Will humans ever achieve light speed?

[Bigsmoothlee]

Originally Posted by pothole

There's no reason why you couldn't get so close as to be essentially the speed of light.

99.9999999999999% is possible (though would require epic amounts of energy). That said, accelerating to large fractions of the speed of light in a conventional manner is not the solution to travel large distances in cosmic terms!

Originally Posted by JFP in PA

The mathematics implies that to obtain and sustain just 50% of light speed in a vessel massive enough to be practical for inter galactic travel, the total amount of propulsive energy needed would become staggering to the point of absurdity.

You've both got the right idea, although a recent discovery from the particle accelerator in Sweden showed that the "speed limit" is 99.999% of the speed of light, and time slows down dramatically in the vessel to prevent you accidentally tripping over the the speed of light.

You could hypothetically end up in the future when traveling at almost the speed of light. Two years may pass by outside, while a few minutes go by in the vessel.

Will we ever get there? Well, we'd need an enormous amount of energy... but possibly. I hope Im alive to see it.

[The Radium King]

when i was a kid my science teacher told me there were nine planets. now their are eight. the laws of physics can change. these laws are really just best guesses presented as fact. Ask Newton, ask Archimedes. their laws were once inviolate also. the problem is that we want to believe whatever we are told, as we are a product of a system designed to produce unquestioning obedience (did school teach you to question authority, or to seek the answer that would best please the teacher?). we should think critically and ask more questions. unfortunately, the same system that has trained us to blindly believe has also trained us to shout down those that do not.

lightspeed? mebbe, but a whole lotta energy for little return. most likely a workaround is the best bet, as per mr. wave. read 'flatland', written in 1884, to get the brain thinking about some of the options that may exist.

[JFP in PA]

Originally Posted by The Radium King

when i was a kid my science teacher told me there were nine planets. now their are eight. the laws of physics can change. these laws are really just best guesses presented as fact. Ask Newton, ask Archimedes. their laws were once inviolate also. the problem is that we want to believe whatever we are told, as we are a product of a system designed to produce unquestioning obedience (did school teach you to question authority, or to seek the answer that would best please the teacher?). we should think critically and ask more questions. unfortunately, the same system that has trained us to blindly believe has also trained us to shout down those that do not.

lightspeed? mebbe, but a whole lotta energy for little return. most likely a workaround is the best bet, as per mr. wave. read 'flatland', written in 1884, to get the brain thinking about some of the options that may exist.

The number of planets is not "a law of physics", it is a human interpretation of the definition of what constitutes a planet. And none of Einstein's equations predicted the existence of Pluto, that was the astronomer Clyde Tombaugh, who found Pluto on February 18, 1930.

As for overturning the concepts Einstein developed, by all means, go out there and prove him wrong.........if you can. A lot of very intelligent people have tried for a very long time, which is why his principal's are considered "laws" that are uniform across the cosmos.

[Nimbus117]

Is this another 3.2S vs Boxster base thread?

[JFP in PA]

Originally Posted by Nimbus117

Is this another 3.2S vs Boxster base thread?

No, but it is a rather brisk and interesting discussion of non-Newtonian physics............

[j.fro]

Great thread. Unfortunately, the vehicle that can do it will probably experience an IMS failure first and LN/Raby will have to sort things out before we get there.

[JFP in PA]

Originally Posted by j.fro

Great thread. Unfortunately, the vehicle that can do it will probably experience an IMS failure first and LN/Raby will have to sort things out before we get there.

Nah, the AOS would crap out first................

[Timco]

Originally Posted by Nimbus117

Is this another 3.2S vs Boxster base thread?

With enough mods, an S can get close to Warp speed, but I've never claimed it can get to light speed.

Or is that a Delorian I'm thinking of......

[The Radium King]

sorry, didn't mean to insinuate that the number of planets is a law of physics or that Einstein was involved in the uncertain status of pluto. rather, my intent was to make the point that things are presented to us as certainties that are not necessarily so.

further, i'm not presumptive enough to say Einstein is wrong. newton's f=ma still works in most cases and is still taught in school (as an infallible law, that you don't discover isn't so until you get to university). Newtonian physics falls apart when certain things are asked of it, however. perhaps the appropriate things have yet to be asked of relativity or quantum mechanics - you don't know what you don't know.

as such, the pragmatic approach is to assume the law is fallible until proven otherwise. to thieve from Wikipedia:

"a proof must demonstrate that a statement is always true, rather than enumerate many confirmatory cases."

ie, just because no one has proven something wrong, don't make it necessarily so.

