Yes, You Can Go Faster Than Speed Of Light

[hazelm]

You can but do you want to do it?

 

http://www.bbc.com/earth/story/20170228-why-cant-we-go-faster-than-light

[Moronium]

Well, Hazel, you're bringing up issues that I've already discussed at some length in another thread.  Here:  http://www.scienceforums.com/topic/31220-spacetime-more-hogwash-from-fairy-tale-physics/

 

The video you linked is entertaining, but it's conclusion does not match your thread title.  The accompanying text says:

 

 

Science writer and astrophysicist Adam Becker explains why we cannot go faster than light to BBC Earth's Melissa Hogenboom and Michael Marshall, with help from the animators at Pomona Pictures

 

.

I didn't hear anything in the video which says otherwise.

Edited June 7, 2018 by Moronium

[Moronium]

The video also makes it clear that is relying on a theory to reach its conclusions.

 

There are alternate theories which are completely consistent with both reason and all empirical evidence which do not prohibit speeds faster than c.

 

Speed in excess of light may, or may not, actually be possible, but that's a different issue.  

 

Einstein's SR theory essentially asserts, as a direct implication of its own fundamental postulates, that is is impossible to exceed the speed of light.

 

So why is it impossible, in the context of that theory, to go faster than light?  Because it's impossible, that's why!  The theory says so, without proof..  Not much of an "explanation," eh?

 

As discussed in the other thread I linked, this video says that you can go anywhere in the universe (i.e., billions of light years) in a lifetime. There is a fundamental contradiction here.  How can you go distances that it would take light itself billions of years to travel in a lifetime, and yet never exceed the speed of light?  It makes no sense.

 

Theories like LR do not put an express theoretical prohibition on travel speeds faster than light.  Put another way, they do not, by fiat, merely postulate that it is impossible.

 

If you don't postulate that the speed of light can't be exceeded, then it doesn't follow that infinite energy would be required to exceed it.  It is the postulate, not necessarily physical reality, that says infinite energy would be required.

Edited June 7, 2018 by Moronium

[Moronium]

For many years, it was believed to be impossible for an airplane to go faster than sound.

 

But that was only because then existing (propeller-driven) airplanes couldn't possibly do it:

 

The first pilot to officially break the sound barrier was Chuck Yeager, who did so in the rocket-powered Bell X-1 in his famous flight on October 14, 1947...The sound barrier (or sonic barrier) is the term which describes the increase in drag that an aircraft experiences as it approaches supersonic speeds....for many years, it was believed that the effects of this barrier would make supersonic travel impossible....the advent of the jet engine resulted in the abandonment of the supersonic propeller program at NACA.

 

 

https://hartzellprop.com/can-propeller-driven-aircraft-break-speed-sound/

 

The fastest propeller-driven aircraft is either the turboprop-powered TU-114 with a measured top speed of Mach 0.73 or the turboprop-powered XF-84H "Thunderscreech" with a design top speed of Mach 0.9 and an actual top speed of either Mach 0.83 or Mach 0.7 (sources disagree). The latter is an indication of why supersonic propeller-driven aircraft are unlikely: the continuous sonic boom coming off the propeller tips made the Thunderscreech the loudest airplane in the world. The record for piston-engine aircraft is slightly lower, at Mach 0.71.

 

 

https://aviation.stackexchange.com/questions/4953/can-propeller-driven-aircraft-sustain-speeds-at-or-above-mach-1?utm_medium=organic&utm_source=google_rich_qa&utm_campaign=google_rich_qa

Edited June 7, 2018 by Moronium

[hazelm]

Well, Hazel, you're bringing up issues that I've already discussed at some length in another thread.  Here:  http://www.scienceforums.com/topic/31220-spacetime-more-hogwash-from-fairy-tale-physics/

 

The video you linked is entertaining, but it's conclusion does not match your thread title.  The accompanying text says:

 

 

.

I didn't hear anything in the video which says otherwise.

