light speed and its boundries.

[hypn0tik]

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"

Uhhhh, no. We can never approach, much less exceed, the speed of light.

Clearly you have no understanding of relativistic physics to make such a comment.

 

[ifoundthetao]

I was always under the impression that if something has mass, it was impossible for it to travel at or faster than the speed of light. Also, when you are talking about time, and if we understand it, you have to realize that time is something we invented. Time is how your brain takes in the world, it is an illusion. If our eyes would update faster (like a refresh rate on a monitor) then things would be different. Let me explain: If you are traveling near the speed of light, the way you are going to see things is going to be different. You are going to see long streaks from the stars (like we do in the movies) because of the rate at which our eyes update. Now we can prove this thanks to Bob Blick and IKEA, they have their persistence of vision clocks and toys. The ones where it has the blinking LEDs that move back and forth spelling out a message or the time. The reason those work, is because they are moving and lighting up in patterns faster than your eye updates, so it gives you the illusion that it is constantly there. The same holds true with tv's and your monitor and even in movie theaters. Half of the time you are sitting in a movie theater it is dark. It just updates so quickly that your eyes never catch it. Now, if your eyes updated faster, lets say like a flies eyes, which refresh a lot sooner than a human eye, when you would be traveling through space, those star streaks would be a lot smaller, because the illusion wouldn't be as strong. Which is one of the reasons why they say that "time is relevant to the observer." It is only relevant the the person experiencing it.
And of course there was time before the "big bang", there had to have been. But the point that "there was no one there to experience it" is as moot as saying "When a tree falls in a forest and nobody is around, does it make a noise?" How can you hear it if you aren't there. Same with time, how can you judge it if you aren't there.
About lightspeed travel affecting our age-process - again, it is a relative thing. If I were to be on a train that is traveling at light speed and I got off, I might be to everyone else, a bit younger, because I haven't been with *them* to experience their frame of time, my myself, I have experienced my own time. It wont let you live forever, because you are still aging, just in a different way. If you draw two dots, one on each side of a piece of paper, and connect the two points with two seperate lines, they both connect, right? Now if one connection between the two points is a straight line, and the other is a curve, the distance between the two points is the same, but the length of the connections are different. However, both of the connections have distance. Now, the distance is time taken to travel. That is why the people who went on the curved line took longer. Because they weren't traveling at the fastest rate. Me, who went straight there, was traveling at the maximum possible rate of travel. But since it did take me time to go from one place to the next, I have experienced aging, so I will not be able to live forever.
About beating lightspeed. I think it is possible. But not in a traditional way. If you were to create a magnetic field, which had no exhaust, and put that around, oh, lets say a ship near Philadelphia, I believe that the field around that ship would take away the limits which restrict us from achieving light speed. There would be no mass. Magnetism is the same as light and electricity, for the most part. Doing that would be a step in the right direction, but then again it could just lead to a government cover up *cough* tesla coils philadelphia experiment*cough*
About black holes: They are something you don't want to mess with. I don't think we would see ourselves "harnessing" them at all. There would be no point that I could find except for possibly using for waste management. I understand that you were thinking about worm holes and that style of time travel or shortened distance, but there are so many things we don't know about blackholes and wormholes that we probably will never know. We wouldn't be able to gather info from people or devices that went in them either, because they wouldn't be able to get out. So it would be deduction with a lot of blind guessing.
About seeing out of a window: I think it will depend on a few things. Which way are you facing when you are in the vehical? Are you facing the direction of the way you are moving? If you are, then I would say, yes, you could see out of the window. If you are facing the other way, I'm going to say that you would only be able to see some light out of the corners of your eyes, since the light which is approaching you is slower than you are moving, so there is a gap that would be growing. The light which is coming at you at an angle is going to have a better chance, since at the edges of your eye, it could catch some stray rays which were behind you.
I hope that answered some of your questions.

