Faster than light - just for fun

[mr d]

Hello

 

Just to drive the phyisists here crazy, and the fun of running a mental exercises, thought I'd try to think of a way to go beyond the speed of light.

 

No not challenging Einstein here, nor is this the results of complex experiments carried out. Just a fun trying to force myself to think outside the box.

 

That said how about this. Requires to unproved or tested ideas. 1) Mattered excellerated to the speed of light converts to energy at a point slightly before the speed of light. 2) The speed of light is the speed of time.

 

 

Part one: required to overcome the inertia problem caused by mass. If mass is converted into energy than it can travel at the speed of light. Undetermined state of consciousness of any person so transformed.

 

Part two: If the speed of light were the speed of time excelerating beyond the speed of light would would shift time wise the excelerated energy.

 

If light is time, at the point you surpass the speed of light you would no longer be referenced in that timeframe. You would excelerate pass the time in which your energy was created (Problems here that it maybe you are instead the new speed of light and created a new time frame.).

 

So to all appearences you can not travel faster than the speed of light within the time framework you are in. Because at the point you do travel faster you are no longer in that time, but have created displaced time for yourself, since the time you excelerated from has not yet occurred except as your energy.

 

Displaced time needed here to explain how energy which is already in existance at the time frame you move into could co-exist with your current energy. As matter can not be created or destroyed but changes form.

 

You can both exist in the same location because you are not existing at the same time. This would tend to mean you could not change or interact with the current time around you. Or more simply you can not go back or forward in time and change events, such as shoot your own mother twenty years ago. Because though your energy excellerated into time can be within a different time frame, your energy is still part of the time in which it was created. The shot you fire is actually being fired in your time.

 

 

Full of holes, but just for fun

 

 

Mr D

[woelen]

Thinking of going faster than light is really difficult if you know some of the formula's involved. In special relativity, you frequently encounter a dilation factor D = √(1 - v²/c²).

 

E.g. time of the moving object (relative to you) is going slower with a factor D. Apparent mass is increased with a factor 1/D. At v = c, D = 0. But at v > c, this number becomes imaginary (negative number in the square root). No physical meaning can be assigned at imaginary time, or imaginary mass.

[YT2095]

I actualy worked out a way to exceed light speed 17X (using convenient numbers and gear ratios), the outside edge would travel that fast, I used Lithium in frozen space, on a rail bearing to compensate for expansion of the gears with speed.

 

it works Perfectly on Paper if you totaly ignore the Reality of the situ

[mr d]

Hello

 

Scientific or Percieved reality. That Scientific one is so pesty, all those squiggly little numbers.

 

Mr D

 

All I know about the insane is how to escape from one of their asylums.

[YT2095]

quite literaly mine was just a simple set of Gears, the OD was a Km on each, and in effect, you spin the 1`st gear at something silly like 1 RPM and get 17x C at the last gears outside edge travel.

 

actualy I was Ill at the time and was testing a new calculator that was given to me as a get-well-soon gift

 

total Trivia, and as equaly impossible to perform in REALITY, but non the less, It cheered me up somewhat

[jck]

Hi,

 

Just browsing stuff as I am fairly new here. Even the theoretical associations with light speed fail to convince me very much something of nothing may be of interest.

 

We are approximately 0.5 seconds behind time as that is how long it takes for all senses to become aware as we wake up.

 

Now while we may not detect a mass in the same place hitting us with a considerable force at the same time as it happens the fact would remain that it would have to hit us before we were aware anyway and in the same place as we were to be hit.

 

What you see is what you get, if you were passing anything at a million miles per second you would hardly expect to see a blur never mind anything else.

 

Naturally anyone considering travelling at speeds greater than c anytime soon would have some advantages over those of us who lack the actual experience.

 

john

jck

[swansont]

That said how about this. Requires to unproved or tested ideas. 1) Mattered excellerated to the speed of light converts to energy at a point slightly before the speed of light.

 

Just to note that this oft-quoted notion has no basis in physics. Electrons have been accelerated to extremely close to the speed of light, and they stayed electrons. Likewise with other particles, too.

[TriggerGrinn]

Not only what other people mentioned but,

At speed of C wavelength is also gone.

 

Wavelength of light, in relativistic doppler shift.

