About half the time I post on Universe Today, it's about faster-then-light travel. When I say "faster-then-light", I mean actually faster-then-light travel, not time dialation that happens at near-light-speed. But now after posting on Universe Today for about a year, I see that faster-then-light travel will NEVER be acommplished. The human race will either blow it'self up, or simply that physicts will nver allow it. FTL travel will always belong to the realm of science fiction. The evidence is everywhere. Go on amazon.com, you can find books on interstellar travel everywhere, but not ONE on FTL interstellar travel. Warp Drive is good TV, not good science. From now on I will post NORMAL topics, not topics that were written by a half scientist, half trekker mutent. And I have erased signature that put hope into FTL travel. I'm just bringing this up so everyone knows that theres a explanation behind my change of posts. If I were to join NASA, they would fire me in a instant. Thank you for bringing me back to my senses.

__________________
<span style='color:green'>&quot;We are the Borg. You will be assimilated. Your biological and technological distinctiveness will be add to our own. Resistance is futile.&quot;
Borg Hail</span>

what about wormholes? they are theoretically possible. you dont have to travel faster than light to warp spacetime and *poof* you're somewhere light years away without really travelling faster than light.

I agree, FTL is impossible but wormholes are and many other ways we don't yet know about. In science it has always been possible to bypass a forbidding law without violating it.

It's ashame, I've spent nearly half of my life on FTL travel.

__________________
<span style='color:green'>&quot;We are the Borg. You will be assimilated. Your biological and technological distinctiveness will be add to our own. Resistance is futile.&quot;
Borg Hail</span>

Well, if you've given up hope on FTL, at least don't give up hope on your planet. You see many ways in which humanity will prevent itself from reaching the stars. Can you see ways that you can either: slow humanity's descent, or prevent our descent?

I too wonder if we're going to make it much further, before a scarcity of resources draws us back to the stone age. However, I'm optimistic that by pushing both advancement and conservation, we can do it.

__________________
Live long enough to see Space!

We can get to space as a species. The above link is information about life-extension (living longer) so that you can personally see a space-based civilization.

The MPrize (a prize to encourage life extension research now contains over 3 million dollars.

Amen

Your right StarLab ! We shouldn't give up on FTL travel. People who believe in FTL travel, ARE YOU WITH ME? FTL is possible, and I'll dedicate my life to it! It will happen before I die! We shall preveil!

__________________
<span style='color:green'>&quot;We are the Borg. You will be assimilated. Your biological and technological distinctiveness will be add to our own. Resistance is futile.&quot;
Borg Hail</span>

I guess I let my inner skeptic take the better of me.

__________________
<span style='color:green'>&quot;We are the Borg. You will be assimilated. Your biological and technological distinctiveness will be add to our own. Resistance is futile.&quot;
Borg Hail</span>

Remember, Ziggy, that humanity has managed to achieve every advancement we have dreamed of. Humanity wanted to travel by sea and the boat was invented. Humanity wanted to ease the labor of hauling heavy stuff and invented the wheel, the chariot, the cart, the train, the truck, and the car. Humanity wanted to fly and invented the zepplin, blimp, hot air ballon, and plane. Humanity wanted to ease labor in general and invented the industrial process, automation, and now robotics. Humanity wanted to reach for the stars and invented the suborbital and orbital rockets, the space shuttle, space stations, and interplanetary probes. One day, as long as the dream is kept alive by people like you, humanity will achieve FTL travel!!!

__________________
...and we'll be saying a big hello to all intelligent life forms everywhere; and to everyone else out there, the secret is to bang the rocks together, guys...

...also, don't forget Alcubierre...

__________________
"Critical thinking and skepticism form the cornerstone of intelligence."
-me

Amen!! FTL is one of my more pleasant fantasies. But it is only a fantasy. However physically possible it may be found to be (I think it won't), navigation becomes a problem. Flitting through wormholes or warping spacetime could leave you in strange and uncomfortable locations in a somewhat unpredictable fashion. One such outcome could leave you stranded between galaxies with a scarcity of resources; another could leave you inside or uncomfortably near the surface of a star perhaps even one about to supernova. OK, so I'm chicken; Occam is still my friend.

