/sci/ - Science & Math

>>1567498
oops forgot the "t" in neutron

Increase the "space" behind the spacecraft and decrease it in front.

I would not know how to dothat exactly ,but it seems the best idea.

impossibru. if faster than light travel was possible, then we would be able to travel back in time - if that was ever going to be possible, people would have already travelled back in time, from the future.

when are you going to learn, light doesn't have a speed.

>>1567684

What if we already went back in time to spurn ourselves ahead and we're currently ahead of ourselves in the prior timeline from which we came back from in order to advance the current timeline in which we altered?

scissors move at a speed greater than light's

>>1567693

>neutrons... controlled by electromagnet

>>1567684
however if you want to enter the philosophy of time travel, you must take into account the idea that the future people would most likely not travel back in time to prevent changing something unintentionally that could end the universe.

also is FTL possible while isolating said objects/people from the effects of relativity to maintain their current time

>>1567684
>light doesn't have a speed
>aether !xewDWpXrpg

>>1567684
>>1567684
NO ONE LISTEN TO AETHER!
HE IS AN ENGLISH MAJOR (A FAILURE)!

AETHER IS A THEORY (A GUESS)

Don't you slow down when you approach Light Speed? And if you reach it you'll actually stop?

So, theoretically, wouldn't you go BACKWARDS if you went faster than light? So wouldn't you have to do faster than light travel facing the other way?

The whole argument that were time travel possible we would have gone back in time and visits ourselves theory relies solely on the belief that time moves only in a straight line not bending and changing based on things that happen.

>>1567693

>>1567786
It might be timey-wimey ball of... stuff.

>>1567786
>Theory relies solely on the belief
>Theory relies on belief
>belief

>>1567684

Time wouldn't go backwards outside the craft, only for the people on the inside.

You can't time travel by going faster than light.

Wouldn't achieving lightspeed (or even ~99.99% lightspeed) as a fair-sized object (like a spacecraft) require practically infinite energy?

Bending space seems to have the same problem.

>>1567684
Light does in fact have a speed. It's just impossible to reach that speed. Troll perhaps?

OBVIOUS FAIL IS OBVIOUS
>>1567782

OBVIOUS WIN IS OBVIOUS
>>1567811

>>1567731

also, ftl travel is impossible in our universe

I'm a bit ignorant on astrophysics, so excuse any possible ignorance. Wouldn't reaching the speed of light still be unuseful to explore space? Light speed still isn't fast enough; we are short lived creatures, we would need dozens or more of generations to get to anywhere worthy, not counting the unimaginable amount of energy to do that. So, wouldn't the best solution be actually finding ways to bend and warp time-space? (assuming it is possible)

>>1567850
then prove it
empty statements go nowhere in science.
theories are pursued until disproven, so disprove it

>>1567850
[citation needed]

>>1567870
hence it being an FTL Travel thread. FTL = Faster Than Light

>>1567713

first off creating a scenario to reason out what would happen should someone travel back in time is in itself, faulty.

take for example the paradox involving going back through time to kill your parents
this is inherently faulting for if you went back in time and killed your parents you would not exist in the future and so would not be able to go back and kill them

this situation makes false assumptions of itself
the situation itself is flawed
if you HAD gone back and "killed" your parents but still exist in the future then you didnt actually kill them, some other series of events would have occured to make it so that you still exist in the future (ie. you killed the wrong couple etc.)

sorry for the terrible explanation but i believe it makes sense

>>1567870
read the subject or go with god brah

>>1567887
>>1567918
Yeah but some people on the comments were talking just about reaching light speed, not beyond, that's why I asked. Still, what about warping/bending space-time?

You can't travel faster than the speed of light. You just can't.

However, there's nothing saying you can't use a folded-space drive, or create a stable wormhole to eliminate the distance between your point of origin and your destination. Now, whether or not we'll ever be able to do this, who knows, but if we want to reach destinations faster than relativistic speeds allow for, that's the only way it could work.

>>1567999
Cite proof for why FTL is impossible, rather than just casting it aside as the Spanish did with galileo's theory that the world is round and not the center of the universe.

OP wins, 101,000,000 internetz to me and OP
we have stumped ted internetz, tiem to move on to a meal valid/respectable site

>>1568026
Because, if you reach the speed of light, time inside your ship will stop. If time has stopped progressing forward, all the other processes on your ship will also stop. Your computers will stop processing data, your reactor will stop producing power, your crew will be frozen in place, and most importantly, your engines will no longer be pushing you forward.

You can't go faster than the speed of light because acceleration will stop the moment you reach it.

>>1568062

Incorrect.

Observers will see time on the ship come to a stop.

People on the ship will see the universe come to a stop.

>>1568062
InB4 einstein's theory of special relativity.

No faster than light travel.

We'll bend spacetime itself before we, or any other galactic civilization accomplishes such.

Which is cheating, but hell if it works, it works.

>>1568026
The Spanish didn't believe the world was flat, you retard.

You can't go faster than light from someone else's perspective, because that would equate to you going faster than infinity from your own perspective.

If what you want to do is arrive somewhere a lightyear away in less than a year, that's no problem. To an outside observer, it would look like you're only going 3/4 c, so it's no problem. There's no absolute limit to how fast (from your own perspective) you can get to any given point in the universe.

Also, even if we COULD go lightspeed now - it would only be useful for the immediate solar system, not to mention the depressing energy requirements...

