Jump to content


Photo
- - - - -

Speed of light...instantatious Travel??


  • This topic is locked This topic is locked
85 replies to this topic

#35 Primal Fears

Primal Fears

    Thinking

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 13 posts

Posted 04 January 2004 - 02:38 AM

Well Tormod if u havent u should look at http://math.ucr.edu/...hoton_mass.html
has some great mass or massless light theories.

#36 Data

Data

    Curious

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 3 posts

Posted 10 January 2004 - 04:29 PM

Lets think for a moment. Lets throw all the rules out the window. Lets move off of earth away from gravity laws. Now, lets put an object in space. Now, lets look at this Constriction thing. In Earth's atmosphere that's going to happen because it's pushing against gravity, in space, however it's almost a complete 0 G enviroment, so now what about the constriction?

#37 GAHD

GAHD

    Eldritch Horror

  • Administrators
  • 2678 posts

Posted 11 January 2004 - 09:38 PM

Originally posted by: Tormod
GAHD wrote:

"Well, only light moves at the speed of light"



Hm... the force of gravity, and radio waves, at least, also move at the speed of light. No photons there, massless or not.



Tormod


good point, also left out electricity. Posted Image

Anyrate, on the subject of wireless transmission of electricity; a short wwrite up on the history of wireless energy attempts.
http://www.microwave...ransmission.htm
and a short write-up of a japaneise experiment involving microave power transmission:
http://www.kurasc.ky...yamasaki-e.html

There have been some ideas of putting solar collectors into geosync and transmitting the solar power to the surface via a constrained high-power microwave beam, but there has been nothing other than "drawing board" developments so far.

#38 GAHD

GAHD

    Eldritch Horror

  • Administrators
  • 2678 posts

Posted 11 January 2004 - 09:38 PM

Originally posted by: Tormod
GAHD wrote:

"Well, only light moves at the speed of light"



Hm... the force of gravity, and radio waves, at least, also move at the speed of light. No photons there, massless or not.



Tormod


good point, also left out electricity. Posted Image

Anyrate, on the subject of wireless transmission of electricity; a short wwrite up on the history of wireless energy attempts.
http://www.microwave...ransmission.htm
and a short write-up of a japaneise experiment involving microave power transmission:
http://www.kurasc.ky...yamasaki-e.html

There have been some ideas of putting solar collectors into geosync and transmitting the solar power to the surface via a constrained high-power microwave beam, but there has been nothing other than "drawing board" developments so far.

#39 Roberto

Roberto

    Thinking

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 60 posts

Posted 12 January 2004 - 08:22 PM

Gravity move at light speed and gravitons are massless. That´s true. Every massless particle travels at the light speed.

Radio waves move at light speed because they´re light. Light is only electromagnetic waves. What you´re taking for "light" in physics we call "visible light". Light is a term used in physics to electromagnetic waves regardless of their frequency. That includes: radio waves, UV rays, microwaves, infrared light, X rays and so on.

#40 Data

Data

    Curious

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 3 posts

Posted 04 February 2004 - 02:23 AM

I have been working on a theory for a faster than light propulsion system in space. I Really think the theory will work, I just need to get it to NASA HA HA HA. It's really quite a simple idea. The only thing I have not overcome is the ability to generate (the power requirements are enormous) some type of force field, deflector field. At 1x the speed of light you wouldn't want to hit a dust particle....!!!!Posted Image

#41 Spinner

Spinner

    Curious

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 4 posts

Posted 04 April 2004 - 04:15 AM

There has been a lot of recent empirical and theoretical support for the wave theory of matter. It postulates that in fact waves is all there is in the universe, and matter is simply standing waves.

Then naturally all massless particles travel at the speed of light, and matter can never attain the speed of light.

Space-time contraction and increasing resistance are all by-products of wave interference, and not easily explained without multi-dimensional mathematics.

Wave theory gives matter an information-centric existence, ie matter can be moved by simply moving the information, thereby theoretically allowing it to travel at the speed-of-light. (remember the old sci-fi flick "The Fly"?)