__________________
For those inclined to oppose human meddling with the structure of the universe or the composition and configuration of objects and groups of objects within the universe, consider:
Whether there is a limit to the magnitude of a modulation of chaos below which order remains invariant? Or, is order but a fiction invented by perspectives applied over finite, however large, time intervals?

I dont get it. I just don't get it. No one has ever payed attention to the wise words of A. C. Clarke: "They no longer built spaceships. They were spaceships."
Such is the great StarLab's belief. Everybody is ranting on about Ftl-travelling spaceships. What about humans, if we don't wipe each other out, gradually replacing our bodyparts with mechanical stuff, which is only beginning to happen today, what with mechanical limbs and 'pacers. After this, when humans completely leave the realm of flesh and blood (a good few thousand or million years), we, the 'machine-entities' as Clarke calls our future descendants, would "learn to store our memories in space-time itself." At this point, we would be masters of the cosmos, and Ftl travel would be a reality.
Clarke is the true Mashiach of SciFi.

The possibility of FTL is not a matter of "belief" (pro or con), it's a matter of science. At the moment it looks impossible but we are constantly expanding our knowledge of physics and the realms of the very large and the very small. As long as we limit ourselves to our current best theories of physics such as Special and General Relativity, Quantum Mechanics and the Standard Model of subatomic particles FTL is ruled out, but these theories will certainly not be the last word anymore than Newtonian physics and classical thermodynamics was.

Lots of potentially revolutionary work on string theory, M-theory and loop quantum gravity is being done as we speak, who knows what that may reveal over the next 10-50 years?

__________________
David S.

&quot;Why are the pretty ones always insane?&quot;
-- Chief Clancy Wiggum, The Simpsons.

I'm voting on the "anything is possible" portion of the ballot. And, who knows, all it might take for FTL to become reality is for someone to have an insightful dream, and remember some interesting and novel geometric configuration when they wake up.

It could happen tonight!

Hang in there Ziggy!

__________________
Pre-Quote: 'To survive one has to experiment. When the environment changes, the traditional way of doing things doesn't work.'

Quote:
&quot;It's the outriders, the organisms that seem to be maladjusted before the change, which are the only ones that survive these changes...in that way a species continues.&quot;

Carl Sagan

I agree Tom2Mars, nothing is impossible. StarLab, I also believe we as humans will become our machines; beyond that, perhaps reaching a state of 'pure energy' with galaxy-sized minds a la Stephen Baxter.

Within a less remote time frame, I think science should focus on 'conning' our way to the stars rather than dragging ourselves by our eyelids to them.

Whatever do you mean? Please elaborate. The laws of physics seem to prevent both methods of travel. What the laws of physics do not allow is indeed impossible.

__________________
For those inclined to oppose human meddling with the structure of the universe or the composition and configuration of objects and groups of objects within the universe, consider:
Whether there is a limit to the magnitude of a modulation of chaos below which order remains invariant? Or, is order but a fiction invented by perspectives applied over finite, however large, time intervals?

Stowing aboard an alien craft?

__________________
Everyone rises to their own level of incompetance.

Note 1 :
Einstein explained the above given equation as a limit on particle accelerator to accelerate the particle to only sub C as proven mathematically and by particle accelerator experiments. He then said "because" a particle accelerator has to provide the energy to accelerate the particle from a rest frame base to a relativistically increasing mass towards infinity so the energy required tended towards infinity. "In relativity calculation do not mix frames of reference. "It did not rule out a different machine being found that provides the energy from a different frame reference so would require the energy calculation being redone with the proper frame of reference" "Experiments can be poorly designed so as not to prove what they are intended to such as particle accelerator experiments and the Michale-Morleson experiment" -Einstein (1955)

I can fairly assume that Einstein was the leading authority on relativity till 1955, and not Gibbs or others before and after who interpreted his equations some other way to mean a machine cannot be found to exceed C. There is zero evidence such a velocity of light speed limit mechanics was ever constructed and Einstein denied in 1955 that he ever constructed such mechanics as he taught that a massive object could be accelerated beyond light speed. He than explained "How" it could be done.

