Notices
Results 1 to 14 of 14

Thread: F.T.L (Faster than Light) Theory

  1. #1 F.T.L (Faster than Light) Theory 
    Forum Sophomore Schizo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    164
    Faster than light speed travel: A myth or a reality


    I, in the future, hope to build an FTL vessel.

    How? Electromagnetic Repulsion Technology or E.R.T.


    The theory as of now is that as an object approaches the speed of light the mechanics of the atom go into overdrive; causing it to either breakdown or accumulate mass, this would be caused by the interaction of electromagnetic energy with the matter of the object traveling at the speed of light.

    The spaceship I am proposing will repel all variations of electromagnetic energy around the vessel; consequently(per design/shape of ship) it will cause it to move forward faster than the speed of light.

    The repulsion will cause the thrust.


    Reply With Quote  
     

  2.  
     

  3. #2 Haha 
    Forum Sophomore Schizo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    164
    See I told you I would do it... these are my blueprints... = )







    Boo ya!


    Reply With Quote  
     

  4. #3 FTL theory 
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Posts
    6
    check out:

    www.ftl-theory.org

    if true, it really doesn't take much to travel to stars
    Reply With Quote  
     

  5. #4  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Posts
    32
    we no need to travel at that speed, we can uncover warping technology in future to travel to another place. In fact, if you travel at lighting speed, the risk of accident caused by collision with even a small particle is fatal. better don't try it... it is risky method travelling in space.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  6. #5  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Posts
    6
    maybe so

    in the meantime, it would be easier to make good shielding and try going outside of solar system

    imagine all the new real estate waiting out there

    oh, wait, that would bring price down even more...

    just kidding, if ftl theory works, it would be good to at least see what some other earth-like planet looks like...
    Reply With Quote  
     

  7. #6  
    Forum Masters Degree
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Posts
    625
    Good gods, this is ridiculous.'I'm sorry, but it's true. Repelling all forms of electromagnetic reaction (which is carried by light, so basically you're going to repel all forms of light), does not mean that you're going faster than light, only that you are invisible.

    By the way, the reason nothing can go faster than light is that Einstein managed to show that anything going at that speed would require infinite mass. As mass is equivalent to energy, this would mean it would require infinite energy, which is impossible to produce.

    You can never go faster than light. That is final.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  8. #7  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Posts
    6
    I guess there are two things on this thread

    one is, I agree, not attainable and not defined well

    the other one (www.ftl-theory.org) is a more serious attempt to delve into nature of time

    it says that change in rate of time (which in special relativity, through conservation of momentum, leads to increase in mass) is tied to probability to observe random event.

    This is a postulate, which when mathematically expressed, leads to diminishing effects of relativity far from large masses.

    Given it's a postulate, and given that no one has actually tried it cannot be at this point proven or disproven. It doesn't contradict Einstein's relativity (special or general), only makes time 'anchored' to large masses...

    FTL theory is in accordance with all our current experiments (including all special and general relativity predictions). It is only when far from large masses that there are differences.

    it would take a probe to go out, try to accelerate and prove it or disprove it....

    But near large masses (such as Earth), or if mass of body is too small (such as electrons or molecules), Einstein's limitations always hold, even according to FTL theory.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  9. #8  
    New Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Posts
    4
    You can never go faster than light. That is final.

    Lion

    Only 500 years ago we 'knew' the earth was flat. Argue for your limitations and they are yours.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  10. #9  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Posts
    6
    Have you ever tried to accelerate past the speed of light? Far from Earth or other large masses (such as other planets, stars)? If so, tip of the hat to you and the matter is closed.

    Your argument about the belief from 500 years ago that Earth was considered flat works against itself.

    Someone actually tried to sail over the edge and saw there is no edge after all! I am sure in that day everyone was saying that Earth is flat and it's final. It's possible that we're so much smarter today than they were back then, that all of our own 'final' convictions are indeed final. Who knows. I wouldn't hold my breath though.

    My point is that one can be so inundated in believing the 'final' truths to the point of forgetting that without pioneer spirit to test them out, we would probably be still living in caves. There are reasons to try to go out and test that 'final' thought.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  11. #10  
    New Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Posts
    4
    I aggree trex!

    I was making that exact point.

    I was simply quoting lion from a few posts earlier with the first statement.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  12. #11  
    Forum Masters Degree
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Posts
    625
    If I may, I think I justified my original statement that you can never go faster than light by explaining how Einstein managed to show that going faster than light would require infinite mass and energy.

    Further, in order to actually go faster than light, the total energy of the object must be negative. which is clearly impossible. This can be seen as follows:

    At rest, the equation is . However, in motion this is actually,



    Now, it is obvious from this that if you place any value greater than the speed of light there, the result of the division will be greater than 1.

