Speed of Light is Just Too Damn Slow!

[toobfreak]

As an aside, it also bothered me that things would always go wrong on a planet somewhere and the Enterprise D would show up hours or at worst, days later instead of weeks or months. Amazing how small they made the galaxy! Like a trip to the park. Yet the Borg were years away? In reality, traveling at their highest Warp, (Warp 9.6?) it would take about a day to get from Earth to the nearest star, a Centauri. A day. That's REALLY fast. But the thing is, it's the NEAREST star. Not one star would pass us. Few stars in the sky would even move. With few exceptions, all you'd see is one star get brighter and closer to you over a day.

In reality, if we had Warp 9, the Enterprise crew would be spending a LOT of time playing cards between missions.

At almost the speed of light the Fitzgerald contraction would make the distance to the destination like a trip to the park. Time dilation wouldn't allow them to even shuffle the cards. Warp speed isn't necessary. The writers of Star Trek must not have had a physics consultant.
.

That is an illusion. It does not change the actual distance traveled nor the time spent to those outside their time frame. Mere theoretical fluff.

It is not an illusion and not fluff. Relativity was proved time and again. You are mixing the two reference frames. What people on earth see is of no immediate matter to the Enterprise crew. (It is a concern when the crew gets back and finds there friends long dead). The Enterprise crew would see it as a short distance and short time once the are significantly close to the speed of light. However during acceleration and deacceleration, they would considerably age unless the acceleration was gazillions of G's. Then they would be squished flat. There are a lot of other factors I didn't cover that make things difficult, to put it mildly.

.

I know all that. Relativity is not exactly new to me. And yes, you just admitted yourself that while, even if the physics could be really solved, is a non starter unless all you care about is moving people into space. Practically speaking, what you suggest is no different from a Lost In Space trip where the Robinson crew are all put into suspended animation. Lorentz contraction or sleeper ship, it's still a long travel made seem only short to them.

 

[Wuwei]

I know all that. Relativity is not exactly new to me. And yes, you just admitted yourself that while, even if the physics could be really solved, is a non starter unless all you care about is moving people into space. Practically speaking, what you suggest is no different from a Lost In Space trip where the Robinson crew are all put into suspended animation. Lorentz contraction or sleeper ship, it's still a long travel made seem only short to them.

The subject is about Star Trek where you can accelerate to over the speed of light in a couple of seconds -- a rate that would squish the crew flat.

This is all a moot point because sifi movies don't have to follow laws of physics. It's easy to suspend belief for the entertainment, and occasionally annoy your wife by explaining why something doesn't follow physics.

 

[james bond]

The subject is about Star Trek where you can accelerate to over the speed of light in a couple of seconds -- a rate that would squish the crew flat.

Are you sure that's how it works in Star Trek? How about Star Wars? I think both travel through hyperspace which is like another dimension, so it avoids flattening the crew. I'm sure that's the difference between travel in Alien and Avatar where you sleep in a pod. The warp speeds gets ridiculous in the series and movies tho.

 

[toobfreak]

I know all that. Relativity is not exactly new to me. And yes, you just admitted yourself that while, even if the physics could be really solved, is a non starter unless all you care about is moving people into space. Practically speaking, what you suggest is no different from a Lost In Space trip where the Robinson crew are all put into suspended animation. Lorentz contraction or sleeper ship, it's still a long travel made seem only short to them.

The subject is about Star Trek where you can accelerate to over the speed of light in a couple of seconds -- a rate that would squish the crew flat.

This is all a moot point because sifi movies don't have to follow laws of physics. It's easy to suspend belief for the entertainment, and occasionally annoy your wife by explaining why something doesn't follow physics.

I thought the subject was about the speed of light and I brought Star Trek into it! SciFi movies follow physics, just their own physics if it is good sci fi like Star Trek where they assume a framework of new rules, but since you would have to take on infinite mass to approach the speed of light to be squished, you never could, mass would hold you down, so faster than light travel would necessarily have to involve some way of sidestepping ordinary space where inertial mass becomes moot. Then you could travel any speed, instantaneously like many see UFOs do, and there would be no squishing because there would be no mass.

It would be more a matter of folding space as they did in Dune, and you could practically travel great distances with the ability to go here and there in real time without centuries passing for observers.

 

[CarlinAnnArbor]

I know all that. Relativity is not exactly new to me. And yes, you just admitted yourself that while, even if the physics could be really solved, is a non starter unless all you care about is moving people into space. Practically speaking, what you suggest is no different from a Lost In Space trip where the Robinson crew are all put into suspended animation. Lorentz contraction or sleeper ship, it's still a long travel made seem only short to them.

