Robert Lawson's Theory on Faster Than Light Travel

[matteo4m]

@lawsonrw You're on the right track. Keep it up. You enlightened me. 'Reducing' mass is a stellar idea!

[lawsonrw]

@matteo4m thank you

[sixstanger00]

Regarding Einsten's E=mc2, can anyone tell me what is significant about squaring LS? What does LS squared have to do with calculating the energy contained in an object? Like a rock? Or a jar? Or a keyboard? Or a moon? I've been reading that it's a conversion factor. CONVERTING WHAT? That's what I can't get anyone to explain. WHY is the mass of an object multiplied by the speed of light squared in the equation? And how does light work as a conversion factor for mass into energy?

[lawsonrw]

@sixstanger00 when combining two protons they release mass as energy. Two individual protons have more mass than a pair of combined protons. The energy released is pretty much equaly to what you find in e=mc^2... in case you were wondering, the units of energy involved are joules.

[lawsonrw]

@WakeUpInDaMorning bear in mind that if other universes exist, though they may all have different rules of physics, we could consider most of those universes as "average" to the extent that they interact with each other. Its a bigger chance that this universe falls somewhere in that band of "average" and so if tachyon particles are jumping to other universes, so too they "jump" here and have similar effects to what you described. By that definition, we should be able to observe them.

[lawsonrw]

@WakeUpInDaMorning to be honest I hadn't though of any relationship involving tachyons. I think, if anything, if this effect were real it would in a way "pull" itself forward through time using tachyons.  I'm a follower of string theory and so the tachyons, if anything would create instabilities in space-time surrounding the vehicle, allowing it to behave "imaginarily" outside of spacetime. Ultimately resolving in the new location (achieved, linearly, via FTL movement).

[macfrankist]

Very good perspective. There are details that may need revision, but you have great reasoning my friend.

[superdahoho]

so do photons have mass or no?

8:40 "even photons have mass"

I heard from several sources that they don't, even my professor said no

but I also heard from other sources that they do....anyone have a definite answer?

[lawsonrw]

@superdahoho

Most professionals will say that photons do not have mass but they do have momentum... but the formula for momentum = p = mass * velocity.

We know from multiplication rules that if p = 0 * C then p = 0, so its really quite difficult to explain photons as having momentum while having no mass. To correct for this, scientists came up with some rather interesting alternative ways of calculating the momentum of photons.

[murdakah]

But awesome nontheless.

[murdakah]

Interesting, but even without mass it still takes time to reach another place, since photons are not instantaneous. And the mass of photons are only mass because of it's energy, not it's rest mass, which it does not have, hence the E^2=m^2c^4+p^2c^2.

[honda4004]

hi you got any comments on remote viewing. this if possible can take your electric source (brqain power as in humans) to virtually anywhere. just intrigued on this and maybe you have looked further in to this remote viewing .simple carpenter here in uk no expert

[yomamasofat1000]

Well, CERN says that they've discovered neutrinos that travel faster than the speed of light.

[halfbreed1426]

A very similiar idea is expressed in the Mass Effect universe. Please check it out.

[jcarmack17]

i am a economics major.... but i have to say this science shit is cool..... i believe that the only impossible thing is believing that there is an impossible. this world is crazy mysterious.

[Nazim1495]

if u take away mass from a molecule or complex structure it will fly apart, the superconductor works on a small scales and will take a magnetic field much like Jupiter. But ur theory is very possible theoretically. My theory is to create a warp bubble will negative mass and positive mass energies that warp space into a gravity space-time wave to get to lets say 12 light years away in a few seconds, because the ship is not moving, but space is.

[guitarbeast777]

It's called "shiptime"...

99.9 Sublight in realspace could be dangerous as everything ahead of you will be some form of radiation.

Hyperspace would be a better deal. But make sure you return to 3space in the correct orientation.

[oringent]

wow, nice collection of misconceptions about basic principles in relativity.

[spark300c]

so mass is change and time flows. wounder speed up time and will mass change. I went different angel. I went through speed up time using time like carves to did it. problems are many like changes in time space geometry at faster speeds.

[Donatellangelo]

Err, I think I got the wrong impression.

[rgrggfdgfgr]

Very simple just keep the window open in the ship then the people inside would be in the same space time. (yes its that easy)

[197IQ]

Eugene Podkletnov, claimed in the early 1990s that he had made a device with rotating superconductor that produces a so called, gravitomagnetic field. Which gave birth to the paper "scribd.com/doc/861665/Abnorma­l-Gravitational-Fields-of-Rota­ting-Superconductors" published in 2004.