>>1568108
No, if you can go lightspeed, you can go anywhere in the universe instantly. You just have to go yourself. You can't send a probe.

>>1568121

Are you saying that if we were capable of traveling at light speed we'd be at a technological level capable of doing much better?

Or that if you're suddenly traveling at 186,282mp/s that distance and time required for A->B become irrelevant?

>>1568181
At light speed the universe would become 1 dimentional from your perspective.

>>1567684
How do you know that aliens aren't us from the future?

>>1568102
Obvious ignorance is obvious.
>>1568121
>>1568108
by the way
when you have an object travelling faster than light in theory it would red shift until it reaches speed of tachions. In that state said ship wouldn't appear slower than C
it would appear as a gigantic group of tachion looking object.

>>1567870
Faster you go, the slower time goes. You could reach your destination in a matter of earth years from inside the spacecraft, but it would still take as long from earth.

My face when someone invents a space-folding drive within the next century, and no one ever bothers with relativistic speed.

>>1568062
Wouldn't you continue going the speed until stopped from an outside force? It would make sense that everything would cut out due to time stopping, but there wouldn't be any outside force stopping you from slowing down right? You wouldn't be slowed down slow enough for time to start moving again and your instruments kicking you back up to light speed, continuing you from slowing and picking back up speed, until destination reached?

You would probably just be moving through space infinitely and never stopping due to everything being frozen in time.

>>1568299

They'll use it to go to Titan to retrieve hydrocarbons.

lolz

>>1568303
No, nothing fucking cuts out. Don't listen to that moron.

Thank you for referencing the special theory of relativity. Now the next step is, we see that time continues at an uncharged rate inside the craft, outside the craft seems to have slower time within.
How do we negate the effects of time in special relativity?
Can we utilize a super-mass to offset the flux of time in relativity via a space/time distortion field due to the supermass?
Also how do we cause said supermass to flux to prevent the ship from being supermass itself?
We need to be able to activate said supermass state and deactivate said supermass state on command.

What are your thoughts?

>>1568307
Will we find a race of primitive, religiously zealous aliens on Titan that conduct a prolonged insurgency against our hydrocarbon extraction mission?

>>1568312

Element Zero.

>>1568317

...Space Sandmonkies?

Oh shit

>>1568312

What the fuck are you talking about. You make very little sense.

>>1568318
since element zero is a deux ex machina, we must find an existent supermass.
may i suggest isolating neutrons and creating a supermass of purely neutral charge matter... i.e. (again) neutrons?
perhaps when isolated and in a supermass volume neutrons will display a flux-mass-effect when charged either positively or negatively?
insert thoughts.
please no more space sand-monkeys, we both know they are too difficult to control.

FFS: Person A gets on a spaceship. Person B watches from earth. How fast person A gets to his destination is called rapidity. How fast person B sees him get to his destination is called velocity.

Velocity is limited to c. Rapidity is unlimited. If velocity is c, rapidity is infinite. If both are measured in multiples of c, the relationship is:

r = atanh(v)
v = tanh(r)

So if your velocity is 0.99c, then your rapidity is atanh(0.99) = 2.65c. If your velocity is 0.9999999c (like a particle in the LHC), then your rapidity is atanh(0.9999999) = 8.41 c. So going at that speed you would get somewhere 8.41 lightyears away by traveling for one year.

>>1568358
please explain all variables for me i am curious about this and find all subject matter to this extent extremely fascinating

>>1568358

I don't know what you're doing wrong, but you're missing something major.

0.99c is more like 7 ly per year. Due to space contractions and time dilation. 0.9999998c is just shy of 2k ly per year.

also, i hate to be a self bamping tool,
however my genetic modification thread has "/thread"-ed
if you have interests in this subject please join in.
link follows:
>>1568359

the OP for this thread and I consistantly discuss the topic that has been outlined in this thread and the topic in my thread.

>>1568380
you...
see >>1568369
i need explainations

>>1568369
The variables are
r = rapidity, how quick a traveler gets somewhere
v = velocity, how fast someone else observerves the movement.

tanh = hyperbolic tangent
atanh = inverse hyperbolic tangent

you can put something like "atanh(0.999)" or "tanh(20)" into wolframalpha to see what it is.

>>1568380
Where do you get those numbers?

Reverse blackholes to make it expel light, instead of pulling it in.

Boom.

>>1568394
okay I don't get one thing. Lets say there are 2 planets. theres a clock on both planets and in a rocket at planet A. it takes 5 minutes for light to travel between the 2 planets. If the rocket's velocity is 0.99c, and it's rapidity is 2.65c (according to that other guy). how many seconds would the 3 clocks say passed when the rocket travels from planet A to planet B? Don't be exact (unless you easily can). just say it would take more time than this or something.

>>1568407
By definition wouldn't that light be traveling at light speed?

>>1568062
You never actually go faster than light, you just bend the fabric of space/time so as to move a greater distance than light could in the same period, while your relative speed never increases C.

Its OP, sup.
Theoretical ship drive wouldn't be a propulsion system at all. So we get to throw away relativistic physics. We aren't approaching the speed of light, we instantaneously "jump" through the speed of light. Using a controlled supermass, we create a massive gravitational pull on the ship, which we isolate using a different theoretical field (would need to cancel the effects of ship's mass). Ship wouldn't be pushed as much as pulled through space. So because of that, we stay close enough to absolute center of supermass to negate relativistic time both from the observer and the ship's point of view. It would appear to all that an instantaneous voyage had been made. If not instantaneous, less centuries and decades and more hours/days.

