# Faster Than Light

Discussion in 'Physics' started by BR-549, Jun 12, 2016.

1. ### BR-549 Thread Starter AAC Fanatic!

Sep 22, 2013
4,209
1,126
Is it possible to go faster than the speed of light? According to modern science, it would take all the energy in the universe to accelerate a small mass to the velocity of c.

All of the mass (mass is made of charge particles) everywhere in the universe is constantly being accelerated at c this very second. Always and everywhere. That's what mass is. Mass is charge, accelerated at c. The acceleration doesn't propel the charge. It spins it.

So that premise is certainly a wrong. Mass (charge) does move at c without a lot of energy.

The only opposition to the particle linear velocity of c is inertia. (so they tell us) Science defines inertia as a PROPERTY of mass that opposes a change in velocity. They say this property is inherent of mass and offer no dynamic or process for this property. It just is. Talk about blind faith.

I believe there is a physical dynamic to inertia. Just like there is a physical dynamic to everything else in the universe. Like the generation of the magnetic. Like the emission of light. Like the generation of gravity. ALL have a physical dynamic.

ANYONE who can understand electronics and resonance can study and understand with these dynamics.

TWO SEPARATE, EQUAL POWER, PERPENDICULAR, SIMULTANEOUS, FLUX ROTATIONS is the dynamic of inertia. It is a property of a charged particle, not mass or matter. It's a rotational field flux---magnetic flux resonance just like we use in tuned circuits. It's rotational frequency is high....about 10E21 Hz for an electron. (the lowest spin rate) That's in the x-ray wavelength. How could we measure the rotational frequency of a constant amplitude, constant velocity electric field? A closed helix with n number of 1 (helix pitch = 1) has an inclined path thru the rotational plain. (just like earth) Unlike Earth's inclination, this inclination rotates with the charge, because the whole ring is in rotation. This causes the electric field to wobble one time per rotation at n = 1. If we add an n, we will get a second inclination that is perpendicular to the first inclination. Two wobbles per rotation. (if we added a turn to earth's rotation, we would have 2 inclinations and 8 seasons per year) (a gravitational orbit with n greater than 1 has not been found) (gravity is field asymmetric, not field symmetric like charge)
Every n number will have a certain wobble rate or wobble frequency. The magnetic flux wobbles in unison with the electric, but the n number adds magnetic nodes, like sections of an orange to the flux. Each n number adds at least 2 orange sections. Protons can have hundreds of these "orange sections". Each orange section is needed to compress the ring diameter down against the charge. All of these inclinations and orange sections can be mapped and cataloged. They are all set and equal for all charge particle energy levels.

You can see one half of this inertia effect with a gyroscope. (only one rotation) But a charged particle rotates an equal magnetic flux perpendicular to the electric flux at the same time. Inertia. These two flux fields are constantly being refreshed and established around the charge.

If one or both fluxes is disturbed or deformed from an external source, just the physical act of rotation will attempt to restore the distorted field and express the inertia reaction. IF the field symmetry of the charge can not be restored with rotation, then the flux fields (of the particle itself) will accelerate the charge particle, to a distance and duration, to where the flux fields regain symmetry, AT this point the acceleration will stop and the particle will move at the now new un-distorted constant velocity. The inertia will only accelerate the charge until the fields can reform. Now if we want to increase speed but not direction......The same amount of force will accelerate the charge again. (if the force is referenced to the new position and new velocity)

What happens when the charge can't find a location or area where the fields can regain symmetry? If the confining area is static, as a conductor free charge, the charge will find the sweetest spot it can. If the confining area is dynamic, such as a solution or a gas, the charge will continuously search for a sweet spot, responding to the dynamic external fields.

In reality, it is the inertia of the charge itself, that causes the acceleration of the charge particle. The power and energy of the charge is in the rotating flux fields, not the rotating ring structure. This frame has very little power, if any. The symmetry of the flux fields determines the frame (charge ring) location.
Think about that. Field symmetry determines charge particle location AND acceleration. It is inertia that is the physical cause of particle acceleration. It is the distortion in the charge flux fields that causes the inertia response, which causes the charge to accelerate. And to think all this time we have been told that inertia opposes acceleration. It turns out that restoring fields to symmetry from a disturbance (which is the real dynamic of inertia) is the very cause of acceleration. This is why modern science has a hard time determining whether a charge particle is a wave (flux fields) or a real particle (a physical structure).