ESA In 2006: "esa.int/SPECIALS/GSP/SEM0L6OV­GJE_0.html"

You want me to go on?

You claim other peoples work?! Uneducated FOOL!

[cableslayer]

Bro, I know that you put alot of thought into this video but your info on this matter is late, but correct. Or you gathered the idea through the TR-3B data info like I did and put two and two together. Spinning mercury vapor in a toroid fast enough WILL decrease Mass and Inertia to Zero. Because of the stretched sub atomic partical in the heavy atoms. (Considering MASS=INERTIA. GRAVITY=Time Dialation.) subtract inertia. then pulse Gravity behind craft.(Speed of Gravity=Instant=infinite:)

[IAbominator]

Erm it's kinda not ur idea so stop taking credit for scientists and engineers work

[thepan070]

if the camp is 25 light years away , and to avoid 50 years of time to go and return , only possible way is to travel 101 times faster than light speed , only then the boys can exprience the camp in real time...

[ChillProductions1]

no you see all of this is possible to do if we can travel at the speed of light and people stop eating so much MCDONALDS and crap so they can LIVE passed 80..

[Omegax9000]

Space travel sounds fun but where the hell would you go? Seriously? I get lost lost traveling across the country imagine being 4.5 light years away you'd be screwed. Also you guys ever wonder why we haven't heard from aliens? What gives! Scary shit.

[lewi71]

@leevidz2007 the only dangers of high speed travel for humans are friction and gravity or g forces, friction only occurs when theres something resisting your movement such as air. g forces only occur in the pressence of a gravity field such as on the surface of a planet or other celestial body.

[leevidz2007]

very interesting, I was wondering on the other side of things how fast could the Human Body survive? I mean we could discuss reducing mass to increase the speed of a object and thats a great theory, however how fast could a human Body travel without causing hazzard to your health or Death ?

[crossvariation]

@leevidz2007 speed does not matter, only acceleration matters. If you travel at a constant high velocity, you body will not experience anything. If you go from 0-120 mph in like 3 seconds, you will experience a lot of force exerted on your body that will cause hazardous effects on the body.

[mity15]

Ghosts can go faster than light and space it self is expanding faster than light anything else cant peroid

[TimJSwan89]

You just said that it was useless to waste your time by moving at a high velocity, how about going to the center of the galaxy because time for the earth will appear to pass by more slowly, and since it is rotating and contradicting its own direction, you beat the earth in how much you have aged. Therefore, depending on what you are doing, you could save time by traveling to a specific speed (the average of the earth's speed) you could save time instead of waste it. Your theory is bad btw sry.

[joshafool]

If the summer camp is 25 light-years away, it would take 25 years of travel at the speed of light to get there. It would also take 25 years (at light speed) to return. Both boys would be 50 years old plus the time spent in the summer camp galexy.

As defined by the International Astronomical Union (IAU), a light-year is the distance that light travels in a vacuum in one Julian year.

[lawsonrw]

@joshafool

That's not accurate... Time 'slows' when objects are moving at higher speeds. SEE: Hafele-Keating Experiment

Also see:

Time Dilation

[RolleRRATM]

@lawsonrw Thats not accurate either because time does not exist. Motion and speed requires only energy, there is no time involved. Time is just something we invented to help us understand the concept of speed, and to measure the frequency of natural changes (such as day - night cycle), but time itself does not exist because you cant detect it or observe it. (note : ageing is just a result of cellular reactions, not the result "time passing by").

Sounds messy but i hope it is understandable.

[MrFrankconners]

@RolleRRATM NO time does exist actually. Take the twin paradox for example. Time passes slower for the twin going close to the speed of light as opposed to the twin staying on earth. Also it has been proven that time passes slower inside a gravitational field. The super accurate clocks on the satellites that give up gps move every so faster then the clocks down here because they are so far from the earths gravitational field. Also inside a black hole time actually stops.

[RolleRRATM]

@MrFrankconners

i know what you are trying to say but time slowing down is just a myth. it is not the time that slows down, but the movement of particles. Also the twin theory is what it is : a theory. It does not prove the existence of time.

about the clock : i gotta say that is an interesting point you made, but if you look deeper you will see that the clock does not measure time, but itself. If the particle movements are slowed down then the result will be slow measurement ,example: slow CPU

[MrFrankconners]

@RolleRRATM Interesting....Well consider this then. Particles that would normal decay in millionths of a second, have been shown to last, much longer when they are accelerated close tho the speed of light. In their own frame reference they are at rest. These particles last longer because time is passing slower for them, then it normally would due to there speed. Similar to when your in the cabin of an airplane you don't fell like your like traveling at 600 mph. You feel as though your at rest.

