Printable View
Doh! I didn't even catch my typo https://www.sharkyforums.com/images/.../2005/06/5.gif (beat)Quote:
Originally posted by Moridin:
https://www.sharkyforums.com/images/...2002/02/10.gif https://www.sharkyforums.com/images/.../2005/08/2.gif
------------------
- You can milk anything with nipples -
The original hypothesis of this thread was proposed by L Ron Hubbard in his book Battlefield Earth.
------------------
Bang! There is venison on the grill!
800 TBird @ 987(7.0X141)
FOP 32-1
KT7A-RAID
Leadtek GeForce2 GTS 32MB
(245/365)
256MB Generic PC133
IBM 30GB Deskstar
InWin Q500 Full tower
SiSoft Sandra Benchmarks
Memory
Int RAM 645MB/s
FPU RAM 583MB/s
3DMark2001 Default Test
3549
I have never read that book, although I have heard of it. I guess it was a subconscious thing?, no, when I devised it, I was thinking purely from scratch. Weird. Not impossible though, since the concept isn't entirely amazing in terms of it's creativity. Anyone could think it.
B.T.W.: I did not just flame L Ron Hubbard. I merely pointed out the fact this was a purely individual hypothesis not based on a ficticious or theory based source, other than pure science(and computers). Thanks for the info though Deer Hunter, that is not uninteresting at all.
------------------
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 07, 2001).]
Like you said that gravity pools on space making the light bend.Quote:
Originally posted by Moridin:
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.
And there are ALOT of stars and planets and even asteroids witch all have gravity that would make the gravity of the planet jumpiter a joke.
And even if that much gravity from all over the place only bends it a smal bit, by the time it comes here it should be VERY visible that the light from these stars are moving.
If we can measure the light being bent at jupiter we SHOULD see it being bent from stars that are LIGHT YEARS AWAY.
Just an example.
If I could bend the light by 1 -10(1000) (near the source) degrees that would be enough to MISS the whole solar system we call home.
then why don't I see the stars move around when looking at them seeing as all these planets, stars and asteorids move around all the time and at speeds that would make one scared stiff (not me I love speed https://www.sharkyforums.com/images/.../2005/08/2.gif)
Or am I space walking?
------------------
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
On the subject of faster than light communication:
F = G * m[1] * m[2] / r^2
Therefore, if I could measure the specific gravitational force on mass 1 exerted on it by mass 2 then I could instanteously know the distance between the two masses. Thus, by looking at the force I would know that mass 2 had moved closer (logic 1) or farther away (logic 0).
The data communicated this way would be instant (well there is the issue of lag time as our relatively slow brains figure out what is going on). This would be substantially faster than light for very large distances.
I just don't think this would help us that much for viewing history. The problem would be moving our telescope farther away from earth at a speed faster than light. Maybe we could find someone else with our gravity communicator on the far side of the universe...
------------------
With searching comes loss
And the presence of absence:
"My Novel" not found.
Sorry. Gravity is *NOT* instantaneous. It is just another type of field like electric or magnetic fields and travels at the same speed as light.Quote:
Originally posted by geeking:
On the subject of faster than light communication:
F = G * m[1] * m[2] / r^2
Therefore, if I could measure the specific gravitational force on mass 1 exerted on it by mass 2 then I could instanteously know the distance between the two masses. Thus, by looking at the force I would know that mass 2 had moved closer (logic 1) or farther away (logic 0).
The data communicated this way would be instant (well there is the issue of lag time as our relatively slow brains figure out what is going on). This would be substantially faster than light for very large distances.
I just don't think this would help us that much for viewing history. The problem would be moving our telescope farther away from earth at a speed faster than light. Maybe we could find someone else with our gravity communicator on the far side of the universe...
There would be two problems:
1) You would have to be travelling like 1000000's of times faster than the speed of light to "catch up" to the light emitted from (as per one example) when jesus was born. That'd be one fast moving telescope :P
2) I dont see how it would work cuz as someone pointed out the light diverges. I believe the example used was even particles in a laser travelling almost totally parrallel will eventually diverge an extreme amount. If this is the case with particles travelling almost totally parallel, think how much they'd diverge over 2000 years when they weren't parallel to begin with. I cannot see any feasible way in which you could find the particles (which would probably be light years away from each other), and then "assemble" them into an "image".
On a slightly different topic, that CNN thing said that information COULD travel _faster_ than the speed of light, it just couldnt travel back in time.
