Can a rock break the speed of light?

[why06]

I have a theory...<br /><br /><br />Okay...picture this.....<br /><br />One has a big stone and drops it down a wide vacumed shaft so no air can get in the way.<br /><br />Now say hypothetically this tube runs forever if the stone kept increasing in speed do to gravity would it eventually past the speed of light? <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <div>________________________________________ <br /></div><div><ul><li><font color="#008000"><em>your move...</em></font></li></ul></div> </div>

 

[harmonicaman]

No, it won't work. You just can't circumvent the addition of velocities paradox. You can't do it because of the way velocities are added at relativistic speeds - and <i>Einstein say's so!</i> <br /><br />Normally, in Newtonian mechanics, velocities are added as follows:<br /><br /><b>v₁+v₂+v₃=v₄</b><br /><br />But at relativistic velocities (at or approaching "c", the speed of light), you must deal with this awe inspiring equation:<br /><br /><b>w = (u + v)/(1 + uv/c²)</b><br /><br />No matter how cleverly you try to state the problem, <i>you cannot</i> overcome Einstein's rules of Special Relativity¹ and the Lorentz Transformation. This has been tested again and again and so far nobody has been able to poke a hole in this fascinating equation.<br /><br />1. Special Relativity and the addition of velocities.

 

[rrl2]

------Well first you would have to know how fast the pull of gravity is. Earth is in a vacuum going around the sun, but you never see it going as fast as the speed of light. Then again inertia would be a factor to, but still if that was the case the earth would be going a lot faster than it is. It is a nice idea though<br />-----I think that we could test it by getting a large tube and sending the proposed rock into the sun. Friction would be a factor though that you must take into account<br />

 

[mcbethcg]

Thats actually a good question.<br /><br />Lets put it more real world terms.<br /><br />You fire a bullet at the sun from a linear accelerator on the moon at 99.99999999999999999% c, straight at the sun.<br /><br />Would the thing experiance the suns gravity in its 8 minute voyage, and accelerate past the speed of light?<br /><br />Nope. Here's the reason.<br /><br />Time dialation increases as you approach the speed of light. The object would experiance the 8 minutes we percieve as just a fraction of a second. It would experiance the gravity for just a fraction of a second and not accelerate appreciably.<br /><br />An outside observer would note that the object approached the sun at close to the speed of light for 8 minutes and barely accelerated.

 

[why06]

But say this...<br /> If you fired a bullet right behind the bullet would it be able follow behind the other bullet faster than the speed of light since the first bullet already parted time for it.<br /><br />You know like a NASCAR follows behind the air stream of the other car.<br /><br />Or does time even produce friction? <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <div>________________________________________ <br /></div><div><ul><li><font color="#008000"><em>your move...</em></font></li></ul></div> </div>

 

[kmarinas86]

If you have two photons going opposite directions what is the rate of their seperation? The speed of light?

 

[jatslo]

For starters, your theory is more like an idea, which is a fundamental requirement for hypothesis; however, some would argue that. I think that you could set up several experiments that will support your idea, and I also believe that it is possible that you might succeed in creating a working theory on the subject matter, if you put your mind to it. A good way to measure the success or failure would involve Cherenkov Radiation, because as your rock particles, intact, or not, start to breach the speed of light within the medium the detectable radiation will emerge in a light boom, which will quantify your approximate speed based on current observations.<br /><br />I know that it is possible! <img src="/images/icons/wink.gif" /> I like your two rock example, because the first rock could hypothetically push the road blocks out of the way, and essentially grease the tube. What are you thoughts on the subject matter?

 

[why06]

thanks a lot,<br />I also have one...<br />If light has weight, than how can light break the speed of light?<br />Or does physics omit them? <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <div>________________________________________ <br /></div><div><ul><li><font color="#008000"><em>your move...</em></font></li></ul></div> </div>

 

[jatslo]

If you were traveling at the speed of light along with A, could you detect the B that is headed at the speed of light in the other direction?

 

[why06]

I'm not sure...jatslo<br />Thre's always a way... Maybe if you could detect ripples in time like a jetski makes in the water. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <div>________________________________________ <br /></div><div><ul><li><font color="#008000"><em>your move...</em></font></li></ul></div> </div>

 

[najab]

><i>If light has weight, than how can light break the speed of light?</i><p>A photon only has mass when it is at rest.</p>

 

[why06]

Oh, thanks stevehw33 <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <div>________________________________________ <br /></div><div><ul><li><font color="#008000"><em>your move...</em></font></li></ul></div> </div>

 

[jatslo]

nonzero mass, and zero mass are mass, including and not limited to photon.

 

[chew_on_this]

Don't let SDCs' resident crotchety ole fart stop you from asking questions. We're all here to learn. Steve already knows it all!

 

[kmarinas86]

If you have two photons going opposite directions what is the rate of their seperation? The speed of light?<br /><br />=p

 

[grooble]

Seperation is a perspective though, a mental construct. The two photons have no relation to each other except what you place on them. <br /><br />What about this, if 2 cars are going 51% of light speed and crash head on, what is the combined impact velocity? 102% lightspeed? Same question as yours i guess, but the other way round.<br /><br />What kind of energy would that release?

