Finally Revealed !! Faster Than Light Travel

1. 54

   jcalesposted 11 years ago

   Original source: http://news.yahoo.com/hidden-einsteins- … 03805.html
   
   -------
   "Before Chuck Yeager became the first person to travel faster than the speed of sound in 1947, many experts questioned whether it could be done. Scientists worried that the plane would disintegrate, or the human body wouldn't survive. Neither turned out to be true.
   
   Fears of crossing the light barrier may be similarly unfounded, Hill said.
   
   "I think it's only a matter of time," he said. "Human ingenuity being what it is, it's going to happen, but maybe it will involve a transportation mechanism entirely different from anything presently envisaged."-----
   
   Someday we'll go to a universe where no man has gone before but probably not in my lifetime though .  Maybe I can be reincarnated and make it a 2nd or 3rd go around. And no, I am not a trekkie, star wars fan, or any of that. I am just happy to see progress and see there is a truth to the madness.

   replyreport
   1. 58

      A Troubled Manposted 11 years agoin reply to this

      From the link...
      
      "Despite the singularity, Hill is not ready to accept that the speed of light is an insurmountable wall. He compared it to crossing the sound barrier."
      
      What Hill has failed to talk about is the fact that the speed of light is governed entirely by the permeability and permittivity of spacetime, which is the real barrier to be crossed. Einsteins equations won't help him with that at all.

      replyreport
2. 75

   jacharlessposted 11 years ago

   Troubled Man,
   I may be inclined to disagree with you. Time is a human construct. Measure {often included to mean space or distance between objects} is also a human construct. The thing called Space itself is light. Light which is contracting, expanding, absorbing constantly at speeds, intervals and every "direction".
   
   Breaking the sound barrier is simply achieving a frequency that produces enough velocity to exceed audible range.
   
   Presently, to travel @ light speed, as measured by humans, no mechanic would be able to achieve this frequency. Gravity is not the issue, really, to overcoming this obstacle, as we have seen with aerospace successes. The method of approaching light travel is the issue. If anything, beginning outside the earths atmosphere is. Point A, removing gravity and heat/resistance. Point B is what to use as a mechanism//vessel//craft. Point C is fuel, which easily can be solved solar power, which is light itself or even wind -and a light space~breeze at that.
   
   Years back, an acquaintance considered a liquid or vapor filled mechanism for a craft or motion object//vessel. A bubble to be more precise. As it was lightweight, buoyant and easy to maneuver. Don't know what happened to him or the idea. But it sounded good @the time...

   replyreport
   1. 58

      A Troubled Manposted 11 years agoin reply to this

      That's just so much gibberish.

      replyreport
   2. 0

      jomineposted 11 years agoin reply to this

      There is not a thing called 'space'. Space is the absence of everything, the static distance between two objects, our conceptualization of 'nothing'.

      replyreport
      1. 75

         jacharlessposted 11 years agoin reply to this

         Hmm, might want to check up on the last two decades of scientific work.
         Space is completely opposite of the "absence of everything". It is the fullness of everything. And although appearing "static" is moving, expanding, contracting, etc. In short, the universe -space itself, the core, the framework, that holds all observable and unobservable objects, is breathing. If fact, at its edge, space is moving faster than projected light, and speeding up. Space is growing.
         
         My good philosophic friend Mr Kant has already 'proven this' long before CERN went hunting for 'dark matter' and 'bosons'. Many before him as well, especially Aristotle. But to push the limits, Newtonian philosophy states space is free and exists even if no matter existed within it. One might call that the Immovable Object -meaning ever constant, static force {of energy//light}.
         
         So, how can "conceptual nothing" grow, expand, collapse and hold everything in place? Furthermore, since space is moving//growing at its velocity, then the probability of light travel is a given. Still the method of humans achieving this velocity remains in question.
         