The subject is about Star Trek where you can accelerate to over the speed of light in a couple of seconds -- a rate that would squish the crew flat.

This is all a moot point because sifi movies don't have to follow laws of physics. It's easy to suspend belief for the entertainment, and occasionally annoy your wife by explaining why something doesn't follow physics.

I thought the subject was about the speed of light and I brought Star Trek into it! SciFi movies follow physics, just their own physics if it is good sci fi like Star Trek where they assume a framework of new rules, but since you would have to take on infinite mass to approach the speed of light to be squished, you never could, mass would hold you down, so faster than light travel would necessarily have to involve some way of sidestepping ordinary space where inertial mass becomes moot. Then you could travel any speed, instantaneously like many see UFOs do, and there would be no squishing because there would be no mass.

It would be more a matter of folding space as they did in Dune, and you could practically travel great distances with the ability to go here and there in real time without centuries passing for observers.

That's what makes the modern brainwashing about "warp drive" so damn funny. If you cant break the light barrier, you "simply" bend the entire universe to make your target planet closer. It's a nice story, but too many actually believe this nonsense from decades of tv indoctrination

 

[Frannie]

Nutrinos from a supernova arrived at the earth before the visible light did. Still, interstellar travel is not possible. Even interplanetary travel isn't viable and is a colossal waste of resources.

During a supernova the inner part of the star collapses first sending energy that has to wade its way through the outer part of the sphere. So the flash of light is a little delayed. However neutrinos pass through the star at (or almost at) the speed of light and are able to escape faster. That means we will see the neutrinos slightly before the light.

.

Yea they tested supernovas in the lab and filmed them

You are so totally stupid that you believe everything you read and see on Nova

Grow up

 

[22lcidw]

This has nothing to do with the speed of light. But it has something to do about speed. On a trip I was talking to a couple of gentlemen who worked on the Saturn 5 rocket during the Apollo days. They said we can go much faster. But we do not know or did not know how to stop. Our government seems to be talking up nuclear powered rockets again. That would be faster. As for stopping?

 

[toobfreak]

I know all that. Relativity is not exactly new to me. And yes, you just admitted yourself that while, even if the physics could be really solved, is a non starter unless all you care about is moving people into space. Practically speaking, what you suggest is no different from a Lost In Space trip where the Robinson crew are all put into suspended animation. Lorentz contraction or sleeper ship, it's still a long travel made seem only short to them.

The subject is about Star Trek where you can accelerate to over the speed of light in a couple of seconds -- a rate that would squish the crew flat.

This is all a moot point because sifi movies don't have to follow laws of physics. It's easy to suspend belief for the entertainment, and occasionally annoy your wife by explaining why something doesn't follow physics.

I thought the subject was about the speed of light and I brought Star Trek into it! SciFi movies follow physics, just their own physics if it is good sci fi like Star Trek where they assume a framework of new rules, but since you would have to take on infinite mass to approach the speed of light to be squished, you never could, mass would hold you down, so faster than light travel would necessarily have to involve some way of sidestepping ordinary space where inertial mass becomes moot. Then you could travel any speed, instantaneously like many see UFOs do, and there would be no squishing because there would be no mass.

It would be more a matter of folding space as they did in Dune, and you could practically travel great distances with the ability to go here and there in real time without centuries passing for observers.

That's what makes the modern brainwashing about "warp drive" so damn funny. If you cant break the light barrier, you "simply" bend the entire universe to make your target planet closer. It's a nice story, but too many actually believe this nonsense from decades of tv indoctrination

Actually, physics predicts that it is possible. Just a matter of having the science to do it and the power, hence the use of anti-matter in Star Trek, the most powerful force known to man. As a kid, I observed UFOs in a telescope one night doing "impossible" things that no aircraft could do and no human passenger could survive, so either I was a very drunk 12 year old, prone to hallucinations, or there are things going on out there we cannot yet explain.

I didn't drink nor do I hallucinate.

 

[CarlinAnnArbor]

As a kid, I observed UFOs in a telescope one night doing "impossible" things that no aircraft could do and no human passenger could survive

You might consider other possibilities.

 

[Frannie]

I know all that. Relativity is not exactly new to me. And yes, you just admitted yourself that while, even if the physics could be really solved, is a non starter unless all you care about is moving people into space. Practically speaking, what you suggest is no different from a Lost In Space trip where the Robinson crew are all put into suspended animation. Lorentz contraction or sleeper ship, it's still a long travel made seem only short to them.