He then explained the wide spread public misconception tying his relativity theories to a C speed limit to a "German to English" translator he hired to translate his relativity papers to English.

The Translator knowing basically as a second language German and some basic physics and less relativity physics and some of Henry Poincare's workwas looking for a C speed limit mechanics so Jumped to the conclusion he had found it translating some of the equations adding his own interpretation comments to appear falsely as from Einstein to say:

"It appears we cannot accelerate an object beyond light speed" in the English translation. By the time Einstein came to America and had learned enough English to correct the mistranslations he found the misinformation so widespread that correction was found impractical so then he confined his teaching of the possibility of acceleration beyond light speed to his personal students at Princeton and private students and from that time on authorized only those works signed by
him to be published. The one signed in 1955, I read in 1963.

So my list of math or experimental proofs of any C limit for massive objects
velocity contains no data.

Universal speed limit at C Proof list
.............................................
(Empty-Null Set)
.............................................


Note 1
Of rocket velocity (V)
90.227 % Propellant = 902.727 tons propellant
6.000 % Structure = 60 tons structure
3.773 % Payload = 37 tons payload
u = .90227 = 902.727 tons of propellant / 1000 tons of rocket
Vexaust= 81840 miles/sec therefore:

Vf = (81840 miles/sec ) (LN(1/(1-.090227))
=(.44 times 186,000 miles/sec ) (LN 10.)
=(81840 miles/sec)(2.3255467)
Vfinal =190,322.7 miles/sec = 1.023 C or warp speed 1.02 arriving with 37 tons of payload and 60 tons of structure.


Note 2 :
I found that machine in an atomic rocket so calculate the energy requirements
from converting a small part of exhaust mass to energy via M=E/C^2. This
calculation uses the proper frame of reference taught Einstein as the "local"
frame refereed to only in particle accelerator physics as the misnomer
"target frame" as in common use today. Switching from particle accelerators
to rocket engines "local" is the correct terminology.
Just in last 50 years a math error was found that changed the calculated
distance to the stars by a factor of "TWO" changing the size of the known
universe to twice or 1/2 it's former size.

No telling what math errors will be found in the future. It would seem wise
not to consider a minimum energy requirement journey to any star for the
reasons you gave. Perhaps a craft would have to have enough energy to go
anywhere in the universe and back to succeed. I found some good numbers
indicating that very possibility even if the speed is limited to just below
light speed. The only difference from C + V travel is your earth twin would
be ancient bones if you return with the C -V ship.
Here are the numbers for C -V ship dilated time near c Vs earth time at 10 g
acceleration.

Grasshopper,
Star travel is no place for girlie boys.
Yoda

How did yoda get in here?

Here is the energy available for star travel calculations.for C plus or minus
v ship.

An ordinary chemical rocket can control by throttle an exhaust flow rate to
give 1 g acceleration for several hours based on tests of rockets reaching an
average 15g for many minutes such as "Helios".
At less than 1 year = 356 days time 24 hours =8544 hours of 1 g acceleration
are needed to exceed c.
Versus present chemical rockets, 8,544/3(several) times more power is needed
so that acceleration time can be measured at greater than 356 days to exceed c.
The chemical Vs atomic power to mass unit ratio based on atomic bomb and
reactor test measurements are best "guesstamated" at 1,000,000 to 100,000,000
times the power possible with chemical rockets so atomic rockets of good
design can maintain 1 g acceleration for 351 to 35100 years.

quote...........................
The apple(t)
Plugging in above calculater 4.25 light years to near star at 1 g
acceleration the calculator gives:
Trip length: 4.25 light years.
Acceleration: 1.0 g.
Time on earth: 5.8780560467144 years.
Time on ship: 3.544401860293398 years.

The distance between the earth and a near star does not change.
Next make some effort on your part to calculate with v = d/t and v'=d/t'
the different velocities as v=d/t measured by the earth observer and v'=d/t'
Calculate v as always less than c and v' can be C-Vx, C or C + Vx. In the
short trip given v'= C+Vx with Vx being some calculated velocity added to C
or subtacted from C. If you do not want to take the effort
4.25 years light years/3.5 years ship time gives Greater than C for v wrt ship
There are two distinct cases above for calculating faster than light
velocities. One C + Vx value from 1 g acceleration wrt the earth give C + V
wrt ship velocity due to time dilation effects and the second case 1 g
acceleration wrt the ship giving both C + V wrt the earth velocity and
providing the 1 g artificial gravity environment required for crew comfort.
Bon Voyage!

