travel at the speed of light?

I though the speed of light is constant no matter what point of view you are in. (I think this is where special relativity comes into it)

That's what I was taught in Physics anyway...

I thought the point of travelling at the speed of light was to travel back in time... or is it forwards? yeah, the theory is that the closer to lightspeed (c) you get the more time slows down around you. So the people and the world around you would be aging faster than you, and in a sense you would be travelling forward in time.

Basically it will never happen because nothing (that has a mass) can be accelerated to 300000000m/s. The only thing that can do this is light which has no mass. Nothing massive will be able to sustain the enourmous amounts of force and friction caused by this type of acceleration.

yes, as said locally travelling at C is not "technically" possible.
you would need to warp spacetime to do so.

as i said to read further into this check out
http://www.karba.ch/physik/startrek/warp.pdf

its PDF.

well this is a dead thread

y would you want to go to the speed of light...

Why do people say it is impossible to travel at the speed of light.
Light manages to do it all of the time.

And FYI, einstein didnt say it was impossible to travel AT the speed of light. He said that it was impossible to ACCELLERATE to the speed of light. He said nothing about things already travelling at the speed of light.

...?

well the only reason you cant "accelerate" towards that speed of light is because your mass increases towards infinity so you can get eniugh energy to reach it

but what about things that have always been at the speed of light.???

----------

also:
If you get to 0.9999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999 c , then there is still a finite uncertainty of your speed, so the uncertainty of your speed could be greater than the difference between your speed and the speed of light

this "travelling at light speed" locally is a pointless topic...

you cannot travel at C locally, its not possible within the realm of physics...

warping space-time or a kind of singularity in space-time are the only ways to achieve it...

Earlier in this thread there was a link posted to an abstract entitled, The Warp Drive: Hyper-Fast Travel Within General Relativity.

I am not allowed to post links, since I am new to this forum. I found The Warp Drive website by searching on Google for the title of the article.

It is very interesting, but unfortunately I cannot do the math.

Originally posted by eleveninches
but what about things that have always been at the speed of light.???

----------

also:
If you get to 0.9999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999 c , then there is still a finite uncertainty of your speed, so the uncertainty of your speed could be greater than the difference between your speed and the speed of light

All you would do is add 9s after your last 9. 😂

The speed of light has not only been acheived (by light itself) but exceeded. At the point of the Big Bang, the universe was expanding at FAR in excess of lightspeed. Hawking/Penrose also showed how particles could escape black holes on the quantum level, which requires faster-than-light travel.

I'm not sure if that invalidates the time travel theorists, but it seems to debunk it on a common sense level (though dealing with astrophysics is rarely intuitive).

Originally posted by DigiMark007
The speed of light has not only been acheived (by light itself) but exceeded. At the point of the Big Bang, the universe was expanding at FAR in excess of lightspeed. Hawking/Penrose also showed how particles could escape black holes on the quantum level, which requires faster-than-light travel.

I'm not sure if that invalidates the time travel theorists, but it seems to debunk it on a common sense level (though dealing with astrophysics is rarely intuitive).

Things without mass could travel at the speed of light.

The universe did inflate faster then the speed of light in the early universe, but the laws that control the universal speed limit were not in place then. The four forces of nature where all together in the beginning, and when gravity separated, the universe inflated faster then light. However, the other 3 forces where still combined.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Things without mass could travel at the speed of light.

The universe did inflate faster then the speed of light in the early universe, but the laws that control the universal speed limit were not in place then. The four forces of nature where all together in the beginning, and when gravity separated, the universe inflated faster then light. However, the other 3 forces where still combined.

Rock! I knew there were rational explanations for those, but I had forgotten them.

Light is mad slow...186,000 mp/second...please

Silver Surfer can go faster than that shit

Originally posted by SpearofDestiny
Light is mad slow...186,000 mp/second...please

Silver Surfer can go faster than that shit

Fiction does travel faster then light. 😉

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Fiction does travel faster then light. 😉

Prove to me that Silver Surfer is not Real 😛

Originally posted by SpearofDestiny
Prove to me that Silver Surfer is not Real 😛

Sure, no problem, JIA. 😂

Originally posted by Filmmaker451
Simple. We will never EVER travel at the speed of light. It's too ahead of our time and will always be. Light isn't human therefore it can haver this speed because it has it's energy for awhile and not till way later it looses it. We don't have that kind of energy because it is utterly impossible for our bodies to get that but with light everything is different, It's not a body it's a source that was made to be beyond our physical powers, It's a part of science and science is something that works totally different then us because it's not real and someone can't make another human have this because their not some machine but light isn't human. I'm a little confused about what I'm saying. I couldn't put this into better words so I probably sound dumb but I'm only a kid so it's not that embarrasing. 😮

😱 that was quite possibly the most nonsensical statement i have ever heard. I lol'd hard.
reminded me of this:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lj3iNxZ8Dww

we have a better chance of worm holing places before we travel at the speed of light

I always had this idea of making constructs out of light that can store information. Let the light travel to a certain place, encoded with the information to construct life (human or otherwise) or even just to relay messages. All life needs to continue is something that can replicate itself (like our genes do that drive our construction and reproduction), and replicating, information-storing light entities would have a better chance at survival and expansion than we do since we're only relegated to one planet.

Of course, this would require the ability to maintain coherence to a light structure without some vessel to hold it in (which wouldn't survive lightspeed travel). So that's where the science falls apart utterly.

My answer to that was to have a space station that shoots a light beam out into space, with a specific destination, with the information encoded directly into the pattern of lightwaves that it sent. The pattern would repeat itself continually, so that if parts of the signal are lost among residual radiation signatures or hit space debris, the pattern won't be lost. Like a cpu progam on a repeating loop, but written into light beam patterns.

Then the signal could transmit as long as we're here on earth to upkeep the station.

Still complete nonsense, but my musings are fun diversions for me at least.