[MrFrankconners]

@RolleRRATM Interesting Well, consider this. Particles are, in there own frame of reference, always at rest. Also note that it has been shown that when a particle that normally decays in millionths of a second, last much longer when they are accelerated close to the speed of light in particle accelerators. It's because time is passing slower for them than it normally would due to their speed. It can't be the speed of the particles themselves because there always at rest. It's time that changes.

[MrFrankconners]

@RolleRRATM Sorry, didn't mean to post two messages.

[sixstanger00]

@lawsonrw The one GOING to summer camp would have aged only a few years or months from HIS perspective, but the kid who stayed behind would have aged 50 years plus the time spent at the camp.

If the object is travelling at LS, time would have "paused" for the kid in the ship. From his point, the trip would prob seem instantaneous. 50 years to get there and back is an observation OUTSIDE the ship, from someone sitting still.

[cmax2008]

Bravo.

I am not a scientist, but I am very impressed with both the extreme sensibility and the depth of thought that you have put into your highly advanced but surprisingly simple theory, and it makes perfect sense.

If the impossible were truly impossible, then this universe would not exist, because it is so vast and so amazing as to be definable as virtually "impossible" to comprehend, let alone to create.

Keep up the great thinking, it will come of great use to human society someday.

Cheers

CM

[lawsonrw]

@cmax2008

Thank You!

[koolade4star]

What if in the future scientist discover the existence of tachyons? A particle where the slowest speed it can travel is the speed of light. maybe somehow we could develop propulsion system that could accelerate faster than the speed of light to travel anywhere in the universe instantly!

[lawsonrw]

@koolade4star

Right now we are experimenting with light as a form of propulsion. I imagine that should tachyons ever be proven to exist, and furthermore, should mankind ever master the control of tachyons, we could use them in much the same way we use photons as a form of propulsion.

In theory, we could create a tachyon sail, or even a ship powered by capturing the momentum of tachyons that are produced on board by a "tachyon gun."

[thotvedt]

@lawsonrw Tachyons actually travel faster than light, and in fact, cannot travel sublight speeds at all (in theory). I don't remember the gentleman's name, but there is a researcher presently doing work on the theoretical possibility of creating a tachyon field around an object of normal mass, thus removing it from normal space and traveling anywhere nearly instantaneously. If I find his name I will post it here. Great thought experiment. Thanks for posting.

[lawsonrw]

@thotvedt

Well tachyons have yet to be proven, let alone "captured" in a field. Manipulating such exotic particles is far more involved than getting them to "drag" an object, and wouldn't necessarily entail removing said object from normal space; but rather instantaneously accelerating it to super-luminal speeds.

[marasmusine]

By "rotating superconductors", I assume you're talking about the Meissner effect. This doesn't change the mass of anything, despite the fun levitation applications. The speed of light is restricted to massless photons (perhaps you're getting confused with relativistic mass). Even if you could reduce the mass of something to zero, I'm betting that the power requirement would be the same as that required to accelerate something to the speed of light anyway.

[lawsonrw]

@marasmusine

Well I'm not talking about the Meissner effect which speaks to what happens to a magnetic field during the transition to superconduction. What I'm talking about is much more similar to diamagnetism, or even more closely related to the work of Podkletnov and the ESA.

[lawsonrw]

@marasmusine

Second, I'm suggesting having a superconducting superfluid. The idea is to use the unique properties of superfluids to our advantage. Since superfluids have 0 viscosity, once it gets into a spin, it will continue in that spin forever. So we only need to input energy once to get it "up to speed" and then it will run until some outside force makes it stop.

[krobellus]

Actually, "The Secret NASA Evidence on UFO Technology #1 (Part 1)" is the very beginning. Check it out here in youtube.

[krobellus]

This is what i have been saying too. David Sereda has a GREAT theory on how to make this possible. type in "The Secret NASA Evidence on UFO Technology #1" into youtube. Good stuff man, and you're on the right track!

[JLR0958]

This is an old idea that has pretty much become extinct.

Time on the ship is measured exactly like time on the earth.

If you send a ship to Alpha Centauri, 4.5 light years, the ship will take that long to get there and the same to get back and that's what we would clock here on earth.

[carbonjvd]

You're train of thought is remarkably similar to mine in regards to your ideas. I have schematics for a hypothetical drive that could feasibly propel a spacecraft at faster than light speed, relavistically of course. Mine focuses more on quantum wormholes and energy strings though. Your theory is quite brilliant I must admit.

[lawsonrw]

@carbonjvd

thanks! I'd like to see your ideas as well!

