Travel Velocity vs. Fluidic Space

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the challenges of space travel at high velocities, particularly in relation to the concept of light traveling through a fluidic medium in outer space. Participants explore theoretical implications of traveling faster than light, the effects of atomic density in space, and alternative methods of propulsion or navigation.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Debate/contested
  • Technical explanation
  • Conceptual clarification

Main Points Raised

  • One participant calculates that light travels through a medium of atoms in space, suggesting that even in low-density areas, light interacts with atoms, leading to a fluidic nature of space.
  • Another participant proposes the idea of making a spacecraft "space-dynamic" to deflect atoms using an electromagnetic field, raising concerns about the challenges of micrometeoroids at high speeds.
  • Concerns are expressed about the variable drag coefficient experienced by a ship due to deflected particles, comparing it to the interaction of magnets.
  • One participant suggests that using a cone of high-powered laser light might mitigate some issues, but questions the energy requirements for such a solution.
  • There is a discussion about the impracticality of near-light-speed travel, including the need for advanced radar systems to navigate ahead of the ship.
  • Some participants mention the theoretical limitations of faster-than-light (FTL) travel and the breakdown of classical fluid dynamics in such scenarios.
  • Questions are raised about the phase changes that would occur if a ship were to pass through matter at high velocities, and the implications for information loss when interacting with particles.
  • One participant corrects another regarding the speed of light, clarifying that it is not a billion times faster than stated.
  • There is a consensus that current theory does not support the possibility of FTL travel, and any hypothetical scenarios would require new physical theories not accepted by mainstream science.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express a mix of agreement and disagreement. While some acknowledge the theoretical limitations of FTL travel, others explore various speculative ideas about overcoming these challenges. The discussion remains unresolved regarding the feasibility of proposed solutions and the implications of high-velocity travel.

Contextual Notes

Participants highlight the dependence on theoretical frameworks and the limitations of current scientific understanding regarding fluid dynamics and FTL travel. There are unresolved assumptions about the nature of space and matter interactions at high velocities.

Intuitive
Messages
270
Reaction score
0
In certain regions of outer space the temperature is about 3 K, and there are approximately 5 x 106 molecules per cubic meter or 5 atoms/cm3.

Light travels approximately 29,979,342,835.2 cm per second.

If we Cube the volume area to be cm3 and multiplied by 5 Atoms according to the cm3 Length of 29,979,342,835.2 cm per second then the Light should pass by as many as 149,896,714,176 Atoms along its path in one second which should by these calculations that Light is always traveling in a Fluidic medium even when in areas of Space containing only 1 Atom/m3 for deep Space which would be 299,793,428.352 Atoms per second that Light passes by.

There are 602,200,000,000,000,000,000,000 Atoms or 6.022 x 10^23 Atoms in one Gram of Hydrogen which compared to our 299,793,428.352 Atoms per Second is passing by 1/2008716479578504.299928704529257 of a Gram of Hydrogen if Hydrogen was the Medium in deep Space along the path of our lights path.

The Problem gets even greater if the Volume area of a Space Ship was involved in the equation instead of just Light.

We know that in Theory that it is impossible to travel faster than Light Speed, But even if the Future does find a way to achieve such a feat the future will run into other problems the faster they achieve because the region of space will become relatively more fluidic per second.

I do not see velocity as being the answer to Space Travel because of this forseeable compression of Space with greater velocity.

This leads me to believe that Dimensional travel may be the only way around this problem and I am not to sure about this either. :bugeye:
 
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
Why couldn't you make the ship "space-dynamic" where the atoms are deflected by the ship or by something else like a strong EM Field?

Besides, micrometeoroids would be a much bigger problem traveling that fast, not single atoms...
 
Mech_Engineer said:
Why couldn't you make the ship "space-dynamic" where the atoms are deflected by the ship or by something else like a strong EM Field?

Besides, micrometeoroids would be a much bigger problem traveling that fast, not single atoms...

Exactly my point, The density of space particles will cause problems with higher velocities as Space becomes more fluidic per second.

Even with an EM Field the Ship would still experience a variable drag coefficient when the particles were deflected because the EM field would compress as it deflects, you can experience this by taking a Magnet in your Hand and bringing it near another magnet with like poles, The deflecting fields produces a drag coefficient between both Magnets as they approach each other.

