Will we ever travel faster then light? - The Best Online Debate Website | DebateIsland.com - Debate News And Just About Anything The Best Online Debate Website | DebateIsland.com
frame

Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

The Best Online Debate Website | DebateIsland.com. The only Online Debate Website with Casual, Persuade Me, Formalish, and Formal Online Debate formats. We’re the Leading Online Debate website. Debate popular topics, Debate news, or Debate anything! Debate online for free!


The best online Debate website - DebateIsland.com! The only Online Debate Website with Casual, Persuade Me, Formalish, and Formal Online Debate formats. We’re the Leading Online Debate website. Debate popular topics, Debate news, or Debate anything! Debate online for free!

Will we ever travel faster then light?
in Space

By NopeNope 331 Pts
Scientist are cheaters they like to cheat (kind of). NO I DON"T MEAN WHEN COLLECTING EVIDENCE. I mean when their is something scientist wan't to do something but the laws of nature don't seem to allow it they look for loop holes. Like racing light. They would never beet light in a fare race (traveling through the same path) because the speed of causality won't allow it. So of course they look for loop holes (like wormholes and warp drives). Will they be successful and beat light in a race? Or will we fall to the raining race champion (that we know of).

I just wanted to start a debate in the new space community scene it is kind of empty and I like science.



Debra AI Prediction

Predicted To Win
Predicted 2nd Place
33%
Margin

Details +



Arguments

  • PoguePogue 507 Pts
    We could never directly be faster than light. It is impossible with our current understanding of physics. An object with mass can not move faster than an object without it.  However, I think the real question should be "Will we ever be able to get to a place faster than light?" This is theoretically possible. We could use wormholes or warp drive if they were known to exist. Those are not proven science. So right now, the answer is no. 
    anonymousdebater
    I could either have the future pass me or l could create it. 

    “We are all born ignorant, but one must work hard to remain stupid.” - Benjamin Franklin  So flat Earthers, man-made climate change deniers, and just science deniers.

    I friended myself! 
  • NopeNope 331 Pts
    exotic matter
  • @Nope ;

    Scientists do not cheat.

    They simply propose theories which they subsequently investigate.

    Wormholes and warp drives are nothing more than theoretical propositions.

    Without the capabilities and work of scientists, we would be still be living in caves and trees, with a life expectancy of twenty years or less.

    The first being that realised the potential and ability to create fire was a scientist.

    Every basic rudiment of our present technological state of existence, things that we take for granted. Are all available to us now because of the work of scientists.

    As for your question. 
    I would have to say No.  We will never be able to travel faster than light. Simply because our mass is to great.

    Not unless we can convert matter into a state of electromagnetic radiation and subsequently re-establish matter into it's original state (Teleporting)  and then we would only be travelling, possibly at the speed of light.

    But of course this proposition inevitably brings into play, the ultimate question. 

    That is to say.  Why/how does matter exist in the first place. 

    If we were ever to get to grips with this conundrum, then maybe anything would be possible.
    anonymousdebater
  • NopeNope 331 Pts
    Fredsnephew

    I am getting the feeling my question was worded poorly. What my question means is can we travel from point A to point B faster than light could not can we reach speeds faster than light. My apologize.
    I do not think we would still be in trees without scientist. Scientist are people who study an aspect of nature. How can you be sure that the first person to create fire did it from studding nature and just got lucky. You would need to know the first person who created fire.

    We will problem be able to create matter into electromagnetic radiation at some point. I don't see why that is not possible. I thought matter was energy.
    I was thinking scene the speed of causality is well the speed of causality we would just bend space. This would of course require negative energy. Will we ever get negative energy we need? Is their some other thing oreventing us from getting thier faster than light we don't know about?
  • @Nope ;
    Briefly, with regard to science and scientists.

    Just take a moment and look up the definition of science in a dictionary. The definition is in fact very simplistic. 