Inertia reacts differently when a constant external flux distortion is applied and the fields are not allowed to regain symmetry. The particle will start to spiral (trying to restore fields) and an external rotation will be applied to the already spinning charge. The radius of the spiral path will decrease and the external rotation will increase until a complete external rotation can be added to the charge. The n number of the charge will increase. When this happens, at a minimum, the inertia of the charge will double. (the mass doubles) This means the flux fields of charge will double. Now it will take double the external force to distort the new established inertia fields. This dynamic process will continue as long as the flux fields are distorted. Acceleration to mass, acceleration to mass, acceleration to mass. This is why modern science thinks that energy is turned into mass. And why they think it it impossible to reach a faster than c velocity in a particle or in a craft. Take your foot off the gas.

The way to get around this acceleration to mass problem, is to use pulse propulsion. Let the inertia reset the flux fields. If you let the fields rest, there will be no mass gain, and you can achieve any velocity in steps. Just like mass amounts and energy amounts are in steps, is it too wild to think of velocity or acceleration in steps?

Apply a force to a craft until it starts moving and then turn off the force. As soon as the craft reaches a constant velocity (which means that the flux fields are restored) pulse the craft again. Continue this process and we get velocity without mass gain. And since there was no mass gain, we won't have to double the power to bump it again. A lot less power needed for acceleration. The same process will need to be applied in reverse to stop, without mass gain. If you try to stop a high velocity craft with constant deceleration, the inertia (mass) that will be gained, will require huge amounts of force to overcome. You might never stop. AND of course, no turning at warp speed. If a turn is necessary, it will have to be a pulsed turn (no arc allowed).....so as not to have mass gain.

There is another mis-conception that modern science professes about going faster than c. They say that this velocity would limit our field of view, our sensing orientation and detecting abilities.
We live in a relative world. We are born to understand relative distance, relative movement (velocity) and apparent time. Recently, we started moving at relative high velocities, compared with most of our history. With every step up in velocity, we have been able to easily relate to the movement. We have no problem ignoring the blur close by. This principle will not change with supernatural speed. We will still be able to see all around us. Because the light is already there. The only light that we could not see, is new light. That means no cell service. You will need to take a copy of the internet with you.

A charged particle establishes a resonant charge field around the charge. Its like a very steady high frequency, high Q musical note. A tone if you will. When an external force, deforms that note, The inertia of the charge will refresh that charge note, and will move (accelerate) the charge if necessary to do it. Inertia keeps the charge on the right note. Sine wave control. The only thing that can change the resonant frequency of the charge is the n number. Distortion just knocks it off key (no frequency change). The n number is the number of turns of the charge helix. Increasing this number is what we want to prevent during acceleration. This should allow superluminal velocities without an increase in mass.

Monitor any dipole of or in the craft. Accelerate until you see a change in the frequency of the dipole. This frequency change means that acceleration energy is being adsorbed into the craft, instead of propelling the craft. Stop the acceleration and the dipole frequency will return to the normal frequency at the new higher velocity. Repeat process. We can putt putt among the stars. Only acceleration can distort the fields, not velocity. ANY velocity should be stable.

I doubt a human could tell the difference between putt putt and constant acceleration, after the first few hundred putts.

A new engineering science. Digital propulsion and digital steering. Or should I say impulse drive and impulse navigation.

How or even could we, communicate with a xlight craft?

Will the speed of light barrier reveal or expose some unknown dimension or property or law? Could warp speed effect matter or force in some new manner?

Is warp speed a totally artificial dynamic? Or once there, will there be more "stuff"? Could galactic noise and inter galactic noise be superluminal objects going by? How would we know?

Is the speed of light the secret handshake to meeting higher and older forms of life?

And all the highways are crowded and regulated.

There's always a down side.

2. ### paulktreg AAC Fanatic!

Jun 2, 2008
730
162
According to the laws of physics and some of the greatest minds past and present the answer is NO!

(Moderator note: Derogatory comment expunged. According to the User Agreement, be nice.)

Last edited by a moderator: Jun 18, 2016
nsaspook and hexreader like this.
3. ### BR-549 Thread Starter AAC Fanatic!

Sep 22, 2013
4,209
1,126
You are disappointing a lot of star trek fans.

4. ### paulktreg AAC Fanatic!

Jun 2, 2008
730
162
So I try to take your post (un)seriously and you come back with a comment like that?

OK you're a wind up merchant and unfit to warrant anymore of my time. Good Night.

My ignore list is a little longer.

