Answer this please :) it is about light speed

[ryan125]

Read all of it please before you respond and say No<br /><br /> Lets say that a of group people only have enough energy to move their body at 5mph this is called a constant C if extra weight is added to that person they obviously move slower. One person is told to push a car the car hardly moves, then two people are told to push it, then three. At these low amount of people a difference in the speed is noticed, and the correct idea if you add more people the faster the car will go. <br /><br /> Now say 100 people are told to push and pull the car, the if it weighed 1200kg obviously that would be 12 kg per person to push now people begin to ask why can 80 people push the car almost the same as 100? so (i know this sounds absurd) but they get 1000 people to push the car, at 1.2kg each it should go faster right? after some precise measuring the speed is still under C...5 miles per hour. <br /> Scientists create a theory and say that the car can not move faster than 5 miles per hour, to create a reason they say that the mass of the car must of increased, because surely 1000 people should of been able to push a car a lot faster than 100. So a bunch of theories are created, without ever considering that the car could not reach 5mph because the people who are only able to move their own body weight at 5 mph, can not and will never move the car at 5mph or beyond. Even using all the people in the entire make believe town, each only pushing the wieght of .000001% of the car plus their own body it will still not reach 5 mph. The Scientists in this town think the weight of a car must be massive! Yet, the car does not collapse on itself due to gravity, it doesn't suck up near by objects, no unfortunate victim has gone into an orbit around the car. So it is called "relative mass". <br /><br />now here is the climax to the story, while the scientists are creating this grand experiment along a huge stretch of highway, they see a man's car being pulled by a donkey he is travellin

 

[enigma10]

Let me know when you find a donkey of light.<img src="/images/icons/wink.gif" /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <em>"<font color="#333399">An organism at war with itself is a doomed organism." - Carl Sagan</font></em> </div>

 

[oscar1]

If two cars approach eachother at a speed of say 50, they would bang into eachother with a velocity of 100. If however two craft are approaching eachother at light speed, the velocity when they collide head-on will be still be light speed, and not one single whatever measure over that. It is about the 'speed limit', not about what vehicle you use, or what propels it.

 

[ryan125]

"Let me know when you find a donkey of light."<br /><br />I believe I did but existance is only rumored, if you didn't get the joke google Tachyon .

 

[ryan125]

"If two cars approach eachother at a speed of say 50, they would bang into eachother with a velocity of 100. If however two craft are approaching eachother at light speed, the velocity when they collide head-on will be still be light speed, and not one single whatever measure over that. It is about the 'speed limit', not about what vehicle you use, or what propels it." <br /><br />I don't think you got the moral of the story <img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" />. But more correctly "not about what vehicle you use, or what propels it." it does matter what propels it, it is impossible to travel FASTER then your source of propulsion.<br /><br />Lets say the town several miles away used sloths which traveled at 2 mph as their form of transporation, would the scientists in this town come up with a limit to how fast a car could travel? yes they would, that limit would be a "constant".<br /><br />Now eventually when word gets around of this donkey both towns ask him "how do you go faster then ours? we did the math" The donkey replies, "there is no limit to how fast an object can travel" and upon the simple wisdom of the donkey the towns researched and created ways to travel beyond the speed they once thought was impossible.

 

[yevaud]

The difference is that the limits mentioned are all self-imposed, or are inherent in the Donkey or the Sloth. The Speed Of Light is inherent in the physical laws of the continuum, regardless of the vehicle.<br /><br />So if the scientists somehow considered that the top velocity the Sloth could reach was somehow the same as the top physical velocity limitation of their continuum, then yes, they'd have a right to be amazed. Also to kick themselves in their own butts for mistaking one thing for another. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><em>Differential Diagnosis:  </em>"<strong><em>I am both amused and annoyed that you think I should be less stubborn than you are</em></strong>."<br /> </p> </div>

 

[ryan125]