         James.

         replyreport
         1. 0

            jomineposted 11 years agoin reply to this

            My friend whatever it is you are trying to say, does not make any sense. Space by definition of the word is "nothing", or a border less expanse.
            So how does a border less expanse got edge? If there is an edge, then what is the shape of space?
            How do you know a border less expanse is moving? How can emptiness hold anything?
            Even if I'm to agree that space is a thing, then what is that separates object? Why the world is not one solid block? What gives shape to an object?
            "Holding in place?"
            In relation to what? Where shall objects fall, in relation to what?
            Please objectively define the word object and exist, for you say space exist and is an object, so that I can understand you precisely.

            replyreport
            1. 75

               jacharlessposted 11 years agoin reply to this

               I do not understand how one comes to the conclude that space is "nothing", as both euclidean and non-euclidean geometric define it as "something".
               Socrates, Plato, Aristotle, Kant --even Newton and Einstein all concur, on some level, that Space is the "framework" that holds all things. Some say it is a near-flat plane, others say elliptical, still others a sphere. Spacetime is often the word used to define space, because of measuring distances in space and not space itself.
               
               Space is not empty, although it can be void of any matter, as many have proposed with very good white paper to support their analysis. More recently, a great many physicists have agreed space is expanding. Again, regardless of shape, space has form and is the cause of all forms within. If space were empty, nothing would exist, not even itself, because all things require space to enable their form, etc. Space itself is not limited to gravity, as many have noted by the movement of galaxies, etc away from each other. Space would be aether energy -or in layman's terms neutral light. Light that neither projects or reflects. Some have referred to this as dark matter or even antimatter. both are apart of space but not space itself.
               
               Space itself does. I said this before, space is ever constantly expanding, contracting -breathing. Gravity is apart of space, as are all other things within it. things is space do fall and rise, just not how we would perceive and apple falling or a feather floating.
               
               James

               replyreport
               1. 0

                  jomineposted 11 years agoin reply to this

                  If space is a sphere, what is outside the sphere?
                  Geometry is regarding an object not absence of objects.
                  Define your terms correctly So that what you say make sense.
                  
                  "because of measuring distances in space and not space itself."
                  Surely, one cannot measure what is not there. We are measuring the tape or the imaginary object we keep there not space.
                  
                  "If space were empty, nothing would exist, not even itself, because all things require space to enable their form, etc'
                  
                  On the other hand, if space were a thing, all world will be a single solid block. It just because there is space we can move around. Space is ["ll things require space to enable their form,'] the absence of things between things there by giving objects "form".
                  
                  "Falling and rising"
                  In relation to what?
                  "Space expanding"
                  Expanding to what?
                  When a balloon expands, you look at the edges and see that it is moving away from the center. It pushes the air outside. So what is outside the space.
                  If space is a plane as you allege it to be, where is the plane. A plane is two dimensional like picture on the paper, where is the paper? And again what gives shape to it?

                  replyreport
                  1. 75

                     jacharlessposted 11 years agoin reply to this

                     Space is form, without shape. The ultimate form.
                     Humans apply conditions of measure, numeric, weight, mass, size, shape, etc.
                     
                     Again, you keep referring to a "solid block", but this is based on conditions.
                     But, Space itself is essentially "solid", in that itself is full, having no emptiness.
                     However it is not solid in the sense of filling a box that has an end.
                     Within itself, are objects, that have form, because Space enables them to have form or shape, size, weight//gravity, etc.
                     
                     Again, our humble apple.
                     Space allows that apple to exist, is the cause and effect of itself, its DNA, seed, seed cover, pocket where the seeds rest, the soft core, hard core, meat, juice, scent, skin, hue, shine, curve, flavor; the tree from which it came, the soil which holds the tree, etc. The apple can change form, and Space again allows that form to change. Space changes itself to allow all objects within to change or remain. And, the many minuscule parts of the atomic have no form either, because they are space itself. Yet it forms the many variations of the apple itself and interaction with that apple.
                     
                     We cannot measure space itself, so humans use the most primitive approach: measure the objects within. They count the galaxies and then the distance between these greater objects to assume the size, age and bigness of Space. But, of itself, light cannot be measured and therefore cannot be assumed to have an ending. Space is light.
                     
                     Yes, many sciences agree space has an edge or end, has some type of shape {discus, ellipse, sphere, arc, infinity loop}. They say this because they observe the objects within {galaxies, etc} moving away from each other, their form, shape, etc. This expansion applies the condition of said edge. Objects within then arise or fall away from one another. Hence, space must be expanding or adding objects to itself. This means Space has essentially no end, as it could continue to add more things to the infinite degree of measure.
                     
                     Again, no shape is required for Space itself -and actually not even the objects within.
                     Just because objects have form does not imply they must have form to exist.
                     
