I have a theory Part 2

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Simpson, Homer:
Slarty Bartfast (I hope I got the reference right), I want to congratulate you on being one of the sole bearers of logic in this thread!

---

Why thank you, I feel so touched by your prejudice statement.

Quote:

---

Also, gravity IS limited by the speed of light. It's very simple. If the sun decided to start moving reaaaally fast (say, the speed of light) in a particular direction, the earth would orbit JUST AS IT ALWAYS HAS for the next 8.5 minutes, at which point it would slowly start being attracted to the "path" the sun took (i.e. after 8.5 minutes, its force vector would start following the path of the sun in its new movement). ALL FIELDS (gravitational, electromagnetic, whatever) are propogated at the speed of light. So the planet jupiter is constantly "propagating" an "updated" field out from itself. When light passes a few thousand miles away from jupiter, it passes by the field which propogated out a fraction of a second ago. Thus it feels a gravitational attraction to a 0.001 sec old Jupiter (it's hard to express this in words... *sigh*).

Oh well, that's enough for now.

[This message has been edited by Simpson, Homer (edited August 16, 2001).]

---

Correct me if I'm wrong but if you move the sun away from our solar system at the speed of light I seriously don't think that the gravity pull that the sun emits would be enough to drag earth along. I think it will become less and less and finally just get thrown out of orbit completely.

Just a Note.
If ppl don't think in the line you do don't mean they are stupid.
Check history and you see that EVERY MAN/WOMAN that was a GENIUS was looked upon as being dumb or just stupid...

------------------
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

mind boggling.. really!

------------------
epox 8k7a
amd 1000mhz
radeon le

Just another bump for ya GARRIN19, I hope peeps don't lose interest in this thread! It's been a rather good one so far, IMHO... https://www.sharkyforums.com/images/.../2002/02/3.gif

Thanks Al.

The information transfer technology is going to take a back seat here for a moment...

That lense system is going to have to be using the capture of images and light in order to get the lag effect needed to extraploate the time line chosen. Currently, in terms of computers, there must be some kind of filtering programs for translating distorted images into crisp, clear ones, for starters. Obviously a giant lense sounds pretty retarded but then again this project is about possibilities not style. Style later.(hic)



------------------
A-Open 300W ATX case
Asus socket370 CUV4X-E mainboard
1Ghz Intel P3 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

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Simpson, Homer:
Light does not travel any slower through a medium. It PROPOGATES slower. All photons still travel at 3.0e8 m/s, but every fraction of a second they keep getting absorbed and re-emitted by the electrons in particles of the medium. Thus, they travel at the full speed of light, but there are pit stops where the electron ceases to exist and is re-created (i.e. absorption and emission), creating the illusion of "slowed light".

---

It appears that light can not only just be just "slowed down", it can apparently even be utterly stopped!

Here's a link regarding the work of two groups of Harvard University scientists showing how they were able to slow the speed of light down to absolute zero. Look here: http://www.sciam.com/news/011901/1.html

How about that? https://www.sharkyforums.com/images/.../2005/06/6.gif

Edit: Here's a link following up on the first, giving some more details. Particularly interesting are the potential applications of slowed light to the developing field of quantum computers - read on: http://www.sciam.com/2001/0701issue/0701hau.html

https://www.sharkyforums.com/images/.../2002/02/3.gif

[This message has been edited by al bundy (edited August 26, 2001).]

Very interesting.

So if we can slow down light we should be able to speed up light as well witch kind of breaks the "nothing can travel faster then light theory".

no?

------------------
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

A couple of interesting links relevant to superluminal motion, information transmission, etc. are here:
http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/FTL.html
http://lal.cs.byu.edu/ketav/issue_3.2/Lumin/lumin.html

https://www.sharkyforums.com/images/.../2002/02/3.gif

[This message has been edited by al bundy (edited August 27, 2001).]

OK, I have a question;
If the mass of an object is said to reach "infinate" proportions as it approaches the speed of light, then wouldn't the thrust of any vehicle approaching such a speed also increase at the same rate, therefore NOT limiting the craft to speeds under that of light speed?
I also have a problem with any one using the term "infinate" when reffering to any type of physics. Immeasurable I can handle, Infinate? I dunno, I have a problem with that. Even "space" as we know it is not thought to be truly "infinate." You guys ever hear the theory of the oscilating universe? I am no quantum physicist, but some of what you people are saying does not make a lot of sense to me. And not just the jargin, the theories behind a lot of what you are saying does not seem sound based on ANYTHING I have ever heard before. Again, I am no expert, but some of you seem a little off your rocker, so to speak. (I will refrain from mentioning anyone specifically, but I am sure a lot of you out there know exactly who I am speaking of).

