How can the mass majicly dissapear on the 2kg one ?

You tell me. Where does mass magically disappear? It's better to think of infinity as a concept rather than as a number. You can have different sizes of infinity, so to speak. For example, there are an infinite number of points inside a circle. However, if you inscribe a square around the circle so that the sides touch the circumference of the circle, then you get a square whose surface area is larger than the surface area of the circle. Inside the square you will get an infinite amount of points. However, the amount of points inside the square is "more" (so to speak) than the amount of points inside the circle. Both values are infinite, but one is clearly "more" than the other.

How can the mass majicly dissapear on the 2kg one ? Or how did the 1kg one gain mass ? They must require different amounts of energy to get to almost the speed of light according to e=mc². And why is it assumed it will require infinite energy to keep an object at or above light speed ? go for it nec. Doesnt really make sence when e-mc² tells us two different stories like that ?

The equation to determine relativistic mass is this:

So as the velocity of the object increases so does the mass. As far as I can remember the extra mass comes from the energy required to accelerate the body, as it accelerates more, an increasingly greater proportion of the energy is used to increase mass rather than speed.

shaken - not stirred

50 XP

9th June 2009

8,262 Posts

#34 10 years ago

Well, in theory, at the Big Bang, the four forces (Gravity, Electromagnetism, Strong Nuclear and Weak Nuclear) were one superforce. The massive explosion and decay of the superforce lead to the faster-than-light expansion of the universe that will one day rip apart. If one were to somehow "recreate" that superforce in a small area surrounding a ship, faster-than-light travel might be possible.

But wormhole travel seems easier, to me.

Showd0wN

Skeptic Extraordinaire.

50 XP

7th February 2009

1,253 Posts

#35 10 years ago
If one were to somehow "recreate" that superforce in a small area surrounding a ship, faster-than-light travel might be possible

Wha?

AlDaja

SFC III Troubleshooter.

50 XP

5th September 2006

11,263 Posts

#36 10 years ago
necrosect;5190218Wha?

yeah...I don't get it either. Me thinks you lost your train of thought there Bounce.=p

Guest

I didn't make it!

0 XP

#37 10 years ago
n0e;5183378 What about Einstein's theory on folding space/time? While it's still a theory, perhaps it could be studied more and used as a method to travel great distances in a short period of time. To those that laugh that off and think I've been watching too much star trek, they probably said the same thing back in the 60's and 70's about personal computers sitting on someone's desk or communication devices that can fit in your pocket. While the comparison is like apples to apple trees, I believe I made my point.

shaken - not stirred

50 XP

9th June 2009

8,262 Posts

#38 10 years ago

I have a tendency to ramble and get carried away. And, it could be possible.

Mr. Pedantic

I would die without GF

234,620 XP

8th October 2006