Quote:
Originally posted by Moridin:
It sounds like your teacher may have had a few gaps in his knowledge. Three things happen as an object approaches the speed of light. It’s mass approaches infinity, time slows down, and distances shrink. These effects are relative to the inertial frame of reference in question.
I remember the formula that when you near or get to the speed of light the mass becomes infinit. But how do we really know that the speed of light is the fastest we can go?
I just think that there is a scary resemblence to the speed of sound fiasco.
So I'll keep my mind open that there is a possibility that in the future we can travel faster then light.
And how can distance shrink?
If you run faster then you'll get to your destination faster but the distance is the same. I just can't see that something as distance can shrink shrink.
And how can time slow down?
For me one second is one second where ever you are. You can feel time differently (fast or slow) but one second is 1 second.
Quote:
For example, if you are traveling at the speed of light and throw a ball forward its speed relative to you is identical to what it would be if you threw the ball on earth. You would notice NO DIFFERENCE.
To the observer, watching from a stationary position on a nearby planet, things look very different. If you are traveling at the speed of light you are effectively frozen in time to that observer. As a result you and the ball continue to travel at the same speed, in fact you never even get to throw the ball.
Me and the ball would pass very quickly and possible appear as frozen but if you increase the distance to the planet while still being able to follow me while throwing the ball you would be able to see me throw it. Or something is wrong with my logic thinking. Becasue at a very large distance even somebody traveling at the speed of light would seem slow going. Or?
Quote:
A slightly better example would be if the ship traveled at .75C (75% of the speed of light)(Is it C or c ???) and you threw the ball at .5C. Here using classical physics the ball should be traveling 1.25C but since that is not possible the following happens.
To you traveling on the ship, the ball is still traveling away from you at .5C. To the observer you are traveling at .75C but the ball is still traveling below the speed of light.
I'm sorry but I can't believe this,it sounds funny to me it's like when you travel at the speed of light you freez for others but how will you get to you destination?
And if there is 2 sides to what happens then we're talking another dimension?
Quote:
This is due to the “warping” of time and space as objects approach the speed of light. Velocity is distance divided by time, but as you approach the speed of light distance and time as you experience them are no longer the same as the way a stationary observer would experience them. As a result you would both get different results for the calculation of the speed of the ball.
It seem more like what you experiance then what it is, but again I might be wrong but it just doesn't fit (for me), it feels like there is a big puzzel piece missing.
Quote:
The particles you referred to are actually considered one of the proofs of relativity. Their lifespan and velocity are known. Normally they would not be able to go more then a few hundred feet before ceasing to exist. The problem is that when they are traveling at near the speed of light time slows down for those particles. Their lifespan remains the same but when observed by a stationary observer it will be much longer since time runs slower in the particles frame of reference. This gives the particle time to reach the surface of the earth.
For me it sound like just because you (not you you) believe that the speed of light is the max you start finding other stuff to make it possible and come up with time (not you you). But again I could be wrong but it's that puzzel again.
Quote:
The part about light being affected by gravity is a different story completely. Light is indeed has no mass and therefore has no weight by definition. (Weight is the effect of gravity on Mass.)
This does not mean that light is immune to the effects of gravity. It is important to realize that Weight does not “pull” an object down; it is an effect of gravity trying to pull a mass through a barrier (like a floor).
Light is affected by gravity even though it has no Mass. This is because gravity doesn’t affect the object directly; it warps the space around the object. (According to relativity, Quantum Mechanics uses a different definition of gravity). You can think of it this way; Put a penny on a sheet of paper. The paper represents space and the penny is an object. Gravity doesn’t pull the penny across the paper it pulls the paper itself. This should make it a little clearer how gravity can effect light even though it is Mass less.
This was a very good explination.
And I can see it happening but again if Light doesn't have mass and space is vacum who can it pull something that doesn't exist (no particals in space)?
And if above is true then when we look at the start why don't they move around abit while we look at them considering how many planets, stars and black hole there are on the way and they all move around at the same time and with great speeds?
Sorry for questioning you but I like to understand why something is and why as to understand and implement and change it in a correct way.
it's like math for me, When I went to math I was one of the few that wanted to know why this became that and so on, lets just say when our math teatcher had a test and he changed a math problem every one that didn't know how this became that FAILED that question badly while me and the few how knew why passed (except for the accational slip).
------------------
Pentium Overdrive 200@200 Dhry/Whet-stone 427Mips/228 MFlops
Asus P55-T2P4
64MB EDO Int/Float 86/114 MB/s
Matrox Millenium II
Voodoo 2 3DMark2000 474
Creativ 32 pnp