For numeric methods of Rocket simulations see
http://www.execpc.com/~culp/rockets/rckt_sim.html

__________________
Thomas Hulon Jackson
Scientist/Engineer/Technician

Well, first, I should point out that Einstein was not the first one to say that one cannot go faster than light. That distinction actually goes to James Maxwell, who unified the electricity and magnetism. It was his laws that clashed with Newton's which led to Einstein discovering relativity.

If you go at .9999c, and outside observer would indeed see you barely lagging behind a light beam, but from your vantage point, the light beam would be rocketing ahead of you at (guess what?) the speed of light. It's the effect of time dilation.

Starship, most of your calculations here are based on Newtonian physics. Newton did say that we could go faster than light, but he was wrong. Newtonian physics work great for current, everday situations like an airplane, or Cassini, but near the speed of light, they break down. The answers they give are totally inconsistent with nature.

"Note 1" completely ignores relativity. What it represents is a ship simply accelerating up to 1.023c, which is impossible.

Also, just like you've done before, you're taking the spaceship's frame of reference. I agree 100% that, from the ship, it would take only a few years to zip around the galaxy, but real FTL travel would have flight times of a few years as measured by a person at rest. In your only relativistic calculation, the outside observer doesn't measure the ship ever going faster than light.

__________________
"Critical thinking and skepticism form the cornerstone of intelligence."
-me

You seem to forget Zrice03,

In 1963 I read the 1955 signed work of Albert Einstein. He claims he never taught a light speed limit for mass. I believe him. I just gave you the reasons he stated so in my previous post.

It really does not matter to me what someone who did not read his 1955 signed work sez as none to date can produce anything of Eintein's statement to the contrary of what he said and I read.

If you want to ignore both his statements and me repeating what he said do so at your own risk. Interpeting relativity equations tio mean nothing can excced light speed without Einsteins guidance is fool hardy at best.

I am almost sure that if I not read his 1955 work I might conclude nothing can exceed light speed, but as I did, I must conclude mass can exeed light speed.

In case one-With Einsteins relativity equations accelerate at 1 g for 356 days wrt to the earth and one exceeds C wrt the ship from warping time.

In case two-With Einsteins relativity equations accelerate at 1 g for 356 days wrt to the ship and one exceeds C wrt the earth from warping both space and time.

In your case you can produce no Einstein math of case one or two limiting the velocity to C.

In any case, the limit of the exhaust velocity is sublight speed as it would take an infinite amount of energy to get the exhaust faster than light wrt the ship. This is not a limit on the rockets velocity.

I made my case.

Your infinite energy argument fails for atomic powered rockets.

Now make yours
- just do not claim Einstein taught a universal light speed limit for mass unless you proooooooovide his words and source quote as he taught light had mass and it was possible mass can accelerate beyond light speed.

__________________
Thomas Hulon Jackson
Scientist/Engineer/Technician

Very strong point starship1 !

__________________
<span style='color:green'>&quot;We are the Borg. You will be assimilated. Your biological and technological distinctiveness will be add to our own. Resistance is futile.&quot;
Borg Hail</span>

Those that say we can't travel faster than light have a solid case, because we haven't achieved it yet. To say we can't is defeating. To base the information off of a few men that don't know for sure whether humans can travel faster than light is a little presumptious. Yes, these men, such as Albert E. are great thinkers that are definitely way ahead of thier time. However, back in the 20's and 30's, and 40's - how many people believed we would walk on the moon, or send crafts hurling to Pluto and beyond, or landing machines on Mars. How many doubted our ability that we would gain the technology and the understanding to clone animals, and more frightening, although highly interesting, human cloning. We all did, I've listened to many people that lived those years, and thought it wasn't possible. But they get a gleem in thier eye when they know that thier generation was apart of something profound.

