It has something to do with the E=mc^2 "thing". What happens is, as you go faster, you acquire energy (kinetic energy), which, when put in consideration with Einstein's famous equation, implies that you gain mass. As you get closer and closer to the speed of light, your mass would tend towards the "infinity" (which is a concept that would be worth another lengthy discussion).
Speed of light? Time?
- Thread starter Caoimhin
- Start date
- Views 5,616
- Replies 59
It has something to do with the E=mc^2 "thing". What happens is, as you go faster, you acquire energy (kinetic energy), which, when put in consideration with Einstein's famous equation, implies that you gain mass. As you get closer and closer to the speed of light, your mass would tend towards the "infinity" (which is a concept that would be worth another lengthy discussion).
thats exactly what i said in my post, according to two refrence frames this is not faster than light.
But by using V = c/n then exceeding the speed of light in that medium, it gives the impression that c has also been surpassed according to the equation.
You could go on to expain this by special relativity, wormholes, curviture of space .... but the conclusion is this is debunked by simple galilean transformations.
lol was just half way through typing that. I think the idea is when you try to to faster you just get heavier so you can't break the speed.
In honesty the main problem with the idea is if you are on an asteroid going just above half the speed of light and another asteroid going in exactly the opposite direction at the same speed. Relative to you it's going faster than the speed of light. So why does it not become mega heavy...or does it??!
It also begs the question is there a point of relativity within the universe which is stationary and everything moves relative to it. This point may simply be the largest single mass in the universe but who knows mabey it's the edge of space and we can't see it.
Were you to sucessfully create this hypothetical situation measuring the speed of the other asteroid would be strange as the signal you send out to measure assuming it's an em wave will return after the asteroid passes you. The mass would be impossible.
The best we can do on earth is wack electrons togeather at slightly different and extremly high speeds in particle accelerators and record what happens.
In honesty the main problem with the idea is if you are on an asteroid going just above half the speed of light and another asteroid going in exactly the opposite direction at the same speed. Relative to you it's going faster than the speed of light. So why does it not become mega heavy...or does it??!
It also begs the question is there a point of relativity within the universe which is stationary and everything moves relative to it. This point may simply be the largest single mass in the universe but who knows mabey it's the edge of space and we can't see it.
Were you to sucessfully create this hypothetical situation measuring the speed of the other asteroid would be strange as the signal you send out to measure assuming it's an em wave will return after the asteroid passes you. The mass would be impossible.
The best we can do on earth is wack electrons togeather at slightly different and extremly high speeds in particle accelerators and record what happens.
Just to add to the fun mention one of the doomsday theories regarding the end of the universe (or its ability to sustain life):
the universe is expanding with each point (search for red shift) getting further away from each other, eventually you will have two points effectively moving faster than light speed from each other (despite moving many orders of magnitude less). Naturally you can never get there and for that reason the energy available (set according the first law of thermodynamics) gets spread about and by virtue of the second law of thermodynamics there will come a point where entropy is maximum and no processes can occur: no life.
Have a good night.
I will also point out that Newtonian physics (what most of you seem to be trying to reason with) the tends to fail at high speeds and low sizes (search for unified theory of physics).
the universe is expanding with each point (search for red shift) getting further away from each other, eventually you will have two points effectively moving faster than light speed from each other (despite moving many orders of magnitude less). Naturally you can never get there and for that reason the energy available (set according the first law of thermodynamics) gets spread about and by virtue of the second law of thermodynamics there will come a point where entropy is maximum and no processes can occur: no life.
Have a good night.
I will also point out that Newtonian physics (what most of you seem to be trying to reason with) the tends to fail at high speeds and low sizes (search for unified theory of physics).
There was a recent experiment where some light was accelerated hundreds of times faster than the typical light speed, they said that the light appeared to exit before it had fully entered.
Moving at light speed time relative to you is slowed, so days to you could be years to us.
Also if you were almost at light speed light would still accelerate past you at light speed.
