light speed and its boundries.

[piddlefoot]

lf you follow e=mc² and einstien s theories in relation to the Universe , you may have noticed that in the thoery the faster you travel, the further out of sync you become to the piont of origin, thus in his words proving that the faster you travel the greater the time displacement, theory, atomic clocks can sort of prove time displacement, in the way we measure it,the atomic clocks showed a SLOWING of time,all be it very minor, its considered by most scientists as evidence to the theory, Ienstiens theory is an old theory now and alot of scientist are questioning whether light speed is the max speed possible or not, because of what they see in the quantum world, where e=mc² doesnt work at all, as they see 2 particals come from 1 liderally, and not through division, bezarre,we dont understand it yet, E energy = M mass doesnt always seem to work in the quantum world, so now they re asking maybe travelling at beyond light speeds is possible, but what about time displacement ? Do we as a race understand time itself ? We in general still associate time with a piont of begining [ the big bang ] ,but now scientists are beginning to say more and more frequently that even before the big bang there was time just knowone to measure it, as it took time for it all to come together and go BANG , so the question at the moment is still as it was 40odd years ago , does light speed travel really effect our ageing process ?
Interesting piont , if we all get into a ship fly it at light speed will we live forever ?
What do you people think ?
Can we beat light speed ?
Will it affect our ageing process?
Can we go back in time in real time physics ?
Can you ever see man harnessing a black hole?
At 2x light speed what do you recon you would see out the window if it were possible ?

 

[dug777]

lightspeed>j00

 

[slick230]

Periods and Paragraphs, Brainy. Learn what they are and use them.

 

[dug777]

two brilliant examples of why there's no point asking a serious question on atot

 

[DivideBYZero]

flying faster than light won't stop time passing.

 

[Fritzo]

Originally posted by: DivideBYZero
flying faster than light won't stop time passing.

I took a lot of physics in college:

The faster a mass goes, the more energy it must possess. Mass can not reach light speed as it would take an infinite amount of energy to get there. Therefore, an object could go 99.99999999....% c, but never actually reach c.

Another effect of relativity is that the faster you go, the slower time passes. Someone traveling on an airplane will age slightly slower than someone on the ground. At the speed of light, time would stop for that individual, and the theory goes that if somehow the light barrier were broken, time would flow backwards (though we have no way of testing this).

Some interesting ideas for breaking the light barrier are some sort of warp drive. Star Trek's famous propulsion system was taken from a theory from the 1950's where space "warps" around an object, making the distances between points a and b smaller. This would require harnessing "dark energy", which we believe a good portion of the universe is made of, but we can't even detect the stuff yet so don't expect starships to be flying around anytime soon.

Other ideas included worm holes, gravity wave generators, mass reducing techniques, etc, but there's nothing there that's we'd be able to accomplish in the next century or so.

More interesting is the statement a few weeks back that doctors may be able to stop the aging process. If a person could live forever, who cares how fast you went- you'd get there eventually

 

[PlatinumGold]

Originally posted by: Fritzo

Originally posted by: DivideBYZero
flying faster than light won't stop time passing.

I took a lot of physics in college:

The faster a mass goes, the more energy it must possess. Mass can not reach light speed as it would take an infinite amount of energy to get there. Therefore, an object could go 99.99999999....% c, but never actually reach c.

Another effect of relativity is that the faster you go, the slower time passes. Someone traveling on an airplane will age slightly slower than someone on the ground. At the speed of light, time would stop for that individual, and the theory goes that if somehow the light barrier were broken, time would flow backwards (though we have no way of testing this).

Some interesting ideas for breaking the light barrier are some sort of warp drive. Star Trek's famous propulsion system was taken from a theory from the 1950's where space "warps" around an object, making the distances between points a and b smaller. This would require harnessing "dark energy", which we believe a good portion of the universe is made of, but we can't even detect the stuff yet so don't expect starships to be flying around anytime soon.

Other ideas included worm holes, gravity wave generators, mass reducing techniques, etc, but there's nothing there that's we'd be able to accomplish in the next century or so.