>>1568438

Moving farther than light could in the same period of time... if I am not mistaken that would imply moving <span class="math">faster-than-light[/spoiler]

>>1568452
Right, you are moving faster than light but your velocity is not faster than light. The C speed limit only applies to your velocity under normal conditions. And remember, everything is relative.

>>1568446

That's as non sensical as attaching a magnet on a string to the front of a ship and expecting it to move through space.

>>1567498

Science-fiction.

Imho.

We are so far away from the era in which space travel will be possible that we can't even envision the way we will make that possible.

>>1568452
> Moving farther than light could in the same period of time... if I am not mistaken that would imply moving faster−than−light

>>1568423
Assuming the two planets are stationary relative to each other, they will both see him going 0.99c. So the clocks on both planets would show that the trip took 5 light minutes / 0.99c = 5.05 minutes.

Only the clock in the rocket would show that the trip took 5 light minutes / 2.65c = 113 seconds

>>1568452
how the fuck did you make it italicized?

>>1568456

Velocity relative to what?

>>1568423
can someone smart tell me this?

>>1568469
Relative to the light that exists within your little alcubierre/warp/whatever bubble of altered space.

It would be moving at C. You would be moving much slower. A light beam fired at your destination outside of your bubble would be moving at C relative to other objects in normal space, but would appear to be slower than you.

>>1568473

Get a calculator and do it yourself.

<span class="math">\delta t = \frac{\delta 't}{\sqrt{1 - \frac{v^2}{c^2}}}[/spoiler]

>>1568473
see
>>1568467

>>1568485
What defines rapidity? How do you control how rapidly you move?

>>1568486
ooookay. so although it is impossible to go faster than light, you only appear to go faster than light to yourself. the benefits to this technology would be that your perception of time would greatly slow down allowing travel to different planets to be possible in one lifetime.

OH YEA ENDER'S GAME.

>>1568490
rapidity is just a way of looking at speed from the object itself, as opposed to velocity which is from a fixed observer.

The rapidity of light is infinite, but the velocity of light is c.

What I'd have to double check is if rapidity is as fast has how quickly you would get to your destination, or whether it is how fast you're moving through space. It might only be how fast you're moving through space, in which case you'll get to your destination even faster than your rapidity indicates, because of the length contraction of space itself. In other words rapidity would be taking into consideration your time dilation but not the length contraction, to aspects of space time that change with space.

>>1568504
Exactly. But no one's to say that your perception of time is less correct than the perception of the people on the planets.

After this thread, I want to travel to another planet. Or even...

Outside the observable universe.

By busting through the fourth spatial dimension.

Like a boss.

>>1568519
And using this, this webpage:
http://www.xs4all.nl/~johanw/PhysFAQ/Relativity/SR/rocket.html

shows how long it would take to get somewhere if you had a propulsion mechanism that accelerates you at 1g, and then halfway there, slowed down and decelerated you at 1g (giving you artificial gravity the whole way as a bonus).

You can get to the Andromeda galaxy, which is 2 million lightyears away in merely 28 years! Of course, if we send a signal back when we get there, it will still take 4 million years on earth to receive the signal. So this kind of space travel is only for the benefit of those who go.

>>1568504
oh ya mean Bean

>>1568572
for comms, let us discover a particle that is tied directly to its twin, split at creation that change state at exactly the same time no matter where they are in the universe.
you could transition that state change into digital signal, and use it to transmit data/audio/video at an instantaneous rate.

So faster than light travel = going back in time?
Going the speed of light = staying still in time while time moves forward to basically = going forward in time?

>>1568317
Holy fuck that guy survived? With barely any maiming? Jesus fuck.

get your ansible or GTFO

>>1568680
He probably died due to internal organ damage.

>>1568725
If he did, he died sometime later, as he just got up and started walking

>>1568572
Couldn't you then instead send a messenger probe back at 1g so it would only take 28 years to send the message?

>>1568873
that's 28 years from the probe's subjective point of view, which would still be 2 million years for earth.

>>1568888
Aww fuck.

At the very least we should do it just to... wait... we could use this to travel to the future! Come back and see how earth is doing in 8million years!

>>1568902
>we
You mean a couple people could see.

>>1568902
Pretty much. But funny thing is, before you even reach andromeda, assuming we haven't blown ourselves up, we will have had technology (a presumption) to get there and colonize the fuck out of the galaxy. So when the spaceship gets there, they might be greeted by humanity's descendents, which may only look somewhat 'human' at all by that time. In fact, they might even pass by the ship on its way to andromeda and be like yo dawg, here's some FTL drive shit we discovered like 300,000 years ago or 1 year ago from your point of view.
lol

>>1568995

Yeah hahahhaha.

Either that or you get back to Earth and its a giant dust ball, humanity is died.

>>1567713
So they would travel back in time to make some thing to destroy the universe?
FUCK YOU MAKE MY HEAD HURT

>>1569004

>> mfw humanity is died

>>1569009

>> mfw humanity is died

>>1568995

>Actually thinks we will ever colonize an entire galaxy.

>>1569025

>> Actually thinks we will never colonise a few planets and develop a space program on all of them, leading to an expontential increase in the number of colonised planets, leading to a fuckton of different cultures etc

By the time we are ever trying to seriously obtain faster than light travel modern day physics will be out the window. Do you people really thing we have such a grasp on the workings of the universe that we can say 100% sure something is impossible. Fuck the sun used to move around the earth and atoms were a fucken joke. STFU

you've spent a little too much time in the tin foil computer lab. Or the comic book stand.

well, remember we have a whole galaxy here to explore before going to fucking andromeda. Lots of solar systems in our galaxy to explore. They're finding planets as we speak in nearby systems.

>>1569046
Oh god... Why did they tin foil it? Why?

>>1569025
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IfbOyw3CT6A

Watch and learn. The way technology is exponentially increasing, the easier it will be to start processes like that.

You can't think in terms of today's technology.

>>1569047

Yeah. I fucking love it. Over 150 Earth sized planets found. It's exciting as hell.

>>1569054
to fight the T.E.M.P.E.S.T. program!!!

>>1569076
The what?

FTL TRAVEL
BLOWING MY MIND

>>1567498
fuuuking magnets man

neutrons have a neutral charge.
AFAIK they wont be attracted to magnets

>>1567498
there is no sense for superluminc speed

Even if you can travel faster than speed , you must wait for your photons and energy and information that you left behind to arrive to interact with the universe.

Is a nutshell

>>1567498
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wormhole
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alcubierre_drive

>>1569390
i am doubtful of needing to wait for the photons etc to catch up with you. so... i need more info before arguing that tho

>pure neutrons
>controlled by an electromagnet

whatthefuckamireading.jpg

but fo rizzle; unless we discover some easy way ti produce wormholes or something along the lines of subspace, we better pull down our pants because relativity is gunna fuck us

>>1569654
electronically charge the neutral particles.
then you can utilize electromagnetism to contain them.

>>1567498
why exactly are you using neutrons again?

>>1569856
>charge a neutral particle
you know, if you could find a way to do that, in any way at all, nuclear power plant engineers would pay you a LOT of money to tell them how

>>1569913
because of the neutral electrical charge, as well as the high mass that can be achieved through the use of a large masses of neutrons.

>>1570538
I never thought of that, however the ability to do that could also create a power supply to energise the neutron mass.... hmm... ponder, tiem for research.

>>1571984
inb4 caustic remarks
the neutron mass getting electrically charged would be powered by another, smaller electron mass. technically in my thoughts the ability to electrically charge a neutron mass would be creating a small scale form of nuclear fusion, however it would only be applying an electrical charge to a particle of mass, rather than creating atomic structures

We should smash helium atoms into element 115 to generate a massive gravitometric field that creates a blackhole or something

How can you control neutrons with an electromagnet...they have no charge lol.

also what about the theoretical possibility of taking neutrons, then attaching "anti-electrons" or "anti-protons" to the neutrons.
essentially we are taking anti matter sub atomic particles and attaching it to neutrons. If this can be accomplished, we solve the issue of how to electrically charge neutrons without creating atomic structures that are viable.

>>1567870

Thanks to the theory of special relativity, People onboard the spacecraft could technically reach a galaxy within a few years, months, even seconds if you have enough energy...the problem is that while they would only a experience a few seconds, we would experience many an age..

>>1572024
of course if we utilized an effect to create an Alcubierre Drive, it would completely eliminate relativity.

>>1572286
Until Professor Alcubierre himself tells you why it wouldn't work.

Can't the mods just make FTL threads a banable offence?

>neutrons controlled by a massive electro-magnet

OP, this already proves you're an illiterate 12 year old faggot.
Neutrons don't have a charge. You can't control it with magnets.

infinite improbability drive

>>1572356
WHAT IF we never reach NORMALITY??

douchefag
>>1572309
please refer to
>>1571999
>>1572020
these ideas already address the neutrons' neutral charge.
also my main idea is that the mass of neutrons would be large enough to hold its own spherical shape with its own gravitational field.
there are other theories or ideas that could go into this.
>>1572295
also why ban the threads? would you prefer to stunt intellectual thinking for something that has yet to be proven impossible. until such an occurrence, a hypothesis may remain to be researched and attempted to be either proven impossible or "proven possible"
>>1572290
also, please provide the reasoning for why it wouldnt work. I did my own short study on alcubierre drive and the problems as well as the solutions posed by other scientists. so please state why it would be so impossible as you stake to claim is the case.

my ref. for alcubierre problems and solutions:

http://news.discovery.com/space/warp-drive-spaceship-engine.html

http://physics.about.com/od/physicsatod/g/Alcubierredrive.htm

http://www.daviddarling.info/encyclopedia/A/Alcubdrive.html

also wiki link, even though source is unreliable it refers to the solutions posed by other scientists so they can be researched as well.

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


one solution was the Krasnikov Tube.
heres the wiki link.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Krasnikov_Tube
im tired of posting liks to back things up so you can search things for yourselves now.

neutrons controlled by a magnet. what

hey fuckass
>>1572379

for fuck-sakes please read entire thread before posting something that has been addressed 5+ times in this thread!
>>1572384

>>1569374
>>1569379
>>1569654
>>1569913
>>1572013
>>1572414

>>1572020

Attaching them through what method? That seem's fairly impossible to me. You would basically be trying to create element 0.