EDIT: apprently
Moving at light speed time relative to you is slowed, so days to you could be years to us.
Also if you were almost at light speed light would still accelerate past you at light speed.
EDIT: apprently
I love how you just dropped galilean transformations(yes once more im a whore for that word
F = MA (normal bodies)
F = MA + gamma (for bodies approaching speeds of light)
so newtonian physics holds true with only an addition of gamma, a constant taking into account the effects of relativity.
Also most of the questions here can be easily answered by general relativity and momentum theory.
- Joined
- Oct 29, 2006
- Messages
- 310
- Trophies
- 0
- Age
- 34
- Location
- london, england
- Website
- Visit site
- XP
- 208
- Country
one cannot say there is nothing faster than the speed of light.....
its that we do not have the instruments to measure or see something if it was traveling faster than the speed of light.
and electrons could be traveling faster than the speed of light....because you can never see an electron. if you try and photograph it, by the time the light bounces of it, it has gone, and nothing will be captured, just light relfecting back. (that is if you can even get the light to hit it. its soo small that it can hide between the waves of light (and waves of gamma aswell, - which has the smallest wavelenght.))
in true if we can travel faster then light, we wont ba able to see anything, becuase we can only see things that light bounces back of and enters our eyes.
if we are going faster than light, light cant reach our eyes, so when looking in a mirror one will not be able to see onesself.
due to this, all one will see would be blackness....unless there i a form of energy or wave, that is also traveling faster then you (when one is traveling faster than light) and we can get special goggles to see it.
remember, all of this is all theory. most of physics and chemistry are based on theory and assumptions. inculding most of einstines works.
it could all be worng in the end, or untill another person comes up with a more fitting theory.
its that we do not have the instruments to measure or see something if it was traveling faster than the speed of light.
and electrons could be traveling faster than the speed of light....because you can never see an electron. if you try and photograph it, by the time the light bounces of it, it has gone, and nothing will be captured, just light relfecting back. (that is if you can even get the light to hit it. its soo small that it can hide between the waves of light (and waves of gamma aswell, - which has the smallest wavelenght.))
in true if we can travel faster then light, we wont ba able to see anything, becuase we can only see things that light bounces back of and enters our eyes.
if we are going faster than light, light cant reach our eyes, so when looking in a mirror one will not be able to see onesself.
due to this, all one will see would be blackness....unless there i a form of energy or wave, that is also traveling faster then you (when one is traveling faster than light) and we can get special goggles to see it.
remember, all of this is all theory. most of physics and chemistry are based on theory and assumptions. inculding most of einstines works.
it could all be worng in the end, or untill another person comes up with a more fitting theory.
Just wanted to note that to go faster than light you have to disprove general and special relativity. Because einstein based his theories on the "fact" that nothing can go faster than light.
Two things can however move away from one observer and therefore seem to be going faster than light.
If you'd recalculate their speeds from an observer one of those moving objects, the speed would just aproach the speed of light, not go over it.
Two things can however move away from one observer and therefore seem to be going faster than light.
If you'd recalculate their speeds from an observer one of those moving objects, the speed would just aproach the speed of light, not go over it.
- Joined
- Oct 30, 2002
- Messages
- 1,192
- Trophies
- 2
- Age
- 22
- Location
- Northern Ireland
- Website
- pyon.co.uk
- XP
- 438
- Country
Slight correction here:
F=Gamma^3*MA when the force and velocity are in the same direction.
F=Gamma*MA when the force and velocity are perpendicular.
you are correct, as I posted above, for cherenkov radiation to be counted valid it must disobey both special relativity and casuality.
- Joined
- Sep 27, 2005
- Messages
- 51
- Trophies
- 0
- Age
- 39
- Location
- Geneva, CH
- Website
- Visit site
- XP
- 307
- Country
Any frame moving uniformally (without acceleration) is equivalent to a stationary frame, and this proprety can be tested without the need of a reference frame. Defining a "center" in the universe isn't easy I guess
I also prefer Lorentz transformation, which I think is also more appropriate when discussing the speed of light. Electron movement is in a completely different discussion all together, I'd think we'd end up talking about Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle.
