questionposter

I don't, your not being specific so I'm being forced to try and make sense if what your saying. If your traveling at the speed of light, time stops from your frame of reference, so you wouldn't age at all compared to the rest of the universe, I don't know what else to say.

You weren't being very specific either. If you said it takes 20 years to travel 80 light years, your traveling faster than light. Because I don't see a point to saying "yeah, the speed of light is faster than what we can go now, so we'd reach places faster if we could break physics and go at the speed of light", so I assumed there would be some more in-depth meaning.

Maybe what your saying is just so simple that I'm overlooking it. Are you saying traveling at light allows you to get from point A to point B faster? Or are you saying that something 80 light years away would only take 20 years to reach while traveling at the speed of light?

That's not how it works though, that doesn't effect the physical distance. If I travel at the speed of light in a round trip for 1000 years, I still travel 1000 light years of distance, but the world has changed because my flow of time wasn't as fast as those on Earth. If something is 1000 light years away, it takes 1000 years for that light to reach us. If a star is 80 light years away, then no matter what, if I travel at the speed of light, it will take me 80 light years, but I won't age as fast as people on Earth since relative to them, time is flowing, but relative to me time isn't flowing.

That is true, but as you can see, much of the difference between the .01 percent difference in humans is already being used up by physical features, and even muscular and blood differences (though a large blood difference is kind of rare, I'm mostly just referring to the sickle-cell anemia that some African people have that makes them immune to certain diseases and susceptible to others, though it has been generally found that on average black people have a greater physical muscle density than white people). How about you become poor and tell us how often you think about spending the little money you have on condoms and birth control when your pretty sure you can just time it right even though you don't have more medical knowledge than an average person? It's not just races that reproduce at a higher rate, it's poor people in general that reproduce faster, and many black and Hispanic people are poorer than an average white person in the US, and the percentage that doesn't have much to do with being poor is just about lifestyle and environment. http://www.neatorama...at-a-young-age/ If your poor its also more likely you face a harsher environment, which allows this process to take place.

Yeah I guess rotating it would help and it would add potential energy to the object, I could have swore there was a problem with it rotating though, I remember for some physics class we were exploring how interstellar travel would work, and I remember there being some drawback to using that instead of mimicking gravity... Basically, there's drawbacks to everything, but I guess rotating it would be a good solution.

I don't...know...if it works quite like that...Maybe I'm misunderstanding you. Are you saying traveling at light reduces the distance between two objects? I mean, you would get to a place faster, but not because the distance decreased... Time dilation refers to the frame rate of time based on the frame of reference. If you traveled at light, then you would still travel at 186,000 miles per second, but the time of outside objects would stop flowing to you, since relative to you, you are traveling at the same speed as time and therefore see no difference in the rate of time-flow. To an outside observer, I don't remember exactly, I think they would observe that your time is stopped and therefore that you haven't aged. Maybe your referring to length dilation? But I think that increases the distance, not shrinks it, otherwise you actually would be able to see things traveling faster than light.

I guess maybe with time symmetry they somehow interact with a particle before being emitted or something like that, but the more I think about it, the more a delocalization theory makes sense especially considering if they had very low relative energies, but that would also have to mean that gravity would technically change faster than light by the same mechanisms, though I suppose it doesn't actually break relativity.

I think god was mostly necessary in the beginning to give people an incentive to unite and form a hospitable society, but now I thought we've moved on enough and it no longer has that same effect.

Religious people aren't broken, that doesn't even make sense. I know a few religious people who are probably quite a bit smarter than most people on this thread. People become attached to a faith often because it has some connection with a deep impact in their life, and most people will connect things to important events in their life, not just religion. Like if you got almost torn apart by a rare dog because you accidentally intruded, there's a good chance you'll be scared of dogs, even though most are very hospitable and have a bigger bark than a bite anyway. There's even religious physicists and astronomers.

A bio-sphere just seems kind of unreasonable seeing as how we can't mimic high gravity. Doing such would seem to violate physics anyway because it would increase the amount of potential energy something has without actually adding any energy, thus violating physics. But maybe there's some unexplored way yet. There's also the problem if that it takes unimaginable amounts of energy to both construct and move something that large and complex, and I doubt many people would really be on board for leaving an entire beautiful planet behind. Before we build giant space-ships, we need some way to actually construct them. Space ships might look good in the movies, but realistically you'd have to cram everything into a small space, because it would take so much more energy to move a space-ship that comfortable and spacious. I don't know how a bio-sphere would be hospitable. Perhaps though, cryogenics can solve this problem if it can be perfected.