    We know 1-1=0. However, any value greater than 1 results in a negative number.

    If we multiply this negative number with , we instantly get negative energy.

    So, unless you can find vast amounts of negative energy, the question itself is moot.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  13. #12  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Posts
    6
    thanks, benjward!!

    the Einstein's logic is indisputable. The FTL theory doesn't argue that. That's the neat thing about FTL theory.

    What it does argue, however, is the nature of time. It does that through postulate, and the case for it is made.

    The full postulate (copied from web site, the FTL theory paper):

    "Any change in real clock speed due to moving at velocity V relative to at-rest observer, or subject to acceleration A,
    is equivalent to change in ideal clock speed due to moving at velocity V*P, or subject to acceleration A*P,
    where P is the maximum probability that exact time of random event at the place of a clock
    can be measured with equal accuracy from any at-rest observer."


    Einstein's theories deal with ideal clocks. The postulate establishes relationship with real clocks through probability to measure time of a random event.

    It says that fundamental nature of time is such that change in rate of time depends on probability to measure time of random event. It says that time arises as a probability to detect random events (which is 'change'). It says that time as such cannot be detected, but change in time can. And that this change in time is related to probability to detect random events. Random event is important, as it gives equal chance to every observer (to observe an event), giving rise to time equally everywhere. There is more to this in the paper, this is a dumbed down version.

    This comes before Einstein's theories (both special and general). In fact, it comes before any theory that predicts change in rate of passage of time. So FTL theory doesn't really discuss Einstein's theories. It doesn't disprove them.

    It just says that time isn't the same here, in our little corner of Universe and across some vast distance.

    Think of it this way: things are much more different on very small scale - you have quantum effects. But on much larger scale, they all but vanish (well not really, but you don't normally see them so clearly).

    FTL theory argues that time is anchored to large masses. And all our lives, we're sitting right on top of this huge mass called Earth.

    The formula for gamma factor (which you used, but didn't use the square factor, I assume it was a quick LaTex job):



    as you can see, the factor depends on distance (S), and masses of two objects. This is relativistic factor from R to D (Mr is mass of R and Md is mass of D) - it is the relativistic factor when R observes D. The formula is not symmetrical. If you flip masses, then you get relativistic effects from the standpoint of each observer.

    When Md<<Mr, or when S is small, this formula is reduced to classic relativistic formula. All our experiments are done in this fashion and we can be no wiser for it.

    The FTL theory is truly different than all other deliberations of relativity because it implicitly accepts the relativity. It just claims that change in time (which is assumed to be homogenous, so to speak), depends on distance and masses involved.

    Perhaps you give the paper a read. It's very light reading, and I think made entertaining on purpose:

    http://ftl-theory.org/Faster%20than%...%20theory.html

    The FTL theory truly offers something new in physics. Whether it's true or false, that is hard to say without testing it. But it can be tested (it's in the paper somewhere).
    Reply With Quote  
     

  14. #13  
    Forum Masters Degree
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Posts
    625
    So you mean to say that time is anchored to large masses? And that change in time depends upon the distances and masses involved?

    But general relativity predicts that. It says that time nearer to the Earth is slower than time felt farther away from the Earth. What this theory proposes has already been claimed by another theory.
    In control lies inordinate freedom; in freedom lies inordinate control.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  15. #14  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Posts
    6
    No, that's the first thing theory say it's not.

    There is additional correction for masses and distance that doesn't depend on gravity but comes from a postulate on nature of time.

    This corrector has little effect on General relativity, because as you said, there is already mass (not masses!) and distance involved.

    There is the same corrector for time in both the Special and General theory.

    In General theory, the new form for time dilation is:



    Due to the nature of time dilation, it's really Special relativity where there is a difference (again, there is a difference in General relativity as well but it's very small).

    The FTL theory comes before Special and General relativity. The above formula, as well as effect on inertia, Doppler effect, composition of velocities, magnetism and General relativity can be found at

    http://ftl-theory.org/Consequences%2...%20theory.html


    For example, the formula for Special relativity predicts that mass increase happens like this (but only if body accelerating has a fair amount of mass):



    The same formula, if distance is relatively small or if mass of object observed is tiny (such as electrons for example), produces the following:



    Even electrons would eventually escape the grip of relativity, but the distance needed to do so exceed currently known radius of observable Universe.

    All in all, the magic corrector:




    doesn't come from any known theory. To come up with it, a truly new postulate had to be introduced.

    Whether it's true or not, well, I'd very much like to know. I guess a very wealthy person could build a probe to see if above is true, but it ain't me
    Reply With Quote  
     

Bookmarks
Bookmarks
Posting Permissions
  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •