/sci/ - Science & Math

inb4 e=mc2 wrongly used.

>>1767638
That is assuming you could escape the velocity of the black hole.... Otherwise, neat idea.

Blackholes go nowhere.

>>1767649
This would then have to be faster than light travel itself.

Even if you used a wormhole you'd still be moving through the wormhole at less than the speed of light.

>>1767649
What would be the point of going into a Blackhole if you could already go faster than the speed of light?

Might not be lightspeed, but could it be possible to use the gravity of a black hole to "slingshot" your way through space, like the astronauts did with the moon on the return trip?

They could use the gravity of the holes, planets and stars to build speed, yes? As long as they kept on the escapable side of it?

> cool science fiction thread bro

OP, well now you've blown my idea up care to provide some of your own /sci/entists

>>1767658
The escape velocity of black hole is faster then light by far, to an insane degree on super massive ones. Some reason people seem to think that this means faster then light travel is possible. All that is happening is space is bending onto itself, warping light right back to the surface of the blackhole/star(people often forget blackhole is just a fancy name for huge fucking star without luminosity). Learn to space/time/gravity.

>>1767674
Assuming they stayed within safe zones, they still could not achieve faster the speed of light.

>>1767680
>Blackhole
>Star without luminosity

>>1767680

learn2learn2

>>1767680
Except it's not. There is no "surface."

>>1767699
>>1767680
> Accident-prone the whole post

>>1767674
I'm assuming you think a ship would reach near the speed of light; if that is the case then you would need another Blackhole to catch and slow you down. Or make a complicated path through multiple solar systems, otherwise you would need an insane amount of fuel.

Still doesn't change the fact he was right about using black holes to go faster then light is utter crock. How about warping space ourselves around a spacecraft.

arent gravitons instantaneous?

>>1767738
NOTHING GOES FASTED THAN THE SPEED OF LIGHT

How about alternate forms of travel? Like grabbing the goal point in space, and pulling it towards you, hopping over the gap, then letting go?

>>1767738
NOTHING IS FASTER THEN THE SPEED OF LIGHT.

>>1767747
Warp travel, yes please.

>>1767738
If they even exist, no. They would have zero rest mass just like a photon, forcing it to move at the speed of light.

>>1767747
>Goal point in space

What?!

I've eaten one too many negroes to discuss this matter right now.

>>1767765
Too many?

>>1767759
The point where you want to travel to.

>>1767755
Why does zero rest mass force lightspeed travel?

>>1767650
see
>>1767792

seems we need a new way of mathematics

since our current practices have lead us to the known limitations of "c" and the singularity behind an event horizon

must we assume 1+1 always equals 2?

>>1767802
It would be a pretty strange system you're using if 1 and 1 didn't equal two.

>>1767792
The speed of light is defined that way, "The speed of light is the speed of all massless particles and associated fields in vacuum". Why it's exactly that speed, nobody knows.

>>1767807
That is pretty cool, I learned something today.

>>1767799
>>1767807
If c is defined as the speed of a zero mass particle, wouldn't that mean that any particle moving at lightspeed contains zero energy, and therefore doesn't exist? e=mc² -> e=0*c² -> e=0

I feel like there must be a perfectly simple answer that I'm missing.

>>1767807
>Why it's exactly that speed, nobody knows.

i thought it was because of the gravitational constant and the plank length

>>1767824
the particle has zero mass, but it has momentum(energy)

>>1767824
That formula you use isn't completely right, it's actually <span class="math">E^{2} = \sqrt{m^{2} c^{4} + p{^2}c^{2}}[/spoiler] with p being the impulse given by <span class="math">p = \frac{h}{\lambda}[/spoiler] where h is the planck constant and <span class="math">\lambda[/spoiler] the wavelength.

>Compact planetary mass to size of atom.
>Rip space time
>Use negative energy to sustain hole in space time fabric
>Travel through hole.

SOLVED MOTHERFUCKERS.

Read Physics of the Impossible. It's what real physicists read.

>>1767830
The planck length is a number you can get using the gravitational constant, the speed of light and planck's constant. Planck length doesn't describe anything fundamental itself.

The speed of light arises from the permeability of free space and the permittivity of free space.

>>1767836
Should be momentum instead of impulse, it's called impulse in my language so I tend to screw it up sometimes.

>>1767836
you might want to check your math, chief.

>>1767836
>>1767848
Thank you, kind /sci/entist.

>>1767850
Heh yeah I just noticed, terrible mistake.
>>1767836
Should be momentum instead of impulse, also ignore that root or the square above E. It's just <span class="math">E = \sqrt{m^{2} c^{4} + p{^2}c^{2}}[/spoiler]

>>1767853
his equation is wrong.

>>1767807
well in nature, putting two individuals in relationship with each other can lead to 1+1=2, or 3(mom, dad, baby), or twins, or a brood, or 10,000 more "1s" may be created from the relationship "+" in nature

sure it sounds stupid, but that's the fact of it in nature 1 and 1 yields multiple possibilities

maybe we might learn something by assuming 1+1=? depending on the constraints we choose to apply to a given problem

http://www.amazon.com/How-Mathematicians-Think-Contradiction-Mathematics/dp/0691145997/ref=wl_it_dp_
o?ie=UTF8&coliid=I2Q8KDFJY80X49&colid=1ZCCANQ3N74YZ

>>1767841

>>1767877

Not my fault you're not good enough to do it. Invent better science.

Nothing is faster than the speed of light.
Build a spaceship out of nothing.
The spaceship can travel faster than the speed of light.
Problem solved.

All I can say is that great leaps in technology have always been about shortcuts. Up to the 19th century I'm sure all respectable physicists thought manned powered flight was impossible - you'd have to break the law of gravity. Bernoulli discovered a shortcut. Who's to say there's not a FTL Bernoulli out there somewhere, fapping to tentacle hentai, crushing on some slut who will fuck ANYONE but him, on 4chan 24/7...

>>1767893
Cool equivocation, bro.

>>1767893
>>Nothing is faster than the speed of light.
>>Build a spaceship out of nothing.
>>The spaceship can travel faster than the speed of light.
O.o can you not see what is wrong with what you said?

>>1767899
You can't relate air flight or the breaking the sound barrier to the speed of light. Birds have the ability to fly in the air and shooting stars travel many times faster than the speed of sound. The speed of light is the limit anything and everything can travel, and we haven't seen any cosmic phenomena that would tell us otherwise.

using quantum tunneling to tunnel through the light barrier to trans light speeds where you have to travel faster than the speed of light? ie, mass = -1

>>1767943

and what abour the light trapped gy the gravitaty of a black hole? wouldn't light be able to escape it's reach since it's the quickest velocity something can achiveve?

>Insert zpm
>Dial pegasus
>Walk

FTL travel is so easy guise, I really don't get why we are discussing it.

Why do we assume that we have to move matter for FTL travel?
Isn't it possible to simply move the space it occupies?

>>1768078
Haven't you read this thread?

>>1768045
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_tunnelling
you just put two words together didn't you?

To everyone who still rants about lolwormholes and lolnegativeenergypropulsion:

http://www.bibliotecapleyades.net/ciencia/negativeenergy/negativeenergy.htm

Though in my book I just worked around this by saying that we had basically learnt how to hack into reality's source code, aka the "Planck substance", and can manipulate vacuum fluctuations at a distance and change the quantum preference setting from "+ energy>- energy" to "->+" for convenience.

>>1767943

>Implying we could "see" something that is moving faster than light.