 

[Fritzo]

Originally posted by: ifoundthetao
I was always under the impression that if something has mass, it was impossible for it to travel at or faster than the speed of light. Also, when you are talking about time, and if we understand it, you have to realize that time is something we invented. Time is how your brain takes in the world, it is an illusion. If our eyes would update faster (like a refresh rate on a monitor) then things would be different. Let me explain: If you are traveling near the speed of light, the way you are going to see things is going to be different. You are going to see long streaks from the stars (like we do in the movies) because of the rate at which our eyes update. Now we can prove this thanks to Bob Blick and IKEA, they have their persistence of vision clocks and toys. The ones where it has the blinking LEDs that move back and forth spelling out a message or the time. The reason those work, is because they are moving and lighting up in patterns faster than your eye updates, so it gives you the illusion that it is constantly there. The same holds true with tv's and your monitor and even in movie theaters. Half of the time you are sitting in a movie theater it is dark. It just updates so quickly that your eyes never catch it. Now, if your eyes updated faster, lets say like a flies eyes, which refresh a lot sooner than a human eye, when you would be traveling through space, those star streaks would be a lot smaller, because the illusion wouldn't be as strong. Which is one of the reasons why they say that "time is relevant to the observer." It is only relevant the the person experiencing it.
And of course there was time before the "big bang", there had to have been. But the point that "there was no one there to experience it" is as moot as saying "When a tree falls in a forest and nobody is around, does it make a noise?" How can you hear it if you aren't there. Same with time, how can you judge it if you aren't there.
About lightspeed travel affecting our age-process - again, it is a relative thing. If I were to be on a train that is traveling at light speed and I got off, I might be to everyone else, a bit younger, because I haven't been with *them* to experience their frame of time, my myself, I have experienced my own time. It wont let you live forever, because you are still aging, just in a different way. If you draw two dots, one on each side of a piece of paper, and connect the two points with two seperate lines, they both connect, right? Now if one connection between the two points is a straight line, and the other is a curve, the distance between the two points is the same, but the length of the connections are different. However, both of the connections have distance. Now, the distance is time taken to travel. That is why the people who went on the curved line took longer. Because they weren't traveling at the fastest rate. Me, who went straight there, was traveling at the maximum possible rate of travel. But since it did take me time to go from one place to the next, I have experienced aging, so I will not be able to live forever.
About beating lightspeed. I think it is possible. But not in a traditional way. If you were to create a magnetic field, which had no exhaust, and put that around, oh, lets say a ship near Philadelphia, I believe that the field around that ship would take away the limits which restrict us from achieving light speed. There would be no mass. Magnetism is the same as light and electricity, for the most part. Doing that would be a step in the right direction, but then again it could just lead to a government cover up *cough* tesla coils philadelphia experiment*cough*
About black holes: They are something you don't want to mess with. I don't think we would see ourselves "harnessing" them at all. There would be no point that I could find except for possibly using for waste management. I understand that you were thinking about worm holes and that style of time travel or shortened distance, but there are so many things we don't know about blackholes and wormholes that we probably will never know. We wouldn't be able to gather info from people or devices that went in them either, because they wouldn't be able to get out. So it would be deduction with a lot of blind guessing.
About seeing out of a window: I think it will depend on a few things. Which way are you facing when you are in the vehical? Are you facing the direction of the way you are moving? If you are, then I would say, yes, you could see out of the window. If you are facing the other way, I'm going to say that you would only be able to see some light out of the corners of your eyes, since the light which is approaching you is slower than you are moving, so there is a gap that would be growing. The light which is coming at you at an angle is going to have a better chance, since at the edges of your eye, it could catch some stray rays which were behind you.
I hope that answered some of your questions.

Wow...he took all those physics classes and skipped his English classes

 

[msparish]