------------------
Spider-sense...tingling! DANGER!!

I also have a problem with any one using the term "infinate" when reffering to any type of physics. Immeasurable I can handle, Infinate? I dunno, I have a problem with that.
_____________________________________________

Someone else notices this. Good. I was wondering if people saw the difference between teleologics and immesurable subject. But I think the term is being used as to what is technologically containable measurement. A feasable agreement between physics and theory of physics.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by web_hed:
OK, I have a question;
If the mass of an object is said to reach "infinate" proportions as it approaches the speed of light, then wouldn't the thrust of any vehicle approaching such a speed also increase at the same rate, therefore NOT limiting the craft to speeds under that of light speed?

---

Hey web_hed, I'll try to answer that as best as I can (as I'm not an expert in physics). I believe that your question may actually contain its own answer. That is, imagine the mass of an object increasing toward infinity as light speed approaches. An increasing force will obviously be required to maintain the object's acceleration, since the object's mass is growing. This force would thus need to approach infinite magnitude, as the mass of the object also increases toward infinity, in order to maintain the object's acceleration toward light speed. It is precisely this barrier, i.e. the impossibility of providing a force that can grow to infinite magnitude, that disallows the actual realization of light speed (at least in theory). Isn't that right everyone? Or maybe I'm missing something here...

Okie dokie, I see what you are saying, but what I am saying here, is that theory seems to imply that just about everything distorts as an object approaches light speed. It seems that all forces are going whacky in these hypotheticals why would it be unreasonable to think that thrust produced from an engine would be any different? Personnaly, I have issues with several aspects of Einstien's theory, and mathematicians are starting to have issues too. But, that is not for me to decide, being as I am just an artist.

------------------
Spider-sense...tingling! DANGER!!

web_hed, approaching the speed of light would have no effect on the thrust produced by a rocket. The combustion of propellant is contained within the moving body, so in keeping with relativistic concepts, it behaves just as it would if the craft were travelling at 60m/h. As was stated earlier, as an object's velocity increases, so does its mass. So to keep accelerating, it takes more and more force, while the rocket still produces the same amount of force as it always did.

I was also wondering. In all the explanations I've heard of relativity, mass travels through space and time, never exceeding the speed of light in either direction (through space or through time). That means that light, travelling at c through space, does not experience time. So if it were theoretically possible to exceed c, would that mean negative time?

------------------
1.33GHz Athlon @ 1.45
Asus A7M266 Mobo
256MB PC2100 DDR
IBM 75GXP 60GB HDD
Fujitsu 10GB HDD
Toshiba 16x DVD
Plextor 16x/10x/40x CD-RW
VisionTek GeForce3 Video
Hercules Game Theater XP Sound with Klipsch Promedia 4.2 Speakers (yes, dual subwoofers)
Envision 19" Monitor
Dual Netgear FA310TX NICs

According to the users guide that shipped with my FLUX CAPACITOR.......

Rutrow, it says that feature is available only with the purchase of a BORG transwarp drive.

SOL.


------------------
You can put any jerk in a shirt and call him a Manager

Quote:

---

Originally posted by way2funni:

According to the users guide that shipped with my FLUX CAPACITOR.......

Rutrow, it says that feature is available only with the purchase of a BORG transwarp drive.

SOL.

---

Gotta bump that one! https://www.sharkyforums.com/images/.../2005/08/2.gif

Why does it take more and more force to accelerate an object in space? There is no gravity, and it is a vacuum, therfore no friction to act upon the object, so ANY force acted upon a spacecraft should influence it. Let's say that a craft DOES increase in mass, then it should only take a lot longer to reach lightspeed, but it should be able to happen. I dunno, people tell me it is impossible, and it very well may be, but a lot of this doesn't seem right. Perhaps I am being given the wrong information and/or remembering the wrong facts.

------------------
Spider-sense...tingling! DANGER!!