"The difference is that the limits mentioned are all self-imposed, or are inherent in the Donkey or the Sloth. The Speed Of Light is inherent in the physical laws of the continuum, regardless of the vehicle. " <br /><br />The vehicle was never a factor in how fast it moved just that it had mass and that mass was a burden evenly shared by how many pulled it. So the more photons you fire, the more electrical fields you generate, because these things travel at the speed of light they will accelerate an object with mass, but still have to have energy in their own movement or body. So only a very small portion of energy is transfered into speeding up the particle (or car). The more energy you add the more efficent the weight of the car or particle is shared and will be less of a burden on the ones pulling it allowing them to go closer to their proper speed but never achieving because the extra mass is still there. This means that the speed of light is not self imposed, but placing the speed of light on a particle is self imposed could the human travel faster then 5mph? no he couldn't, but the car could being pulled by a donkey. <br /><br />Does anyone see the reason why we shouldn't say a particle can only travel at C when we are using propulsion that travels at C? <br /><br />To be simple lets say that each human as a 50% efficiency rate in transfering energy from himself into a car. So one human would be able to pull the car a 2.5 mph, two at 3.75 mph, three at 4.375 and so on. until eventually you reach an almost 100 percent rate, yet never reach it. So a photon or electrical field having a non 100% efficient rate of transfering energy, would never no matter how much energy you have at your disposible be able to transfer 100% of the kinetic energy of a single photon into the energy of a particle. So it appears the particles mass increases because you are putting more energy in an attempt to move it faster. Get what im saying?

 

[h9c2]

The difference is that when you approach the speed of light, the energy REQUIRED goes to infinity. In your story, this is a property of the car, not the people that push it.<br />Even if you use a propellant that itself travels faster than light (the donkey analog), You will not be able to push your car to lightspeed and beyond.

 

[ryan125]

"The difference is that when you approach the speed of light, the energy REQUIRED goes to infinity. In your story, this is a property of the car, not the people that push it. <br />Even if you use a propellant that itself travels faster than light (the donkey analog), You will not be able to push your car to lightspeed and beyond."<br /><br />the property that the car couldn't travel faster than 5 mph was only placed there by scientists to describe why a human couldn't pull the car faster then 5mph when the real reason was because humans could not travel faster then 5mph.<br /><br />Would it take an infinite amount of energy for a particle travelling at near light speed? If light speed source was used to accelerate it then yes but only a small amount of energy is actually absorbed by the particle. Lets say the car somehow reached C (going slightly down hill) for a second the people pulling it would travel at 5 mph their normal speed because the extra weight would no longer be pulled by them, they would say "wow this car must weigh an infinite amount because we can't push it any faster!" This is seen by the scientists operating a particle accelerator they have a particle at going .999999 C and they say wow this must weigh a lot we keep pouring energy into having it travel faster yet it doesn't go!<br /><br />The donkey would be able make the car travel faster then the humans (light) because the light was a limitation on the car placed there by scientists using humans as propulsion and that limitation never actually existed. To make it clearer im saying the speed of light in a partial vacuum on earth, it is simply the speed of light. It only defines how fast matter can move if you are using it as a propulsion. <br /><br />again why do scientists place this limitation on matter. Is it not that simple? Can a particle being acclerated by electromagnets travel faster than electromagnetic force? NO! why doesn't anyone understand <img src="/images/icons/frown.gif" /> lol

 

[oscar1]

I can't see the logic of your comparison. Light is energy and motion combined, take motion away, and there is energy left, but no longer light. When a human being stops walking/running, he is still around standing, sitting, lying down, jumping, swimming, whatever.

 

[origin]

"Scientists create a theory and say that the car can not move faster than 5 miles per hour, to create a reason they say that the mass of the car must of increased, because surely 1000 people should of been able to push a car a lot faster than 100."<br /><br />This statement indicates part of your problem in understanding this difficult idea.<br />Scientist did not start out saying that light has a speed limit and then come up with ideas why there is a limit.<br /><br />For quite a period of time it was thought that light traveled from point to point instantly. Then there were several experiments that very accurately discribed the speed of light. Still no scientist thought that the speed of light was a 'limit'. <br /> <br />Michelson and Morley built an interferometer ~1890 to measure the velocity of light and used it to try to determine the velocity of the earth by measuring the speed of light coming from the sun. Since the earth is in an eliptical orbit, at one point in the year we would be moving away from the sun and in another part of the year we would be moving towards the sun. But when they took these measurements the speed was exactly the same. The experiment was later redone and the same results were seen. It was not until Einstein came with special relativity that it was realized that the reason for the puzzling results was that light had a cosmic speed limit. This has many implications and one of them is that nothing can go faster than the speed of light.<br /><br />If you are traveling in a car going 50mph and another car is going the other way at 50 mph and you measure it's speed relative to you it will be 100 mph. If on the other hand you are traveling at 100,000 mps and a beam of light is moving past in the other direction if you measure the speed of that light relative to you it will not be the speed of the light plus your speed it will be the same speed as if you were not moving at all ~186,000 mps. This has been proven time and time again. Experime <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[oscar1]