Originally posted by: ifoundthetao
I was always under the impression that if something has mass, it was impossible for it to travel at or faster than the speed of light. Also, when you are talking about time, and if we understand it, you have to realize that time is something we invented. Time is how your brain takes in the world, it is an illusion. If our eyes would update faster (like a refresh rate on a monitor) then things would be different. Let me explain: If you are traveling near the speed of light, the way you are going to see things is going to be different. You are going to see long streaks from the stars (like we do in the movies) because of the rate at which our eyes update. Now we can prove this thanks to Bob Blick and IKEA, they have their persistence of vision clocks and toys. The ones where it has the blinking LEDs that move back and forth spelling out a message or the time. The reason those work, is because they are moving and lighting up in patterns faster than your eye updates, so it gives you the illusion that it is constantly there. The same holds true with tv's and your monitor and even in movie theaters. Half of the time you are sitting in a movie theater it is dark. It just updates so quickly that your eyes never catch it. Now, if your eyes updated faster, lets say like a flies eyes, which refresh a lot sooner than a human eye, when you would be traveling through space, those star streaks would be a lot smaller, because the illusion wouldn't be as strong. Which is one of the reasons why they say that "time is relevant to the observer." It is only relevant the the person experiencing it.
And of course there was time before the "big bang", there had to have been. But the point that "there was no one there to experience it" is as moot as saying "When a tree falls in a forest and nobody is around, does it make a noise?" How can you hear it if you aren't there. Same with time, how can you judge it if you aren't there.
About lightspeed travel affecting our age-process - again, it is a relative thing. If I were to be on a train that is traveling at light speed and I got off, I might be to everyone else, a bit younger, because I haven't been with *them* to experience their frame of time, my myself, I have experienced my own time. It wont let you live forever, because you are still aging, just in a different way. If you draw two dots, one on each side of a piece of paper, and connect the two points with two seperate lines, they both connect, right? Now if one connection between the two points is a straight line, and the other is a curve, the distance between the two points is the same, but the length of the connections are different. However, both of the connections have distance. Now, the distance is time taken to travel. That is why the people who went on the curved line took longer. Because they weren't traveling at the fastest rate. Me, who went straight there, was traveling at the maximum possible rate of travel. But since it did take me time to go from one place to the next, I have experienced aging, so I will not be able to live forever.
About beating lightspeed. I think it is possible. But not in a traditional way. If you were to create a magnetic field, which had no exhaust, and put that around, oh, lets say a ship near Philadelphia, I believe that the field around that ship would take away the limits which restrict us from achieving light speed. There would be no mass. Magnetism is the same as light and electricity, for the most part. Doing that would be a step in the right direction, but then again it could just lead to a government cover up *cough* tesla coils philadelphia experiment*cough*
About black holes: They are something you don't want to mess with. I don't think we would see ourselves "harnessing" them at all. There would be no point that I could find except for possibly using for waste management. I understand that you were thinking about worm holes and that style of time travel or shortened distance, but there are so many things we don't know about blackholes and wormholes that we probably will never know. We wouldn't be able to gather info from people or devices that went in them either, because they wouldn't be able to get out. So it would be deduction with a lot of blind guessing.
About seeing out of a window: I think it will depend on a few things. Which way are you facing when you are in the vehical? Are you facing the direction of the way you are moving? If you are, then I would say, yes, you could see out of the window. If you are facing the other way, I'm going to say that you would only be able to see some light out of the corners of your eyes, since the light which is approaching you is slower than you are moving, so there is a gap that would be growing. The light which is coming at you at an angle is going to have a better chance, since at the edges of your eye, it could catch some stray rays which were behind you.
I hope that answered some of your questions.

You don't know what you're talking about.

 

[LordMorpheus]

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 ? 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 ?

The factor that determines time dialation and mass and length dialation and all that is:

1 / sqrt(1 - (v^2/c^2))

where v is you velocity (it must be relative to some reference frame) and c is the speed of light.

As you can see, as v goes higher than c, you don't hit negative time or mass or anything, you instead go into imaginary numbers. (i = sqrt(-1)) the whole concept of imaginary numbers is that they cannot exist, but somehow by pretending that they do we can solve some problems that were previously closed doors to us.

There is no concept for what imaginary time, mass, or length would look like. If >c travel were possible, it couldn't follow this formula for time, mass, length dialations. It would be inconsistant with this formula.

One strange thing . . . you get going fast enough (at sublight velocities), you could cross the galaxy in just seconds of your time. However, people on earth would measure your journey as taking millions of years. Space is a helluva thing, eh?

 

[imported_rod]

Originally posted by: hypn0tik

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"

Uhhhh, no. We can never approach, much less exceed, the speed of light.

Clearly you have no understanding of relativistic physics to make such a comment.

Bold statement. Any solid proof to back it up?...

A hundred years ago, you could have said that people would NEVER reach the moon, and no-one would dispute it.

I agree that we may not be close, but given enough time and resources, there hasn't been anything we haven't been capable of.

RoD

 

[InlineFive]

Cliff notes?

 

[piddlefoot]

e=mc² backs it up, as evidence , just not solid, but theres alot of people around the world thinking light speeds are possible, and questioning Ienstien's idea that time slows, we just cant proove it but we can show evidence to his theory even if it be flaud.
Now nothing as we know it can travel faster than light , lets theories that we can do 10 kph or mph under the speed of light in a vessel, [ just for argument sake ] so we are travelling quite fast , we make a turn directly at a distant sun [star],there is also now a sun [ star] directly behind us, we turn a beam light on directed at the sun [star]in the front of the vessel , the light from the beam relative to the vessel is 1 times light speed, the beam relitive to the sun at the rear is 10 mph or kph below 2x light speed, the beam relative to the sun directly infront has a combine light speed with the sun of 10 mph or kph below 3xlight speed, mind boggling, not possible ? Theres unanswered questions about light and time is for sure, and until we blast somthing with a new drive system to close to light speeds l dont think the answers will come , but science itself is showing us theres a hell of alot more to light.










l have the power to move something at the speed of light and it weighs 12 grams.....fact..



light...................................my car key laser light...............................