5. ### WBahn Moderator

Mar 31, 2012
23,378
7,092
It means nothing -- it's just more of the usual technobabble.

cmartinez and nsaspook like this.
6. ### crutschow Expert

Mar 14, 2008
20,459
5,795
Not exactly.
Warp drive does not accelerate mass beyond the speed of light. It "warps" space so that an object can move from one point to the other in space (or subspace) without having to experience any significant acceleration of the objects mass, thus avoiding the speed of light limit and the large amount of energy required to achieve near the speed of light speeds for an object.

cmartinez and 123Rowen like this.
7. ### WBahn Moderator

Mar 31, 2012
23,378
7,092
Battle of the Babble?

8. ### 123Rowen New Member

Jun 3, 2016
5
2

warp 5 Mr. Sulhu ;]

wayneh likes this.

Aug 27, 2009
5,049
5,518
10. ### BR-549 Thread Starter AAC Fanatic!

Sep 22, 2013
4,209
1,126
I don't think space has a property that can be warped. But I think there is a way to gain velocity without mass.

paulktreg, thank you for your participation. You are always welcome.

The questions in my post didn't involve belief. I know better. I just gave a possible strategy. I believe it would be worth study.

The questions were if we could xlight, how could we detect or communicate with such a velocity?
I don't know of a sub space communication system. And EM wave velocity would not change.

And also if you think xlight might show OR cause us new properties of the universe not observed before?

My post was not meant to be a insult. To me, inertia and acceleration is more important than dark matter and higgs particles.

I don't think anyone has offered an explanation for inertia. And if we don't know what it is, why is everyone so convinced that it prevents xlight?

11. ### Wendy Moderator

Mar 24, 2008
21,437
2,958
Warped space has pretty much been proven. It exists to influence the orbit of Mercury (which throws Newtonian physics off as our Sun has an effect on space at that distance), and is the extreme case in a black hole.

My personal belief is either a worm hole or a translation from real space to FTL space (which would be separate from ours) at the same energy level. But I freely admit it is my fantasy. The curve for speeds is symmetrical. It takes a lot of energy to approach the speed of light from both sides, at the speed of light the numbers approach infinity as a limit, which is why the speed of light itself is not possible.

There are many cases in electronics where a particle "tunnels" through a barrier to create a desired effect.

12. ### nsaspook AAC Fanatic!

Aug 27, 2009
5,049
5,518
I like miller lite.

13. ### BillO Distinguished Member

Nov 24, 2008
994
139
This is NOT generally true!

From Special Relativity one can deduce that you cannot accelerate two objects to a velocity of C (or beyond) relative to each other. However, Special Relativity only works locally and in Euclidian space. In other words, the two objects need to be close to each other in cosmological terms and away from large masses for this to hold. There are objects in the universe that are moving relative to us faster than the speed of light and the energy differential between them and us in not infinite (obviously).

Last edited: Jun 14, 2016
14. ### cmartinez AAC Fanatic!

Jan 17, 2007
5,626
6,769
That's when a Mexican comes to the rescue:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alcubierre_drive

15. ### nsaspook AAC Fanatic!

Aug 27, 2009
5,049
5,518
RE FTL galaxies (space more than 14 billion light years apart).
It's more like Comoving coordinates. The coordinate grid expands with space so the proper distance between galaxies will increase but their coordinates won't change.

cmartinez likes this.
16. ### BR-549 Thread Starter AAC Fanatic!

Sep 22, 2013
4,209
1,126
Our star flux is riddled and pickled with pattern-less time stamps. That means that star was only there X years ago. It is not there now. They move. How do we measure (or even estimate) the relative velocity and position of a 3 billion year old star to a 11 billion year old star? How can a 13 billion year old object's velocity be relative to earth? Earth did not exist when the object was moving at that speed. And now when earth is moving, is that galaxy still there?

We also judge distance on statistical brightness. But of course that brightness has a time stamp too.
Some believe they can discern structure with this estimated distance.

Could one star show up in the star flux more than once? Say a star in one position 2 billion years ago and the same but older star in another position 5 billion years ago. Or even multiple positions?

Our star flux is a summation of many time densities. Or star densities over time.

I'll bet that if we could turn off all the old flux, and give all NEW light instantaneous velocity, so we could see the real count and position of present stars.................the night sky would be a lot darker. And the estimated size of the universe would be many diameters larger. If some of the galaxies are 13 billion years old and at that distance then, where are they now? Especially IF the galaxies have been greatly accelerated since then. As our modern science tells us. Has that 13 billion year galaxy been under hard acceleration for the last 13 billion years? Or did it disperse?

The mass of the universe is based on this star flux. Do you think that count and density estimate means anything? Or is it valid to ignore time for a mass density estimate?