I confess to twisting the title, yes.  And I did it deliberately because of things I'd read earlier about whether or not you can.  Einstein is alleged to have said (in my words) "well, you can but you'd have a hard time getting back'.  And that is covered in this article. - Well covered. 

 

Shall we not disparage what helps the less-educated understand?  :-)

[hazelm]

For many years, it was believed to be impossible for an airplane to go faster than sound.

 

But that was only because then existing (propeller-driven) airplanes couldn't possibly do it:

 

 

https://hartzellprop.com/can-propeller-driven-aircraft-break-speed-sound/

 

 

https://aviation.stackexchange.com/questions/4953/can-propeller-driven-aircraft-sustain-speeds-at-or-above-mach-1?utm_medium=organic&utm_source=google_rich_qa&utm_campaign=google_rich_qa

One of my favorite quotes:  "Never say never."

One of my favorite poems:  "He tackled the thing that couldn't be done - and he did it."  (Edgar A. Guest) - one of my favorite people.  :-)

[Moronium]

I confess to twisting the title, yes.  And I did it deliberately because of things I'd read earlier about whether or not you can.  Einstein is alleged to have said (in my words) "well, you can but you'd have a hard time getting back'.  And that is covered in this article. - Well covered. 

 

Shall we not disparage what helps the less-educated understand?  

 

 

OK, fair enough.  But--forgive my skepticism--I can't help but doubt that Einstein ever said that.  Do you have a source?

Edited June 7, 2018 by Moronium

[hazelm]

OK, fair enough.  But--forgive my skepticism--I can't help but doubt that Einstein ever said that.  Do you have a source?

I agree with you there.  Have you noticed that many articles and books, when quoting Einstein, say "attributed to Einstein"?    I like "allegedly".  Or, the answer one person gave when challenged about such a quote that someone said:  "Well, if he didn't, he should have."  :-)

[Moronium]

I confess to twisting the title, yes.  And I did it deliberately because of things I'd read earlier about whether or not you can. 

 

 

C'mon, Hazel, tell the truth, eh?  You "deliberately"  made clickbait out of it, dincha?

[hazelm]

C'mon, Hazel, tell the truth, eh?  You "deliberately"  made clickbait out of it, dincha?

Well, not deliberately.  I never heard that term but it fits.  It just seems to be fun to me to make a mystery of what we're going to see.  Probably not nice on a forum?  Shall I reform?  That would be even harder to do. 

[Moronium]

It just seems to be fun to me to make a mystery of what we're going to see.  Probably not nice on a forum? Shall I reform? That would be even harder to do. 

 

 

Hell, no.  You're good, just the way you are, Darlin.  What good is a forum if it's not even interesting or fun (or at least made to seem interesting)?

Edited June 7, 2018 by Moronium

[hazelm]

Hell, no.  You're good, just the way you are, Darlin.  What good is a forum if it's not even interesting or fun (or at least made to seem interesting)?

Thanks.  Creativity is fun. 

[Moronium]

Let's say you were standing on the roof of a 50 story building with a beer in your hand, and then decided to just haul off and jump.  After falling a story, you let go of the beer.  What would happen to it?

 

Would it stop, while you kept falling?  No, it would just keep falling.  Would it suddenly starting falling faster, because you let go if it?  No, everything falls at the same rate.  So it just would  not move at all in relation to you.  It would be moving like a bat out of hell toward the sidewalk, but, then, so would you.

 

Now suppose you were standing on a scale on the same roof top and the scale was reading 100 lbs.  Then someone snuck up behind you and kicked the scale while pushing you off the roof.  So, there you are, falling 50 stories with a scale underneath (and touching) your feet.

 

What would the scale read then?  100 lbs?  No, it would read 0.  You would be "weightless."  It reads 0 because, even though you're "standing" on it, you are not "pushing down" on it.  It's falling just as fast as you are.

Edited June 7, 2018 by Moronium

[hazelm]

Let's say you were standing on the roof of a 50 story building with a beer in your hand, and then decided to just haul off and jump.  After falling a story, you let go of the beer.  What would happen to it?

