Faster Than Light Theory #759310

AI Thread Summary
The discussion explores a hypothetical scenario involving a portable gravity well capable of generating a pull of 1000 G's to accelerate a ship to the speed of light. It raises questions about the implications of gravity acting uniformly on all mass, suggesting that acceleration could continue without excessive energy after initial movement. The poster speculates that if the ship and its occupants experience the same gravitational pull, they would not feel the effects of extreme acceleration. The conversation also critiques the frequent emergence of faster-than-light (FTL) theories, questioning their validity and practical value. Ultimately, the discussion highlights the complexities and challenges of reconciling such theories with established physics.
Gara
Messages
152
Reaction score
0
Okay, I'm proberly very wrong on many things of the following, also, I know no theory can be good with too many IF's, but here goes.

IF, some how, we made a portable gravity well of some kind.

IF this gravity well was strong enough to make the pull of 1000 G's, over the entire ship.

IF we then used this to pull us forward at 9800 m/s, for 30591.0671 seconds, (9800 m/s^2 * 30591.0671 = 299,792,458 m/s = C) would we then be going the speed of light?

Also, IF gravity pulls with the same force no matter the mass (hammer v's ping pong ball ect) even though we would be infinate mass, we should still only need the energy required to move us that same first few seconds to continue to accel at the same rate.

And, IF the gravity is pulling the entire ship and all the people in it at the same rate, we should not be smooshed into the back of our seats, yes?

What IF we then accel for 30592 seconds, would we then not be going faster than light?
 
Science news on Phys.org
Gara said:
Okay, I'm proberly very wrong on many things of the following, also, I know no theory can be good with too many IF's, but here goes.

IF, some how, we made a portable gravity well of some kind.

IF this gravity well was strong enough to make the pull of 1000 G's, over the entire ship.

IF we then used this to pull us forward at 9800 m/s, for 30591.0671 seconds, (9800 m/s^2 * 30591.0671 = 299,792,458 m/s = C) would we then be going the speed of light?

Also, IF gravity pulls with the same force no matter the mass (hammer v's ping pong ball ect) even though we would be infinate mass, we should still only need the energy required to move us that same first few seconds to continue to accel at the same rate.

And, IF the gravity is pulling the entire ship and all the people in it at the same rate, we should not be smooshed into the back of our seats, yes?

What IF we then accel for 30592 seconds, would we then not be going faster than light?

Wouldn't it be so much easier if you just start with "IF we can throw out all the laws of physics that we know of today...", then you wouldn't need to make so many IF's.

Zz.
 
What is it with all these FTL threads?


I can see no value in them.
 
Thread 'A quartet of epi-illumination methods'
Well, it took almost 20 years (!!!), but I finally obtained a set of epi-phase microscope objectives (Zeiss). The principles of epi-phase contrast is nearly identical to transillumination phase contrast, but the phase ring is a 1/8 wave retarder rather than a 1/4 wave retarder (because with epi-illumination, the light passes through the ring twice). This method was popular only for a very short period of time before epi-DIC (differential interference contrast) became widely available. So...
I am currently undertaking a research internship where I am modelling the heating of silicon wafers with a 515 nm femtosecond laser. In order to increase the absorption of the laser into the oxide layer on top of the wafer it was suggested we use gold nanoparticles. I was tasked with modelling the optical properties of a 5nm gold nanoparticle, in particular the absorption cross section, using COMSOL Multiphysics. My model seems to be getting correct values for the absorption coefficient and...
Back
Top