More interesting is the statement a few weeks back that doctors may be able to stop the aging process. If a person could live forever, who cares how fast you went- you'd get there eventually

didn't you just repeat what the OP posted?

he was questioning the premise that E=MC^2 which is the basis for the statement that speed of light could never be reached. in order to reach the speed of light, everything in the object traveling at the speed of light would have to be converted to energy. it is impossible for any spacecraft to reach that speed as without mass the spacecraft itself would not exist. but the OP is questioning that based on the existence of the phenomenon of dual particles showing up where one existed.

he also questions the premise that as speed increases time slows down.

 

[Fritzo]

Originally posted by: PlatinumGold

Originally posted by: Fritzo

Originally posted by: DivideBYZero
flying faster than light won't stop time passing.

I took a lot of physics in college:

The faster a mass goes, the more energy it must possess. Mass can not reach light speed as it would take an infinite amount of energy to get there. Therefore, an object could go 99.99999999....% c, but never actually reach c.

Another effect of relativity is that the faster you go, the slower time passes. Someone traveling on an airplane will age slightly slower than someone on the ground. At the speed of light, time would stop for that individual, and the theory goes that if somehow the light barrier were broken, time would flow backwards (though we have no way of testing this).

Some interesting ideas for breaking the light barrier are some sort of warp drive. Star Trek's famous propulsion system was taken from a theory from the 1950's where space "warps" around an object, making the distances between points a and b smaller. This would require harnessing "dark energy", which we believe a good portion of the universe is made of, but we can't even detect the stuff yet so don't expect starships to be flying around anytime soon.

Other ideas included worm holes, gravity wave generators, mass reducing techniques, etc, but there's nothing there that's we'd be able to accomplish in the next century or so.

More interesting is the statement a few weeks back that doctors may be able to stop the aging process. If a person could live forever, who cares how fast you went- you'd get there eventually

didn't you just repeat what the OP posted?

he was questioning the premise that E=MC^2 which is the basis for the statement that speed of light could never be reached. in order to reach the speed of light, everything in the object traveling at the speed of light would have to be converted to energy. it is impossible for any spacecraft to reach that speed as without mass the spacecraft itself would not exist. but the OP is questioning that based on the existence of the phenomenon of dual particles showing up where one existed.

he also questions the premise that as speed increases time slows down.

I didn't read it due to lack of punctuation This is more readable.

 

[biostud]

uhm you might want to check out highly technical

 

[edro]

does light speed travel really effect our ageing process ?
Everything I know, I know from reading Einstein, so yes. But only in relation to others... to ourselves, aging is as standard as it is to us now.
Interesting piont , if we all get into a ship fly it at light speed will we live forever ?
According to Einstein, we can't... so we will live for a long time, in relation to everyone else, but to us, it will be a nomal life
What do you people think ?
I like icecream.
Can we beat light speed ?
In theory, yes. In reality, no, because of the uncertainty principle.
Will it affect our ageing process?
IF we COULD, then yes, I think it would produce some very odd results.
Can we go back in time in real time physics ?
No.
Can you ever see man harnessing a black hole?
Harnessing? No... Using it for some beneficial process... yes.
At 2x light speed what do you recon you would see out the window if it were possible ?
Photons running back to their source at the same speed we see photons leaving their source.

 

[Gibsons]

Originally posted by: piddlefoot
lf you follow e=mc² and einstien s theories in relation to the Universe , you may have noticed that in the thoery the faster you travel, the further out of sync you become to the piont of origin, thus in his words proving that the faster you travel the greater the time displacement, theory, atomic clocks can sort of prove time displacement, in the way we measure it,the atomic clocks showed a SLOWING of time,all be it very minor, its considered by most scientists as evidence to the theory, Ienstiens theory is an old theory now and alot of scientist are questioning whether light speed is the max speed possible or not, because of what they see in the quantum world, where e=mc² doesnt work at all, as they see 2 particals come from 1 liderally, and not through division, bezarre,we dont understand it yet, E energy = M mass doesnt always seem to work in the quantum world, so now they re asking maybe travelling at beyond light speeds is possible, but what about time displacement ?
SNIP

That's a long sentence.