BTW, in the theoretical sense how is time travel possible? I can see how you could (theoretically, not feasibly) "see" back in time, but how could you actually "go" back in time? I was always curious if when people said it was theoretically possible to do that it was just ignorant people who meant it was theoretically possible to see back in time, or if it could actually be possible to physicall go back in time.
Lastly, slartyB (or anyone), if the force of gravity is only aloud to be up to the speed of light or accelerate things to the speed of light or whatever it is you meant above this post, then how come light can't escape from black holes?
[This message has been edited by Klion (edited August 08, 2001).]
You are confusing the accelerative properties of gravity with field strength. It is the gravitational field strength around a black hole that prevents light from escaping. This has nothing to do with how quickly gravity waves travel or. My point above was that you can not send messages using gravity any faster than you can with light. For example, if the Sun were to just disapear "poof" - as if by magic - then it's gravity would still cause the Earth to travel around in it's orbit for another 8 minutes or so before the gravity wave hit us and the planet started moving in a straight line off in to space.Quote:
Originally posted by Klion:
Lastly, slartyB (or anyone), if the force of gravity is only aloud to be up to the speed of light or accelerate things to the speed of light or whatever it is you meant above this post, then how come light can't escape from black holes?
[This message has been edited by Klion (edited August 08, 2001).]
Have you ever sent a coin down one of those cone shaped things they have at museums? Imagine that you can actually make the coin accelerate up to a certain speed (lets call it "the speed of light" https://www.sharkyforums.com/images/.../2005/06/6.gif ). Then on the flatter part of the cone (well, it's more of an inverted horn shape, but you know what I mean) - then you can make the coin go fast enough to actually spiral OUTWARD and away from the hole. However, down towards the hole, you won't be able to make the coin go fast enough to escape and it will spiral downward into the hole. Gravity actually distorts space analogous to the way the cone is distorted. It is not that the light is really being accelerated by the gravity, it is that the very fabric of space is so distorted that the light can not escape.
Whaaaaaaahh! 17 Pages printed and all I know is that taffy tastes deliscious.
Or do I?...
[This message has been edited by GARRIN19 (edited August 08, 2001).]
Ahh cool. Nod, I wasnt arguing with you I was just curious how a black hole worked :P
*Whistle*
God damn, 4 pages of very loooong posts!
After reading all this I got a migraine and went to bed. This morning I realised that there was no point trying to make sense of all the rambling.
I understand what Moridin is saying, the analogies given are accurate. Some other posters are on the ball too.
I have one question though, how the hell does one break the light barrier if no particles are allowed to exceed c?
What if we obtained a power source that allowed incredible yields in power allowing us to theoretically to accelerate almost infinitely. Would the craft just turn into rice crisppies after approching the speed of light.
I know there are the questions of structural integrity and perhaps no object can exist at those speeds or at least none known to man.
Anyway just curious.
------------------
"I am neither Goku nor Vegita, I am the instrument of your destruction!" --Gogita
Just rambling here but don't cockroaches travel faster than the speed of light https://www.sharkyforums.com/images/.../2005/06/5.gif
I mean haven't you guys noticed how quickly they scurry away the moment you turn on the kitchen light. So fast in fact you miss them completely most of the time.
Someone should build a cockroach powered vessel and then we would break the light barrier in no time.
------------------
"I am neither Goku nor Vegita, I am the instrument of your destruction!" --Gogita
I believe the way it works is if you had an infinite power source you could accelerate an infinite mass (which is any mass when travelling that speed) up to the speed of light, but could not accelerate past that point.
I think that once you reach the speed of light exceeding it is not a problem. Once you start to go faster then light mass begins to drop from infinity back to "normal" levels. The problem here would be that during that instant you were traveling at light speed the universe would age and die around you, and you would be at the very end of time itself.Quote:
Originally posted by Klion:
I believe the way it works is if you had an infinite power source you could accelerate an infinite mass (which is any mass when travelling that speed) up to the speed of light, but could not accelerate past that point.
------------------
Life is complex. It has real and imaginary parts.
You guys are all wrong. A 1986 Ford Taurus is the fastest thing in a vacuum. And, as we all know, they are they are very expensive (around 300$). Coincidentally, I own one. It runs on "happy gas". If you think "happy thoughts" you can go mach 57 million. The only problem is that the air conditioning doesn't work. Also, according to some strange laws of physics, cops are sometimes able to break this impassable speed barrier for brief periods of time http://dev.www.sharkyforums.forums.relay.cool/ . Their cars run on gas from Conoco.
------------------
Lets make a run for it, B!