Faster than light travel impossible

[jongjungbu]

And find another means of propulsion. There isn't enough chemical fuel in the universe for us to accelerate a ship to c using today's propellants, such as that used for the space shuttles.

JJB

[Robotbeat]

Of course not, because as you approach c, the amount of propellant required to make you go faster approaches infinity.

BTW, Bethel College (the one that I go to... good physics department) is a liberal arts school. Yeah. It's kind of dumb if all you learn is your major, so I'm glad I'm going to a liberal arts college.

I do know what I'm talking about. Me and my physics professor for last semester (as opposed to the one for this coming semester) got into a discussion and he said that an object in orbit is being acted upon by a net external force because it's accelerating whereas I said that there is no net external force because there is no feeling of gravity for the object in orbit. A day or two later, he told me that I was right, after he had talked to some of the other physics professors. He's a nice guy. He teaches General Physics 1. We were talking about Physics from the perspective of Einsteinian physics, not general/classical physics.

[Robotbeat]

He's a smart guy, really. He generally (no pun intended) knows what he's talking about. And he's generally much smarter than me.

[Annoying Snails Master]

This whole thread is nuts.

BTW, moose, don't you mean "Time Travel is impossible UNLESS it is the will of god?"

[Robotbeat]

The speed of sound can serve as an analogy (although a limited one) to the speed of light. Let's say that the temperature and pressure are always constant, as is the contents of the air. You can't make sound travel faster through air than the speed of speed through the air. However, let's say that the air itself is blowing in one direction. Then, the sound can go faster relative to a still object than the speed of sound through still air, but that's only relative. The same sort of thing applies with light. Let's say that you can find a way to move space itself. Then, you found a way to make something seem to move faster than the speed of light. The Big Bang THEORY relies on this, that you can make space go faster than the speed of light.

That's kind of the Star-Trek idea. Subspace is like a smaller, underground version of space that still has a set speed limit, its own version of "c". "c" in subspace is warp 10, which is a lot. I forgot, but it might be like 1000x the speed of light, but probably more than that. I think that warp speeds are non-linear. I forgot. It doesn't really matter, though. StarTrek is fiction.

Anyways... Yeah. Einstein's theory of Relativity is quite interesting... almost more of a Theorem than a Theory. Very beautiful. Einstein didn't believe in much of quantum physics, though, which also was started around the same time that relativity was. You gotta love Einstein, though... Him and Niels Bohr... hehe...

[Robotbeat]

Your post is useless, SnailsMaster. God, either in your view or Moose's view, is (at least partly) outside of the realm of physical reality. According to you, God is not real at all. According to Moose (and myself), God is not bound by the physical universe that He created, unless He so chooses.

Again, this is a discussion about physics, not about your pre-conceived ideas about religion and God. If I were an atheist, I might conclude that a spec of matter that holds a correct view of the universe is no better off in the end than a spec of matter that believes there is something beyond this universe, or even a spec of matter that holds a completely incorrect view of the universe. Either way, the specs are just specs and don't actually think or have any real purpose, as evolution itself is just as meaningless as anything else in this little, soul-less, self-contained little "universe". My point is that you shouldn't think that you're better off than someone else, if you're an atheist. It's not like you're going to "Atheist's Heaven" or something. Likewise, I will try to not think I'm any better than you, since, according to what I believe, all have sinned (by choice) and have fallen short of the glory of God. It's only by God's grace that my sins are forgiven, so I shouldn't try to make myself think that I'm better than you.

I'm not arguing. I'm saying that we should talk about physics, not religion. Anyways... Back to physics...

It is possible to transmit a signal faster than (or instantaneously) the speed of light. Besides the cesium vapor, there's also the idea of quantum-twins--two particles that are attached to eachother in such a way that if something happens to one of them, then it will happen to the other at the same time, no matter what the distance between them. The only problem with that is that you can only tell what is going on with a max precision of approximately 82% (it's a pretty exact number (i.e. pi), it's called "h", I think, in quantum physics), because of Heisenberg's "Uncertainty Principle".

[sandmann]

[James S]

[Robotbeat]

Yeah. Assuming no friction of any kind, according to Einstein, there's no net force. Also, according to Einstein, there's no net force acting on a ball that's dropped in a vacuum (while it's free-falling) because it's not actually accelerating. According to Einstein, space is curved in such a way that it's not really a force. It's kind of a weird idea, but yeah. Basically, if you feel heavy, like when you slow down real quick in a car or even just standing or sitting there, there is a net force acting on you, whether it be the "Normal" force of a solid object pushing you up away from the direction of gravity or a rocket engine accelerating you. According to "classical" physics, if something seems to be changing its speed at all, then there is a net force acting on it... Take physics for sure, Moose. It makes you sound really smart if you need to impress someone, because you can just keep rambling on about an abstract concept that someone who hasn't taken physics probably doesn't wholly comprehend.

Quantum twinning was at first in theory and recently shown experimentally. The number that I gave was found by Heisenberg, hence the letter "h" (that's a guess as to why that specific letter is used). The number was found through theory, I think. I don't know. It's been verified experimentally, at least to some degree. Again, I don't know what the number is, but I do know that it is in the 80%s, between 80%-89%, for sure.

Einstein thought the Quantum-twinning was an outrageous idea. Outrageous as in not true. Quantum physics generally is pretty weird
and abstract. Einstein was very logical. There is a new theory out there that goes against much of quantum physics (but not the most interesting parts) and is really controvercial. It is very interesting and explains a lot of things that couldn't be explained otherwise. I think I was going to ask my professor about it, but I forgot... Hmmm... I've got to do that some time... Anyways, here's a link to a webpage that puts the theory in relatively (no pun intended... ok, fine. I admit. I pun.) easy to understand language: