Dismiss Notice
Join Physics Forums Today!
The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

Travel Velocity vs. Fluidic Space

  1. May 8, 2006 #1
    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 equasion 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: May 8, 2006
  2. jcsd
  3. May 8, 2006 #2


    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    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 travelling that fast, not single atoms...
  4. May 8, 2006 #3
    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: May 8, 2006
  5. May 8, 2006 #4


    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    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.
  6. May 8, 2006 #5
    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: May 8, 2006
  7. May 8, 2006 #6


    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    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.
  8. May 8, 2006 #7


    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    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.
  9. May 8, 2006 #8
    Sorry about that word billion, I removed it.:bugeye:
    Last edited: May 8, 2006
  10. May 8, 2006 #9
    I do highly agree with this.:bugeye:
Know someone interested in this topic? Share this thread via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook

Have something to add?

Similar Discussions: Travel Velocity vs. Fluidic Space
  1. Space shuttle (Replies: 7)

  2. On space junk (Replies: 4)

  3. Tube railing travel (Replies: 0)