I don't see how information isn't transferred superluminally if a virtual particle emitted by a parent particle can interact with a target particle in a shorter amount of time than light could. Also, just how much faster can virtual particles travel? It also lacks a citation... Perhaps virtual photons are just so delocalized that it's possible for them to "pop up" in a region ahead of where localized light would be, but every virtual particle would seem to have to have an analogous delocalization equivalent in size to that of the of the static field in order to instantaneously react with any object already present in the field, and I don't know if they do...

99.99% of all human DNA is the same, it seems doubtful people who just happen to have a different skin color would have such a different birth rate. It's more likely because Hispanic and black people are often poorer than white people in the US at least, so they can't afford condoms. In fact, that is exactly the case in certain parts of Africa where there's the aids outbreak. There's even many poor families effected by the aids outbreak, and they actually purposely have as many children as they can to increase the chances of one surviving because they know some are doing to die. If they could have afforded condoms in the first place though, they probably would have bought them. Things have gotten so bad there that even the pope was recommending giving away condoms.

That does happen, but do you have a better solution for trying to get people to not commit crimes? There's not much of an incentive to not commit a crime if your just going some place to be coddled.

Why don't we just move the entire Earth while we're at it? It has plenty of thermal energy, so...

If we don't know what nature is, then we cannot know it is math. Nature is it's own thing, and math is just the patterns of it that we observe.

I'm not seeing exactly what you mean. Anything that "seems" to travel faster than light from any frame of reference breaks relativity, and this includes light. By red dot, I'm assuming your referring to the end of the laser pointer. If you take a laser pointer and run it across the sky, the light hasn't actually reached those distant galaxies yet, so there can be anything from that frame of reference to actually observe that phenomena. There is no way to possibly measure that an object has traveled faster than light in any way without breaking relativity.

3 point like bodies? That makes no sense, the quarks are all in the same quantum state and would act as one particle, there is no way to distinguish between multiple particles that share the same quantum state which is why you use a combined wave function to describe their probability...even neutrinos combine and form a single oscillation pattern, and they barely interact with the electro-magnetic force at all. You don't observe 3 neutrinos at once from the same wave, you observe one of the 3 since they are all part of the same wave and any measurement would collapse the wave into only a single finite probability. What photons do individual quarks give off? Because seeing 3 different points would have to mean we somehow observed a single photon being radiated off of individual quarks, so I want to know what color photon they emit, especially considering isolating quarks is currently impossible.

http://en.wikipedia....ster-than-light "If a laser is swept across a distant object, the spot of laser light can easily be made to move across the object at a speed greater than c." citation: Gibbs, Philip (1997). Is Faster-Than-Light Travel or Communication Possible?. University of California, Riverside. Retrieved 20 August 2008<br class="Apple-interchange-newline"> I don't get this... light can travel faster than light?

I guess your fuel point is something to consider, but it may require constant energy to fuel something like a warp-drive, since I don't really know if "the fabric of space wants to stay distorted unless a force acts upon it" is a true statement. We probably don't "need" to have faster than light travel right now, but if it still takes a while to get to stars, it will be important to make sure they actually do have habitable planets. also, http://en.wikipedia....ster-than-light also, http://en.wikipedia....ive_(Star_Trek) it says they are traveling faster than light, but it's not actually possible to travel more distance than it if your distorting the fabric of space like that, I think it just means you reach a destination in a faster time. It's sort of like a miniature but constant wormhole.

So if they don't interact via the strong force, don't they have different oscillation? That or, doesn't it require energy for an electron to overcome the strong force? And anyway, why doesn't opposite charge cause them to interact if they come into contact anyway? So what if they don't interact via the strong force? Opposite charges still attract...

their = possessive form of "to be" as an adjective, referring to their action of working on it.

No, it's "their" because it's "their" action of already working on it. Though I suppose it is an incomplete sentence with that in mind, so thanks for pointing it out. There should have been another clause beginning with a verb in plus-perfect form after the comma that is after "fuel".

Anti-matter isn't efficient though, it takes large concentrations of energy to force normal matter into anti-matter or isolate anti-matter from certain reactions, so the amount of energy it releases with today's technology wouldn't be enough for the cost of the energy to make it since many reactions creating anti-matter require gamma rays. With degenerate matter though, I think it's possible not only to store energy, but to just set up a machine and sit-back and have it make degenerate matter with the energy from naturally occurring radioactive material (after a refined state though). Actually it looks like they are already doing this http://www.scienceda...90511181356.htm

Well, looks like their already working on making it into fuel, has been going on for quite some time, which seems to make sense.