Light Speed And Beyond

[evecolonycamander]

I have a theory on the true speed limit of the observed universe. my theory is that because time slows down for a traveling object the the faster is is moving, wouldn't that mean that by surpassing the speed of light the object would then have started to travel back through time?


another one of my ideas is how to achieve this. assuming we could, by making multiple(thousands if not more) black holes in front of some kind of starship wouldn't it be possible to begin traveling at the Speed of Light and then faster due to the intense gravity being created in front of the starship.


the traveling starship would appear to an outside observer to disappear once it reaches above thee speed of light. this would be due to the fact that it no longer exists it that time frame as it has begun backwards time travel.


to an on board observer the outside universe would appear as if some one had hit the rewind option

[Hidiot]

Everything you wrote here is either Einstein's theory of relativity or well-known theories based on that theory.

Maybe except the black holes thing. To which I have to say: Creating black holes just for super speeds? Not only do you risk not achieving desired speeds before the black holes tear your craft apart, but you also create an astronomical disaster to do it.

Once you achieve the supposed time-travel speed, how fast do you expect to travel backwards? And for how long? Where is your ship located spatially during the journey? How do you make sure you avoid ANY collision strong enough to slow your ship back to forward-progressing time or destroy the craft?


Also, how sure are we that the theory of relativity holds true? What if it doesn't hold true in its current form for speeds above 3*10^8?

Lastly, this topic probably belongs in the "Debates" sub-forum

[Spikerocks101]

The only way to go back in time is to spin the earth backwards. Don't worry, I'm an expert, I watched Superman

[TH300]

Only problem is that nothing (we know) can travel with a speed faster than lightspeed. And if traveling faster than light means traveling back in time, that makes it even more unlikely, because traveling back in time would lead to paradoxes and is hence probably impossible.

However if time is not linear, there are possibly other options. And as far as I know, nobody yet found out the topological structure of space-time. I.e. nobody really knows.

[Sirbomber]

Faster than the speed of light?  What is this crap?

To travel through time you only need to be going 88 MPH.

[Hooman]

I'm travelling through time. Forwards.


ECC: I think you're missing some important points in the theory about why you can't go faster than the speed of light, and comming up with odd ways, such as black holes to accelerate you, isn't going to overcome that. From what little I've read about this stuff, getting ordinary matter to the speed of light would take an infinite amount of energy. Hence, you can only approach it, never reach it, and certainly not exceed it. The concept of going backwards in time due to speed seems mostly nonsensical.

This is perhaps somewhat like looking at a graph of 1/x for positive values of x. (The real equations are somewhat more complicated and this analogy does not extend to negative values of x, so don't even try). Imagine x is speed, and y is time. As x gets large, y gets smaller and smaller, but it never reaches 0, and never croses the x-axis. It doesn't matter what crazy scheme you come up with to find really large x-values, y-will never reach 0, and it will never go negative.
 

[Simpsonboy77]

Actually there are particles that are theorized to travel faster than the speed of light. They are called tachyons.

The reason you can't accelerate to the speed of light is mathematically because of the lorentz factor. Basically the faster the object moves, the more massive it becomes. The more massive it becomes the harder it is to accelerate. If you take the limit of this as velocity approaches c, you get infinity.

In your black hole thought experiment you are confusing frames of reference. Just because something appears to happen, doesn't mean it immediately occurred. When we see a supernova, it could very well have been millions of years ago. Lets do a thought experiment.

Assume we have a spaceship that can withstand the gravitational forces of a black hole. We have the spacecraft, a black hole, and an outside observer.  The spacecraft then begins to fly towards the black hole.

To the outside observer time is normal, but if he could see the clocks inside the spacecraft, they would begin to move slower. The spacecraft would also get dimmer as less light will make it back to the observer. The spacecraft would approach the event horizon, but NEVER cross it. Think, once inside the event horizon no light can escape. From this perspective the spacecraft appear to slow down.

From the spacecraft's point of view, everything around him (like looking out to the universe) would appear to speed up. Everything would become brighter. At the moment of crossing the event horizon they would experience a radiation flash. They would see the end of the universe, but its not looking into the future, to his perspective it is occurring (due to the massive time slowing).


Actually the special theory of relativity holds true for FTL (faster than light) travel. It only has a problem with something with rest mass accelerating to the speed of light, or something moving FTL decelerating to the speed of light.