The subject is about Star Trek where you can accelerate to over the speed of light in a couple of seconds -- a rate that would squish the crew flat.

This is all a moot point because sifi movies don't have to follow laws of physics. It's easy to suspend belief for the entertainment, and occasionally annoy your wife by explaining why something doesn't follow physics.

No one knows how faster than light travel would be achieved. The fact is that entangled particles are already traveling faster than light and no one knows how. Will this ever apply to matter? Before one can say no they have to understand what they are saying no to.

Hmmm, all particles fall under matter, so matter is already traveling faster than light.

No one wants to admit this because all of physics falls on its face

 

[CarlinAnnArbor]

Hmmm, all particles fall under matter, so matter is already traveling faster than light

Only theoretical particles (which dont exist).

Our most powerful particle accelerator cannot even get a single proton up to the speed of light, and they never will. It would take INFINITE energy to move even a proton to lightspeed. It is a governing LOW in our universe. That will never change.

 

[Frannie]

Hmmm, all particles fall under matter, so matter is already traveling faster than light

Only theoretical particles (which dont exist).

Our most powerful particle accelerator cannot even get a single proton up to the speed of light, and they never will. It would take INFINITE energy to move even a proton to lightspeed. It is a governing LOW in our universe. That will never change.

LOL real particles that do exist, look this is happening though it is not fully understood

Chinese satellite beats distance record for quantum entanglement

Quantum entanglement is a physical phenomenon that occurs when pairs or groups of particles are generated, interact, or share spatial proximity in ways such that the quantum state of each particle cannot be described independently of the state of the others, even when the particles are separated by a large distance.

Measurements of physical properties such as position, momentum, spin, and polarization, performed on entangled particles are found to be perfectly correlated. For example, if a pair of particles is generated in such a way that their total spin is known to be zero, and one particle is found to have clockwise spin on a certain axis, the spin of the other particle, measured on the same axis, will be found to be counterclockwise, as is to be expected due to their entanglement. However, this behavior gives rise to seemingly paradoxical effects: any measurement of a property of a particle performs an irreversible collapse on that particle and will change the original quantum state. In the case of entangled particles, such a measurement will be on the entangled system as a whole.

Such phenomena were the subject of a 1935 paper by Albert Einstein, Boris Podolsky, and Nathan Rosen,[1] and several papers by Erwin Schrödinger shortly thereafter,[2][3] describing what came to be known as the EPR paradox. Einstein and others considered such behavior to be impossible, as it violated the local realism view of causality (Einstein referring to it as "spooky action at a distance")[4] and argued that the accepted formulation of quantum mechanics must therefore be incomplete.

Later, however, the counterintuitive predictions of quantum mechanics were verified experimentally[citation needed] in tests where the polarization or spin of entangled particles were measured at separate locations, statistically violating Bell's inequality. In earlier tests it couldn't be absolutely ruled out that the test result at one point could have been subtly transmitted to the remote point, affecting the outcome at the second location.[5] However so-called "loophole-free" Bell tests have been performed in which the locations were separated such that communications at the speed of light would have taken longer—in one case 10,000 times longer—than the interval between the measurements.[6][7]

According to some interpretations of quantum mechanics, the effect of one measurement occurs instantly. Other interpretations which don't recognize wavefunction collapse dispute that there is any "effect" at all. However, all interpretations agree that entanglement produces correlation between the measurements and that the mutual information between the entangled particles can be exploited, but that any transmission of information at faster-than-light speeds is impossible.[8][9]

Quantum entanglement has been demonstrated experimentally with photons,[10][11][12][13] neutrinos,[14] electrons,[15][16] molecules as large as buckyballs,[17][18] and even small diamonds.[19][20] On 13 July 2019, scientists from the University of Glasgow reported taking the first ever photo of a strong form of quantum entanglement known as Bell entanglement.[21][22] The utilization of entanglement in communication and computation is a very active area of research.

 

[CarlinAnnArbor]

I love this guy's videos. Hes actually from my area. And he gives permission to be a little crazy.

 

[Wuwei]

Nutrinos from a supernova arrived at the earth before the visible light did. Still, interstellar travel is not possible. Even interplanetary travel isn't viable and is a colossal waste of resources.