    That is to say. Anyone can be a scientist. 

    You do not need a laboratory or vast amounts of funding to be a scientist.


    You make lots of assumptions based upon probability and possibility and of course there is no way of rebutting probability and possibility.

    At this moment in time we just have to accept that, given our current levels of understanding and knowledge, we must conclude that it is unlikely we will ever be able to travel between points A and B  faster than light.

    A fascinating topic to discuss, but a topic of science fiction, rather than a topic of imminent probability.














    anonymousdebater
  • The aliens already do.
    anonymousdebater
    Be tomorrow's hero, not today's idol.
  • NopeNope 331 Pts
    The aliens already do.
    Not spicif. Any one not from Singapore is an Alien to Singapore. I think a better term would be some aliens. The aliens is not well defined.
  • EvidenceEvidence 789 Pts
    Nope said:
    Scientist are cheaters they like to cheat (kind of). NO I DON"T MEAN WHEN COLLECTING EVIDENCE. I mean when their is something scientist wan't to do something but the laws of nature don't seem to allow it they look for loop holes. Like racing light. They would never beet light in a fare race (traveling through the same path) because the speed of causality won't allow it. So of course they look for loop holes (like wormholes and warp drives). Will they be successful and beat light in a race? Or will we fall to the raining race champion (that we know of).

    I just wanted to start a debate in the new space community scene it is kind of empty and I like science.

    Hey @Nope Are we still on with this conversation, because I love science too, real science.

    First, in what medium are you asking that we travel faster than light in, .. in water, in air, in a free fall, in a Zero-G Plane, in a Zero-G plane with no air, or in a vacuum, .. where?

    Second, what kind of "light" are we talking about, the one that has mass, or massless, because I don't think 'science' knows about "light" enough to decide if it's massless or has mass.
     They do claim it travels, so according to that, IMHO it has to have mass, or light would be "instant" (can explain). Also if it has mass, then it will be effected by the Laws of Special Relativity like mass/weight gain, time dilation and length contraction, right? So until we find all this information on light, we can't calculate the effects our ship, or we who are in the ship will be experiencing, or what force we need (in the different mediums we'll be traveling through) to accelerate our ship?

    Let's take a 100 kilogram iron ball into a Zero-G plane (since BB-Space where the imaginary ISS supposed to be, is just sci-fi stuff, and you will not get any answers from Googling such questions, meaning they never do any experiments in this fake space)
    Now as the plane dives and that 100kg ball is floating with us, how much force does it take to move that ball?
    In other words, do you think we could move it with a fluffy feather, .. or with a simple push of our little finger, .. what? This is important to know to calculate how much force we would need to propel our ship to the speed of light!?

    * I know that I could move an 18 foot boat in calm water, with 6 people sitting in it along with a 120hp engine with my finger. But I can't find any answers to how much force is needed to move a 100kg. ball in space? You'd think this would be common general information by now, with all this space travel and all, .. right?

    Thank you.
    Erfisflat
  • Nope said:
    Scientist are cheaters they like to cheat (kind of). NO I DON"T MEAN WHEN COLLECTING EVIDENCE. I mean when their is something scientist wan't to do something but the laws of nature don't seem to allow it they look for loop holes. Like racing light. They would never beet light in a fare race (traveling through the same path) because the speed of causality won't allow it. So of course they look for loop holes (like wormholes and warp drives). Will they be successful and beat light in a race? Or will we fall to the raining race champion (that we know of).

    I just wanted to start a debate in the new space community scene it is kind of empty and I like science.

    It's unlikely. Both a wormhole and a warp drive would require exotic matter, specifically something with negative mass. While there's nothing which inherently disallows the existence of negative mass, it's never been observed.
  • EvidenceEvidence 789 Pts
    Nope said:
    Scientist are cheaters they like to cheat (kind of). NO I DON"T MEAN WHEN COLLECTING EVIDENCE. I mean when their is something scientist wan't to do something but the laws of nature don't seem to allow it they look for loop holes. Like racing light. They would never beet light in a fare race (traveling through the same path) because the speed of causality won't allow it. So of course they look for loop holes (like wormholes and warp drives). Will they be successful and beat light in a race? Or will we fall to the raining race champion (that we know of).