 

 

If the observer and the source are moving directly away from each other with velocity [math]V[/math] , the observed frequency [math]f_o[/math] is different from the frequency of the source [math]f_e[/math] as

 

 

 

 

If you go faster than light or even the speed of light There is no longer any frequencies in light. Shazaam.. thats gonna be a little f'd up.

 

[math]f_o = \left (\sqrt {\frac {1-v/c}{1+v/c}}\right )f_e[/math]

^

[math]f_o = \left (\sqrt {\frac {1-C/c}{1+C/c}}\right )f_e[/math]

^

[math]f_o = \left (\sqrt {\frac {1-1}{1+1}}\right )f_e[/math]

^

[math]f_o = \left (\sqrt {\frac {0}{2}}\right )f_e[/math]

^

[math]f_o = \left (\sqrt {0}\right )f_e[/math]

^

[math]f_o = \left (0 \right )f_e[/math]

^

[math]f_o = 0[/math]

 

Light might just turn to mass..and mass just might turn to light

and that might just be a weird world.

 

gif animation: abiration of light

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/e/e0/XYCoordinates.gif

 

In diagram 1, the blue point represents the observer. The x,y-plane is represented by yellow graph paper. As the observer accelerates, he sees the graph paper change colors. Also he sees the distortion of the x,y-grid due to the aberration of light. The black vertical line is the y-axis. The observer accelerates along the x-axis.

[elas]

The problem with quantum theorist is that they learnt to run before they learnt to walk. What is light and why does it appear to travel at a constant speed in a vacuum? These are the questions that must be answered before the prediction of QT can be explained in words. At present students are taught at an early stage that "if you can predict it you understand it" i.e. the explanation in words is not taught. QT is pure maths, lets speculate on the words.

 

Imagine a circle of runners at various speeds. On the diameter place a line of stationary people. Each time a unner passes the end of the line the runner fives or receives a package to or from the line.

Now it will be seen that the rate at which the package travels accross the diameter is dependent on the density of the line, it has nothing to do with the speed of the runners.

 

In space the rate at which photons are passed from graviton to graviton has nothing to do with the speed of the particle that emitted the photon. If two or more photons originate from the same point at the same time, then as they separate they create a wave between them in much the same manner as the creation of an electric arc. The force of this linking wave decreases with increasing length; but the wave length of each wave is maintained (or determined) by the gravitons. Hence light has particles that remain unchanged with age (distance) and waves that weaken with age (distance).

The speed of light is detemined by the density of the gravitons which is related to the vacuum or gravity force of space. Hence light slows on approach to a black hole, because the time of all actions, including light, are determined by differences in density (vacuum force) between the participents.

[TriggerGrinn]

A relatavistic permeability and a relativistic permittivity?

 

[math](\varepsilon_r) (\mu_r)[/math]

 

A similar concept is a C meter, as like you said the density. Say 1sec near a dense star for light is 10m. Then a second on earth for light is 100m. When you view 1 second of data from the dense star, it becomes 10seconds in the frame on earth.

 

Mass is attracted to places of smaller C meters. This is a place where one observes less energy.

 

So when an observer is posistioned in space near earth. The atomic material experiences space get shorter towards earth. As it does, it moves towards the earth without force, for it only observes space contract. A phantom observer sees that object move.

 

In respect to a theory, not an opinion.

[swansont]

Not only what other people mentioned but,

At speed of C wavelength is also gone.

 

Ex falso quod libet. Out of a false proposition any conclusion at all may be derived.

 

Once you've violated the laws of physics, you can't use more physics to draw a valid conclusion of what would happen. All bets are off at that point; you need to come up with a completely new model.

[jck]

swansont,

 

That is simple enough.

 

No need to worry about speed at all or wavelengths. The eyes can only take in a certain amount of information and then the brain has to decode this so no one would expect to see anything travelling at any speed close to or faster than c would they?

 

lol,

john

jck

[swansont]

In physics parlance, "see" and "observe" refer to instrumentation as well as, and in many cases in preference to, eyesight. Eyesight has many nonlinear aspects to it and covers a very limited wavelength range.

[jck]

Yes I agree, very limited indeed. Still the post seemed to refer to eyesight and what a person would see with their own eyes travelling at c.

 

john

jck

[Farsight]

I think I understand time and energy and mass and light and other phenomena. I mean to explain all these things in essays that a layman can grasp. Meanwhile:

 

There's no travelling faster than light.

 

Trigger, it sounds to me as if you're thinking along the right lines.