Yes, all these accomplishments sound relatively trival and small compared to achieving the speed of light, but it is because we have achieved them, while we haven't achieved the speed of light. To say it is impossible is self-defeating, and easy to say, and also easy to back with current evidence. However, to say it is possible is optimistic, it is easy to say, but difficult to prove.

At this time, the only thing I can say to support my belief is that the technology we build today in the attempts to understand light, gravity, and the universe may not be those things that cause us to go faster then the speed of light at this time or in the near future. However it is possible that they are those steps that will eventually lead us to this grand achievement. "Necessity is the, mother of invention!"

Hmm, I've been around this forum for quite a while now, but for the first time I just have to reply, and that is because I just got to get my word in on this one!

Ok, here's the plain simple idea:
Lets say that you accelerate x to the speed of 0.9999C (then no one will be upset ). In X we have Y, standing at the rear end of X. Then Y starts to move towards the front of X at the speed of 0.99999C (of cause the front of X is the end pointing in the moving direction). This way Y is moving faster than the speed of light compared to what is outside of X, yet both X and Y is acting within the law of known physics. By using enough "boxes", you could even move faster than the speed of light, without having an hour for you being years for some one not moving!

That's my little idea. The problem here would be to make... perhaps some kind a sphere around the spaceship, which would take the role of X so the spaceship could be Y moving at faster than light speed within.

If any one have a reason why this should not be possible... hit me h34r:

__________________
Aim for the moon, even if you miss you'll end among the stars!

Ignoring your x-y scenario, which to me is complicated, I still think the idea of a bubble is all that is needed to achieve ftl.
I do not know how such a bubble I am theorizing can be constructed, but basically this bubble, when activated around whichever spaceship, isolates all laws of physics so that the people/things inside can travel at v>c or v=c. Of course, the major thing about this bubble is that it would not let any matter or energy get out or in from once its activated until once its deactivated.
Also I think that this bubbleship would travel on a superstring - just like a bead on a string. After all, superstrings are warped by gravity, but do not crash into stars. Unless a black hole is in the way to whatever destination, which is an easy problem to fix - just picking a route without a blackhole in the way - this is a possible way to travel FasterThanLight.

Good thinking and a very valid theory untested so I am trying to think of a way to best test it.

Lets make the rocket very small so it is easy to accelerate to near light speed with just expending a little energy like found in particle accelerators accelerating protons to near light speed. Visualizing the proton splitting at near c both parts fly apart at some velocity determined by the amount of mass converted to energy in the release and one part goes back wards in the line of travel and one goes forward. Does the ones going forward add to the near light speed causing it to exceed light speed?

I do not know (hence the reason to do the experiment) as I am not a prophet or psychic or speculator but it seems very reasonable that it would or could exceed light speed as all relativistic velocity addition calculations I have seen to date cover only the particle going backward so it velocity calculates to less than the original particle. The case you point out of the mass moving at some velocity forward wrt the original ship velocity has not been calculated with Einstein' relative velocity addition rules. Those using the rules always set conditions other than you describe as it reinforces a preconcieved notion of a light speed limit for mass. I promise that if they did get a c + v value in relativity calculations they would see it as an error so they avoid those cases. I cannot abvoid all possible cases as I do not see a c + V value as any error as it happens often in relativity equations.

That does not confirm your case as they set the conditions different so it confirms only the calculations made under those concititons. Use your conditions and you get a reasonable C + V and confirm c + v.

In accelerator tests already run one only detects the statistical average velocity of average masses and it calculated to be very near light speed like .99999 c so the laws of probability predict one real mass would exceed light speed out of the thousands of particles accelerated; however there was no detector available on the experiment capable of actually detecting a faster than light particle if it did occur so the experiment is considered flawed for a FTL proof test

Therefore it's results and conclusions formed from the results misconstrued as a proof cannot be extrapolated to include all machines, as it provided energy from a frame at rest to objects increasing in relativistic mass tending to infinity as the mass tended to C then the energy required tended to infinity.

Back to what I do know and leaving for a moment particle accelerator machines and going to real rocket machines.