 

[LordMorpheus]

Originally posted by: rod

Originally posted by: hypn0tik

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"

Uhhhh, no. We can never approach, much less exceed, the speed of light.

Clearly you have no understanding of relativistic physics to make such a comment.

Bold statement. Any solid proof to back it up?...

A hundred years ago, you could have said that people would NEVER reach the moon, and no-one would dispute it.

I agree that we may not be close, but given enough time and resources, there hasn't been anything we haven't been capable of.

RoD

There is a fundamental difference. Going to the moon wasn't fundamentally against verified and tested laws of physics. Exceeding the speed of light is.

There are some weird teleportation sh!t happening on really small scales, though.

 

[msparish]

Originally posted by: piddlefoot
e=mc² backs it up, as evidence , just not solid, but theres alot of people around the world thinking light speeds are possible, and questioning Ienstien's idea that time slows, we just cant proove it but we can show evidence to his theory even if it be flaud.
Now nothing as we know it can travel faster than light , lets theories that we can do 10 kph or mph under the speed of light in a vessel, [ just for argument sake ] so we are travelling quite fast , we make a turn directly at a distant sun [star],there is also now a sun [ star] directly behind us, we turn a beam light on directed at the sun [star]in the front of the vessel , the light from the beam relative to the vessel is 1 times light speed, the beam relitive to the sun at the rear is 10 mph or kph below 2x light speed, the beam relative to the sun directly infront has a combine light speed with the sun of 10 mph or kph below 3xlight speed, mind boggling, not possible ? Theres unanswered questions about light and time is for sure, and until we blast somthing with a new drive system to close to light speeds l dont think the answers will come , but science itself is showing us theres a hell of alot more to light.










l have the power to move something at the speed of light and it weighs 12 grams.....fact..



light...................................my car key laser light...............................

Nor do you know what you are talking about. The speed of light is a constant, regardless of the frame of reference. From the vantage point of each star in your example (and from the vessel), the light beam would be traveling at 299,792,458 m/s.

 

[piddlefoot]

um ok the speed of light is constant, tell me then in hypothisis, if a torch travelling at light speed suddenly turns on and is pionting in the direction its travelling, is the light from the torch beam now travelling in that direction at 2x light or where do the photons go ?
And how do we test it for sure ?

 

[Gibsons]

Originally posted by: piddlefoot
um ok the speed of light is constant, tell me then in hypothisis, if a torch travelling at light speed suddenly turns on and is pionting in the direction its travelling, is the light from the torch beam now travelling in that direction at 2x light or where do the photons go ?
And how do we test it for sure ?

Anyone who measures the speed of the photons coming from that torch, whether they're holding it, standing behind or in front of it, will measure the same velocity.

 

[chuckywang]

Event Horizon anyone?

 

[JoeKing]

subspace is the answer.
or
ROFLBURGER based propulsion.

C is the speed limit for our universe. Using string theory, god I love string theory you can answer anything with it , imagine our universe as a flat 2-d membrane (try to picture this is 3-d and your head will explode). Like a piece of saran wrap stretched out. Poke your finger into the membrane and the protrusion on the other end is matter with mass. Glide your finger across the membrane and the matter moves. However this membrane is so strong you can only glide your finger so fast across the membrane C. Now question, WTF is the finger then that is creating the protrustion into the membrane? Quantum physics shows particles instantly changing positions at times. Can said finger be removed from membrane and reinserted into another point without having the "resistence" of the membrane.

As I said, it's all about subspace, and the finger.

and yes I realize string theory is more philosphy than science.

 

[tami]

someone please give the OP a class on proper grammar and usage of paragraphs.

 

[hypn0tik]

The concept that the speed of light is constant (i.e. approx. 3 x 10^8 m/s) in ANY frame of reference is something that maybe 5 people (even that I doubt) understand, but everyone accepts. It's just one of those concepts that cannot be explained but is taken as is. That's just how nature works.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

I think one day a rock will spontaneously transform into a hot chick.