>>1568236

OP study tachions

>>1572451
element zero is an undefined and unexplained deus ex machina in Mass Effect.
we would be attempting to potentially create a form of matter that would provide the same effects, however it would be definable and existent.

OP, I think you have confused Mass Effect with a documentary

>>1572525

Yes I know. BUT HOW would you "attach" electrons to negative matter. There is no charge attraction to keep them there.

i am not OP doofus
OP began posting as "flotsam" halfway through this thread at around 2300hrs last night.

>>1572530
i am not sure, that will require more research, however it may require a particle accellerator and few of the hybrid atomic structures formed from neutron (neuclei) and antimatter for the orbiting particles (either anti-protons or anti-electrons to establish desired charge opposite of its natural matter counterparts)

>>1572543

So basically you have no idea and this whole idea of controlling neutrons through a magnetic field is completely unfounded.

Plus you do realise how dense you would have to pack all of the neutrons to make them stay together? Like the density of a neutron star perhaps? That would tear everything apart.

Also how would you supply the energy to the supermass to keep moving through space without either A An endless chain of ever increasing magnitude gravity fields, or B taking too much energy from the ships momentum.

>>1572543
it may be necessary to create a few of the hybrid particles in a particle accelerator before utilizing the "super-mass neutron sphere" and creating electrical charges in the neutrons.

Even if we somehow managed to build FTL in the future (it's a massive if, I strongly believe its impossible), why the hell would charged neutrons somehow make it possible to bend time and space. I'm pretty sure neutron stars don't move FTL.

lol

neutrons controled by magnet? Neutrons have no electric charge, faggot. What good will a magnet do with them?

1. Enter a higher dimension than time
2. Move to a place that is slightly further away return to our dimension
3. Repeat
4. ????
5. Profit

>>1572608
my theory in essence is creating a singularity via neutrons, also utilizing electronic charge that fluctuates millions of times a second to create and negate the mass/gravity of the singularity. the singularity when in effect will pull the craft, when negated, the "singularity" will be pulled by the craft.
it would be a perpetual chase until the "singularity" is "turned off" when desired rapidity is reached.
also when using said "singularity" one would utilize it when at a safe distance from a stellar system. once that distance is reached with subluminous travel, the drive would be activated and hyperluminous/superluminous rapidity would be achieved, therefore eliminating the issue of light catching up with the object in order for it to interact with the universe.
why?
because in subluminous travel the light would be traveling at C, as interpreted by normal space around "you"
once superluminous rapidity is reached, a singularity is activated and deactivated millions of times per second. trapping the light of the object traveling at superluminous rapidity within the effect field. the light would never be left behind.
to normal space said object would seem to pop out of existence when superluminous rapidity is achieved, and when superluminous travel is terminated and said object returns to "normal space" it would appear to pop back into existence. the light of the object travels at C relative to the object, not relative to normal space.

hey buddy
>>1572418

refer to this:
>>1572414
>>1572649
now maintain silence or intellectual contribution.

hey buddy
>>1572649

refer:
>>1572414
>>1572418
now maintain silence or intellectual contribution.

>>1572685

That still makes no sense. Why would either move if theres equal time of one pulling the other. Why would the entire system move at all.

This is just a hyperadvanced version of the "magnet on a stick" troll. Basically you just created a fucking massive electromagnet that uses AC current and fluctuates. It won't work.

>>1572718
negative. its not a magnet, it uses mass thousands of times greater (via artificial singularity [S]) than that of ship (A) in order to pull it and not move itself due to inertia.
then it deactivates S and the mass of A is thousands of times greater than that of S, in turn pulling S and leaving A in a stationary position relative to S, this repeats via the anti-matter activated electrical current used to create this field that essentially turns the mass of S on and off millions of times per second.

>>1572756

I'm still not seeing how this electromagnetic field is "turning off" the mass of the neutrons.

>>1572685
Singularities do not work that way!

>>1572685
This entire post is retarded. You still haven't given any justification as to why a charged bit of matter would negate mass somehow, or allow you to turn gravity on and off

>>1572718
also, it is not AC current, it will be antimatter powered. using anitprotons instead of electrons to achieve a negatively charged neutron object, and it will use antielectrons instead of protons to achieve a positively charged neutron object.
since they are not incorporating antielectrons and electrons together, or the same with the neutrons and protons, there is no matter-antimatter reaction.
please provide evidence next time you attempt to prove any ideas impossible.

>>1572772
my basis for "electromagnetic current"
"turning on and off mass" of an object is based in that the mass used is neutrons and antimatter particles antiprotons and antielectrons.
i will attempt to uncover some research or data to back this up.

>>1572775

It's still fucking AC current you tard. Alternating current in the sense that the electromagnetic field is ALTERNATING millions of times per second.

BUT STILL. How the fuck would this negate mass?

Is anyone else starting to think we are being trolled hard right now?

Also I'm still not seeing how ANY of this causes the system as a whole to move forwards. All that either of these things do is bring the two objects closer together. How would you push the singularity back out to a sufficient distance that it doesn't tear your ship to pieces?

>>1572791
also, this is difficult to explain and yet again i must obtain data to back up my statement, however:
the interaction between the neutron and antimatter is intended to essentially turn the matter into energy to eliminate its mass, then return the energy back into matter... millions of times a second, in a cyclical function.
this will achieve the function of the mass as S
and return almost all mass of S to a pure energy state, in which mass doesn't quite exist, then by inversing the "AC" charge, the energy returns to mass, recreating S and allowing the functions of S that were intended to function.

