Physicists wary of junking light speed limit yet

[Arioch]

This is not what Im referring to at all. I understand those limitations. The theory Im referring to is a drive that can find a distant gravitational pull, lock into it and essentially pull the craft toward said field. The only time you would burn fuel, would be to run the generators to power on board systems. There would be no conventional "engine" at all. By reversing polarity, you could then repel the same field, thereby moving the craft away from a planet for take off.


(Honestly, Ive heard similar theories to this, but they were in reference to magnetism and levitation. I began thinking of this on a larger scale when I was about 15 and came to this "gravity drive" idea myself. When I saw this post, I thought it would be a great opportunity for people to shoot holes in it so that I can rework it for more ideas. It works off of the idea that gravity has a frequency that can be "tuned" in to, and this of course, needs a bit more study. SO... it is along the lines of the original post, but if youd prefer I take this idea to a new thread, let me know so that I dont hijack this one. Unless youd like to talk about it here? I have ideas on how to build what I suppose you would call the engine, but it needs more study as well and I dont have tons of cash)

 

[ForgedReclaimer]

No, it's entirely IMpossible. There are countless problems with the idea of travelling anywhere near the speed of light.

Possible but not plausible now by any means. We lack the knowledge and understanding to do so but that by no means says its impossible. Remember, people once believed that travelling too fast in a moving object like a car would kill you upwards of 40mph give or take. And that died real quick when people actually did it. Theretical science is exactly what it says, theoretical.

 

[I am Fuzzy Bear]

No, it's entirely IMpossible. There are countless problems with the idea of travelling anywhere near the speed of light.

Ladies and Gentlemen of the Fourms, here and now, I call out to your very soul with a message from my heat and mind: NOTHING, and I repeat for the sake of emphasis, NOTHING is impossible.

 

[Unity]

wait wait wait .....Hold up. You left the forums?

 

[ForgedReclaimer]

wait wait wait .....Hold up. You left the forums?

Yes, i just came back quick for this science thread to post. proof http://www.405th.com/showthread.php/31200-quot-Halo4-quot-ForgedReclaimer-s-Pepakura-Database/page35

 

[ImaGonnaGetYou]

I'm not a physics person, but don’t these findings (If found to be accurate) kind of break apart Einstein's Theory. Doesn't his equation basically say that nothing can go faster than the speed of light because it would take an infinite amount of mass & energy (something like that. again, I don’t do physics). However, these scientists have observed particles traveling faster than the speed of light something like 99.9% of the time when they run their tests & observations. Again, this is merely a question, I don't pretend to know everything.

-Tony

These new findings would only make an exception with infinitesimally small mass. The conventional idea of faster-than-light travel and the many limitations that outright prohibit it still stand. Just because a particle can break the speed of light does not mean an enormous collection of particles like, say, a marble, can.

There, it is edited to more clearly demonstrate my meaning.

Its not impossible at all. Space is frictionless. If you look at the idea of gravity drives (which pull instead of push) it requires almost no energy and will constantly increase your speed.

Unfortunately, gravity drives are still theoretical, though entirely possible. Light speed will be reached, but not through current popular thinking.

Planetary gravity isn't the main limitation here, it's basic physics. Even in a frictionless environment you need more and more energy to accelerate an object as its velocity increases. Where would the energy for this "gravity drive" come from? Things move because of energy, this is perhaps THE most basic concept of physics. Gravity is not a ray, or a line, that can be aimed. The closest thing to your idea would be magnetism which also would not work.

I disagree however, of not requiring "almost no energy". If we think in term of what we understand of kinetic energy, you need thrust/push energy to propel an object forward. That energy is exponentially increased depends on how heavy is the object and how far do you want the object to go. Spacecraft today is limited by the fuel that it can carry. Unless if we find new energy source that can provide infinite amount of fuel, we can never break the light-year barrier.

There's no such thing as an infinite fuel source, and even if that was possible at all, you still wouldn't reach light speed.

This is not what Im referring to at all. I understand those limitations. The theory Im referring to is a drive that can find a distant gravitational pull, lock into it and essentially pull the craft toward said field. The only time you would burn fuel, would be to run the generators to power on board systems. There would be no conventional "engine" at all. By reversing polarity, you could then repel the same field, thereby moving the craft away from a planet for take off.


(Honestly, Ive heard similar theories to this, but they were in reference to magnetism and levitation. I began thinking of this on a larger scale when I was about 15 and came to this "gravity drive" idea myself. When I saw this post, I thought it would be a great opportunity for people to shoot holes in it so that I can rework it for more ideas. It works off of the idea that gravity has a frequency that can be "tuned" in to, and this of course, needs a bit more study. SO... it is along the lines of the original post, but if youd prefer I take this idea to a new thread, let me know so that I dont hijack this one. Unless youd like to talk about it here? I have ideas on how to build what I suppose you would call the engine, but it needs more study as well and I dont have tons of cash)

1. You're mixing up gravity and magnetism, see above.
2. This would make decent science-fiction, but 5 minutes in a basic physics course would shoot your hypothesis straight out of the sky.