I did not make that statement.

 

[search]

Hi ryan125<br /><br />Donkeys are too lazy to travel at 10mph....period.

 

[heyscottie]

ryan125: Does anyone see the reason why we shouldn't say a particle can only travel at C when we are using propulsion that travels at C? <br /><br />me: But you are presupposing a speed limit here! You are saying, essentially, that since we can't make anything travel faster than c, we can't make anything travel faster than c!<br /><br />In my opinion, you have come at this from the wrong direction. Scientists did not notice a difficulty in going really fast and then decide that it must be at c. Experiments were done that showed that light travelled at the same speed in any direction, regardless of the speed of the emitter, receiver, etc. This was a surprising result when it was found.<br /><br />Einstein took two ideas, <br />1) That the speed of light is constant in any reference frame, and<br />2) That the laws of physics work the same everywhere -- i.e. there is no "preferred" reference frame that would give a different answer to any physics problem. (This is known as the Principle of Relativity.)<br /><br />Combining these two ideas, he performed thought experiments, and arrived at the theory of Special Relativity. One of the predictions of Special Relativity turned out to be that c is in fact a cosmic speed limit. This is a consequence of time dilation, length contraction, and relativistic inertia increase at high speeds. Time dilation, length contraction, etc directly result from the two ideas I mentioned -- if the first two are true, inconsistencies develop unless time dilation, length contraction, etc are true. If they are true, the speed limit is true. Do you see how he started from two well-known and proven things and arrived at these wild predictions about the nature of space and time?<br /><br />Plenty of experiments and real-world phenomena have upheld his predictions, by the way. This is NOT something that has been taken on faith.

 

[origin]

ryan125, I don't know if this will make you feel any better but, the expansion of the universe can allow for distant objects to be receding from us at greater than the speed of light. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[origin]

I have a question on this subject. <br /><br />My understanding is that when matter is drawn into a black hole it will basically stretch into a string of atoms due to the huge gravitational diferences over small distances and then I assume the atoms will also be torn apart into their subatomic parts and finally these will be torn into quarks. My question is: at the event horizon will the mass (in whatever form) hit the speed of light? If not what happens at the event horizon.<br /><br />ryan125 got me thinking about a 'propolusion system' that could exceed the speed of light, and I think a sigularity would fit the bill. The trouble is it is only a one way trip!<br /><br /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[ryan125]

"Experiments have shown that time does dialate and that mass does increase these are not made up things these are measured properties." <br /><br />Please direct me to one experiment where an actual increase in mass has occured, not by theory but an ACTUAL increase.

 

[rogerinnh]

Ryan, you note that you've taken a course in creative writing. Creative it certainly is. I have to wonder what grade you got on your assigments. Is punctuation and capitalization part of the course? You state "the mass of the car must of increased". May I suggest you review the definition of the word "of" and compare it to the definition of the word "have", as in "the mass of the car must HAVE increased".