Light speed is not possible for objects that have mass, right?

Donnie Darko thread?

>>1572820

And how do you expect to contain all these photons and gamma rays that result from turning them into pure energy?

>>1572807
i am not trying to troll you idiots and neither is flotsam
we simply are moving up the chains of different resources trying to obtain proof or disproof of our theory.
next from here is moving on to reknowned scientific forums to get even more powerful proof or disproof.

>>1572827
no

>>1572685

Bring back Time Cube.

>>1572841
we are simply utilizing 4chan as a forum that will not immediately disregard our theory as hobsquabble allowing us to find a think-tank with enough people who could possible have similar thinking to take this to said reknowned scientific forums and not be immediately ignored.

>>1572852
please elaborate as i do not know of this concept

i personally think we are ready for a reknowned scientific forum, however we do not know of any, we will research those on our own but it would be greatly appreciated if anyone here knows of some at hand

>>1572858

You do realise that once the neutrons are turned into pure energy (photons etc), there is pretty much no way in hell to turn them back into the same form, due to dispersal and diffraction.

this is not a theory, this is a hypothesis

>>1572872
For your information, no, I don't realize!!

>>1572826
that is a concept which has yet to be proven.
especially when considering light speed is relative and constant at the same time.
light speed is C, yet relative to the object's rapidity.

>>1572821
my current idea on containing such radiation and energy is to utilize extreme electromagnetism surrounding S
it has been shown that electromagnetism can contain plasma, which is in essence, pure energy, a fourth state of matter.

>>1572872
thank you for addressing this issue, i will have to research this and see if there is any information on returning neutrons to m from E.
also, anyone who is supportive of these ideas, we would appreciate it if you would also contribute data to reinforce this, so that we can take this idea/hypothesis/theory to a reknowned scientific forum, whilst addressing those issues and holes

>>1572881

Plasma is not pure energy. Plasma is a state of matter in which all atoms are at such a high temperature they have lost all of their electrons, leaving a highly electrified collection of nuclei and free electrons.

Plasma is in no way pure energy, and it still has mass.

>>1572893
hmm... f*(knuts
ill have to figure that issue out, and yet again assistance would be appreciated.
this whole idea revolves around abstract thinking that is not within the bounds of standard physics. most of it would be within the realms of quantum physics

>>1572881
confirmed for troll. Move along, people. Nothing to see here

wait a minute... im pretty sure that particle accelerators have been used to create matter from pure energy...
i need to find sauce for this though

>>1572905
prove that this is a troll doubtful /sci/tard
i have already explained this earlier:
>>1572841
>>1572858
>>1572869
>>1572892
hmm... think about it inb4 calling this a troll thread

>>1572905
also if you wish to call us trolls,
please utilize the name section to give yourself an identifier, and post for why this is a troll thread and not legitimate thought into the idea of FTL Travel.
also provide evidence for your attempts ad proving this idea impossible

quit trying to create trolls from the legitimate thoughts and efforts of others

>>1572928
Damnit Michio Kaku, we already have a thread all about you! We don't need you pulling this shit in this thread.

>>1572991
i am not michio kaku... whoever the fuck that is
i am OP's friend who has been posting with him on this thread since it began.
we had an idea, people are trying to call it a troll thread, so i want them to either STFU about trolls or prove their case and use a single name for themselves other than anon to do so.
anyone can be a pussy and try to shut a legitimate thread down just because it contradicts with their own ideas or comprehension while they are anon,
so quit being anon and make a legitimate case for it with proof. that is how you disprove that this is a legitimate thread scientifically. we are after all in /sci/

i have put too much time into this thread to have some asshole try to shut me and flotsam down just for contradicting their ideas/ideals/comprehension-abilities.

Issues:

1. It is not possible to simply switch neutrons between mass and energy that easily. The only way to do it would be to anhilate them using anti-neutrons, which entirely defeats the point of this.

2. The energy would be so dense it would still exert a spacetime pull, equal to that of the matter itself. Just because it is energy does not mean that it does not bend spacetime.

3. There is an inherent problem in that although the nuclei themselves will not anhialte between neutrons and positrons, the quarks will. The anti up quarks will annhialate with the up quarks etc.

>>1573034
Ok, the thing is not a single one of the particles or forces you have mentioned works the way you claim it does. There is no way to bring you "proof" of this... these are real things that work a certain way. Just select any book, any record, any information on the subject and it all contradicts you. This is why you seem like a troll, you are absolutely against reality on this one.

Your claims are as sane as those of Michio Kaku, a guy that claims Star Trek style making up words counts as real scientific theory.

>>1573070
understood and recieved.
my understanding of the physics of most of this is right about that of an infant's understanding of the world.
that is why we started here, to see what can be done, and have evidence furnished as such.
be it links or docs, etc.
also to attempt to gain a better understanding of our own ideas and refine our hypothesis until it is one that can be properly utilized and placed into a theory, hopefully to one day be executed.

>>1573070
just looked him up... and
the sad thing is i support many of his ideas and share a similar... "insane" way of thinking to a far stretched region for my ideas, and attempt to slowly bring them in with reason, thought, research, evidence, etc.
until unlike many of his ideas which tend to remain seemingly impossible, I would like mine to reach an attainable point.

please help edumacate me?

