Faster than light travel.

[Donttazemehbro]

.... okay here is my theory. U know how we can jump on the moon, because we are lighter and our legs are stronger. So if you reduced the mass of a spaceship to 0 then it could theoretically go faster than the speed of light. This is Mass effect's idea. If you reduce the mass of something to 0 it should be able to go FTL.

 

[Laughing Man]

Can I throw a new spanner in the works, let's skip over the drive need to power this FTL device, this skip the vast amount of energy that would more than likely be needed and lets look at a more fundamental aspect.

May I link you to Red Dwarf for the introduction to my statement.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RSt1Kshj1QA

Ineffect if you are travelling at lightspeed you need to either have point to point travel with no deviation, that in effect would require highly accurate stellar maps and confirmation that their is no stellar objects in the way that could cause damage. We aren't talking planets here, stellar dust would do a vast amount of damage to a spacecraft if it hit it at lightspeed.

Failing that you would need to create a computer system that could scan process and then relay commands to it's control thrusters faster than the speed of light, you not only have to solve the issue of making the vessel travel at faster than light speed you have to also solve the issue of making it capable of computing navigation information at a speed faster than light, in effect doing things before they happen.

So will true FTL ever be a reality, no, a very definite NO, will ftl via space folding or some other form of sub space trickery be possible, hmm maybe.

 

[Maze1125]

.... okay here is my theory. U know how we can jump on the moon, because we are lighter and our legs are stronger. So if you reduced the mass of a spaceship to 0 then it could theoretically go faster than the speed of light. This is Mass effect's idea. If you reduce the mass of something to 0 it should be able to go FTL.

Actually, something with a mass of zero can only reach light speed. It still can't go faster.

 

[PinkAngelKitty]

It's not possible. :|

 

[Donttazemehbro]

.... okay here is my theory. U know how we can jump on the moon, because we are lighter and our legs are stronger. So if you reduced the mass of a spaceship to 0 then it could theoretically go faster than the speed of light. This is Mass effect's idea. If you reduce the mass of something to 0 it should be able to go FTL.

Actually, something with a mass of zero can only reach light speed. It still can't go faster.

Anything that weights more than 0 can only reach the speed of light, it didnt say anything about somthing that weights exactly nothing.

 

[PinkAngelKitty]

.... okay here is my theory. U know how we can jump on the moon, because we are lighter and our legs are stronger. So if you reduced the mass of a spaceship to 0 then it could theoretically go faster than the speed of light. This is Mass effect's idea. If you reduce the mass of something to 0 it should be able to go FTL.

Actually, something with a mass of zero can only reach light speed. It still can't go faster.

Anything that weights more than 0 can only reach the speed of light, it didnt say anything about somthing that weights exactly nothing.

Everything WEIGHS 0 in space, man. We're talking about MASS here.

And not even electrons have a mass above zero. So what you're talking about is strictly theoretical and therefore not possible.

 

[Zedzero]

Being that light is the fasting thing we know. No.

 

[Donttazemehbro]

.... okay here is my theory. U know how we can jump on the moon, because we are lighter and our legs are stronger. So if you reduced the mass of a spaceship to 0 then it could theoretically go faster than the speed of light. This is Mass effect's idea. If you reduce the mass of something to 0 it should be able to go FTL.

Actually, something with a mass of zero can only reach light speed. It still can't go faster.

Anything that weights more than 0 can only reach the speed of light, it didnt say anything about somthing that weights exactly nothing.

Everything WEIGHS 0 in space, man. We're talking about MASS here.

And not even electrons have a mass above zero. So what you're talking about is strictly theoretical and therefore not possible.

Semantics. In theory is something that may be possible, we wil lnever know as it will probably not happen in our lifetimes

 

[Georgie_Leech]

Should Warp Drive become a reality, and you can in fact warp from one place to another through wormholes, I'd like to point out that you, yourself doing the travelling, will not be going faster than light. That is fundamentally impossible. It will, however, appear that you travelled faster than light to other people.

 

[Maze1125]

.... okay here is my theory. U know how we can jump on the moon, because we are lighter and our legs are stronger. So if you reduced the mass of a spaceship to 0 then it could theoretically go faster than the speed of light. This is Mass effect's idea. If you reduce the mass of something to 0 it should be able to go FTL.

Actually, something with a mass of zero can only reach light speed. It still can't go faster.

Anything that weights more than 0 can only reach the speed of light, it didnt say anything about somthing that weights exactly nothing.