 

Would it stop, while you kept falling?  No, it would just keep falling.  Would it suddenly starting falling faster, because you let go if it?  No, everything falls at the same rate.  So it just would  not move at all in relation to you.  It would be moving like a bat out of hell toward the sidewalk, but, then, so would you.

 

Now suppose you were standing on a scale on the same roof top and the scale was reading 100 lbs.  Then someone snuck up behind you and kicked the scale while pushing you off the roof.  So, there you are, falling 50 stories with a scale underneath (and touching) your feet.

 

What would the scale read then?  100 lbs?  No, it would read 0.  You would be "weightless."  It reads 0 because, even though you're "standing" on it, you are not "pushing down" on it.  It's falling just as fast as you are.

If you say so.  :-)

[Moronium]

What would the scale read then?  100 lbs?  No, it would read 0.  You would be "weightless."  It reads 0 because, even though you're "standing" on it, you are not "pushing down" on it.  It's falling just as fast as you are.

 

 

But being weightless wouldn't mean you were massless.  If you don't believe it, just wait until you hit that sidewalk.  It aint gunna be nuthin nice.  Since F=MA, and since you're highly accelerated by that time, the force with which you hit the sidewalk will be quite powerful indeed.  Better to be hit by a car going 90 mph, I figure.  Actually much worse.  You would be travelling over 90 mph, but you would not be "hit" by a puny car.  In effect, you would be hit by an object with far greater mass...the earth.

 

 

Oooh, that's gotta hurt, eh?

Edited June 7, 2018 by Moronium

[arkain101]

How do you go faster than light?

Here is an idea of how it could happen.

Let's say that our galaxy is moving through space. Well it is but relative to what? So we add another galaxy. This 2nd galaxy is very far away, billions of light years in distance from our galaxy. Now we add a 3rd galaxy that is located at the precise middle point of the distance between our galaxy and the very distant galaxy. Scientists take measurements of the very distant galaxy and find that it is moving at 75% the speed of light away from the middle point galaxy. Yet, when the scientists measure the speed of our own galaxy relative to the middle point galaxy they find our galaxy is also moving at 75% the speed of light away from the middle point galaxy. One curious scientists makes a calculation about the speed of the distant galaxy relative to the speed of our own galaxy (two galaxies moving at 75% the speed of light away from the same middle point galaxy, that is treated as though it is at rest) and what he finds in his calculation is that the relative velocity between our galaxy and the very distant galaxy is 75% the speed of light + 75% the speed of light which equals 1.5 times the speed of light.

This is simply a thought experiment to show how faster than light travel might occur. Because the velocity of anything in space isn't determinable unless it is put into a relative frame of reference with another 'thing' in space, the actual velocity of anything in space varies relative to which frame of reference you choose to relate the 'moving' frame with. With that being said, there are pairs of reference frames that could very well be moving faster than the speed of light away from each other (or towards each other for that matter). An example of this possibility is things in space moving at a velocity of around 99% the speed of light relative to another frame of reference, such as material being ejected from quasars / black holes at 99% the speed of light. Now, in theory, there should be those same kinds of materials moving in one direction in location "X" and moving in the opposite direction in a different location, location "Y",  from two different sources of quasars ejecting material in opposite directions relative to each other. For example: The relative velocity between those two materials, that are measured to be both moving at 99% the speed of light, may very well be moving at 1.98 times the speed of light (for those two fast moving frames of reference, relative to each other). Yet, the actual velocity of those materials is always relative to the specific frame of reference that makes the measurement. So the universal velocity of anything in space, including materials measured to be moving at 99% the speed of light, is actually a velocity that is unknown. All you can do to solve a universal velocity of something in space is take a huge number of measurements of the velocity of something with a huge number of reference frames and then average it out as an average direction and average velocity relative to the huge number of reference frames. A computer model would be required for this kind of task.

Velocity is relative.

[Moronium]

(two galaxies moving at 75% the speed of light away from the same middle point galaxy, 

 That's not a case where any object (galaxy) is moving faster than the speed of light.

Edited June 12, 2018 by Moronium