[dandilion78]

You could reduce an objects mass but the superconductor would have to be infinitly accelerated and would become very large and as it becomes larger it requires more energy and the object hoped to be effected would in turn have to become larger and that require a larger semiconductor and so on. But still this may be possible, it is as possible as the idea i have described. The easiest would be wormholes

[lawsonrw]

The superconductor would most likely be a bose-einstein condensate (to which I favor). The properties of a condensate would allow the fluid to be put in motion, and it will persist in that motion infinitely. This is because there are no losses due to friction, known as viscosity in fluids. Once it is spun up to the optimal speed, it will continue rotating at that speed. As a fluid it can't be rotating in an open pool or even a sealed cylinder. The best shape would is toroidal.

[dandilion78]

we have to move space faster than the speed of light using masses of energy. this is possible because space-time moving into a black hole is pulled in faster than light, this is why you can't escape. This would carry the object along with it without actually moving as such. This would remove the problem of time dialation because space and time are moving with you. This would require immense energy and more importantly exotic energy.

[lawsonrw]

Thanks for watching. I'm not quite sure where you're sourcing your information but matter is not sucked into a black hole faster than the speed of light. In fact, in observance of black holes, many have something similar to an accretion disk of whirling matter that orbits the black hole until its devoured. Considering the size of the black hole, the size of the disk, and the black hole's strength, that process can take thousands of years. Its a very slow death.

[improptu2000]

You have spoken of time as a track in which an object is

limited to in linear motion, but what if time is merely and illusion of a singular constant (eternal of not) that we have subdivided my minuted, seconds, days, week, months and years ect..

If it is just one blob then the more change is removed from an environment the less time is involved thus a reduction in mass as it approaches 0 would be the mode be which time could be removed from the object lossing mass, resulting in 0 time experience

[jude53]

1) if the camp is 25ly away and Al gets on a ship that travels at the speed of light, it would take him 25 years to get there. 1ly is the distance which light travels in one year. even if this ship could travel 10 times the speed of light that would still come out to be 2 and a half year trip one way. 2) "space time" travels faster than the speed of light, there are parts of the universe that light has not yet reached meaning the expansion of the universe happened faster than light could travel.

[lawsonrw]

thats not entirely correct... its not true that "there are parts of the universe that light has not yet reached..."

Light exists in those areas, it just hasn't had enough time to reach us here on Earth.

[jude53]

agreed, but that still means the rate at which the universe expanded in the begining was too fast for light to keep up.

[lawsonrw]

Still not totally accurate. The way you phrased that implies that both the universe and light originated from a single point which is not true. The universe, during and after its initial expansion existed for a "long" time without any light. And when light finally came about, it came from everywhere (this was before even stars existed).

[arossg79]

So as it approaches 0, do you think it would reach a point where its atomic mass is less than that of a photon and is propelled infinitely without an energy input? Basically I mean would it have the potential to be propelled by its own atomic energy? Compelling theory by the way. If it's possible we could even use it to prolong the half-life of particles for study.

[lawsonrw]

To answer your question, yes, that's pretty much the idea.

I haven't watched the video in a while but I think I said something like the future isn't about adding more energy into the system, its reducing mass.

Of course you get into the issue of, if there propulsive equipment's mass is reduced as well its effect will be relative and there will be little or no marked increase in speed or acceleration.

[lawsonrw]

So that leaves us with the requirement that the means by which this craft produces motion cannot be based on combustion (even rockets use combustion). It has to be "field-type" propulsion, where the craft is interacting with local electrical/magnetiv/gravito-el­ectric fields to produce motion.

[arossg79]

Hi. Assuming an object can exist without mass and once it does it reaches a multidimensional plane where it exists in all places at all times, do you think it would even be able to continue existing in a dimension with potentially different laws when it is bound to these physical laws?

[lawsonrw]

Honestly I don't know. We have yet to truly experiment multi-dimensional travel. Can an object persist after crossing that barrier? I don't know, there may be forces at work that we've never observed.

But the concept of reducing an objects mass to "0" is a theory, I only believe we can get infinitely closer to, but never reach a mass of 0. Much like a parabolic curve could infinitely bend towards a limit, and never reach it.

[lawsonrw]

PT. 2

...that said, there will always be an "anchor" for the object in this universe, and in this time. By the object never totally existing in a separate dimension, its technically just existing less in this dimension, will hopefully make this form of travel safer.

PS... I believe I've solved the riddle of "defining" and area to move to.

[jewlzorjay]

I don't understand 1 thing are you talking about shrinking the size of the object?

Or are you talking about removing some of its content so the object is still the same shape and size but maybe lighter?

will for instance aa set of twin ants exsperience the same problem as your twins Al and Bert?