No, things that have mass greater than zero can't reach the speed of light.
Only things with zero rest mass, such as photons, can travel at the speed of light.
Nothing with a real value of mass can travel faster.

 

[RatRace123]

I'm sure we could find something in order to do it. We have particle smashers already so, probably something involving those.

 

[BENZOOKA]

i don't know much about physics, but I think nothing is faster than light.

 

[vehystrix]

.... okay here is my theory. U know how we can jump on the moon, because we are lighter and our legs are stronger. So if you reduced the mass of a spaceship to 0 then it could theoretically go faster than the speed of light. This is Mass effect's idea. If you reduce the mass of something to 0 it should be able to go FTL.

Actually, something with a mass of zero can only reach light speed. It still can't go faster.

Anything that weights more than 0 can only reach the speed of light, it didnt say anything about somthing that weights exactly nothing.

No, things that have mass greater than zero can't reach the speed of light.
Only things with zero rest mass, such as photons, can travel at the speed of light.
Nothing with a real value of mass can travel faster.

Just thinking here, but anti-matter, does it have negative mass? If so, we could go FTL by putting enough anti-matter into something

 

[Maze1125]

.... okay here is my theory. U know how we can jump on the moon, because we are lighter and our legs are stronger. So if you reduced the mass of a spaceship to 0 then it could theoretically go faster than the speed of light. This is Mass effect's idea. If you reduce the mass of something to 0 it should be able to go FTL.

Actually, something with a mass of zero can only reach light speed. It still can't go faster.

Anything that weights more than 0 can only reach the speed of light, it didnt say anything about somthing that weights exactly nothing.

No, things that have mass greater than zero can't reach the speed of light.
Only things with zero rest mass, such as photons, can travel at the speed of light.
Nothing with a real value of mass can travel faster.

Just thinking here, but anti-matter, does it have negative mass? If so, we could go FTL by putting enough anti-matter into something

No, anti-matter still has positive mass.

 

[PinkAngelKitty]

.... okay here is my theory. U know how we can jump on the moon, because we are lighter and our legs are stronger. So if you reduced the mass of a spaceship to 0 then it could theoretically go faster than the speed of light. This is Mass effect's idea. If you reduce the mass of something to 0 it should be able to go FTL.

Actually, something with a mass of zero can only reach light speed. It still can't go faster.

Anything that weights more than 0 can only reach the speed of light, it didnt say anything about somthing that weights exactly nothing.

Everything WEIGHS 0 in space, man. We're talking about MASS here.

And not even electrons have a mass above zero. So what you're talking about is strictly theoretical and therefore not possible.

Semantics. In theory is something that may be possible, we wil lnever know as it will probably not happen in our lifetimes

Uh no it's not semantics. Weight has to do with the normal force that one exerts on a surface, hence why it changes depending on location. Mass is a constant for each object. And it will happen never, because it's physically impossible.

 

[Maze1125]

Mass is a constant for each object.

No it isn't.

Mass is constant in total, but can easily be transferred from one object to another.

 

[PinkAngelKitty]

Mass is a constant for each object.

No it isn't.

Mass is constant in total, but can easily be transferred from one object to another.

The fact that it is a constant was my point. Didn't want to further confuse this person, as he clearly doesn't know what he is talking about. Thanks for buttin' in.

 

[Maze1125]

Mass is a constant for each object.

No it isn't.

Mass is constant in total, but can easily be transferred from one object to another.

The fact that it is a constant was my point. Didn't want to further confuse this person, as he clearly doesn't know what he is talking about. Thanks for buttin' in.

The difference between "mass being constant in each object" and "mass being constant in total" is quite important.

 

[PinkAngelKitty]

Mass is a constant for each object.

No it isn't.

Mass is constant in total, but can easily be transferred from one object to another.

The fact that it is a constant was my point. Didn't want to further confuse this person, as he clearly doesn't know what he is talking about. Thanks for buttin' in.

The difference between "mass being constant in each object" and "mass being constant in total" is quite important.

Not for this argument it isn't.

 

[Maze1125]

Mass is a constant for each object.

No it isn't.

Mass is constant in total, but can easily be transferred from one object to another.

The fact that it is a constant was my point. Didn't want to further confuse this person, as he clearly doesn't know what he is talking about. Thanks for buttin' in.

The difference between "mass being constant in each object" and "mass being constant in total" is quite important.

Not for this argument it isn't.

Yes it is.
If mass was constant for each object then there would be no problem accelerating an object beyond the speed of light because, no matter how fast it accelerated to, the energy it had would always be constant.