During a supernova the inner part of the star collapses first sending energy that has to wade its way through the outer part of the sphere. So the flash of light is a little delayed. However neutrinos pass through the star at (or almost at) the speed of light and are able to escape faster. That means we will see the neutrinos slightly before the light.

.

Yea they tested supernovas in the lab and filmed them

You are so totally stupid that you believe everything you read and see on Nova

Grow up

The concepts of stellar evolution of a nova came from technical articles I read when astronomers first correlated a neutrino burst with with the optical output of a particular star. The neutrinos arrived slightly before the visible light. An attempt was to see if neutrinos actually have mass and thus travel at light speed, but the SD of the estimate of the slowing of light through the outer stellar layer was not accurate enough to come to a conclusion.

.

 

[Wuwei]

I know all that. Relativity is not exactly new to me. And yes, you just admitted yourself that while, even if the physics could be really solved, is a non starter unless all you care about is moving people into space. Practically speaking, what you suggest is no different from a Lost In Space trip where the Robinson crew are all put into suspended animation. Lorentz contraction or sleeper ship, it's still a long travel made seem only short to them.

The subject is about Star Trek where you can accelerate to over the speed of light in a couple of seconds -- a rate that would squish the crew flat.

This is all a moot point because sifi movies don't have to follow laws of physics. It's easy to suspend belief for the entertainment, and occasionally annoy your wife by explaining why something doesn't follow physics.

No one knows how faster than light travel would be achieved. The fact is that entangled particles are already traveling faster than light and no one knows how. Will this ever apply to matter? Before one can say no they have to understand what they are saying no to.

Hmmm, all particles fall under matter, so matter is already traveling faster than light.

No one wants to admit this because all of physics falls on its face

Entangled particles never never travel faster than the speed of light. Yes, entanglement applies to matter. Experiments have been done to show that entanglement also occurs with electrons and atoms.

Entanglement is a link between quantum states. It has nothing to do with particle speed. If two particles have linked quantum states, and one is moved a large distance away, you can determine the quantum state of the distant particle immediately by checking the state of the local particle. This cannot be used for faster than light communication because you don't know the quantum state of either particle until you measure one of them.

Physics does not "fall on it's face" because of entanglement. The equations correctly describe the phenomenon, but as usual in quantum mechanic, it evades intuition.

Your copy and paste of post #32 explains all that.

.

 

[Frannie]

Nutrinos from a supernova arrived at the earth before the visible light did. Still, interstellar travel is not possible. Even interplanetary travel isn't viable and is a colossal waste of resources.

During a supernova the inner part of the star collapses first sending energy that has to wade its way through the outer part of the sphere. So the flash of light is a little delayed. However neutrinos pass through the star at (or almost at) the speed of light and are able to escape faster. That means we will see the neutrinos slightly before the light.

.

Yea they tested supernovas in the lab and filmed them

You are so totally stupid that you believe everything you read and see on Nova

Grow up

The concepts of stellar evolution of a nova came from technical articles I read when astronomers first correlated a neutrino burst with with the optical output of a particular star. The neutrinos arrived slightly before the visible light. An attempt was to see if neutrinos actually have mass and thus travel at light speed, but the SD of the estimate of the slowing of light through the outer stellar layer was not accurate enough to come to a conclusion.

.

If you are on the beach and 10 miles out to sea you see a box freighter, do you know what is in every or any container? No, but you understand what is trillions of miles away..... nope

The fact is and its distressing is that no one knows what the universe or what anything in it including us is.

 

[Frannie]

I know all that. Relativity is not exactly new to me. And yes, you just admitted yourself that while, even if the physics could be really solved, is a non starter unless all you care about is moving people into space. Practically speaking, what you suggest is no different from a Lost In Space trip where the Robinson crew are all put into suspended animation. Lorentz contraction or sleeper ship, it's still a long travel made seem only short to them.

The subject is about Star Trek where you can accelerate to over the speed of light in a couple of seconds -- a rate that would squish the crew flat.

This is all a moot point because sifi movies don't have to follow laws of physics. It's easy to suspend belief for the entertainment, and occasionally annoy your wife by explaining why something doesn't follow physics.

No one knows how faster than light travel would be achieved. The fact is that entangled particles are already traveling faster than light and no one knows how. Will this ever apply to matter? Before one can say no they have to understand what they are saying no to.

Hmmm, all particles fall under matter, so matter is already traveling faster than light.

No one wants to admit this because all of physics falls on its face

Entangled particles never never travel faster than the speed of light. Yes, entanglement applies to matter. Experiments have been done to show that entanglement also occurs with electrons and atoms.