 

[markgm]

I think we'll be able to travel faster than light, just as we were able to travel faster than sound. Maybe it's just all the Star Trek in me as a kid, but I don't see why light should determine how fast something can move, and I definitely don't think light has anything to do with time. I just think of a jet moving at 1 MPH under the speed of light, and then it fires a missle. The missle is now faster than the speed of light. Now we just need warp powered jets.

You can show me all the equations to prove me wrong, but to me this is the creationalism/evolution argument, meaning "show me the facts and I'll still believe otherwise"

 

[Rogue]

Originally posted by: biostud
uhm you might want to check out highly technical

I agree. I just woke up, haven't had any caffeine, much less my morning does of Cap'n Crunch and then I read this $hit in ATOT?! I have a damn headache now, thanks a$$holes!

 

[Saint Nick]

black man avatar?

wwybywb?

 

[arcenite]

Originally posted by: markgm
I think we'll be able to travel faster than light, just as we were able to travel faster than sound. Maybe it's just all the Star Trek in me as a kid, but I don't see why light should determine how fast something can move, and I definitely don't think light has anything to do with time. I just think of a jet moving at 1 MPH under the speed of light, and then it fires a missle. The missle is now faster than the speed of light. Now we just need warp powered jets.

You can show me all the equations to prove me wrong, but to me this is the creationalism/evolution argument, meaning "show me the facts and I'll still believe otherwise"

I am not really here to prove you wrong but light is one of the more simple forms of "energy". For something to travel faster than light, it has to be more simple than light

 

[markgm]

Originally posted by: arcenite

Originally posted by: markgm
I think we'll be able to travel faster than light, just as we were able to travel faster than sound. Maybe it's just all the Star Trek in me as a kid, but I don't see why light should determine how fast something can move, and I definitely don't think light has anything to do with time. I just think of a jet moving at 1 MPH under the speed of light, and then it fires a missle. The missle is now faster than the speed of light. Now we just need warp powered jets.

You can show me all the equations to prove me wrong, but to me this is the creationalism/evolution argument, meaning "show me the facts and I'll still believe otherwise"

I am not really here to prove you wrong but light is one of the more simple forms of "energy". For something to travel faster than light, it has to be more simple than light

See, my mind twists this stuff around. Gravity on Earth (or the attaction between two objects anywhere) is pretty simple stuff, yet we built complex machines and can escape it's pull. That's how my mind works with this stuff. Good point though.

 

[arcenite]

Originally posted by: markgm

Originally posted by: arcenite

Originally posted by: markgm
I think we'll be able to travel faster than light, just as we were able to travel faster than sound. Maybe it's just all the Star Trek in me as a kid, but I don't see why light should determine how fast something can move, and I definitely don't think light has anything to do with time. I just think of a jet moving at 1 MPH under the speed of light, and then it fires a missle. The missle is now faster than the speed of light. Now we just need warp powered jets.

You can show me all the equations to prove me wrong, but to me this is the creationalism/evolution argument, meaning "show me the facts and I'll still believe otherwise"

I am not really here to prove you wrong but light is one of the more simple forms of "energy". For something to travel faster than light, it has to be more simple than light

See, my mind twists this stuff around. Gravity on Earth (or the attaction between two objects anywhere) is pretty simple stuff, yet we built complex machines and can escape it's pull. That's how my mind works with this stuff. Good point though.

I see what you mean. I am no scientist but to me in order to break the pull of gravity you need something that is more powerful than it. This has less to do with achieving a high speed and more to do with how much thrust you can create. Acheiving the speed of light to me would require something lighter than light and simpler than light. Anything is possible I guess.

 

[Iron Woode]

Originally posted by: markgm
I think we'll be able to travel faster than light, just as we were able to travel faster than sound. Maybe it's just all the Star Trek in me as a kid, but I don't see why light should determine how fast something can move, and I definitely don't think light has anything to do with time. I just think of a jet moving at 1 MPH under the speed of light, and then it fires a missle. The missle is now faster than the speed of light. Now we just need warp powered jets.

