Never mind faster than light travel. Is it possible for us to

No, maybe and yes.

>>8172999
No, yes, and yes.

>>8173006
>>8173010
This discussion is getting a bit heavy for me

I think you can perceive yourself as traveling at or even faster than lightspeed but time dilation will always make your starting/ending points perceive you as going less than lightspeed unless you go infinitely fast

>>8173054
For the purposes of colonisation, all we really need is for the crew not to go all Lord of the Flies on each other. So time dilation would be useful.

>>8173054
No. Light speed is an impassable barrier, requiring more energy the closer you get to it. Time dilation is involved at all speeds and becomes more significant as you get closer to the barrier as well.

>>8173062
but you'd still agree that from one's own perspective, as they approached lightspeed they would see themselves as moving faster than lightspeed due to their time being slowed down, yes?

>>8173036

No, because nothing is faster than light, and that's how is gonna be.

Maybe, because I'm not sure if the human body can handle 150.000 km/s, and probably building a spaceship that can reach those are kinda impossible too.

And Yes, I know the faster a human had traveled is 39.897 km/h and that's not 1/4 of the speed of light, but I trust human race can achieve that. I'm not sure the consequences that that speed can do to the human body, but we can do a machine able to reach such velocity? That's something kinda possible.

>>8173072
>as they approached lightspeed they would see themselves as moving faster than lightspeed due to their time being slowed down, yes?
What do you not understand about their time being slowed down? They don't notice it. Time dilation is relative, you can't see it in yourself.

>>8173085
>39.897 km/h
Have we ever improved on that? I'm disappointed by just how incurious normies are about space.

>>8173100
well if you travel at near-lightspeed for 10 years and then come back to earth you'll find that more than 10 years have passed on earth right?
this means that if you were observed from earth with a telescope while in motion, they would've seen you as moving much slower than you saw yourself moving

>>8173085
>I'm not sure if the human body can handle 150.000 km/s
Velocity doesn't affect the human body unless it hits something. Acceleration does. Which is a valid concern -- how LONG will it take to reach 1/4 the speed of light safely?

>>8173136
I misunderstood and thought you were suggesting the perspective of one of the individuals approaching lightspeed. What you've said here is correct.

E=m/gamma. This relates the speed of massive objects with total energy of the system. As the speed approaches c, the energy approaches infinity. So it is not possible for us to travel at the speed of light--but light (which is massless) can. There is no law of physics preventing us from traveling slower than that. If you start plugging in numbers though, you'll see that half of light speed would require an amazing amount of energy (don't forget to subtract off rest energy).

>>8173147
but what I'm saying is that if your time is slowed down relative to the earth then from your perspective time on the earth will be sped up, meaning that you'd perceive your own velocity relative to the earth as higher than what someone on earth would observe

>>8173217
That part is incorrect.

If you could see something moving at c relative to you, they would appear frozen, as you pointed out earlier.

If you moved at c relative to something else, that thing would appear frozen in time.

That's why it's called relativity, because both frames have to be considered

>>8173288
for simplicity let's forget c for the time being, if you're moving at near-c your time would be slowed down so the things outside of your spaceship would appear to be moving in fast-motion, right?

>>8173100
>What do you not understand about their time being slowed down? They don't notice it. Time dilation is relative,

Yeah so when time is slowed down for them but the rest of the universe is going normal speed, it will appear to be going in high-speed.

>>8173330
Not quite.

If you moved near c speed relative to something else, the following happens:

1. You experience time normally
2. The things you move relative to would appear to move more slowly
3. An observer in the frame you move relative to you would see you move slowly.

All of these are happening simutaneously in proper time.

The effects of different reference frames wont be noticeable (time travel) until one of the frames undergoes acceleration.

>>8173330
Different anon but additive velocities doesn't apply to light. I don't know what it'd look like but I'm not sure it can be seen as sped up.

At the same time I'm having a hard time reconciling this with the twin paradox. So who knows.

And intuitively, if I'm going to travel a light day to the galaxy's biggest TV (so big that I can see it a light day away) and I travel at a fraction of c that gets me there in 6 hours of my relative time, well the TV has shown 24+ hours of content in that same time. 24+ hours worth of light will hit me over the course of what seems like 6 hours. It would have to appear that time is going faster.

I need to think more.