Back in the 50's people would say you were crazy if you said "we will break the sound barrier". We did it. When Star Trek started, there was no such things as mobile phones - take a look at the communicators in the original series. I say we will break the speed of light. Am I going to be like one of those in the 50's talking about breaking the speed of sound, or do people actually have enough of an open mind to realisticly consider the possibility? Theoretically it has already been proven that time itself slows by a factor of 6 when traveling at the speed of light. Theory often becomes reality, so how realistic is the speed of light really?
2007-05-12 20:38:56 · 11 answers · asked by aussie1999_au 1 in Science & Mathematics ➔ Astronomy & Space
For some info regarding breaking the light-speed barrier, you might want to check these links:
NASA's Breakthrough Propulsion Physics page:
http://www.grc.nasa.gov/WWW/bpp/index.html
NASA's Warp Drive When? page:
http://www.nasa.gov/centers/glenn/research/warp/warp.html
NASA's Warp Drive When? (scaling sub page):
http://www.nasa.gov/centers/glenn/research/warp/scales.html
While NASA doesn't rule out the possibility of Warp Drive... it does say there have to be some really big changes before we can actually build warp drive engines...
And, btw, Einstein didn't say we couldn't go faster than the speed of light... he merely stated that accelerating something up to the speed of light would require an infinite amount of energy... so, FTL travel is not forbidden but we have to find a way around the acceleration problem... converting to neutrinos, perhaps? (j/k)
2007-05-13 04:44:47 · answer #1 · answered by John T 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
"Back in the 50's people would say you were crazy if you said "we will break the sound barrier". We did it."
Since Chuck Yeager broke the sound barrier in 1947, those people in the 50's were woefully misinformed.
"Theoretically it has already been proven that time itself slows by a factor of 6 when traveling at the speed of light."
Where you got a factor of six, I don't know. The faster you go the slower your relative time to someone left behind.
Mass increases with speed, so that when travelling the speed of light, mass must become infinite. You cannot have a force that is greater than infinity in order to acellerate an infinite mass. Therefore the speed of light is the ultimate speed.
This is also the proof that the photon has zero rest mass.
2007-05-12 21:12:39 · answer #2 · answered by Holden 5 · 0⤊ 1⤋
In the 50s there were people predicting the developments that you cited that happened, and they knew of the technology on which these would be based. There were no basic laws that prevented these developments, and Star Trek took these ideas as part of its plot lines.
It also took ideas that were totally scientifically impossible, such as faster than light travel, transporters and everyone in the known universe speaking English with an American accent. Without these liberties, Star Trek would have been REALLY BORING. It would have been stuck to looking at a few asteroids within the bounds of the Kuiper belt.
The speed of light will never be exceeded because it is a limit in the Universe that we are confident has never been broken since the big bang. For it to be breakable several fundamental pieces of physics would have to be wrong, and these would lead to other consequences in terms of technology based on those pieces not working. Like sat nav.
2007-05-12 21:00:12 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 1⤋
Actually, time stops completely at the speed of light. Time slows as you approach the speed of light.
If you stay in this universe, there is no theory or test evidence supporting faster than light travel as being possible. Maybe there could be some kind of hyperspace.
The best evidence against it is the lack of visitors from Out There. But who knows? We can hope.
2007-05-12 20:43:12 · answer #4 · answered by DT3238 4 · 1⤊ 0⤋
People have already given all the reasons why, so I'll just cast my vote for Star Trek as well. Faster than light travel is likely impossible, but I would still bet on warp drive before I would bet on homeopathy.
2016-04-01 09:03:03 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Star Trek is the reality of the future. Read anything by Isaac Asimov from the 1940's and look at what we're doing today.
2007-05-12 22:14:27 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
Just on the subject of Star Trek, we love everything about it, and it really bugs our son, who thinks we are weirdos. But, now and then, things they had in Star Trek, become real, and then we say "we told you Star Trek was correct". I often think that some science fiction writers may have been unknowningly psychic.
2007-05-12 20:46:47 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
star trek physics just blows my mind.
The hand held phasors would require a more powerful energy generator than the warp core of a starship. or a hundred starships for that matter. What always bothered me is why they didnt use the power source from their hand phasors to power the ship.
2007-05-12 20:51:00 · answer #8 · answered by noneya b 3 · 0⤊ 1⤋
Star Trek is cool. I love that show, especailly the next generation...
2007-05-12 20:48:58 · answer #9 · answered by nawnndawn 4 · 0⤊ 1⤋
Standards of measuremint (ment) are not barriers, only bench marks.
dave
2007-05-12 21:14:39 · answer #10 · answered by dave777 4 · 1⤊ 0⤋