>>1573122
Well thank God! Anyway, yeah, you are way off on every single point. Start from the very basics, get books at the library on the subject. Prepare to be bored trying to get through this shit yourself. But keep plugging through it.

Anyway, to begin with, mass control is impossible. The only way to get more or less mass to have more or less matter. Destroying mass could work but it gets converted to energy and then you need a way to deal with that. Trying to convert energy to mass? You will waste the equivalent of an entire city power supply to make a grain of sand... it is that tough.

>>1573149
>>1573149
fuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuu

ok time to hit the books.
also
thats a shit ton of energy.
we should really work on finding a way to make that more efficient.

if only i could create a real and functioning deus ex machina.....
:-(

btw just thought i'd say, this thread has been a huge success to me for many reasons.
but two biggest are gaining an understanding of shit
and the fact that this thread has lasted for nearly 22 hours.
thank you all for your contributions and such.

>>1572915
Yes, all particle accelerators create mass from pure energy. They (taking for example the LHC) take 2 protons, so starting with 2 proton masses; they dump lots of energy into them, speeding them in opposite directions, until they each have a relativistic mass of about 8 proton masses each, and then they collide them. The effect of the collision is a bunch of particles, with a total rest mass of almost 16, with most of that speed converted into rest mass of new particles.

>>1573159
e=mc^2 You can't change that. A grain of sand is about 5mg of mass. A single nuclear reactor puts out about a megawatt. If you channel an entire nuclear reactor into making a grain of sand at 100% efficiency, it takes

5mg * c^2 / 1 megawatt = 5.2 days

you can't move through the time-space continuum faster than light. However... the very solid empirical universe of time-space laws are completely amazed by things like quantum entanglement. So, who the fuck knows what kind of portals exist

Not to imply that there's a single coherent thought in infernus's proposal, because there isn't, but energy requirements are easily met once you are moving at relativistic speeds, because the cosmic background radiation is then blue-shifted into extremely high energy gamma rays. You MUST deal with that energy one way or another, or it will vaporize your craft -- so you might as well use it as a power source.

>neutrons controlled by a massive electro-magnet
whatthefuckamireading.jpg

>>1573250
Well trebek and friends, I must remind you to stop using contemporary physics and enter the world of quantum and theoretical physics to explain/make possible our ideas.

>>1574249
>implying quantum and theoretical physics isn't contemporary physics

>>1574262
He's right, it's not contemporary physics. Prove me wrong nao.

>people post about timetravel

>>1574352
>implying he's not a samefag who is wrong

What if the grandfather paradox doesn't happen? When you go back in time to kill your grandfather then you don't disappear. You are just never born. But the you that went back in time would still exist, because your grandfather was not killed and everything went the way it was supposed to. Perhaps in another way to describe it would be that when you travel in time you don't end up in the same reality but an alternate reality.

>>1567870

The most convenient way would be to find a way to create wormholes, which could let use get to certain places faster than lightspeed travel could.

>>1574365

i demand the source of this picture.

stars that explode with more energy than is available to us emits light at the speed of light.

Why would so few people in this thread point out how retarded that whole post was?

Not a single thing in it made sense. Why are so few people posting actual responses?

Faster than light by conventional means is impossible, the gamma factor shows this.

Ball of Neutrons 30ft across? What exactly would that do?

Best thread on /sci/ in ever.

>pure neurons
>neurons
wat

>>1574464
It isn't impossible.

It's impossible today.

This thread proves that it is possible.

>>1574464
http://news.discovery.com/space/warp-drive-spaceship-engine.html

Like it or not, we're going places.

>>1575897

wat

If anything this thread proves it is impossible.

I think what would be better than solving this problem is the fact that 4chan solved it. lol

>>1575897
Read my posts, dude. Neutrons do not work that way

>>1567684
>light doesn't have a speed.

>>1575925
I think that we've done a good job of showing that there's a possibility of FTL travel being plausible and even used in the future.

ok so now flotsam and myself need sauce on reputable scientific forums to more effectively develop and explore our ideas.
we need the sauce!

>>1575910
i would like to thank you, Senor El Taco, for posting this information. Also I was alerted today that Popular Science had an article, today, stating that utilizing particle accelerators, scientists have found a way to, EFFICIENTLY, create plutonium.
In light of this, what is to say that we are not going to be capable of creating substances or elements that have unique characteristics that will allow my idea of a "supermass-drive" that will break the laws of most of todays physics.
if nothing else creating a singularity and turning it into pure energy would create space-time fluctuations that would, in fact, cause space-time to be bent around the craft attempting FTL Travel, thus causing it to skip/jump portions of space time, in effect creating miniature worm holes.

Build giant wheel in space constructed of a very low mass, yet strong, material. Find a spot on the disk about 1/10 of the disk's size away from the center. Accelerate that point to just above 1/10th the speed of light. The outermost edge of the disk should now be travelling faster than light.

>>1577838

herp derp moron

as the outside spins faster, it's mass will increase thus requiring more and more energy to continue accelerating it.

If you try to get it to the speed of light, it would have infinite mass, which would require infinite energy to accelerate

>>1577883
if higher speeds increase the mass of an object then there must be a way to create the opposite result.
decreasing the mass of an object.

Matter/anti-matter engines

ITT: pseudoscience

At least as far as I can tell, nobody brought in any really retarded ideas like "electric universe" or "luminiferous aether".

