Just kidding guys....although I am a math geek myself! ðŸ˜€ O.K., so my dad and I got into an argument about traveling at the speed of light and so forth......He said that you can travel back in time if you go faster than the speed of light, but I say that it is impossible to go the speed of light, as as you approach the speed of light you get infinitely more massive, so you need an infinite amount of energy to propel you, and obviously that's not gonna happen! So who is right, eh?

Originally posted by !~TONY~! Just kidding guys....although I am a math geek myself! ðŸ˜€ O.K., so my dad and I got into an argument about traveling at the speed of light and so forth......He said that you can travel back in time if you go faster than the speed of light, but I say that it is impossible to go the speed of light, as as you approach the speed of light you get infinitely more ...[text shortened]... te amount of energy to propel you, and obviously that's not gonna happen! So who is right, eh?

Well, since you are an RHPer and I'd assume your father isn't (from the fact that he hasn't posted), I have to gain your favor and not his, so you are right ðŸ˜›

Originally posted by !~TONY~! Just kidding guys....although I am a math geek myself! ðŸ˜€ O.K., so my dad and I got into an argument about traveling at the speed of light and so forth......He said that you can travel back in time if you go faster than the speed of light, but I say that it is impossible to go the speed of light, as as you approach the speed of light you get infinitely more ...[text shortened]... te amount of energy to propel you, and obviously that's not gonna happen! So who is right, eh?

I would say, if you can travel faster than the speed of light then you can travel back in time, and if you can travel back in time then you can exceed the space of light. But common wisdom is that you can do neither.

Not really common wisdom. A moving object's relativistic factor is undefined if it's velocity is that of light, so it requires arbitrarily large amounts of energy to accelerate something to that speed.

According to the current theory it is inpossible to travel faster than light, but keep in mind that this theory is an approximation of reality near what mankind has been able to measure. Near light speed things could be very different. Like in Quantum Mechanics things also goes differently because elements are so increadibly small. But if you use the current formulas: if you go twice the speed of light, you would travel back in time at the 'speed' you're now going forward in time. I don't exactly know what happens to the energy you need.

So if one would move with the speed of light, the factor v/c equals 1, so the sqrt will be 0. So for any amount of time passed for th moving person, the time passed for a (relative) non-moving person is 0.

In other words, time would stop; for others it'd seem like you're teleporting.

here's a counterpart to the original question:
if we were to convert the body we wished to accelerate into tachyons, does its mass increase as it decelerates toward c?
interesting paradox, isn't it?
too bad i have no idea of how to do it!

So if one would move with the speed of light, the factor v/c equals 1, so the sqrt will be 0. So for any amount of time passed for th moving person, the time passed for a (relative) non-moving person is 0.

In other words, time would stop; for others it'd seem like you're teleporting.

Ton

I'm confused now. If I zoomed off at the speed of light I thought that an instant to me would equal years of time to the guys I left back home? You seem to say its the other way round. Or were all those sci fi movies wrong?

Originally posted by iamatiger I'm confused now. If I zoomed off at the speed of light I thought that an instant to me would equal years of time to the guys I left back home? You seem to say its the other way round. Or were all those sci fi movies wrong?

The faster you move is the slower time passes for you ðŸ™‚

Did you ever hear of the twin paradox? If so, then the next piece of text is not needed

Suppose one twin goes on a deep space mission, and the other stays at home. During the mission the spaceship will move at high speeds. If those speeds would get near the speed of light, that twin wouldn't age as fast as the one staying at home. Upon returning home the twins would be apart in age quite a bit...

Originally posted by royalchicken Not really common wisdom. A moving object's relativistic factor is undefined if it's velocity is that of light, so it requires arbitrarily large amounts of energy to accelerate something to that speed.

There is another aspect. We talk about the speed of light, and the consequences for the mass. Perhaps traveling faster than light could be done at a lower speed, but by taking a different (read: shorter) path than light does.

Originally posted by sintubin There is another aspect. We talk about the speed of light, and the consequences for the mass. Perhaps traveling faster than light could be done at a lower speed, but by taking a different (read: shorter) path than light does.

I've heared about a theory in which one wanted to create somekind of bubble in which one compresses space, fly through that space with a speed smaller than light speed, and then decompress it. Then their speed opserved by someone in that compressed space woulde be a multiple of the speed observed from the spaceship. But it's just a theory, and I've never heared anything about it later, so I don't know how realistic it is.

This bubble theory might have some mileage in it. It is axiomatic that light travels at the speed of light therefore if we consider light as the aircraft upon which the mass must travel then the problem is how to protect the mass during its journey just as we protect passengers in conventional aircraft now. That shouldn't be too difficult, should it?