                     So, since Space is light -the sum of energy that projects, absorbs, reflects - it can be and do "at will", requiring no form to produce form, no conditions to determine its smallness, bigness, mass, weight, size, etc. We note this in the subatomic view. Particles constantly appearing, disappearing, expanding, collapsing, remaining constant. Yet this formlessness causes all forms to come into view, "builds" atomic structures, one upon another, forming atoms, molecules, elements, chemicals, matter, dna, microbes, cells, solids, liquids, gases, mountains, air, gravity, fingers and toes, scent, flavors, colors, thoughts, images, memory and on and on. The complexity is as infinite as light itself and understood as much as Space itself -the formless everything- is. Again space is the framework of everything, including itself. Quite possibly the only self sustaining thing. The only thing can exist without objects.
                     
                     My personal view is simple: Space: is the universe and everything within and without. Thus, there is no thing outside of the formless everything. This also means there are no dimensions. Creation, as we title Nature, the Universe, is the result of the Irresistible -that immovable {ever constant} meeting the unstoppable {ever changing} force//energy that is itself. Energy mirroring energy. That mirroring causes the appearance if the observable and unobservable self.
                     
                     In keeping with the OP, traveling at light speed is possible, should light enable itself to produce the condition of velocity -velocity of static, project or reflect. Therefore, a person or vessel desiring to travel through the universe, through space, need only "hijack" a frequency of light. The issue here is where to catch the light wave and where it will end up placing the object {person, vessel}. Getting "on the ride" isn't as difficult as "getting off the ride" at a desired point. It is not impossible, certainly. We do this constantly in our minds, in our thoughts. We travel through Space, in a semi-physical state, using optic light {thoughts, images, memories}. Past, Present & future -by the application of "spacetime". These same parameters can then be applied to travel the formless everything.
                     
                     To sort of jest: perhaps Jodie Foster got it right. And even though she never left the vessel, and the actual distance was just a few meters, did indeed travel "millions of miles" through Space itself. If the human mind has this ability, certainly the rest of the human being has this ability also.
                     
                     James.

                     replyreport
                     1. 0

                        jomineposted 11 years agoin reply to this

                        If you want to converse, define your terms.
                        Form and shape are synonyms.
                        Solid is opposite of empty.
                        I can't understand you, you use synonyms as antonyms and antonyms as synonyms.

                        replyreport
            2. 85

               DzyMsLizzyposted 11 years agoin reply to this

               I am no mathematician; I suck at math.  I operate in the sphere of words and language.  However, space is definitely a thing, not a nothingness.
               
               Space is what you find between grains of sand; the air above your head; the sky is all part of 'space.'  It is there; it can be measured and weighed.  It is malleable; its shape is defined by the shapes and sizes of the objects within.
               
               Space is the placeholder, if you will, like the 'zero' digit acts as a placeholder in arithmetic (and that's as close to math as I'm going to go).
               
               The fact that it is there, proves its existence as a 'thing,' for if it was the absence of anything, there would be no further room to add another object; everything would be all squished together--your own "solid block" statement.
               
               Here is an illustration:  You have a very large trunk, into which you pack as many basketballs as you can fit.  Is the trunk full?  No, there remains room for more items--in the air pockets, if you will--between the basketballs.  Now, you can add softballs; still, the trunk is not full--space is in there, holding more openings.  You can continue to add smaller and smaller things:  baseballs; golf balls; pebbles; and finally fill the trunk to the brim with sand.
               
               Still, there is one more thing that can be added before it is truly full, and that thing is water.  So, space exists as a bendable place-holder between everything.  You might even think of it as an anti-friction lubricant.
               
               In "outer space," though it is devoid of breathable atmosphere, as it has already been pointed out, it can be measured, and shown to be expanding.  "Nothing" by definition cannot expand, because it has no mass.  Space may be more correctly defined as observable distance, and is filled always with something--even if at the microscopic level. 
               
               (On a lighter note, "Nothing," on the other hand, might better be defined as that portion within the skulls and between the ears of politicians. ) 

               replyreport
               1. 0

                  jomineposted 11 years agoin reply to this

                  Space: a boundless three-dimensional extent in which objects and events occur and have relative position and direction(merriam webster: http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/space)
                  
                  The unlimited expanse in which everything is located(wolfram alpha: http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=space)
                  
                  The infinite extension of the three-dimensional region in which all matter exists.(http://www.thefreedictionary.com/space)
                  
                  
                  What is your definition of space?
                  What is your definition of 'thing'(object) and 'exist'?
                  I'm asking for a definition and not a description.
                  