    I just wanted to start a debate in the new space community scene it is kind of empty and I like science.

    It's unlikely. Both a wormhole and a warp drive would require exotic matter, specifically something with negative mass. While there's nothing which inherently disallows the existence of negative mass, it's never been observed.

    @EmeryPearson yes, anything is possible in a fairytale, especially a sci-fi fairytale where FTL is possible. CERN has a whole team of sci-fi writers inventing all kinds of exotic matter like bosons, wormhole's, negative mass, dark energy, leptons, clip-ons and so on. They get billions a month inventing things like that, and of course praying, and asking others to direct their prayers towards CERN and their Lord Shiva.
    I bet every science fiction author in the world wishes to work for CERN or NASA, .. who wouldn't, for that kind of money!?

    EmeryPearson
  • MayCaesarMayCaesar 541 Pts
    The presently dominant theories prohibit faster-than-light travel for many reasons, and I would say that the causality argument is one of the lesser objections to it. The properties of Minkowsky space themselves make such travel as much impossible as going away from a plane would be in a 2-dimensional space: it geometrically does not make sense.

    However, we also did not believe that it was possible to "contract" space by traveling fast across it 100 years ago. Yet nowadays we observe elementary particles doing it all the time. It is possible that we will discover new physics eventually that will make traveling faster than light not only an obvious possibility, but something we employ every time we want to go to a grocery store in a nearby star system.

    So the answer is "maybe yes, maybe no". I am inclined towards the no, because if FTL travel was possible, then some very complicated effect would have to be at play to make us unable to observe such a phenomenon in the Universe around us. However, it is also possible that we simply are not looking the right way at the Universe around us, so let me refrain from predictions for now.
    Erfisflat
  • EvidenceEvidence 789 Pts
    MayCaesar said:
    The presently dominant theories prohibit faster-than-light travel for many reasons, and I would say that the causality argument is one of the lesser objections to it. The properties of Minkowsky space themselves make such travel as much impossible as going away from a plane would be in a 2-dimensional space: it geometrically does not make sense.

    However, we also did not believe that it was possible to "contract" space by traveling fast across it 100 years ago. Yet nowadays we observe elementary particles doing it all the time. It is possible that we will discover new physics eventually that will make traveling faster than light not only an obvious possibility, but something we employ every time we want to go to a grocery store in a nearby star system.

    So the answer is "maybe yes, maybe no". I am inclined towards the no, because if FTL travel was possible, then some very complicated effect would have to be at play to make us unable to observe such a phenomenon in the Universe around us. However, it is also possible that we simply are not looking the right way at the Universe around us, so let me refrain from predictions for now.
    @MayCaesar However, we also did not believe that it was possible to "contract" space by traveling fast across it 100 years ago. Yet nowadays we observe elementary particles doing it all the time. It is possible that we will discover new physics eventually that will make traveling faster than light not only an obvious possibility, but something we employ every time we want to go to a grocery store in a nearby star system.

    Show how elementary particles "contract space", and how it dilates time, and gains mass, because if it does one, it does all three.
    Besides the Hafele Keating lie, there is absolutely no evidence of any of these sci-fi fairytales.

    Oh look, I just witnessed an elementary particle appear in two places in our known universe at once, 80 billion light years apart, .. just as I predicted it 40 years ago! Will give all the details as soon as I get 6.66 billion dollar$ into my Swiss account and build a physics lab dedicated to Odin.
    EmeryPearson
  • I’ve got to ask.

    How did we arrive at a 6.6 billion dollar price tag?