The gravitational constant is in a negative feedback loop. G is directly proportional to mass density. Once density and G start to fall, there is no stopping it. Most of this fall happened in the past. The high mass acceleration was in the past because of this. The fall rate is slow now and will continue to fall slowly in the future.
Gravity holds mass in an angular dynamic. When G falls, some of the angular dynamic converts to a linear dynamic. The linear dynamic decreases density. The decrease in density, causes a decreases in G.
etc., etc.

The main function of a star is to assemble neutrons. Without neutrons nothing larger than H2 can be built. This requires the continuous destruction of large amounts of mass. The total mass and mass density is always falling.

If relative velocity doesn't have the same time, it's not relative. If both objects exist at the same time, we still can not relate their relative velocity because we can not get a real time location with distant objects.

If we can track a near star over time, and estimate the velocity, we might ESTIMATE the relative velocity.

The movement we detect at the center of our galaxy is 30,000 years old. Can we relate that velocity to ours? Is it valid to relate a 30,000 year old velocity to our present velocity? How about a 10 million year old velocity, a 1 or 5 billion year old velocity?

And do you believe our sun's orbit has a 30,000 LY radius?

Cosmological measurements are based on a lot of assumptions.

Last edited: Jun 15, 2016
17. ### BR-549 Thread Starter AAC Fanatic!

Sep 22, 2013
4,209
1,126
Wendy, thanks. So you say that FTL (thanks for the proper term) in itself would put us in a different space? Is that because FTL is incompatible with matter space? Or are you saying a FTL acceleration of matter leads into a trajectory down into a singularity?
And that area-less hole leads to a different space? With the present theories, I can see where that comes from.

I don't think that anything, mass or force or energy or even potential, can exist without volume, let alone area.

I believe we can explain the orbit of Mercury in a more reasonable manner than warping space.

Newton was great, but with his setups and observations, he, like many others to this day, have failed to recognize another component of force. I believe this rotational component or handedness of force is what unifies all force.
If you replace the Newtonian elliptical model with a 1 pitch helical model, with a radius of the hypotenuse of the inclination, you should see the proper orbit. When we view Mercury from earth, we see only an ellipse, we don't notice the rotation that causes the perigee and apogee. Mercury doesn't move straight into or any from the sun. It rotates closer to the sun and rotates away from the sun, as it goes around the sun. A stable orbit is two rotations. One within the other. This also explains the alternating inclination.

Earths first rotation has a radius of about 1.5 million miles. So that's a diameter of about 3 million miles. This will equal apogee minus perigee. That radius is small compared to the orbit radius, 96 million miles. This radii ratio is key to setting the permissible distance bands for different mass/velocity objects to obtain stable orbit.

This primary rotation is hard to discern, because it takes one big secondary rotation (main orbit) to rotate the little rotation just once. These helical orbits are easier to see and map in the outer planet's multiple moon orbits. Especially when a moon travels thru a dust field.

Ok, and I assume that since you say the mass leaves this space at FTL.....then there would be no way to communicate. And also that FTL would not allow us to map this space. Bummer.
So, it would be of no benefit, at least in this space. And we don't need to detect FTL because it can't be in this space.

Alright then. I'm sure many would concur. Is it the character of our space or the matter in our space, or both, that prevents FTL?
And what would have to be absent or present in the other space for FTL to exist? Could it be a space without time?

18. ### BillO Distinguished Member

Nov 24, 2008
994
139
Yes, but there is more to it than this too. First, it's a special observer indeed that can exist in a comoving coordinate system, so it's really just a mathematical tool. A good one certainly, but not physically achievable. Comoving coordinates are a way to remove the expansion of the universe such that distant localities can be treated as though they are fixed WRT each other.

There are other cases too. Space distortion around large masses changes the apparent speed of light, like in the extremes of black holes and worm holes, etc... However, we don't really need to go to those extremes. Since the speed of light gets lower the more space is distorted by mass, we can hypothesize about an observer near a neutron star (or some such) observing the transverse motion of two objects outside their gravity well and conclude they were traveling faster than their speed of light.

So, the point I was trying to make is that SR is only useful 'locally'. The OP would have to stipulate that in their argument.

Besides, all in all the energy used balances out. A simple case: as you accelerate an object from your do-ordinate system towards another observer in a co-ordinate system traveling in the same direction at a much higher velocity, that other observer sees the object in question give up as much energy as you claim you are putting in to it as it slows WRT to them.

nsaspook and cmartinez like this.

Mar 26, 2012
267
3

Aug 27, 2009
5,049
5,518