[lawsonrw]

An object is not (1) shrinking, (2) or losing content.

Imagine if you will, a solid steel cube. Lets say right now, the cube weighs 10 lbs. Its dimensions measure 1' x 1' x 1'.

Now, imagine that by spinning a superconductor above it we can cause it to lose weight. It is stil 1' x 1' x 1', but now it weighs 9 lbs, 8 lbs, the faster the superconductor spins the lower the weight gets all the way to 0.

[lawsonrw]

pt. 2

While this loss of mass was going on, the object retained its size of 1' x 1' x 1'. The molecules of the object remain in their position, they haven't shifted. There are no more or fewer steel molecules either.

This is important because, yes, in space an object doesn't "weigh" anything but it still has mass. And due to that mass, the output of the "engines" has a mathematical limit.

If we remove the mass, whether your in space or on a planet, the engines don't have a limit.

[lawsonrw]

pt. 3

We don't fully understand why an object appears to lose mass when in the presence of a rotating superconductor, we just know it happens.

That said, when it comes to propulsion, consider a photon. A single photon has barely any "energy" yet is propelled through space at the speed of light for eternity. If we can make a house have the mass of a photon, in theory, the output of the engines needs to match the energy of a photon: .000000056 volts... an LED will burn more energy in 60s.

[lawsonrw]

How can MASS be separate from MATTER? Lookup Higgs Boson. Its highly theorized that the Higgs Boson, or "god particle" is what imparts matter with mass. Perhaps the rotation of the superconductors knocks the Higgs Bosons out of the molecules in the system.

Or perhaps the rotation causes the object to "slip" into another dimension where "time" doesn't exist. And guess what? If there is no time, there is no distance. Everything and everywhere is immediately and always, present.

[lawsonrw]

This is why its important to think about how to absolutely define 3 dimensional space within the universe... so that as you "transit" this extra dimension to appear where you desire, you can tell the computer exactly where you want to appear so that you don't end up inside a star or buried in a planet somewhere with no way of recovering or even "getting home." Assuming your first transit is successful in that you survive, how do you target "home" again?

[jewlzorjay]

You would instantly think that you would have to double back on your self. But don't galaxys constantly move through the universe? so the milkyway might not be where you left it. I think it comes down to a computer programe that can map and predict this kind of movement.

If moving to other dimensions is what causes the a decrease in mass is it not possible for the object to be completely lost in another dimension?

[lawsonrw]

I've been thinking about this "mapping" problem. Imagine you are in a room, but you don't know where the walls are, or that there are even walls. No floor, no ceiling. How could you define where you are?

Since you can't graph it, the only thing you have to go off is the CHARACTERISTICS of that space. Its temperature, and amount of energy in that space are "fixed" over a long-time span.

That said you would only need to define the characteristics of space, and "align" the vehicle with that.

[lawsonrw]

How do we know the characteristics of space? Easy peasy: Cosmic Microwave Background. We've already got the "key" so to speak.

Finally, I don't believe we could get "lost" in this other space. Its like flying, once you lose lift the plane comes down. Once we spin down the superconducting superfluid and mass is returned, the craft will return to the normal and linear expansion of space/time.

[macrolon]

HI Roberrt: Think about your two twins story? Twin 1 & twin 2. Twin 1 traveled through time and aged. Then you say twin 1 returned to twin 2 at the same point in time that twin 2 exist. Twin 1 retained the advanced future time in age. Twin 1 is now existing in twin 1's past and twins 2's present. Think about your story, you are saying that the speed of light and time can go in both directions. Can it?

[lawsonrw]

Sorry if the way I worded things made it unclear. I'll try to not make that mistake again:

Al & Bert

Al goes on the journey where he travels at the speed of light. From Al's perspective, he ages 6 months.

Bert stays home, ages just like you and I do today. Upon Al's arrival, Bert is now 50 years older.

6 months @ speed of light = 50 years terrestrial.

Al, and Bert, both exist in the present. Neither exists in the other's past, or future.

[macrolon]

Hi Robert; At the speed of light or the speed of time where would any mass end up in reguard too where it started and where would it be when it slowed down or stops. If a mass is in motion under its own power faster then the speed of light or time does it ever stop?

[lawsonrw]

The thing about this theory is that it still requires linear motion. Any object moving in a linear fashion under normal propulsion has a predictable course and/or destination.

This theory requires the object to be removed from space time. Its not technically "moving" through anything, not even time.

I'd imagine an object could return to normal space time by returning its relative mass, to its normal mass (slowing down the ferro-magnetic superconducting superfluid).