     Particles will not at two places at the same instant you measurement of time is off.  This is part of a grievance I hold due to this fact but we are going to keep focused on SFL travel. So the question is can we travel the speed of light from point (a) to point (b) without getting lost? This question may be asked wrong but it does have answers. The Laws of Motion say no not at this time which is Digital Atomic Time. Absolute time? Maybe. Scientific Stellar Absolute Time ( S.S.A.T)? Yes. Though this new Time has a price tag.

    The laws of motion say we do not want to go from point (a) to point (b) at the speed of light unless we are really trying to reach point (x, y) and (x, z) This really can be written many ways changing it is okay. I bet we forgot that space is measured form the opposite side of the alphabet X, Y, and Z not a, b, and c. Accidental?  (x, y, and z (a)) is the point in space the speed of light is met by a ships velocity. (x, y, and z (b)) is the places in x, y, and z space where energy is used to slow a ship down from the speed of light. To reach a destination of (b). All this requires we know precisely were the ship is. That is the obstacle we can use RDF but it operates slowly just look at how long it takes to move a rover on mars.

    The idea the speed of light would be impossible to reach is not true and the idea of exotic propulsion systems may help but it isn’t needed. The problem is the same one we had with the ocean only on a much larger scale it is too easy to get lost. While the laws of motion dictate a very large variation of possible energy consumption depending how far we are going to travle.

    Evidence
  • Here’s a news flash. We do travel faster than the speed of light now. A speed of light is not constant between all light, it is dependent on an amount of energy to provide velocity. We at some point on earth walk faster than light from a common lightbulb or candle. It is our distance from the light, and the energy which creates the light which dictates the area a person could run, walk, and ride faster than light. How’s that for a messed up answer?  The reason behind the treatment of light is the origin of all light can become sublime by human worship.

    Most light we move faster than is background light and is not noticed over sunlight or other brute higher energy lighting sources in a area.

  • Again, can someone explain to me what happens to a ship (or whatever you are driving/flying in) traveling at or near the speed of light. .. relativisticly speaking?

    We know 'gravity' doesn't exist, and that the formula E=MC^2 makes as much sense as Bill Nye on cosmology since no one has ever been to BB-space, so talking about "space travel faster than the speed of light" is strictly sci-fi talk. In that case, .. yes, it's possible, even for a turtle to go faster than the SOL;

    https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/08/130813201436.htm

  • Something that also needs to be defined is what exactly is meant by "traveling faster than light". Currently dominant theories prohibit travel faster than light in the local space, meaning the point at which, say, your center of mass is located will always move slower than the light passing the same point, with regards to the static coordinate system.

    So, if the question is literally "Can I win against a photon on a race?", then the answer is no.

    But we can ask a different question. "It takes light 2.5 million years to reach Andromeda. Can we reach Andromeda faster than that?" And the answer is, maybe surprisingly, yes. Due to the time dilation, in theory you can reach Andromeda as fast as your technology allows you. Want to reach it in 1 second? No problem! Just build a spaceship that has an incomprehensible local acceleration, and the time dilation will do the rest.

    Whether such a travel is practically viable, however, is another matter. We had a discussion in another thread where calculation led us to conclusion that traveling from the Milky Way to Andromeda even within a year would require the amount of energy many orders of magnitude higher than humanity has consumed throughout its history so far. It is possible that there is a certain practical limit making intergalactic travel unrealistic - at least, until we have solved the problem of immortality and have no issue spending a million years traveling from one galaxy to another.
  • The first thing to explain about a ship traveling at high velocity, hyper velocity freely in the Universe is it will become lost. If a position is held using radio signals, or even if markers are placed in lasers transmissions at high speed the great distances set by the universe means the single will be lost, or take a huge measurement of time that is unreasonable for these types of human travel.

  • MayCaesar said:
    Something that also needs to be defined is what exactly is meant by "traveling faster than light". Currently dominant theories prohibit travel faster than light in the local space, meaning the point at which, say, your center of mass is located will always move slower than the light passing the same point, with regards to the static coordinate system.

