| Thread Closed |
Hypothetical way to travel faster than light, but not technically exceed lightspeed |
Share Thread | Thread Tools |
| Feb6-12, 12:50 PM | #1 |
|
|
Hypothetical way to travel faster than light, but not technically exceed lightspeed
From what I understand, space (not matter) can expand at a speed faster than that of light, and when it does, it goes in all directions. Would it be possible to create a controlled expansion of space behind a vehicle along a single path, like a corridor, that would change your position in space technically faster than light?
And a follow up question, what is believed to cause the expansion of space? |
| Feb6-12, 01:15 PM | #2 |
|
|
Hmm, that way, you would be moving away from your starting point faster than c, but you would NOT be approaching your end point any faster! You would just be making the distance between start and end greater.
|
| Feb6-12, 01:34 PM | #3 |
|
|
I gather you mean the warp drive or Alcubierre drive involving space itself transporting the ship along with it at FTL speed to a predetermined destination. Well, it would be nice if it were as easy as the Star Trek episodes make it seem. Unfortunately the obstacles that such a method of travel would have to overcome are so daunting as to make it seem totally impossible not only with current technology but with any technology we can presently realistically envision. For example one method requires preparing the trajectory for the ship beforehand. Obviously such preparation demands FTL capabilities. Other problems involve the inability of the crew to control the ship. Still others involve the application of mind-boggling impossible energies required to manipulate the fabric of space that way. The article below discusses these and others. The Glen research center site has an article about what it claims to be the general scientifically-derived consensus on the FTL idea based on warp drive. |
| Feb6-12, 03:40 PM | #4 |
|
Mentor
|
Hypothetical way to travel faster than light, but not technically exceed lightspeed |
| Feb6-12, 04:08 PM | #5 |
|
|
This universe sucks. We can't go faster than light. All we can hope for is to build a race of robots similar to the ones in Asimov's robot stories that would take our place and explore the galaxy for us.
|
| Feb6-12, 04:11 PM | #6 |
|
|
|
| Feb6-12, 11:22 PM | #7 |
|
|
|
| Feb7-12, 01:50 AM | #8 |
|
|
well if you love fiction, who knows we ourselves are robots of more intelligent creatures.
|
| Feb7-12, 04:28 AM | #9 |
|
|
If such limitations did not exist for another race - (they had overcome the seemingly impossible hurdles) then I dont see why they would invade us both from a practical and moral perspective. In terms of physical materials there are much more abundant and easier invaded places. The recent abysmal Battle:LA was a terrible premise - the aliens invaded Earth for our water and seemingly ignored every other source of water in our solar system! Then again I like the idea in the Day the Earth Stood Still where it is the life sustaining planet that is the resource. |
| Feb7-12, 05:13 AM | #10 |
|
Mentor
Blog Entries: 1
|
|
| Feb7-12, 06:14 AM | #11 |
|
|
I think in honesty looking at the options then destruction from their perspective would be the most efficient and humane thing to do - but then we are judging through our own mores and values and whose to say that has any relevance to the alien view. (Maybe in fact it was the humen side of Klaatu that wanted to destroy!?) Anyway the original and lesser known film was actually a lot better! I think if a magically advance alien race was to come down and give us answers to energy problems/global warming, hunger, immunity to disease, then how much more dangerous would the human race become - its like giving a child magical powers he has little comprehension of; at least thats how I see it. |
| Feb7-12, 10:25 AM | #12 |
|
|
HallsofIvy : I see what you mean. If you were to aim directly at your destination and cause space to expand, it would be pointless. Everything along this hypothetical corridor would be pushed apart. My thought is to aim to the side of your destination (and not at anything important behind you). That way, as space expanded and 'propelled' you forward, the object you're trying to reach wouldn't be kept the same distance away.
Radrook : I have never heard of an Alcubierre drive before, but it sounds fairly similar to my thought. Thank you cristo : thank you for the info. That clarifies some stuff for me. Pretty much with this idea, I was just trying to think of a way to technically move faster than light without actually moving faster than light and breaking the laws of physics, like a work around. |
| Feb7-12, 10:35 AM | #13 |
|
Mentor
Blog Entries: 1
|
|
| Feb7-12, 01:16 PM | #14 |
|
|
If you might somehow patiently manage to line up a long string black holes, using slingshots, that "might" be able to get you to reach the speed of gravity depending on the set-up; which is supposed to be the same as light. Giant qualifier quotes have been placed purposely. :D |
| Feb7-12, 05:05 PM | #15 |
|
Mentor
|
This thread's gone from inquisitive to speculative, therefore no longer adheres to PF rules.
|
| Feb7-12, 05:12 PM | #16 |
|
Mentor
Blog Entries: 1
|
|
| Thread Closed |
| Tags |
| expansion, lightspeed, space |
| Thread Tools | |
Similar Threads for: Hypothetical way to travel faster than light, but not technically exceed lightspeed
|
||||
| Thread | Forum | Replies | ||
| E=mc^2, but nothing can travel faster than light? | Special & General Relativity | 6 | ||
| Nothing can travel faster than light | Special & General Relativity | 13 | ||
| Faster than Light Travel | Astrophysics | 3 | ||
| Speed of light Schmeed of light: things can travel faster | Special & General Relativity | 13 | ||
| I know how to travel faster than light :\ | Special & General Relativity | 6 | ||