It appears that the real underlying topic of this thread is how to travel faster than what relativity is restricting us. My guess is that one day we will harness the "spin" to matter at the sub-atomic level that is to do with the time-dimension (e.g. understanding the fundamental difference between the constructs of matter and anti-matter), there is then a way to push stuff in a newer direction that we cannot currently perceive yet.

#42 WDevon

WDevon

    Curious

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 3 posts

Posted 10 April 2004 - 08:42 PM

I literally just stumbled onto this site and like others, can hardly believe there are others interested in this stuff. I was wondering if a more applicible term than "mass-less" (objects that can travel at the speed of light) would be "anti-mass". Like the analogy of a car battery that has a positive and a negative in order to function, it would seem the opposite of mass, that can't travel FTL, would be anti-mass, that can travel only FTL.

#43 Freethinker

Freethinker

    Resident Atheist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3064 posts

Posted 11 April 2004 - 10:01 AM

A car battery has two terminals to allow a complete path for electron flow. It does not send particles out of one and anti-particles out of the other. Withoout the closed loop, the electron pressure would stay kinetic.

2nd, we already know about anti-particles. And they are different from mass-less particles. In fact chances are that mass-less particle would also quantum pairs.

#44 WDevon

WDevon

    Curious

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 3 posts

Posted 12 April 2004 - 09:03 PM

I didn't meant he analogy to be literal. I meant it as an illustration of how the laws we're talking about seem to depend upon polar opposites. An object with mass can not move the same way an object with no mass can. But when you think about it, the factors for either to perform the way they're supposed to are dependant upon each other. Variables in gravitational forces, resistence, density, energy, etc. But like someone stated earlier in the discussion, let's step outside and imagine (which will probably get us back to the subject). How can something with mass be able to move at the speed of light? Ignoring the logical ("it can't because it would become 'mass-less"), surely you have a theory.
Maybe in order for something of mass to become 'mass-less', something with no mass has to become mass. Again, the 'positive/ negative', 'particle/anti-particle', 'matter/anti-matter' cooperation.
Oh and by the way, I admit I'm at the kindergarten level with mass-less and anti-mass, so thanks for the input, Freethinker. I am going to read up on it.

#45 webdrafter

webdrafter

    Curious

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 3 posts

Posted 13 May 2004 - 09:07 PM

I've been doing some studies into NDE's and have concluded (through other means) that indeed, energy is the only thing that can safely exceed the speed of light. This does not say, however, that "we" can never experience such a venture.

You have no doubt heard of the many reports of NDE's, and the reported details that the subject is able to recall from the experience. For this to be possible, these people must first revert to their "basic make-up": energy. (You may call this the "soul", if you like - it's the same thing, for the purpose of discussion)

It's in this state of energy that they are able to withstand the enormous g-gorce speeds that are necessary for such a journey into the future, to the final destination that most people refer to as "heaven" (the truth about this may shock you into a state of denial).

#46 Freethinker

Freethinker

    Resident Atheist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3064 posts

Posted 14 May 2004 - 12:41 PM

Originally posted by: webdrafter
I've been doing some studies into NDE's


NDE's NEAR Death Experiences.

These are merely physiological processes in the PHYSICAL brain. They are well understood in simple natural terms and can easily be induced thru physical (e.g. centrifuge) or chemical experiments. Any claims to any other "extra"-natural association is bogus.

You have no doubt heard of the many reports of NDE's,

(Tim, are you pretending to be someone else? lol)Yes and not a single one has EVER been proven to have any extra-natural components, such as "out of body". Yes claims are made, but the FACTS do not support the claims.

(the truth about this may shock you into a state of denial).

If you can post some FACTS to show this is TRUTH, then perhaps yes I would be shocked. Any denial before that is based on existence of FACTS to the contrary, not shock.

#47 webdrafter

webdrafter

    Curious

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 3 posts

Posted 15 May 2004 - 09:30 PM

Fact: as speed increases, one's peripheral vision decreases, creating the familiar "tunnel effect". Our basic life form (energy) allows us to transcend the speed of light.

