open up a worm hole near the telescope and transmit the info thru it to the other worm hole near earth. No faster than light technology needed. now about that so called telescope.......
Printable View
open up a worm hole near the telescope and transmit the info thru it to the other worm hole near earth. No faster than light technology needed. now about that so called telescope.......
Quote:
Originally posted by Predator2:
I had a very interesting discution with my teacher a long time ago.
I asked him the following.
What if I'm a galatic post man and I stand on my space ship going at the speed of light.
I have nothing to do so I through a boll in the direction I'm going.
Normal math states current speed + added speed (boll) = total speed for boll.
looking from a stand still position.
The boll would be traveling faster then the speed of light right.
NO was the asnwear I got. He said that the boll would NOT leave my hand because nothing can go faster then the speed of light.
I tried to show him wrong by countering his statments.
Statement one.
At the speed of light the weight becomes infinit. There for not possible
Me. but if the speed of light is not possible and seeing that light has weight (Light has been proven to bend when entering jupiters gravity= MUST HAVE WEIGHT) then why aren't we ground beef?
His answear. an exception to the rule.
ME. OK.
But what about the stuff that is created at the top of our atmosphere and only lives long enough to travel about 100-200 meters, how do you explain that they have been seen at sea level.
Him. They are also an exception to the rule because the are not limited by time.
All this sound to me like bad exuses to me, just IMO.
For me NOTHING can escape time but lets say that it is possible then in theory we can travel faster then light because we aren't limited by time.
So in any case we can travel faster then the speed of light but I don't believe the time thing so the only thing left is that the speed of light is possible to break but it will take a great machine to do it with.
If light isn't limited by weight then why should we?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
------------------
Life is complex. It has real and imaginary parts.
God travels faster than light. He is omnipresent. https://www.sharkyforums.com/images/.../2005/06/5.gif
------------------
--Proud member of the OT Forum - May it rest in peace.
--My software doesn't have bugs, it just develops random features.
--Error: Keyboard not attached. Press F1 to continue.
Good one Jester. Well as far as the project goes we have the experiment and now some extra theory.
------------------
A-Open 300W 5-bin ATX case
Asus socket370 CUV4X-E mainboard
1Ghz Intel P3 815chip CPU
Asus GeForce 2MX V7100 Pure (32MB)
256RAM u.g.t.1GRAM, 15G HD
Win Lucent 56K modem
DX8 Win98SE
Sound Blaster Live
SFS Flightstick/Throttle
SW FreeStlye Pro
HP Apollo P-2250
Afga Snapscan 1212u
15inch e-View s monitor
---COL3:17
[This message has been edited by GARRIN19 (edited August 04, 2001).]
Technically that would mean God doesn’t have to travel at all since he is already everywhere. https://www.sharkyforums.com/images/.../2005/06/6.gifQuote:
Originally posted by jester22c:
God travels faster than light. He is omnipresent. https://www.sharkyforums.com/images/.../2005/06/5.gif
------------------
Life is complex. It has real and imaginary parts.
What I draw from this discussion is that light, because of it's near zero mass can be used as an indication of the maximum possible velocity obtainable through a given medium - and could be surpassed in velocity but by a fractional amount and only by something with even lesser mass than light. In essence, in order to attain speeds greater than that of light through a vacuum, we would need to find a medium to travel through - if it exists - that would have a much higher velocity limit than that of space (and that light too would travel through much more quickly). Did I come to the right conclusions here?
[This message has been edited by Snare (edited August 06, 2001).]
That medium could be created by the velocity itself. Metaphysical alchemy. Question is, can warp drives, worm holes, and tachyons be valuable enough methods to produce the desired effect.
(Heeeee. All this from a comment on Win98.)
------------------
A-Open 300W 5-bin ATX case
Asus socket370 CUV4X-E mainboard
1Ghz Intel P3 815chip CPU
Asus GeForce 2MX V7100 Pure (32MB)
256RAM u.g.t.1GRAM, 15G HD
Win Lucent 56K modem
DX8 Win98SE
Sound Blaster Live
SFS Flightstick/Throttle
SW FreeStlye Pro
HP Apollo P-2250
Afga Snapscan 1212u
15inch e-View s monitor
---COL3:17
[This message has been edited by GARRIN19 (edited August 06, 2001).]
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?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 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.
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:
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.
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?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.
And if there is 2 sides to what happens then we're talking another dimension?
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:
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.
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 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.
This was a very good explination.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.
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
This is quite different from the speculation that the speed of sound could not be broken. In that case people didn’t know what would happen as you approached the speed of sound. This caused some people to speculate that travel at that speed was impossible without any real reason to back it up. In truth, it was clear that something would happen but nobody really knew what. It turned out that all that happened was a sonic boom occurred.Quote:
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.
The speed of light is somewhat different. We know what happens to an object as it approaches the speed of light. Its Mass climbs to infinity, time slows down to a stop and distance shrinks to zero. Any one of these would be enough to prevent accelerating an object to the speed of light, but lets concentrate on mass since that is simplest.
F=Force
M=Mass
A=Acceleration
F=M*A therefore A=F/M
Look at what happens to this equation as Mass in creases. The greater the mass the greater the force required to accelerate it. If the Mass climbs to infinity (As it does when you approach the speed of light) you need and infinite Force to cause any acceleration. If you have no acceleration you go no faster. As you get infinitely close to the speed of light further acceleration becomes impossible since that would require infantine force.
You can also perform other calculations that prove that that it would take infinite energy to accelerate a particle with mass to the speed of light. (Particles can travel at the speed of light provided they have no Mass.) An interesting side note is that this only covers particles that start their existence moving slower then the speed of light. Particles that began their existence moving faster then the speed of light would never be able to go below the speed of light.