You can show me all the equations to prove me wrong, but to me this is the creationalism/evolution argument, meaning "show me the facts and I'll still believe otherwise"

Star Trek :roll:

Light itself has nothing to do with time. The issue is relative time (aging) between observer and pilot. The faster you travel, the less you age in relation to a fixed observer. Hence relativity.

The missle thing is silly. Same as: if a car was travelling 99.99% speed of light and then turned on its headlights, what would happen?

Light determines max speed of a pysical object because as stated earlier to equal light speed that object would have to become pure energy.

Warp drive? How does it work: warps the space around a ship to make distant objects closer to it. It shortens the distance one has to travel. It does not exceed the speed of light. But as stated in Star Trek TOS, warp drive breaks the time barrier instead.

LOL.

Star Trek is not based on real physics.

 

[Fritzo]

Originally posted by: markgm

Originally posted by: arcenite

Originally posted by: markgm
I think we'll be able to travel faster than light, just as we were able to travel faster than sound. Maybe it's just all the Star Trek in me as a kid, but I don't see why light should determine how fast something can move, and I definitely don't think light has anything to do with time. I just think of a jet moving at 1 MPH under the speed of light, and then it fires a missle. The missle is now faster than the speed of light. Now we just need warp powered jets.

You can show me all the equations to prove me wrong, but to me this is the creationalism/evolution argument, meaning "show me the facts and I'll still believe otherwise"

I am not really here to prove you wrong but light is one of the more simple forms of "energy". For something to travel faster than light, it has to be more simple than light

See, my mind twists this stuff around. Gravity on Earth (or the attaction between two objects anywhere) is pretty simple stuff, yet we built complex machines and can escape it's pull. That's how my mind works with this stuff. Good point though.

The problem with going that fast is energy consumption. You would need infinite energy for a mass to travel at light speed. Also, the faster you go, the more your mass increases. For a 1 ton ship to go even 3/4 c, it would take more energy than the sun puts out in a year.

 

[markgm]

Originally posted by: Iron Woode

Originally posted by: markgm
Blah blah blah, Q]
Star Trek :roll:

Light itself has nothing to do with time. The issue is relative time (aging) between observer and pilot. The faster you travel, the less you age in relation to a fixed observer. Hence relativity.

The missle thing is silly. Same as: if a car was travelling 99.99% speed of light and then turned on its headlights, what would happen?

Light determines max speed of a pysical object because as stated earlier to equal light speed that object would have to become pure energy.

Warp drive? How does it work: warps the space around a ship to make distant objects closer to it. It shortens the distance one has to travel. It does not exceed the speed of light. But as stated in Star Trek TOS, warp drive breaks the time barrier instead.

LOL.

Start Trek is not based on real physics.

The headlights one is good. I like that. Maybe it's relativity I don't agree with. I like disagreeing with science, it makes me feel important.

I'm not saying I believe what I do because of Star Trek, just that it makes things seem possible. They had what I'd consider a PDA looong before such a thing as practical was ever created. When my parents were born they never throught it'd be possible to land on the moon. When I was growing up I didn't think it was possible for us not to land anywhere we wanted.

 

[Iron Woode]

Originally posted by: markgm

Originally posted by: Iron Woode

Originally posted by: markgm
Blah blah blah, Q]
Star Trek :roll:

Light itself has nothing to do with time. The issue is relative time (aging) between observer and pilot. The faster you travel, the less you age in relation to a fixed observer. Hence relativity.

The missle thing is silly. Same as: if a car was travelling 99.99% speed of light and then turned on its headlights, what would happen?

Light determines max speed of a pysical object because as stated earlier to equal light speed that object would have to become pure energy.

Warp drive? How does it work: warps the space around a ship to make distant objects closer to it. It shortens the distance one has to travel. It does not exceed the speed of light. But as stated in Star Trek TOS, warp drive breaks the time barrier instead.

LOL.

Start Trek is not based on real physics.

The headlights one is good. I like that. Maybe it's relativity I don't agree with. I like disagreeing with science, it makes me feel important.