Possible but not plausible now by any means. We lack the knowledge and understanding to do so but that by no means says its impossible. Remember, people once believed that travelling too fast in a moving object like a car would kill you upwards of 40mph give or take. And that died real quick when people actually did it. Theretical science is exactly what it says, theoretical.

No, actually, it's not possible, again this is basic physics and not up for debate. 40mph is a poor example because it's physically possible, the speed of light is different entirely.

Ladies and Gentlemen of the Fourms, here and now, I call out to your very soul with a message from my heat and mind: NOTHING, and I repeat for the sake of emphasis, NOTHING is impossible.

That is an incredibly stupid stance to take on science. My condolences to any of your future science teachers/professors.

 

[Tactonyx]

As much fun as faster than light travel can be, I never really believed that we'd travel amongst the stars in that capacity. I personally think that if we were to travel beyond the Solar System, it would be done with other means, which can be crudley described as wormholes.

 

[Arioch]

Well, Im done here, Im taking off before Steven Hawking here calls me stupid too, lol.

On a last note, no one understands gravity yet, so thats a harsh stance to take on the unknown.

 

[Zat German]

No, actually, it's not possible, again this is basic physics and not up for debate. 40mph is a poor example because it's physically possible, the speed of light is different entirely.

It is only theoretically impossible, according to the math and our understanding of relativity as we know it. There is currently no law that says that it is literally impossible. This is a very important distinction.

 

[Tayl0r]

Insert angry insulting comment here.

No need to go bashing other people here. Try and be civil.


Nothing is impossible, it may be highly improbable, but not impossible.

People thought man flying was impossible and look where we are today.

 

[project003]

Just a clarification: The universe IS much bigger than 13 billion light years across. To be accurate, the universe is APPROXIMATELY 13 billion years old, with a radius of about 13.7 billion light years. Now in relative terms, approximation is the best calculation that current science has the ability to use. Therefore, the speed of light is probably pretty accurate for describing the age of the universe. But, that is not to say that faster-than-light speeds are impossible.

-Matt

that's exactly what I stated, but I was falling asleep on my desk at the time to explain all of that lol

 

[Walter Spase]

Telling someone they stupid does not demonstrate a person's higher intelligence.

 

[project003]

Telling someone they stupid does not demonstrate a person's higher intelligence.

? I think your keyboard broke lol

although on a serious note, I agree.

 

[afa]

Oh nO! The milkyway galaxy is on a collision course with our neighboring galaxy and is predicted to impact in 5 billion years! Nows the time to panic!!

 

[ImaGonnaGetYou]

No need to go bashing other people here. Try and be civil.

Nothing is impossible, it may be highly improbable, but not impossible.

People thought man flying was impossible and look where we are today.

I'm not trying to sound angry, I'm just making a point that no one should be "theorizing" (which by the way is the wrong term here) about anything related to physics unless they have a decent grasp on its basic concepts. I'm no physicist, but I can tell you right now that just because we don't understand something, doesn't mean it's going to be a jaw-dropping surprise when it is finally understood. The purpose of science is not to look at something we don't understand and turning to our Star Wars guidebooks for solutions. Not to mention, of course, that travel anywhere near the speed of light IS literally impossible unless our entire understanding of physics is turned upside down, which is so incredibly unlikely you might as well forget I said it. Even Einstein's theories didn't affect the basic principles of physics, for example.

Telling someone they stupid does not demonstrate a person's higher intelligence.

You're right, but I didn't tell someone they're stupid. I made a fair observation on their outlook on scientific inquiry, which was about the same as picking up a random heavy box and saying "Chances are, it's full of gold!"

 

[Zat German]

I'm not trying to sound angry, I'm just making a point that no one should be "theorizing" (which by the way is the wrong term here) about anything related to physics unless they have a decent grasp on its basic concepts. I'm no physicist, but I can tell you right now that just because we don't understand something, doesn't mean it's going to be a jaw-dropping surprise when it is finally understood. The purpose of science is not to look at something we don't understand and turning to our Star Wars guidebooks for solutions. Not to mention, of course, that travel anywhere near the speed of light IS literally impossible unless our entire understanding of physics is turned upside down, which is so incredibly unlikely you might as well forget I said it. Even Einstein's theories didn't affect the basic principles of physics, for example.

This whole quote is a big "Nuh uh, I'm right and you're wrong" with no real content.

Sorry, but travel at the speed of light has not been proven to be literally impossible. Real scientists and physicists do not discount something just because it is difficult or thought to be impossible until there are enough experiments performed and a real body of evidence to prove it so.

Since you are being so pedantic: It is possible for people theorize in a thread because the word "theory" has two meanings and the one people were engaging in is: "abstract thought : speculation" which does not necessarily have to mean truth.