Fact: there is nowhere in the Bible that specifically says that man will go to heaven when he dies. This concept is mistakenly based on the phrase "Kingdom of Heaven". (We [some] WILL enter into The Kingdom of Heaven - when the time comes) However, the keyword in this phrase is "of", which means "derived or coming FROM".

Fact: References in the Book of Matthew (New Testament) state that "the poor in spirit shall enter into [paraphrased] the kingdom of heaven" and "the meek shall inherit the earth". Chapter 5, verses 3-10 provide the exact references for anyone who cares to look them up.

This strongly suggests that what we believe in as "heaven" is actually "a new world" (the Kingdom of Heaven) that will be built when the present world is destroyed.

[ If you are in disagreement with things up to this point, you are welcome to prove me wrong. If you believe that this is no place for Biblical quotations, then you are not open-minded enough to consider any and all facts that may offer proof, and I've mistakenly logged onto a "believe my way or no way" forum. If Biblical quotes do not offer substantial proof, or if you prefer to cling to the age-old concept of "going to heaven" when you die, then I suggest that you are in a state of denial. ]

Having said this, we can turn again to how this associates with NDE's.

NDE's report experiencing this tunnel effect, although current thinking explains it (among other explanations) as being "memories of emerging from the birth canal". But this doesn't explain instances of seeing friends and loved ones that have long passed away. The only way this is possible is to travel to the place where these people would be expected to be seen - the Kingdom of Heaven.

Since it is very unlikely that this Kingdom of Heaven is somehow able to co-exist with the present, then we're talking about something that has yet to come to pass. Therefore, the only possible way that NDE's can report such an experience in such (sometimes intricate) detail, is if they reverted to their basic life form (energy) and traveled into the future for the moment(s) that they were "dead".

You may still refer to them as unsubstantiated "claims", but with the many cases being reported that are so closely related in terms of details, the probabilities of NDE's being factual are strongly leaning in that direction.

#48 Freethinker

Freethinker

    Resident Atheist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3064 posts

Posted 17 May 2004 - 08:28 AM

Originally posted by: webdrafter
Fact: as speed increases, one's peripheral vision decreases, creating the familiar "tunnel effect". Our basic life form (energy) allows us to transcend the speed of light.


You have an interesting, but very twisted, idea of what a FACT is.

1) as no one has as of yet has achieved a high enough speed to actual validate the tunnel effect, it is still a theory. It might be well validated by Relativity, but FACT is a little overstating it.

2) to tag some new age ramblings about our wonderful existence as pure energy into some claim of FACT, shows a complete lack of understand of what a FACT is.

3) please show us science FACT of energy tanscending the speed of light. (I didn't think so)

If you are in disagreement with things up to this point, you are welcome to prove me wrong.


Ah yes, the last resort of those with an unsupportable aassertion, Shifting the Burden of Proof.

It is not up to us to prove that anybody that shows up here and spouts what ever nonsense they wish is wrong. It is up to the person making the claim to prove they are right or we can reject the unsupported claim out of hand. And the more extreme the claim, the more extreme the level of proof required.

If you believe that this is no place for Biblical quotations, then you are not open-minded enough to consider any and all facts that may offer proof,


Ya we all know how scientific the bible is! What a joke! Snakes talk and live on dirt, the moon is a SOURCE of light, the earth is flat and pi=3.0. I love all these biblical FACTS!

A person does not have to have so open of a mind that their brains fall out.

Claims that one must keep an open mind to any and all nonsense no matter how absurd only shows that the person making the claim ahs nothing of value to offer as support. They show that their brain has fallen out and they lost the ability to reason. Misery loves company.

and I've mistakenly logged onto a "believe my way or no way" forum.


You've logged into a SCIENCE site. If you do not understand how SCIENCE works, don't try to blame us for it.

If Biblical quotes do not offer substantial proof,


They don't. If you want to pretend the bible is science, try some Creationist site. They have no concept of science and will accept such sophistry.