I'm not saying I believe what I do because of Star Trek, just that it makes things seem possible. They had what I'd consider a PDA looong before such a thing as practical was ever created. When my parents were born they never throught it'd be possible to land on the moon. When I was growing up I didn't think it was possible for us not to land anywhere we wanted.

No one doubts technological change or that many new devices and stuff will be invented.

Its just that when it comes to sci-fi, if there is something you need, just invent it. Never mind whether it violates the laws of physics or even common sense. The story is what is important, not the technology involved.

 

[imported_rod]

Einstien admitted that E=MC^2 was flawed, he just couldn't figure out what the correct equation was. Something to do with "ether"...

Anyway, the equations do not actually say that it is impossible for an object to travel faster than the speed of light. They state that it is impossible for an object to travel AT the speed of light. So, I guess that if it were possible to INSTANTAENOUSLY go from 0.99C to 1.01C, then it may be possible.

I don't think we yet know enough about quantum mechanics to really answer this question.

Still, a hundred years ago you would not have believed that humans could get to the moon. But we did it! (or did we )

RoD

 

[Fritzo]

The headlights one is good. I like that. Maybe it's relativity I don't agree with. I like disagreeing with science, it makes me feel important.

I'm not saying I believe what I do because of Star Trek, just that it makes things seem possible. They had what I'd consider a PDA looong before such a thing as practical was ever created. When my parents were born they never throught it'd be possible to land on the moon. When I was growing up I didn't think it was possible for us not to land anywhere we wanted.

[/quote]
No one doubts technological change or that many new devices and stuff will be invented.

Its just that when it comes to sci-fi, if there is something you need, just invent it. Never mind whether it violates the laws of physics or even common sense. The story is what is important, not the technology involved.


[/quote]

I'm a fan of believing we'll eventually discover something completely new that will allow us to travel at faster speeds. We couldn't even grasp the concept of a car or a radio 200 years ago, so I'm sure that we'll keep discovering new technologies. We can't even begin to say we understand how all physics in the universe works.

 

[Adica]

Originally posted by: slick230
Periods and Paragraphs, Brainy. Learn what they are and use them.

:beer:

 

[msparish]

Originally posted by: Iron Woode

Originally posted by: markgm
I think we'll be able to travel faster than light, just as we were able to travel faster than sound. Maybe it's just all the Star Trek in me as a kid, but I don't see why light should determine how fast something can move, and I definitely don't think light has anything to do with time. I just think of a jet moving at 1 MPH under the speed of light, and then it fires a missle. The missle is now faster than the speed of light. Now we just need warp powered jets.

You can show me all the equations to prove me wrong, but to me this is the creationalism/evolution argument, meaning "show me the facts and I'll still believe otherwise"

Star Trek :roll:

Light itself has nothing to do with time. The issue is relative time (aging) between observer and pilot. The faster you travel, the less you age in relation to a fixed observer. Hence relativity.

The missle thing is silly. Same as: if a car was travelling 99.99% speed of light and then turned on its headlights, what would happen?

Light determines max speed of a pysical object because as stated earlier to equal light speed that object would have to become pure energy.

Warp drive? How does it work: warps the space around a ship to make distant objects closer to it. It shortens the distance one has to travel. It does not exceed the speed of light. But as stated in Star Trek TOS, warp drive breaks the time barrier instead.

LOL.

Star Trek is not based on real physics.

No, it is not the same thing at all. If you were driving the car and turned on the headlights, everything would appear the same to you. The light from the headlights would still race away from you at the speed of light. However, to an outside observer the light would "slowly" creep away from the source at 0.01% of the speed of light.

That's what relativity is all about, that no matter what your frame of reference the laws of physics are the same. No matter how quickly or slowly you are moving, light still moves at the speed of light relative to you.

As for the jet firing a missle example, once the jet is traveling that fast, it--and the missile--no longer has the same mass. As an object approaches the speed of light it's mass increases to the point that it becomes infinite once the speed of light is reached. Therefore, getting any amount of matter to the speed of light requires infinite energy. Therefore, as the missile is fired the energy released by the thrusters will be insignificant to the weight of the missile. For all practical purposes the missile won't discernably speed up.