Using a cone of High powered LASER light as a Radiation Spike might help a bit more but already sounds like a hopeless issue concidering the energy requirements, From the sound of it, it will probably take as much energy to shield the ship as in the same amount of energy to get it to such a velocity.

Even with RADAR, one would have to let the RADAR beam travel minutes or even hours ahead of the Ship before taking off on such a velocity so the area ahead of the ship could be plotted.

For instance, If the Ship sent out a RADAR Beam 1 minute ahead of the ship before taking off then the Ship will only have 30 seconds to react to any object 1 minute away at light Speed so that the object could be avoided with a new plotted course. There are other issues about this that are not even mentioned in this thread that make it totally impractical to even try to get a ship near light speed.

Let alone Star Trek's Theoretical Warp 13 Limitation which is totally insane.

I don't think speed is the answer.:bugeye:

----------------------------------------------------
If we inquire the Ancients, The Ancients say, the answer lies in a very narrow Place.
Could the Ancients mean Dimensional?

If we inquire the Ancients, 1 day in Heaven is equal to 1000 years on Earth.
This calculates to something 366,000 times faster than we experience.

B.I.B.L.E, B-asic I-nstructions B-efore L-eaving E-arth.
 
Last edited:
Intuitive said:
We know that in Theory that it is impossible to travel faster than Light Speed, But even if the Future does find a way to achieve such a feat the future will run into other problems the faster they achieve because the region of space will become relatively more fluidic per second.

If this were possible, there would be no point in applying classical fluid dynamics to the problem, since it would already indicate a breakdown of relativity.
 
SpaceTiger said:
If this were possible, there would be no point in applying classical fluid dynamics to the problem, since it would already indicate a breakdown of relativity.

Hi SpaceTiger.

If what you say is possible, Would we simply just pass through the Matter as though it wasn't there?

If so, What would the Phase changes be for such an event to take place?

If so, How would these Phase Changes allow us to not interact with Classical fluidic Space?

If it were possible that is.:bugeye: If Light hits these Particles then why wouldn't Matter at these Velocities? It seems like there would be some sort of information loss in Matter as Mass struck particles at such velocities.

What am I missing?
 
Last edited:
Light travels approximately 29,979,342,835.2 Billion cm per second.

I hope your other numbers are closer then this. You are claiming that the speed of light is a billion times faster then it is. The speed of light is

29,979,342,835.2 [itex]\frac {cm} s[/itex] no billion is needed.
 
Intuitive said:
If what you say is possible, Would we simply just pass through the Matter as though it wasn't there?

Current theory says it isn't possible, so any "hypothetical" FTL travel would have to work through some other physical theory. Since no such theory has been accepted by mainstream science, I don't think there's anything else to discuss here.
 
Integral said:
I hope your other numbers are closer then this. You are claiming that the speed of light is a billion times faster then it is. The speed of light is

29,979,342,835.2 [itex]\frac {cm} s[/itex] no billion is needed.

Sorry about that word billion, I removed it.:bugeye:
 
Last edited:
SpaceTiger said:
Current theory says it isn't possible, so any "hypothetical" FTL travel would have to work through some other physical theory. Since no such theory has been accepted by mainstream science, I don't think there's anything else to discuss here.

I do highly agree with this.:bugeye:
 

Similar threads

High School The Red Light Shift and Space Debris
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
High School Expansion of space affecting photon's energy
  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
4K
Undergrad How Could Rarefied Space Matter Affect a Starship's Speed Near a Star?
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
2K
Undergrad Effects of time dilation for near-speed-of-light travel
  • · Replies 65 ·
3
Replies
65
Views
13K
Some ideas on interstellar space travel
  • · Replies 22 ·
Replies
22
Views
7K
Undergrad What was the role of frequency in the Michelson-Morley experiment's null result?
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
Graduate What volume of interstellar space is needed to form a star?
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
3K
Undergrad Comparing Clock Rates in Accelerated vs Constant Velocity Frames
  • · Replies 14 ·
Replies
14
Views
2K
High School Mechanics behind curved time causing gravitation/geodesics
  • · Replies 27 ·
Replies
27
Views
8K
Kerbal Space Program - Efficient Launch into Orbit
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
13K