#49 sundog

sundog

    Thinking

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 29 posts

Posted 17 May 2004 - 08:44 AM

Freethinker,

I wrote a lengthy reply, reloaded the page and saw your post.
I saw you were logged in. I should have known you would beat me to it. Posted Image

Just to add a thought for webdrafter - If one were to leave the physical body as energy, then how do you think you could 'see anything'? You would have no eyes to pick up the light.



sundog

#50 Freethinker

Freethinker

    Resident Atheist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3064 posts

Posted 17 May 2004 - 09:27 AM

Originally posted by: webdrafteror if you prefer to cling to the age-old concept of "going to heaven" when you die, then I suggest that you are in a state of denial.

Well a little light in the darkness. Which you then snuff out completely.

Having said this, we can turn again to how this associates with NDE's.

I always wonder if the new age hocus pocus group intentionally use "NDE" rather than NEAR Death Experiences because the FACTUAL name of NEAR Death stops them from rambling about some claimed AFTER death experience.

NDE's report experiencing this tunnel effect, although current thinking explains it (among other explanations) as being "memories of emerging from the birth canal".

Perhaps "current" psudeo-science makes such unsupportable claims. But MEDICAL SCIENCE has many experiments (you know, those things that FACTS come from) that show that the narrowing of vision is related to oxygen supply reduction to the brain. It happens in centrafuges and specific drugs. Peripheral vision ALWAYS narrows as we get close to losing consciousness. It doesn't matter what you are remembering at the time. It is a simple physiolocial function. As usual, there are lots of sites that claim tunnel vision in NDE's as some mystical happening. But ALL sites that have ANY scientific basis to them say otherwise.

United States Naval Flight Surgeon's Manual: Third Edition 1991: Chapter 2: Acceleration and Vibration
Sustained Acceleration
Naval Aerospace Medical Institute
Peer Review Status: Internally Peer Reviewed
Neurological Effects.
Because of this early blood loss difference, vision will fail at about 0.7 G below the +Gz level at which cerebral function fails. This is fortuitous for aviat ors since it can provide a visual warning of impending loss of consciousness.

http://www.vnh.org/F...celeration.html

AIRCRAFT AIR QUALITY:
WHAT’S WRONG WITH IT AND WHAT NEEDS TO BE DONE
Submitted to The Aviation Subcommittee of The Transportation & Infrastructure Committee, U.S. House of Representatives
June 3, 2003

3. Exposure to air contaminated with heated hydraulic fluids and oils. Reports of serious symptoms, including tremors, tunnel vision, and memory loss

4. Inadequate oxygen during flight Reports of hypoxia (dizziness, fainting, tunnel vision)

http://www.house.gov...-03/friend.html

But this doesn't explain instances of seeing friends and loved ones that have long passed away. The only way this is possible is to travel to the place where these people would be expected to be seen - the Kingdom of Heaven.

Ya I guess such impossible explanations such as unconscious thought could not possbily explain it. Ya right!

Since it is very unlikely that this Kingdom of Heaven is somehow able to co-exist with the present,

OK, something else we can agree on. But then you wonder off into the land of post modernistic drivel.

then we're talking about something that has yet to come to pass. Therefore, the only possible way that NDE's can report such an experience in such (sometimes intricate) detail, is if they reverted to their basic life form (energy) and traveled into the future for the moment(s) that they were "dead".

Oh ya, I can see where this this is the ONLY possible explanation left.... If one wishes to ignore REALITY.

You may still refer to them as unsubstantiated "claims", but with the many cases being reported that are so closely related in terms of details, the probabilities of NDE's being factual are strongly leaning in that direction.


As I have said, there is no doubt that NEAR Death

#51 Freethinker

Freethinker

    Resident Atheist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3064 posts

Posted 17 May 2004 - 09:37 AM

Originally posted by: sundog
Freethinker,

I wrote a lengthy reply, reloaded the page and saw your post.

I saw you were logged in. I should have known you would beat me to it. Posted Image

Hey, I can use all the help I can get. There are few voices of reason in the darkness.

Just to add a thought for webdrafter - If one were to leave the physical body as energy, then how do you think you could 'see anything'? You would have no eyes to pick up the light.

I love the way they throw "energy" around as if just using the word gives validity. As if just claiming that there is some mysterious "energy" we have "yet to discover", gives them substance. It's SO SCIENTIFIC!

But PLEASE jump in.