There is a higher probability of that than exceeding the speed of light.

Light travels as fast as it does because that is the fastest space allows it to travel. Note that this applies to "inside" the universe. If Inflation is correct then the universe expanded faster than light because it did not expand into itself. No conflict with the fundamental speed limit which light reaches inside the universe. The totality of existence may be literally infinite but the volume of causally connected space we call the Universe is not, and nothing knowable moves through it faster than light.

IF something does move faster, then it lies on the other side of an unbreakable barrier. It lies for all practical purposes outside of reality as we can detect it. Don't look for it coming to your neighborhood soon.

 

[ifoundthetao]

Originally posted by: piddlefoot
e=mc² backs it up, as evidence , just not solid, but theres alot of people around the world thinking light speeds are possible, and questioning Ienstien's idea that time slows, we just cant proove it but we can show evidence to his theory even if it be flaud.
Now nothing as we know it can travel faster than light, lets theories that we can do 10 kph or mph under the speed of light in a vessel, [ just for argument sake ] so we are travelling quite fast , we make a turn directly at a distant sun [star],there is also now a sun [ star] directly behind us, we turn a beam light on directed at the sun [star]in the front of the vessel , the light from the beam relative to the vessel is 1 times light speed, the beam relitive to the sun at the rear is 10 mph or kph below 2x light speed, the beam relative to the sun directly infront has a combine light speed with the sun of 10 mph or kph below 3xlight speed, mind boggling, not possible ? Theres unanswered questions about light and time is for sure, and until we blast somthing with a new drive system to close to light speeds l dont think the answers will come , but science itself is showing us theres a hell of alot more to light.










l have the power to move something at the speed of light and it weighs 12 grams.....fact..



light...................................my car key laser light...............................

Hey man, you should do some research on this stuff. You seem pretty interested in it, but there are so many things you don't quite get yet.
Faster than the speed of light

Also, in your sun [star] example, don't write sun [star] its dumb, and give things variable names. You can call one sun [star] A and the other B, that way it is easier to read. Also, it doesn't give off the condescending tone that it is ripe with.

Okay, well, here we go:
We are traveling at 10 kph less than the speed of light. So, if we shine a light to the sun ahead, it will be going 10 kph faster than us, or the speed of light, or C. The beam behind us isn't traveling at around 2C, it is traveling at C. Just because I am on a train that is going the speed of light, and I sprint from the end of the train to the front of the train doesnt make me go faster though time. I am independent of the train's speed. Also, the beam shooting to A is not going to gain any speed from us. We aren't propelling it anywhere. The light coming from B, the sun ahead of us, doesn't have some wicked speed of 3C (or near it). I really don't know how old you are, or how many physics classes you have had, but if you go to the library a lot, then I suggest you check out the Feynman lectures on CD. There are six different lectures, and they will help you understand physics. They go from Newton's laws to Quantum, and they will help you grasp a bit of what you are missing. But other than that, keep on reading on this stuff and ask more questions. The squeaky wheel gets the oil. Ya know? So the more you ask about things, the more people will answer, and the better you will understand them.

 

[SVT Cobra]

i always love conversatiosn like this..but its tired and im late, so ill step out for now

EDIT: its late and im tired

 

[Otaking]

Sadly, threads like this go over my head faster than the speed of light.

 

[lobadobadingdong]

what about what we've learned about matter-energy-matter conversions, would it ever be possible to convert a craft to energy to accellerat @/beyond C and then re convert it to matter?

 

[IronWing]

So...

What happens if you build a centrifuge, a really nice centrifuge, and start cranking it up so that the outside edge starts getting into the 0.01=>0.1=>0.9 c range? The outside edge should be experiencing time dilation relative to points closer to the center, sort of a experiential time gradient along the radius.

Might be able to conduct some interesting chemical experiments where kinetics limit some reactions and not others but can be controlled by position on the radius.

 

[piddlefoot]

So many questions in science...

''If Inflation is correct then the universe expanded faster than light because it did not expand into itself. No conflict with the fundamental speed limit which light reaches inside the universe.''
And that begs the question, if its right, that matter itself can move fundamentaly faster than light , whether inside or outside our universe ?
No way of prooving it one way or the other.
lm a bit of a piss head sometimes, and lm no scientist , l own a buisness, in Queensland, l enjoy seeing other peoples views , l try not to get personal in forums, but have fun, hope you all had fun in this nutty thread......