Will the speed of light always be a barrier?

Air and Space Magaine. Vol # 1 March 1978 | March 1978 | Editorial Staff w/ Melvin B. Zistein

[Brilliant]

except that is the fundamental crux of relativity.... Light goes the same speed no matter how fast you are traveling. Turning on the light when you are moving fast doesn't make it go faster.

[Kirkwood]

Think of all the things we could fix if we could go back in time...

[gr8eman]

Lithium Ion batteries are reliable. So are whining Brits...especially when they set it to music.

[B4Ranch]

These super fast computers that ca do 5000 different calculations at the same time, when all the various factors are calculated, are they working close to the speed of light?

[maestro]

?.....Will the speed of light always be a barrier?

LOL......the speed of creator 'light' has NEVER been a barrier to Creator-God 'Jesus of Nazareth'.....!

He 'is' the 'light' and much more!

Absolutes count!

/finite relativity

:-)

[Paul_Denton]

Maybe not through "brute force," But I am sure one day we will have technology to get around that. Wormholes, quantum tunneling, etc.

[ElTianti]

She came from Planet Claire
I knew she came from there
She drove a Plymouth Satellite
Faster than the speed of light

[thedilg]

[has noted a similarity between the way most people today regard "C," the speed of light, and the way many people a generation or so ago regarded "a", the speed of sound.

I pretty much stopped taking this article serious when I reached the about statement.]

As did I. Decades ago I was involved in aviation as I am today. There was never a moment that I didn't believe that exceeding the speed of sound was doable. There were thousands of evidences that it was being done on a routine basis in many ways. On the other hand I know of nothing that has exceeded the speed of light, to include the next to nothing photon.

I know that some believe that subatomic particles have been supposedly observed at beyond "C" but I remain skeptical. Could we be measuring wrong, or observing wrong, etc.

Subatomic particles tend to live only for the tiniest speck of time. It is most likely well beyond our technology to measure it accurately. I need more evidence.

Godspeed, The Dilg

[birbear]

Doesn't Zephram Cochrane invent warp travel in 2063?

[vannrox]

Sorry, I should of posted the equations. The equation that he was referring to was the coefficient of pressure was equal to one over the square root of one minus the vehicle velocity squared divided by the speed of sound squared. The equation of this when plotted of pressure force, C sub rho starts at unity and then increases exponentionally at subsonic speeds approaching infinity at the speed of sound at altitude. (the equations make the assumption of stable atmospheric conditions.) The result, was that a rapidly decreasing pressure force on the aeroplane when plotted at speeds past "a".

The point that the good doctor was making was that the vehicle mass approached infinity through use of the same equation form. Starting at mass > 0 once can see that the equation of the vehicle mass properties increased such that m was equal to one over the squareroot of one minus the ship velocity squared divided by the speed of light c squared. There is nothing wrong or erronous in this equation. The relationships were and still are clear. I must apologize for not placing the equations in this post as I do not know to do so.

I suggest that you physically write out what I said in proper notation and plot the results out. The answers are very clear.

Incidently, this article was taken from a class handout for one of my Aerospace Propulsion classes at Syracuse University. Our homework, as I recall it, was to break down the equation and show exactly how the geometry of the X-1 inlet nozzle could be compared to that of a variable mass object. Now that was, gosh almost 30 years ago, but I can assure you that the technical relationships were sound.

I do however, have a real issue with your blanket of skoff. I find many really ignorant people use this technique quite often. Then pump up their chests and make it seem like they know what they are talking about. But they do not know anything. I think that you are one of these people. Careful with your Blanket of Skoff. You just might be called on the carpet to defend our postion. I find that many people like to denegrate things that they do not understand. It seems like you are just one such person.

[Sam Cree]

bookmark

[so_real]

Hehehe ... wrong "Q" . Think "Star Trek".

[vannrox]

Read "parallel Worlds" by Michio Kaku. Science and Engineering has advanced way past riviting plates together to form bridges.

[dread78645]

quantum channeling eff.dot place mark

[Reeses]

quantum tunneling

If an airplane could be built entirely out of sound, it couldn't travel faster than sound. Because we're built entirely of energy, we can't travel faster than energy. But inside an airplane sound can travel faster than the sound outside the airplane. So it may be possible to build a universeplane that could take us through the universe faster than the speed of light. But it can't be made of energy as we know it.

[zipper]

I see the similarity in equations but there are some fundamental differences. A mass approaching the speed of sound is in media (air) that has thickness. The decrease in proportionality of resistance does not compare with a mass approaching the speed of light, since there is no media (empty space). So there is no parallel argument to be made for exceeding the speed of light.

Additionally, according to relativity light itself has mass, whereas sound does not-- it's just the product of molecules bumping into one another-- again a fundamental difference in comparing sound to light.

[FireTrack]

My 2 cents from a different thread where someone posted:

"It is a zero win situation. Mass will increase towards infinity as you approach the speed of light. Time also slows down. You will never reach the speed of light no matter how hard you try."

My Reply:

Yep, I've heard/read all the theories. I'm proposing an practical experiment to try and prove it. I think we could build a rocket with gravity assist that could possibly reach say 650,000 miles per hour which works out close to 1/1000th the speed of light.

At the above speed or maybe even less, we should be able to detect changes in the thrust required to increase or decrease velocity as compared to the thrust required at a much lower velocity inorder to validate the theory.

This vehicle could also be used in other experiments to offset the costs such as validating the anomalies discovered by the pioneer probes 10/11 as well as the novelty of establishing a new speed record for something built by the human race.

:-)

[Conservative Infidel]

Perhaps some day we might be able to travel faster than light. It certainly would be cool.

IIRC, the nearest star/solar system is many LIGHT YEARS (the distance a particle traveling at the speed of light travels in a year) away. Therefore, even if we conquer the light speed barrier, it may not really get us anywhere worthwhile.

[KevinDavis]

Never say never....

[vannrox]

Yes. That is the point of the entire article. There are differences, but the equations are striking! All in all, it looks like the speed of light won't ever have to be reached or broken, because the speed of light is variable. Therefore just if one can have variable mass or variable "c", then it means that the so called Light barrier is just nothing more than a chimeria.

My guess lies in the attributes of vehicle mass being variable and the speed of energy in a multi-dimensional medium being variable.

The result is a mastery of flight to other solar systems within the life span of a human.