    So, if the question is literally "Can I win against a photon on a race?", then the answer is no.

    But we can ask a different question. "It takes light 2.5 million years to reach Andromeda. Can we reach Andromeda faster than that?" And the answer is, maybe surprisingly, yes. Due to the time dilation, in theory you can reach Andromeda as fast as your technology allows you. Want to reach it in 1 second? No problem! Just build a spaceship that has an incomprehensible local acceleration, and the time dilation will do the rest.

    Whether such a travel is practically viable, however, is another matter. We had a discussion in another thread where calculation led us to conclusion that traveling from the Milky Way to Andromeda even within a year would require the amount of energy many orders of magnitude higher than humanity has consumed throughout its history so far. It is possible that there is a certain practical limit making intergalactic travel unrealistic - at least, until we have solved the problem of immortality and have no issue spending a million years traveling from one galaxy to another.
    @MayCaesarBut we can ask a different question. "It takes light 2.5 million years to reach Andromeda. Can we reach Andromeda faster than that?" And the answer is, maybe surprisingly, yes. Due to the time dilation, in theory you can reach Andromeda as fast as your technology allows you. Want to reach it in 1 second? No problem! Just build a spaceship that has an incomprehensible local acceleration, and the time dilation will do the rest.

    You're forgetting 'length contraction' which when reached the SOL will squeeze the front of your ship to the back, .. so if you're laying facing the direction of your travel, your head would end up in your a... in your umm, .. behind, but that's if you survive the mass gain, because as your ship approaches the speed of light, its mass becomes infinite and it is unable to go any faster than light travels.
    So here you are traveling at the speed of light, time has stopped, your head in your rear, and you weigh is infinite lbs.  Which gives you another problem; imagine 'infinite mass' traveling at the speed of light, in a vacuum, .. how would you slow it down?
    Erfisflat
  • ErfisflatErfisflat 1601 Pts
    MayCaesar said:
    The presently dominant theories prohibit faster-than-light travel for many reasons, and I would say that the causality argument is one of the lesser objections to it. The properties of Minkowsky space themselves make such travel as much impossible as going away from a plane would be in a 2-dimensional space: it geometrically does not make sense.

    However, we also did not believe that it was possible to "contract" space by traveling fast across it 100 years ago. Yet nowadays we observe elementary particles doing it all the time. It is possible that we will discover new physics eventually that will make traveling faster than light not only an obvious possibility, but something we employ every time we want to go to a grocery store in a nearby star system.

    So the answer is "maybe yes, maybe no". I am inclined towards the no, because if FTL travel was possible, then some very complicated effect would have to be at play to make us unable to observe such a phenomenon in the Universe around us. However, it is also possible that we simply are not looking the right way at the Universe around us, so let me refrain from predictions for now.
    That is some fascinating science fiction.

    Evidence
    Pseudoscience: noun; a collection of beliefs or practices mistakenly regarded as being based on scientific method.

    Scientific method: noun; a method of procedure that has characterized natural science since the 17th century, consisting in systematic observation, measurement, and experiment, and the formulation, testing, and modification of hypotheses.

    https://www.gofundme.com/mwmvf-is-the-earth-flat

    The highest form of ignorance is when you reject something you don't know anything about.

    Wayne Dyer
  • I am obviously miss this answer.

    Where exactly was light proven to be none proportional to the energy used to create it?

Sign In or Register to comment.

Back To Top

DebateIsland.com

| The Best Online Debate Experience!
2018 DebateIsland.com, All rights reserved. DebateIsland.com | The Best Online Debate Experience! Debate topics you care about in a friendly and fun way. Come try us out now. We are totally free!

Contact us

customerservice@debateisland.com
Awesome Debates
BestDealWins.com
Terms of Service

Get In Touch