Entanglement is a link between quantum states. It has nothing to do with particle speed. If two particles have linked quantum states, and one is moved a large distance away, you can determine the quantum state of the distant particle immediately by checking the state of the local particle. This cannot be used for faster than light communication because you don't know the quantum state of either particle until you measure one of them.

Physics does not "fall on it's face" because of entanglement. The equations correctly describe the phenomenon, but as usual in quantum mechanic, it evades intuition.

Your copy and paste of post #32 explains all that.

.

Entanglement is not fully understood, you should act like an adult and accept that. A sure fire sign of a fool is that they know everything about everything.

So grow up fool, the Chinese have satellites entangled it's happening whether you want to sit it out or not

 

[toobfreak]

Nutrinos from a supernova arrived at the earth before the visible light did. Still, interstellar travel is not possible. Even interplanetary travel isn't viable and is a colossal waste of resources.

During a supernova the inner part of the star collapses first sending energy that has to wade its way through the outer part of the sphere. So the flash of light is a little delayed. However neutrinos pass through the star at (or almost at) the speed of light and are able to escape faster. That means we will see the neutrinos slightly before the light.

.

Yea they tested supernovas in the lab and filmed them

You are so totally stupid that you believe everything you read and see on Nova

Grow up

The concepts of stellar evolution of a nova came from technical articles I read when astronomers first correlated a neutrino burst with with the optical output of a particular star. The neutrinos arrived slightly before the visible light. An attempt was to see if neutrinos actually have mass and thus travel at light speed, but the SD of the estimate of the slowing of light through the outer stellar layer was not accurate enough to come to a conclusion.

.

If you are on the beach and 10 miles out to sea you see a box freighter, do you know what is in every or any container? No, but you understand what is trillions of miles away..... nope

The fact is and its distressing is that no one knows what the universe or what anything in it including us is.

Spoken like a perfect non-scientist with absolutely no understanding of physics.

 

[Frannie]

Nutrinos from a supernova arrived at the earth before the visible light did. Still, interstellar travel is not possible. Even interplanetary travel isn't viable and is a colossal waste of resources.

During a supernova the inner part of the star collapses first sending energy that has to wade its way through the outer part of the sphere. So the flash of light is a little delayed. However neutrinos pass through the star at (or almost at) the speed of light and are able to escape faster. That means we will see the neutrinos slightly before the light.

.

Yea they tested supernovas in the lab and filmed them

You are so totally stupid that you believe everything you read and see on Nova

Grow up

The concepts of stellar evolution of a nova came from technical articles I read when astronomers first correlated a neutrino burst with with the optical output of a particular star. The neutrinos arrived slightly before the visible light. An attempt was to see if neutrinos actually have mass and thus travel at light speed, but the SD of the estimate of the slowing of light through the outer stellar layer was not accurate enough to come to a conclusion.

.

If you are on the beach and 10 miles out to sea you see a box freighter, do you know what is in every or any container? No, but you understand what is trillions of miles away..... nope

The fact is and its distressing is that no one knows what the universe or what anything in it including us is.

Spoken like a perfect non-scientist with absolutely no understanding of physics.

Another genius who forgot that einstein swore up and down that the universe could not be expanding

Tell us more

 

[toobfreak]

During a supernova the inner part of the star collapses first sending energy that has to wade its way through the outer part of the sphere. So the flash of light is a little delayed. However neutrinos pass through the star at (or almost at) the speed of light and are able to escape faster. That means we will see the neutrinos slightly before the light.

.

Yea they tested supernovas in the lab and filmed them

You are so totally stupid that you believe everything you read and see on Nova

Grow up

The concepts of stellar evolution of a nova came from technical articles I read when astronomers first correlated a neutrino burst with with the optical output of a particular star. The neutrinos arrived slightly before the visible light. An attempt was to see if neutrinos actually have mass and thus travel at light speed, but the SD of the estimate of the slowing of light through the outer stellar layer was not accurate enough to come to a conclusion.

.

If you are on the beach and 10 miles out to sea you see a box freighter, do you know what is in every or any container? No, but you understand what is trillions of miles away..... nope

The fact is and its distressing is that no one knows what the universe or what anything in it including us is.

Spoken like a perfect non-scientist with absolutely no understanding of physics.

Another genius who forgot that einstein swore up and down that the universe could not be expanding

Tell us more

Tell us where Einstein said that.

Then tell us what science degrees you have in physics.