Ahh heisenberg, how your crazy theories tormented me in chemistry...
This has been somewhat "proven" using two atomic clocks. One was strapped in a jet and flown around the world, the other was kept at the airport. When the atomic clock in the jet arrived, it was a few billionths of a second behind.
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/einstein/hotsciencetwin/
Scroll down until you hit the "An Historic Flight" section.
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/einstein/hotsciencetwin/
Scroll down until you hit the "An Historic Flight" section.
According to Einstein's Theory of Relativity (and this is a true theory, as in, it hasn't been disproven yet, and is unlikely to be disproven in the fiuture), you cannot travel faster than the speed of light. It is the universal speed limit. Approaching the speed of light, you would begin to increase mass, and at the speed of light,. your mass is infinity. Beyond that, things get screwy.
Take this example: A man shoots himself. You see this, and call an ambulance.
If you were travelling faster than light, you would actually see this occur BEFORE it happens. Meaning, you could see him shoot himself before he actually shot himself. You'd call the ambulance before the event actually ocurred. The paramedics would be standing around very confused. As a result, the man just might not shoot himself. Which means you can't have seen it, which means the paramedics wouldn't have come, etc.
As shown, causality is thrown out thje window when travelling at the speed of light. Without cause/effect, the universe tends to be very messy. Try not to think about it.
Note: this post may or may not be a joke. I'm still not sure.
Incidentally, the speed of light has been slowed down to below airplane speeds. I'm saying that when you travel on an airplane, you can go faster than the speed of light. (This is not c, though. You're not travelling faster than c.)
Take this example: A man shoots himself. You see this, and call an ambulance.
If you were travelling faster than light, you would actually see this occur BEFORE it happens. Meaning, you could see him shoot himself before he actually shot himself. You'd call the ambulance before the event actually ocurred. The paramedics would be standing around very confused. As a result, the man just might not shoot himself. Which means you can't have seen it, which means the paramedics wouldn't have come, etc.
As shown, causality is thrown out thje window when travelling at the speed of light. Without cause/effect, the universe tends to be very messy. Try not to think about it.
Note: this post may or may not be a joke. I'm still not sure.
Incidentally, the speed of light has been slowed down to below airplane speeds. I'm saying that when you travel on an airplane, you can go faster than the speed of light. (This is not c, though. You're not travelling faster than c.)
- Joined
- Dec 22, 2002
- Messages
- 8,202
- Trophies
- 0
- Age
- 36
- Location
- Australia
- Website
- www.gbatemp.net
- XP
- 1,163
- Country
Lets not forget wormholes. That's the most exciting prospect for travelling to other galaxies. Bend a huge amount of space over on itself to bring it close to you and then create a bridge between the two points.
There are a lot of exciting things going on at the moment. They've managed to teleport light particles (but not solid matter).
Right now deep underground in Switzerland (cern), scientists are working on a machine to rip a hole in the fabric of space to create mini black holes. They say it'll help them discover parallel universes.
I travelled into the distant future yesterday to buy some more games for my Wii.
There still weren't any.
So I came back.
That proves that time travel is a waste of time.
There still weren't any.
So I came back.
That proves that time travel is a waste of time.
It will never happen, time travel is only possible for energy. And even then, scientists were only able to get the energy to travel at a fraction of a second back in time. So, forget it, if mankind isn't wiped out by nuclear war or Ebola, then it will be wiped out from monkeys trying to travel through time.
Similar threads
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
@
Sicklyboy:
Lazy day for me. Was gonna go grocery shopping but it's raining so I don't feel like going out. Listened to music and messed with server stuff instead -
-
-
-
@
Sicklyboy:
I feel like school, back when I was actually in school, was more entertaining though, because of how much I get to interact with people, hang out with friends, and other stuff like that. All I get to talk to at work is my boring coworkers lol
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