[evecolonycamander]

no, no. A micro black hole will dissipate extremely fast. they can be created using atom smashers. now if you produce allot of very small atom smashers and keep producing micro black holes in front of the ship we will get a constant gravity source that can be controlled. it would pull the ship forward at a high acceleration rate



note: i was tired when i wrote this so it may not be completely lucid

[Hooman]

Here's an odd thought. If you are accelerating towards a large object, and that large object suddenly disappears from existance, would the acceleration you obtained from that object existing also disappear with it? But this is perhaps completely nonsensical to even think about.

I've heard of particles that people believed travel faster than light, but I'm not sure how reliable I considered the info to be. Even if it was stated by someone with credentials, it still might be wrong, or it still might only have been a theoretical musing that may not have been backed by any real world observations. I remain skeptical. Actually, I'm skeptical about a lot of physics. It seems like a lot of it is a bunch of cool ideas that simply haven't been proven false, more so than ideas that accurately describe real world observations. But hey, I'm sort of an ivory tower person, so it's still interesting. I'm just skeptical of it.
 

[evecolonycamander]

the only way you would lose the momentum gained is if another object was pulling you in the opposite direction

[TH300]

Nothing can vanish instantly. It has to go somewhere and thus requires movement which is continuous. However, the movement can still be so fast that the attracted object cannot follow. (as I think about it, there is also the possibility of transformation of matter into energy)

But if an object is no longer accelerated that doesn't mean it stops to move (unless it crashes against some massive wall). It doesn't even slow down, if its not influenced by friction or other gravity sources.

[evecolonycamander]

so basically what i said...

[Simpsonboy77]

ECC I'm not arguing the point that you can't accelerate it with black holes (in theory). I'm saying you can't accelerate to equal or exceed the speed of light.

Hooman, I don't quite understand what you are talking about. If you accelerate to a black hole because of it, and somehow the black hole vanishes, I would think you would stop accelerating, but you would still maintain your speed. I agree with TH300 in his response.


Are you considering something like an Alcubierre drive to be faster than light? I guess this COULD be made from mini black holes, if you have the same space-time warp both in the forward and aft parts of the spacecraft.

[Hooman]

Psst. CK9 isn't in this thread.


The idea was nonsensicle because matter can't just disappear. But, if it could, would the act of making it disappear someone cause energy shifts in it's vicinity, which would negate previous acceleration? It's like the gravity analogy of a planet sitting on a big sheet and bending it. If the planet suddenly disappeared, would there be a ripple effect outward as the sheet unbends? Sure, if it just disappeared, and space is perfectly 3D as we normally think of it, I would assume the acceleration of the nearby object would just go to 0, and it would keep moving at it's present speed. But if the act of removing the matter from the universe necessarily had secondary effects, might one of them be to reclaim the energy imparted on other objects in the form of acceleration, much like a ripple effect outward as the object disappears? But again, this is nonsensical to talk about, since matter doesn't just disappear. Just sort of an odd thought that popped to mind. Absolutely no basis in reality whatsoever.
 

[evecolonycamander]

IF you could make instantaneous transfers of matter and energy matter you could test this. my idea of what would happen in that situation is that because quasars/BH's warp time/space around them you would possible have one of two things happen
Case 1.) Inside view: You stop gaining velocity. Nothing else happens
Outside view: Nothing happens
Case 2.) Inside view: You lose more then half of your velocity instantly due to a "rubber-band" effect. Time and space snap back and space moves; Therefore you move with space
Outside view: ship slows down extremely fast or even gos in reverse for a period of time

[Zardox Xheonov]

Hey I know of a true fact that happens every so often and almost nobody knows of it:

The truth behind the bermuda triangle:

You see, it has to do with the earth's magnetic field reacting to the tons of lead near that region, and more than likely other factors/variables...
The ressult: A WORM HOLE

(Yes it has happened before  and will happen again)
Though scientists are still trying to figure out how to artificially recreated this event that happens every so often)

Though the only reason why it has not gone news could be becuase only few scientist have tested it and they need more results (which seems logical) becuase without a moderate amount of supporting scientists it will not likely become public news.....

[Simpsonboy77]

Psst. CK9 isn't in this thread.

Fail on my part. Edited it to make sense.

You make an interesting point if space-time has "mass". What would cause the dampening? If there is no dampening it would oscillate forever, and then you could make a resonant system and cause really strange effects.

ECC and LOP are your theories something you read, or your own ideas? I don't mean this condescendingly because I'm actually interested in the "rubber band effect".