                  "Space is what you find between grains of sand"
                  To be precise, space is the static distance between two objects(or surfaces). Space is that which has no borders or edges, has no shape. Space is that contours objects and give shape to the object.  Space is that separate objects or things. Space can only be negatively predicated. Space is not a what, but a where.
                  "like the 'zero' digit acts as a placeholder'
                  Zero means nothing.  A decimal system with a number followed by zero is not zero.When you have zero apple, it means you have NO apple.

                  replyreport
                  1. 85

                     DzyMsLizzyposted 11 years agoin reply to this

                     On the contrary--"space" contours itself around the objects, not the other way around.  It is not what holds them in place or gives them shape--that's a whole other set of laws, including, but not limited to, gravity.
                     Whether a 'zero' means 'nothing' or is a placeholder depends upon the context.  Yes, 'zero apples' means none.  On the other hand, the figure '10' means 9 ones plus one.  It is a placeholder for the next unit of one, so you can count to "11' without getting stuck with nowhere to go.  Ergo, I GAVE you a definition--that of "placeholder."
                     And by the way, not one of your dictionary definitions defines space as nothingness.  Every place that 'space' is defined in those definitions show 'space' acting as that very placeholder or separator:
                     
                     Imagineifwedidnotusespacebetweenwordsinoursenteneces.
                     
                     Space is a "what," because it exists, and is EVERYWHERE; so in a sense, it is both a 'what' and a 'where.'  If you do not have enough space  in front of where you are walking, you may collide with a lamp post or fall into a ditch.
                     
                     If you still don't agree or 'get it' and are unwilling to accept the definitions provided to you, then I'm done.  I have better things to do with my time than bandy words in a pointless argument.

                     replyreport
                     1. 75

                        jacharlessposted 11 years agoin reply to this

                        plusone.
                        bytheway,Ihavedecided,fromnowon,notoputspacesbetweenmywords.
                        thatshouldslow`emdown.
                        hehe

                        replyreport
                     2. 0

                        jomineposted 11 years agoin reply to this

                        I'm done.
                        Place is a synonym of space, so your definition does not define, but merely uses a synonym.
                        You provided no definition for exist.
                        Zero means nothing. But in 10, it has meaning only because we decided it to be. '10' is 'X' in roman, 11 is 10 in 9 based system(with no zero), in other words when preceded by a number we assign a value to '0', stand alone it means 'nothing', that is zero apple mean no apples and '10' is ten and not one-zero apples, or,'10(is a single symbol)' stands for ten, it is not '1' and '0'.
                        By the way, a definition means a "statement expressing the meaning of the world clearly and precisely" that the word an be used throughout unambigously, so that we do not have to depend on the 'context' to know the meaning, in other words a synonym is not a definition.
                        My definition of space 'is static distance betwween two objects, that which has no shape, ourconceptualisation of nothing was provided in a previous post. Since you said language is your strong turf, I gave the definition from standard dictionaries. A 'boundless or 'unlimited expanse means shapeless. All objects has shape, while concepts lack shape. So by the dictionary meaning space is what we call a place, the shapeless nothing.
                        'Where' denotes a place and 'what' denotes a thing/object.

                        replyreport
         2. 58

            A Troubled Manposted 11 years agoin reply to this

            Please do.

            replyreport
3. 56

   Dame Scribeposted 11 years ago

   I don't have a doubt that we will find a new direction with science. It's about learning and making discoveries I absolutely love it

   replyreport
4. 85

   DzyMsLizzyposted 11 years ago

   And I'm done.  My final comment on the matter is that no matter what word you look up in the dictionary, you will pretty much find a synonym; another word meaning the same thing as the word you looked up, but expressed in a different manner.  Therefore, I did provide a definition.
   Finis.

   replyreport
   1. 0

      jomineposted 11 years agoin reply to this

      Definition
      A statement of the exact meaning of a word, esp. in a dictionary.
      An exact statement or description of the nature, scope, or meaning of something.
      
      synonym
      
      A word or phrase that means exactly or nearly the same as another word or phrase in the same language
      
      So your turf is not language after all, but poetry. People who claim expertise falsely are called Charlatans.

      replyreport