Rockets provide energy to the exhaust mass by converting mass to energy and instead of the energy being provided from a frame at rest it is provided from a inertial (moving) frame so a different set of equations must be used to determine final velocity thought the velocity of the exhaust is limited to light speed.

Well for my Mars engine and my faster than light engine I need only convert 1 part of the 900 tons of propellant and fuel out of each ten parts available to energy so I expect 10 % matter conversion.

I do not desire to convert 100% percent of the propellant to energy as there would be no propellant left for momentum transfer to the rocket.

I do not desire to increase the energy to increase the exhaust velocity to beyond .44 C as the relativistic effects are minimal. At twice that at a velocity Ve of .88 C the relativistic effects would be extreme so to increase the velocity of the exhaust I would have to increase the energy exponentially as it would be a relativistic mass requiring a relativistic energy increase to accelerate the exhaust mass with less than 1/2 the momentum transfered to the payload mass by doubling the exhaust velocity.

It is not always desirable to increase local efficiencies by reducing losses such as frictional ones. Example one can reduce friction in a car to a point, but many machines require friction to operate like a car and brakes. Where the rubber meets the road no friction would be just spinning the wheels.

If I reduced the friction of the body machine where my feet hit the road it would soon become like walking on wet glare ice and I would get nowhere.

The same engineering principals holds true for rockets using relativistic momentum and relativistic acceleration as rockets work on exhaust momentum transfered.

In case one I accelerate at a constant 1 g wrt earth for 356 days and I exceed light speed wrt the ship by warping time.

In case two I accelerate at 1 g wrt the ship and I exceed light speed wrt the earth by warping both space and time.

In case one the rocket man feels a initial artificial gravity gravity field of 1 g tending to zero as velocity tends to c wrt earth from relativistic time dilation effects.

In case two the rocket man feels a constant one g the entire trip.

In any case gravity warps both space and time, as visualized in the rubber sheet model with dents in the rubber sheet where mass such as planets are therefore in accordance with general relativity theory or Einstein's equivalence principal gravity and acceleration are indistinguishable and equal therefore artificial gravity acceleration like a rocket is like velocity relativistic and so acceleration is relativistic as

A'=A (gamma cubed) so in case two warping both time and space my rocket is doable with my current technology and the rocket will exceed light speed wrt the earth after a constant one g acceleration wrt the ship for 356 days wrt both the ship and earth for in case two both ship time and earth time are equal.-and that is not an exaggeration but just a little known and under appreciated fact of relativistic acceleration from general relativity applied to rockets.
now and thank you for your patience.

__________________
Thomas Hulon Jackson
Scientist/Engineer/Technician

Everyone speaks of 'faster than light' but is light actually moving?

This links back to my 'conning' distances instead of travelling them comment.

The notion of 'cumulatively' accelerating past the speed of light is compelling. Years ago I remember seeing two children playing on a trolly on a train. One was pushing the other, who was walking to the front of the trolly - all in the same direction as the train. I wondered how fast that child was moving in relation to terra firma. Extrapolate relative to the Sun, and the speeds are faster, yet still notional.

Light doesn't need to accelerate - it's already there.

So, if something maintains a constant, measurable speed, but can be initiated, is it really moving?

An LED sign is a good example. Letters made up of LED 'pixels' appear to scroll across the face of the sign, of course, they aren't really moving.

A more specific example would be waves in the sea - they just bob up and down for the most part.

Constant velocites are a part of the laws of physics. Ever since the beginning, light, sound, and all components of the electromagnetic spectrum have had constant velocities. It doesn't take long for the Maker of the laws of physics to compute things. When spacetime was created, the Maker said "let 'C' be" and it was so.
However, it is interesting to note that gravity and matter all travel at varied speeds...why is this so?

Perhaps you've been experiencing a little time dilation of your own.

__________________
Climate Change Australia

Well, kashi. If I were experiencing time dialation, less time would go by for me, and more time would go by for a person standing still. So how long have I really been posting on UniverseToday?

__________________
<span style='color:green'>&quot;We are the Borg. You will be assimilated. Your biological and technological distinctiveness will be add to our own. Resistance is futile.&quot;
Borg Hail</span>