LoP I was surprised to see how many google search results 'wormhole bermuda triangle' gave me. I highly disagree with plenty of it. First why is water never sucked into this wormhole? Why are not all like airplanes, boats and other things sucked in? When only a few scientists support a theory, its usually because its not true. There are still some people who think they can make a working perpetual motion machine.

Then there are other questions such as why is it only in this place does it occur? There are places that have lots of lead in close vicinity, but don't experience it. As much as I want to talk about the bermuda triangle, its off topic. If you want make a new thread, I'll reply in it.

[evecolonycamander]

There are still some people who think they can make a working perpetual motion machine.

or has one. but that's a different argument

ECC and LOP are your theories something you read, or your own ideas? I don't mean this condescendingly because I'm actually interested in the "rubber band effect".

in my case it is all my own, built from years of looking at science in a different perspective

[Freeza-CII]

hehe another science experiment gone wrong again.

wormholes some are so willing to believe they are real when no one can really prove they are. The opposite is also true since its possible they can exsist.  So I stand by to wait till some one says yes they are or no they arent that actually has been in the field of research for years or hawking.  But i only want him to call me and say pancakes.  

Burmuda triangle the oregan vortex blah blah blah.  All have been supected of aliens government coverup and other such graphical ideas of lunacy.  Till some one can show what is exactly causing more planes and boats to dissapear here then other places other then the fact that it has alot of traffic so its bound to have more accidents. Then I am unwilling to accept that there is a black hole wormhole or substandard housing complexes made by atlantis at the middle of the triangle.  

And I am sure some of you are aware that scientists work much like political parties.  you have this one saying this this one saying that and the third parties spouting all crazy s*** to get attention and then bob in the corner with the tin foil hat speaking gibberish about the cias lunch menu being to spicy.  Seek the truth not the group that thinks there right.

[CK9]

wormholes have been prven true on the quantum level (via particles somehow traveling faster than light through a solid meddium), however they are thought to be impossible on a scale large enough to be useable.

edit: psst, I'm in this thread now

[Zardox Xheonov]

There are still some people who think they can make a working perpetual motion machine.

or has one. but that's a different argument

ECC and LOP are your theories something you read, or your own ideas? I don't mean this condescendingly because I'm actually interested in the "rubber band effect".

in my case it is all my own, built from years of looking at science in a different perspective

in this case my freind told me... though she can exagerate...

[BlackBox]

ECC and LOP are your theories something you read, or your own ideas? I don't mean this condescendingly because I'm actually interested in the "rubber band effect".

in my case it is all my own, built from years of looking at science in a different perspective

No offense meant, but if you are going to try to present a "theory" about how certain aspects of astrophysics work you should probably at least present some kind of peer-reviewed or other credible research to back up your claims.

Making claims that you have a perpetual motion machine (but as you said on IRC it was trashed or something, which also seems to disprove the idea that you have one as if you could demonstrate a working one you would be one of the richest people on the planet right now) which we all know in our universe at least is not possible due to both the first and second laws of thermodynamics, does not really do anything to add credibility to your claims either.

As far as using a wormhole goes (this assumes that we can reliably make/use them without being destroyed in the process) the only thought I have there is that it's 'technically' not travel at the speed of light (it's more like the path from A to B has been significantly shortened because you happened to disappear at A and immediately appear at B; much like the quantum jumps that electrons make between quantum states).

I am not an astrophysicist though so I don't really know the intricacies of all of this, nor will I pretend to.

[evecolonycamander]

And I am sure some of you are aware that scientists work much like political parties. you have this one saying this this one saying that and the third parties spouting all crazy s*** to get attention and then bob in the corner with the tin foil hat speaking gibberish about the cias lunch menu being to spicy. Seek the truth not the group that thinks there right.

i know... thats the reason i hate politics

wormholes have been prven true on the quantum level (via particles somehow traveling faster than light through a solid meddium), however they are thought to be impossible on a scale large enough to be useable.

well now my former wormhole argument isn't all that crazy now isn't it?. for a large transfer of matter to work is that IF we could control where the start and finish are located on the micro worm holes we could set them along two vertical planes and be able to transport mater  between the two in an instant(or at least faster then the speed of light)
edit: fixed typos

[Sirbomber]

wormholes have been prven true on the quantum level (via particles somehow traveling faster than light through a solid meddium), however they are thought to be impossible on a scale large enough to be useable.

well now my former wormhole argument isn't all that crazy now isn't it?

Not really, no.  Try reading the thing you're quoting then try again.

[evecolonycamander]

read it now then(i fixed it)