 

[why06]

WOW that's a pretty good idea grooble,<br /><br />If you did crash together two things going at light speed it might produce a obtect going faster than light!!!<br /><br />Say you launch a electon and a positron at light speed......the energy they release should send the proton created when the particles ahnialated each other faster than light. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <div>________________________________________ <br /></div><div><ul><li><font color="#008000"><em>your move...</em></font></li></ul></div> </div>

 

[najab]

<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p>If you have two photons going opposite directions what is the rate of their seperation? The speed of light?<p><hr /></p></p></blockquote>As I understand it, their rate of separation would, in fact, be twice the speed of light. Their <b>velocities</b> (and this is the important one) would only be speed of light.

 

[siarad]

Please share, how do you write formulae here, I always fail but am OK on other sites

 

[harmonicaman]

The Wilson Synchrotron at Cornell University collides electrons head on into each other all day long while waiting for the chance collision. Although they are travelling at "c" (the speed of light) towards each other, their collision velocity is still "c"! <br /><br />This is due to the Laws of Physics and Einstein's Theory of Relativity which govern the universe we live in.<br /><br /><b>A Philosophical Explanation</b><br />The universe in which we live in is a <i>singularity</i> - an infinitely small point. Even though space and time are expanding within this singularity, we are still governed by the reality that our universe is an infinitely small point.<br /><br />To envision this concept, try this simple thought experiment: Imagined for a moment that you could remove the dimension of <i>time</i> from the universe; just picture what the universe would be like if <i>time</i> had never occurred -- you would be back at the infinitely small <i>singularity</i> of our origin before space had ever expanded.<br /><br />A universal truth of our singularity universe is that: Every point shares the same perspective as every other point in the singularity universe. <br /><br />Here are some other facts about our singularity universe:<br /><br />1. Every point in the universe sees itself as the oldest, the most distant from the origin and as the most rapidly expanding point in the singularity universe.<br /><br />2. The universe has no "Center" or "Edge", but because we are a singularity -- every point in the universe is also the "Center" and "Edge" of the universe!<br /><br />The "Edge" of the universe is right in front of your nose at "c". If you exceed "c", you would be outside the singularity universe and there is no "There" there. This is why you cannot exceed "c" under any circumstances and why the Laws of Physics and the TOR have been shown to be a reality in experiment after experiment!<br /><br />You just can't exceed the speed of light in our singularity universe because sp

 

[najab]

Photons <b>have</b> to have an equivalent mass, as they are a quanta of energy. However, they <b>cannot</b> have a mass since they can travel at the speed of light.<p>The answer to this conundrum is to assign the photon a notional 'rest mass' - which, as you point out, is purely conceptual. Hence my somewhat tounge-in-cheek statement about photons only having mass when they are at rest.</p>

 

[najab]

Photons <b>have</b> to have an equivalent mass, as they are a quanta of energy. However, they <b>cannot</b> have a mass since they can travel at the speed of light.<p>The answer to this conundrum is to assign the photon a notional 'relativistic rest mass' - which, as you point out, is purely conceptual. Hence my somewhat tounge-in-cheek statement about photons only having mass when they are at rest.</p>

 

[exoscientist]

There are a couple of reasons why the question is more complicated than it appears, harmonicaman.<br /> First, one explanation frequently given for why you can't reach the speed of light with a material body is that the Einstein relativisitic time dilation relations also imply that you require more and more energy to accelerate a body as the speed increases. This is sometimes explained by saying its "relativistic mass" increases so it becomes heavier and heavier and therefore harder to move. (Yes, I know that according to officially sanctioned terminology, you don't refer to relativistic mass.)<br /> HOWEVER, gravity is the one force where the mass doesn't matter! A body falls at the same rate regardless of its mass. So it shouldn't be any harder for gravity to accelerate a heavier body.<br /> Secondly, special relativity is itself an approximation when you bring gravity into consideration. There you have to use general relativity. Then the time and distance transformations are more complicated. It's not obvious to me that for a real body with mass and physical dimension (not a point) that you couldn't reach light speed.<br /><br /><br /> -- Bob <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[exoscientist]

There are a couple of reasons why the question is more complicated than it appears, harmonicaman.<br /> First, one explanation frequently given for why you can't reach the speed of light with a material body is that the Einstein relativisitic time dilation relations also imply that you require more and more energy to accelerate a body as the speed increases. This is sometimes explained by saying its "relativistic mass" increases so it becomes heavier and heavier and therefore harder to move. (Yes, I know that according to officially sanctioned terminology, you don't refer to relativistic mass.)<br /> HOWEVER, gravity is the one force where the mass doesn't matter! A body falls at the same rate regardless of its mass. So it shouldn't be any harder for gravity to accelerate a heavier body.<br /> Secondly, special relativity is itself an approximation when you bring gravity into consideration. There you have to use general relativity. Then the time and distance transformations are more complicated. It's not obvious to me that for a real body with mass and physical dimension (not a point) that you couldn't reach light speed.<br /><br /><br /> -- Bob <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[mcbethcg]

Time dialation is the reason.<br /><br />Time would stop for the body if it ever reached light speed.<br /><br />The body would experiance less and less time as it became closer and closer to light speed.<br /><br />The gravity would have no time to act on the falling body.