To understand Modern physics you have to throw away many things you think make sense and look only at the evidence. The fact is you can prove experimentally that these things really do happen. One second is always one second to you, but if you are traveling at high speed that same second passes differently. This has been proven with super accurate atomic clocks that will differ by less then a fraction of a second in millions of years. One was placed in a spacecraft to orbit the earth while the other was left here on the earth. When the clock in orbit was returned it measurably behind the clock left on the earth. The only way this could have occurred was for time to have passed more slowly for the clock in orbit. Not only that, the difference was exactly what was predicted based on Einstein’s equations.Quote:
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.
Distance has nothing to do with it. Time simply behaves differently for you traveling on the space ship then it does for the person watching from a “stationary” position.Quote:
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.
That is the point https://www.sharkyforums.com/images/.../2005/08/2.gif this is in fact more proof that travel at the speed of light is impossible. If you were to travel at a velocity very close to the speed of light you would reach you destination (and it would seem to you that you reached it very quickly) but when you got there you would find a very long period of time had elapsed since you began you journey. In fact if you traveled close enough to the speed of light you destination, or even the Galaxy it was in had long ago ceased to exist.Quote:
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?
You are missing part of the point. It isn’t the things in space that are being affected by gravity; it is space itself that is being affected.Quote:
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)?
Scientist’s once believed that space was filled with something called the aether. The logic was that since light is a wave, it must be traveling in a medium. A water wave travels in water, a sound wave travels in air, it was thought that a light wave must travel in something as and they called this the aether. Two men, Mickelson and Morley set out to measure this aether, they failed, but there experiment was so thorough that its failure could only mean that the aether did not exist at all. This laid the groundwork for relativity and all the things we are discussing here, you may want to do a search and read about it.
Here is one interesting quote I found
Quote:
The results of the various experiments discussed above seem to leave us really stuck. Apparently light is not like sound, with a definite speed relative to some underlying medium. However, it is also not like bullets, with a definite speed relative to the source of the light. Yet when we measure its speed we always get the same result
I’m not sure I understand what you are getting at here. Relatively speaking space is nearly empty and the light from distant objects is only deflected a small amount. This is something we can only find if we are specifically looking for it.Quote:
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?
------------------
Life is complex. It has real and imaginary parts.
Just for the hell of it..
If a particle were created ALREADY going faster than the speed of light what then?
We hit that brick wall on the way up from zero velocity to 186,000M/sec but what about after that wall..
It would seem if you can jump that wall then you could keep accelerating and watch your mass get smaller and smaller..
------------------
- You can milk anything with nipples -
In space, stars and other bodies aside, there are no forces to slow an object down. Through continuous acceleration, would an object not reach speeds that approached the speed of light? Would the matter the object was composed of be affected by any other forces because of it's speed or would it be able to continue to accelerate at a steadily decreasing rate all the way up to the speed of light? Because of the slowed down time, would it actually be possible for an individual on that object to explore outer regions of the universe in his lifetime - or even a few seconds or minutes without needing to break the speed of light?
------------------
Athlon 1GHz
256MB PC133 CAS2 Memory
MSI KT7 Turbo RAID
Gainward GeForce 2 Ultra
30GB Deskstar 75GXP
16x Pioneer DVD
17" Samsung 770TFT 17" 1280x1024 TFT Monitor
(cost almost as much as the rest of the system at the time)
If you guys keep carpet-bombing this thread by the minute, I'll never get it syncronized enough to do an evaluation.
I think I mentioned that, but there would be two problems as I see it. First we don’t know much about the nature of FTL particles. Would matter as we know it even (and therefore us) exist if we did this? Second how do you go about “jumping over the barrier”?Quote:
Originally posted by Adisharr:
Just for the hell of it..
If a particle were created ALREADY going faster than the speed of light what then?
We hit that brick wall on the way up from zero velocity to 186,000M/sec but what about after that wall..
It would seem if you can jump that wall then you could keep accelerating and watch your mass get smaller and smaller..
It should be, as long as you didn’t want to come home again. Everything you left behind would be long gone if you ever did. https://www.sharkyforums.com/images/.../2005/06/5.gifQuote:
In space, stars and other bodies aside, there are no forces to slow an object down. Through continuous acceleration, would an object not reach speeds that approached the speed of light? Would the matter the object was composed of be affected by any other forces because of it's speed or would it be able to continue to accelerate at a steadily decreasing rate all the way up to the speed of light? Because of the slowed down time, would it actually be possible for an individual on that object to explore outer regions of the universe in his lifetime - or even a few seconds or minutes without needing to break the speed of light?
------------------
Life is complex. It has real and imaginary parts.
Originally posted by Adisharr:
Just for the hell of it..
If a particle were created ALREADY going faster than the speed of light what then?
We hit that brick wall on the way up from zero velocity to 186,000M/sec but what about after that wall..
It would seem if you can jump that wall then you could keep accelerating and watch your mass get smaller and smaller..
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I think I mentioned that, but there would be two problems as I see it. First we don’t know much about the nature of FTL particles. Would matter as we know it even (and therefore us) exist if we did this? Second how do you go about “jumping over the barrier”?
#1. I dunno
#2. I have a technique I've had success with for some time now.. it's available in my book 'How to bet the unbeatable barrier' for $ 29.95
Seriously I believe I read somewhere a while back in a science mag that there may be (are?) particles that are 'born' at a greater than light speed..
------------------
- You can milk anything with nipples -
https://www.sharkyforums.com/images/...2002/02/10.gif https://www.sharkyforums.com/images/.../2005/08/2.gifQuote:
#1. I dunno
#2. I have a technique I've had success with for some time now.. it's available in my book 'How to bet the unbeatable barrier' for $ 29.95
------------------
Life is complex. It has real and imaginary parts.