[JFP in PA]

Originally Posted by The Radium King

sorry, didn't mean to insinuate that the number of planets is a law of physics or that Einstein was involved in the uncertain status of pluto. rather, my intent was to make the point that things are presented to us as certainties that are not necessarily so.

further, i'm not presumptive enough to say Einstein is wrong. newton's f=ma still works in most cases and is still taught in school (as an infallible law, that you don't discover isn't so until you get to university). Newtonian physics falls apart when certain things are asked of it, however. perhaps the appropriate things have yet to be asked of relativity or quantum mechanics - you don't know what you don't know.

as such, the pragmatic approach is to assume the law is fallible until proven otherwise. to thieve from Wikipedia:

"a proof must demonstrate that a statement is always true, rather than enumerate many confirmatory cases."

ie, just because no one has proven something wrong, don't make it necessarily so.

Unfortunately, I can not agree with Wikipedia's rather unusual position; in my world, the more challenges to a widely accepted concept that ultimately fall apart, only end up ultimately making the original concept that much stronger, as they end up demonstrating yet again that the unsuccessfully challenged concept is remains true...........

[coreseller]

Originally Posted by Timco

Possible??

Only if you gave your car a Feminine name, had unusual luggage in tow with the "Greatest Guitar Riffs" CD blaring over the stereo, your wife / girlfriend / SO gave you prior written approval and lastly you were young in years since we all know that “Anything really new is invented only in one’s youth. Later, one becomes more experienced, more famous – and more stupid.”....................

[JFP in PA]

Originally Posted by coreseller

“Anything really new is invented only in one’s youth. Later, one becomes more experienced, more famous – and more stupid.”....................

Believe it or not, that was the man's response in the 1950's to a reporter's question about why he had not done anything important lately..........

[coreseller]

Originally Posted by JFP in PA

Believe it or not, that was the man's response in the 1950's to a reporter's question about why he had not done anything important lately..........

Believe it or I actually knew that lol......More contemporary guys that I read / follow are Timothy Ferris and Michio Kaku. They have an innate ability to relate theories in terms for an everyday-man like me to catch on to.

[Johnny Danger]

Originally Posted by coreseller

Only if you gave your car a Feminine name, had unusual luggage in tow with the "Greatest Guitar Riffs" CD blaring over the stereo, your wife / girlfriend / SO gave you prior written approval and lastly you were young in years since we all know that “Anything really new is invented only in one’s youth. Later, one becomes more experienced, more famous – and more stupid.”....................

You left out the DIY 10 hp exhaust mod.

[The Radium King]

the wiki quote was just a convenient source for the standard definition of 'mathematical proof'. the same definition applies to physics (physics and chemistry all turn into math in the end anyway) only the variables are much much more. as such, one could postulate that any 'law' of physics is never truly proven and is always waiting for the one exception that destroys the rule. possible? who knows. until then they remain the 'best guesses' we have. my point is that we don't treat these things as best guesses subject to change, but rather as laws and rules and how things are so accept it. someone wants to break the speed of light? i say go for it; let me know how you make out.

apologies for hung-over rambling, hack-science gobbledygook, and any hijack that may have occurred as a result!

[JFP in PA]

This could go on all night, with various vapid or circular arguments; to wit: The speed of light is supposed to be the highest velocity obtainable in the universe; but whenever light arrives, it arrives in an already dark place, which implies that darkness is quicker because it got there first.......... Or how about how many angels can do the lindy on the head of a pin?

Sorry guys, but I have to go home for dinner.

[woodsman]

of course not - we'll be lucky to be alive ( our species) in 40 years

[jdlmodelt]

So, to mess things up a lot, we are all taught that the speed of light is a constant. Look it up. It is changing, very slowly it is slowing down. Some theorize that it is a at the bottom end of a plot that would suggest that the speed of light was exponentially faster in the past, when you incorporate this into the equation, things get pretty strange to say the least. If the speed of light as considerably faster in the past than it is now, how much have the constellations changed over the millennium? Now, about us travelling at the speed of light or faster...isn't it pompous for us to assume that we got it all right the first time? Quantum physics wasn't a part of the equation all that long ago. We learn more about science and we learn that we don't know as much as we thought we did. That's a given.

[Jamesp]

All y'alls are looking at it all wrong. If I could step from my living room into yours with one step, how fast would I be going? Answer? Walking speed. Google JSC warp engine.

[jb92563]

Originally Posted by woodsman

of course not - we'll be lucky to be alive ( our species) in 40 years

I second this opinion.

I think that depletion of natural resouces and over population will intersect in 200 years.

We will have our hands full with just trying to survive then, which inevitabilly will lead to wars over dwindling resouces, civil unrest and anarchy in the broad populations, collapse of governments etc

Besides I think Obama already canceled that reseach project.

Traveling at the speed of light is not nearly as problematic as navigating faster than the speed of light to avoid hitting things that you can not see because the light indicating their presence has not reached you yet.