If FTL travel were possible, then there would be aliens everywhere amongst us. Since they are, as far as we can tell, nowhere to be found, it follows that they have never devised FTL travel, so we will never do so, either.

Infernus is a furry and a political science major.

>>1577956

anti-matter is not a fuel (and cannot be used as a fuel), no matter how much Hollywood makes it seem that way

>>1577986

Even if it were used a fuel source, it still couldn't accelerate you to c.

I find it hilarious people are treating a theory they cooked up after playing too much mass effect as real science.

>>1577986
the principle that person stated on matter-antimatter reactors is to generate the ultimate fission through matter-antimatter reaction.
not just simply using antimatter as fuel.

also>>1577979
the idea that aliens would be everywhere among us is idiotic and childish. most likely there is a reason, if alien life exists, for why we have not come into actual documented and globally acknowledged contact with "them" yet.
1) why fuck with a race that is potentially infantile in nature compared to yours.
2) we are very destructive by nature
3)if alien contact were made, there would be all sorts of shitstorms. i.e. panic, and global attempt to get their technology.

also, I am not a poly-sci major, I am a medical major.
I just have a very scientifically stimulated mind.
of course how can i expect anything better from people whos ideas mine conflict with when i present mine to 4chan. half of those who say this is a troll thread and that we are talking purely out of our asses, who dont even entertain the possibility of researching into the field of FTL Travel, either directly or via a "backdoor method" such as wormholes, are most likely a bunch of mouth breathing hypocrites, incapable of comprehending the idea on the simplest levels, leaving them infuriated by a concept that is outside of their realm of existence.
FUCK YOU.

that is all.

>he doesn't deny being a furry

>>1578021

> that aliens would be everywhere among us is idiotic and childish.

No, it is the only possible outcome of a universe brimming with life and FTL travel. As the number of intelligent species in the universe increases, the probability that at least one of them will want to assimilate the entire universe to suit their whims increases to 1. FTL travel in conjuction with other technologies like AI and self-replicating probes would enable a futuristic species to convert the entire universe into whatever form they want, for example a gigantic computer. Because this has not happened, there are only two possibilities:

1. humanity is the first sentient species in the universe, which is incredibly unlikely
2. FTL travel is just not possible

I go with #2.

>>1578021

> I just have a very scientifically stimulated mind.

Stimulated, yes. Probably with weed or too much vidya.

Scientific, no.

If FTL travel were possible, watching a ship come in and land would be interesting. It would "pop" into view as soon as it decelerated, and then while making its landing maneuvers, you'd simultaneously see a "copy" of it fly backwards into the distance from the point it appeared.

>>1578072
fuck you el taco

Infernus are you or are you not a furfag?

>>1578096
i am not a furfag

>>1578082
this would be interesting
unless wormholes were utilized of sorts
or some way that kept light of the craft trapped inside some sort of field with the vehicle

>>1578082
>>1578108
Thinking about it, I believe if you could watch one leave (going into FTL), it would start out flying away normally, then as soon as it "warped" into FTL, it would seem to slow down and keep slowing down, crawling away at an ever-slower speed until it was too far to see (which could take a very long time).

lol, star trek

> neutrons controlled by giant electromagnet
lrn2right-hand-rule neutrons have no charge

giant electromagnets weigh a lot

>>1578184
>>>giant electromagnets weigh a lot
not super efficient electromagnets

>>>lrn2right-hand-rule
>>>>lrn2right-hand
>>>>>lrn2right

learn to english

what if light isn't moving at all and everything just moves through it. it would be impossible to go "slower" than light because it has no actual speed but we can go how fast we want in the "opposite speed" (one being "towards" the light and one being trying to "catch" the light (when we catch it we cant go slower because we have "stopped")). imagine the sun morphing away from the light in all directions like this hyper cube (except with morphing in all directions) and the earth moves through the light that the sun created 8 minutes ago but the light hasn't moved one bit in reality. the more powerful morph (mass) the more powerful gravity. for example two air planes flying around a speed up earth, one flies against the rotation and moves really fast and one moves with the rotation and "stands still".

>>1578308
>Doesn't know what the right hand rule is

>>1578420
>Lightbulb in front of you and lightbulb behind you
>Turn on both lights simultaneously
>Universe gets ripped in two

>>1578452
>>1578459
divide by zero

>this thread

takes it this deep

>>1578459

not if a bigger morphing (earth) spreads the light to all visible areas and keeps the universe intact ;)

Try and find it or make it possible until proven impossible. That is the basic principle behind science!
So why cast out ideas that are not completely insane?
Have fun being the neo-Spanish inquisition.

>>1578500
>>1578493
>>1578487
>>1578452

>>1578308
Get the fuck out you underage nigger.

>>1567498

>neutrons

>controlled by a magnet

lolwut?

can someone explain me in plain english what that infernofag is suggesting?

and WTF has singularity to do with neutrons?

There is only one way for a particle to travel faster than light in its own reference frame: negative mass particles - tachyons. Which are imaginary particles. Which should tell you everything you need to know.

Now if you want to go from point A to point B in less time than a photon would take through normal space, yeah, you can think about distorting space, wormholes, whatever. We don't have the math to fully conceptualize it, and whatever math we may have is still lacking experiments to demonstrate it. If you want to imagine concepts with big sci-fyi words, have fun, but at this point it's all mostly meaningless.