Will Spacecraft ever Go Faster than the speed of Light?

Various - See Text ^ | 16 FEB 2003 | Various

[JRandomFreeper]

I just want to know why the government moves at the speed of dark.

/john

[ffusco]

My theory: Space is an energy field that permits the existance of matter, which is energy. This could explain how atoms are affecting each other w/ up and down spin even as they are accelerating away from each other, and could explain how light has speed and no velocity.

[edwin hubble]

Your example works at 'normal' speeds.
"..doesn't the beam of the headlights move at twice the speed of light relative to a stationary object "

This works pretty well for normal relative speeds. Like the Concorde. When you get to 1/10 of the speed of light things have begun to change.

Light is always measured at 'the speed of light' no matter how fast the relative speed of the source.

But... the 'color' or wavelength of the light changes very precisely with the relative speed of the source. The headlights of an oncoming car are bluer than those of a car backing away.

[inquest]

Speed and no velocity? I don't follow you.

[fso301]

Thanks for the post. There's more than I can read at the moment but I'll read it later.

[Sonny M]

I know we're talking speed of light, but I'd be happy if the damn planes went faster, and everywhere in the world would be within 5 hours traveling time.

[merak]

The most simpleminded view of the subject possible says you can only go as fast forward as whatever it is you're throwing out behind you backwards, at least via anything resembling a propulsion system, and there ain't much in the way of possibilities for something faster than light which you could use for exhaust. You'd have to use some pure force rather than a propulsive system to even get started.

[GirlShortstop]

 

Well, because I watch CNN, I know this has already happened!      </sarcasm OFF>

[antaresequity]

If we cant go faster then the speed of light...why not try to slow light down?

[boris]

Bookmarked.

[ffusco]

oops! I meant acceleration.

[KevinDavis]

On B5, one way of going faster than light was Hyperspace.

[jerod]

The short answer NO!

[ffusco]

I think the paradox of your example is that light doesn't always behave like a particle ,i.e. a baseball, sometimes behaves as a wave.

[ffusco]

The doppler effect.

[ffusco]

I think his theory is in conflict with Planc's constant, as well as relativety theory.

[metalboy]

Are you MAD? DON`T ANY OF YOU PEOPLE KNOW WE NEED DILITHIUM CRYSTALS??? KHAAAAAN! YOUR-KIL-LING-HEEEEEEEEEEEER!!

[vannrox]

Einstein's equations showed that the "projectiles" mass becomes infinite when ever the speed of light is reached. The equation for this is rather straightforward, with one slight exception....it assumes that the mass of the projectile is constant.

There is a rather voluminous cache of data is seems to indicate that this is not true under all possible conditions.

Thus, if the mass of a projectile can be variable, then the equations indicate that the speed of light can be reached and indeed...exceeded.

But that is not the reason why I believe that the speed of light is a barrier. I believe that the speed of light can be broken...in much the same was the speed of sound was broken.

You see, the equations for the alteration of mass to infinity at the light speed threshhold is identical to the equations for the fluid pressure in the inlet of a rocket engine at the speed of sound. The only difference being the Coefficient of inlet pressure corresponds to that of inlet air pressure, and that of the coefficient of light pressure corresponds to that of variable body mass.

And, as you might remember, the X-1 proved what so called "scientists" said couldn't be done...they broke the sound barrier.

Engineers discovered that by placing a cone in the inlet of a jet intake manifold that the air pressure is prevented from approaching infinity.

I don't know how we can do it with mass, and I don't know what techniques we can use. But I do know that while the equations are cold and stark...they show us the way from which we can derive a roadmap towards a workable solution for FTL.

My guess is that we would have a two part system for FTL flight. The first part would be to take the projectile up to the point of light speed. This would involve the use of some kind of mass changing device. Since the mass would be altered, so would the other attributes of such a change including Inertia and center of gravity. Absolute control over these changes would be extremely critical. Otherwise you would have all kinds of unbalances.

But once you reach the speed of light, or very close to it, I propose that the projectile mass IS actually permitted to go to infinity. Thus making time and space unity as well. Thus, creating a ship that can go any where at anytime with no apparent effect of either time or distance on the ship occupants. Thus, once the speed of light is reached, the cratft would be able to appear anywhere in the universe.

Of course how to steer and other navigational problems would arise. But I will worry about that when we reach the point of FTL flight.

Incidently, the history of the X-1 and the mathametics of it is extremely interesting. If you like equations, you'd love the story.

[petuniasevan]

I saw your tagline. Have you seen this? Don't forget to turn on your speakers!

Click the picture

[MHGinTN]

Speed is a function of distance traveled in unit time, where background time is considered to be invariant. If every mass is a complex of temporal and spatial quantity, then the possibility of 'different' temporal variable for differerent masses is very possible and is, in fact, the blaise explanation of neutrinos and their 'rest mass'. Put another way, if the universe of our experience is a volumetric/present realm, the masses within that realm may have present, past, or future temporal orientation, combined with linear, planar, and/or volumetric spatial orientation.

Taking a thought excursion, if one could 'view' the spacetime continuum in which our world exists, from outside that realm, what would be 'observed' would be a volumetric/past-->future realm, in which exist linear, planar, and volumetric spatial phenomena ... so, why not past, present and future temporal phenomena, also, within the realm 'observed'?