 

[ryan125]

"Ryan, you note that you've taken a course in creative writing. Creative it certainly is. I have to wonder what grade you got on your assigments. Is punctuation and capitalization part of the course? You state "the mass of the car must of increased". May I suggest you review the definition of the word "of" and compare it to the definition of the word "have", as in "the mass of the car must HAVE increased"." <br /><br />I got an A in the class, I went to a public school trying was the only thing that mattered. The end of my junior several kids in my english class did not know the definition of a verb. It isn't MY fault my puncuation, spelling, and grammar are wrong. We where simply told to write and read stories that where based around diversity, so while we had a very diverse introduction into different ways of speaking I never learned the correct way. Now you may have/of learned the english language when you grew up, i learned how to speak ebonics. So please forgive me if anything is wrong I will try to spell everything correctly in the future. Here is an actual qoute from my "creative" english class if you don't believe me.<br /><br />""Well, mebbe 'twas. I didn't think it was so long ago. I ain't no objection to your goin', only I'm goin' to take a load of wheat."" This is one of the rare examples in punctuation actually being used. Most of the writing was one big run on sentence with commas.

 

[yevaud]

Roger is right. "the mass of the car must of increased" is grammatically incorrect, regardless of what your teacher might say. My Mom, who graduated from a business school in 1938, would have had that teacher up against a wall, with a finger in her/his face. She was not an Executive Secretary, she was an "Amenuensis." (Look it up)<br /><br />Keep an eye on the better posters here, and you'll learn good grammatical structure, usage of terminology and punctuation, and general diction, than 100 of said teacher's ilk. And be the better for it. <br /><br />(Btw, this is *zero* reflection on you. You are not responsible for being taught misinformation) <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><em>Differential Diagnosis:  </em>"<strong><em>I am both amused and annoyed that you think I should be less stubborn than you are</em></strong>."<br /> </p> </div>

 

[ryan125]

"<br />Roger is right. "the mass of the car must of increased" is grammatically incorrect, regardless of what your teacher might say. My Mom, who graduated from a business school in 1938, would have had that teacher up against a wall, with a finger in her/his face. She was not an Executive Secretary, she was an "Amenuensis." (Look it up) "<br /><br />I must have made a mistake . <br /><br />(Btw, this is *zero* reflection on you. You are not responsible for being taught misinformation)<br /><br />I know im not responsible, but it is still a negative reflection on me. I plan to be taking a college english class in about a year I refused to take one my first semester. Hopfully by that time I will write "a lot" instead of "alot" and all the other stuff thx for correcting me by the way I don't really care if im wrong on an issue as long as someone explains it instead of just saying "because".

 

[alokmohan]

Speed of light never changes.So question does not arise.

 

[search]

<font color="yellow">Now eventually when word gets around of this donkey both towns ask him "how do you go faster then ours? we did the math" The donkey replies, "there is no limit to how fast an object can travel" and upon the simple wisdom of the donkey the towns researched and created ways to travel beyond the speed they once thought was impossible.</font><br /><br />The only problem is that we still do not know people from the 'other" town. <br /><br />As far as we know in our town and among our population the donky goes at C and not faster.

 

[h9c2]

As a story, yours is interesting. Very thought provoking to people who do not have a physics background. I think you should be proud of it, but leave it at that. <br /><br />As I have said before, even with conventional means, your car can travel a lightyear in less than a year, but to any observer, you are limited to c. Time dilation is demonstratably true. It is a property of this universe and all "ordinary" matter in it. <br /><br />If the donkey in your story is a tachyon, then your car must be made of donkeys too <img src="/images/icons/wink.gif" />, and how are you going to make a car from donkeys that are always running around going faster than c?<br /><br />As far as spelling goes, yes, it IS your responsibility.<br /><br />

 

[derekmcd]

"<i>May I suggest you review the definition of the word "of" and compare it to the definition of the word "have", as in "the mass of the car must HAVE increased".</i>"<br /><br />I, also, have a suggestion. Should any of us find ourselves in a situation where we may have an opportunity to education someone, please education them properly. The proper statement would read, "the mass of the car must have <i><b>been</b></i> increased." <br /><br />Now, back to our regularly scheduled program...<br /><br />Energy-mass equivalence is a rock solid theory. Considering the context of this thread, it is not easily observable in every day life. An enormous amount of energy is required to add enough mass for us regular folk to notice it on our bathroom scale. Look at it from the opposite direction... the Atom Bomb. A small amount of mass converted to an enormous amount of energy. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <div> </div><br /><div><span style="color:#0000ff" class="Apple-style-span">"If something's hard to do, then it's not worth doing." - Homer Simpson</span></div> </div>