speed of light ?

nec208 · Mar 23, 2008

I know people who look into Physics say nothing faster than the speed of light .But what is to say in 20 years from now , they may find some thing faster than the speed of light?They also say any craft that goes the speed of light will slow down and will need more energy than all the energy in the universe!!If this is all true ,than inter-star travel is not possible.What about a high-per window/Hyper Dimensia ?And what about lower than the speed of light but almost the speed of light? Could solar sails or plasma do it? And what about fission or fusion.Also time slows now when you going the speed of light than the people on the ground.So the people will get older on the ground but you will not.And you may find 20 years past on the ground but only 1 year for you.This is other problem that must be fix to we see inter-star travel .     <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

Philotas · Mar 23, 2008

Replying to: <DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>I know people who look into Physics say nothing faster than the speed of light .But what is to say in 20 years from now , they may find some thing faster than the speed of light?They also say any craft that goes the speed of light will slow down and will need more energy than all the energy in the universe!!If this is all true ,than inter-star travel is not possible.What about a high-per window/Hyper Dimensia ?And what about lower than the speed of light but almost the speed of light? Could solar sails or plasma do it? And what about fission or fusion.Also time slows now when you going the speed of light than the people on the ground.So the people will get older on the ground but you will not.And you may find 20 years past on the ground but only 1 year for you.This is other problem that must be fix to we see inter-star travel .     Posted by nec208</DIV> If I'm not all mistaken, travelling faster than the speed light is impossible in much the same way that it is impossible to divide on zero. When you divide a number on a decimal, you get a greater value. I.e.:1/0.1 = 101/0.01 = 1001/0.001 = 1000and so on.  1/0 should be ∞The energy required to accelerate as you approach c approaches ∞ in much of the same way. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

blass · Mar 23, 2008

Replying to: <DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>I know people who look into Physics say nothing faster than the speed of light .But what is to say in 20 years from now , they may find some thing faster than the speed of light?They also say any craft that goes the speed of light will slow down and will need more energy than all the energy in the universe!!If this is all true ,than inter-star travel is not possible.What about a high-per window/Hyper Dimensia ?And what about lower than the speed of light but almost the speed of light? Could solar sails or plasma do it? And what about fission or fusion.Also time slows now when you going the speed of light than the people on the ground.So the people will get older on the ground but you will not.And you may find 20 years past on the ground but only 1 year for you.This is other problem that must be fix to we see inter-star travel .     Posted by nec208</DIV> First of all, I want to commend you nec208 on starting good thread topics. Inqusitive minds go far and constantly asking questions will give you great tools in life. Information is the holy grail to success in life<img src="http://sitelife.space.com/ver1.0/content/scripts/tinymce/plugins/emotions/images/smiley-wink.gif" border="0" alt="Wink" title="Wink" />For the question: It's been a number of years since I've taken Physics in college, so I'm quite rusty in this topic, but here goes:Travelling faster than the speed of light appears to be a logical impossibility without losing information. Alternatives could be a form of space-time warping. Since energy is equal to mass, and mass influences gravity, you might be able to put so much energy into a device so that you can warp the space around you any way you want.Imagine a blanket on the floor. To get from one end of the blanket to the other, you can go over the blanket. An alternative is that you could push the blanket "warping" it. Imagine from one end pushing the blanket from the side and creating folds. Each "fold" that you create is less space you have to actually travel over. So you can keep pushing it and folding it until you reach the other side of the blanket. This same concept might be possible to apply to space travel. It *might* be possible to just warp the space around a space-craft and essentially plow your way to your destination. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> Some men change their party for the sake of their principles; others their principles for the sake of their party. ~Winston Churchill </div>

baulten · Mar 23, 2008

To start off, physicists have theorized the existance of so-called "tachyons" that always travel faster than the speed of light.  However, it would require infinite energy to slow them down below the speed of light.  Also, they would be unable to carry any information (I cannot explain this adequately, so if someone else wants to, feel free).Next: Interstellar travel at sublight speeds would be possible.  However, in order to achieve it in a way that would leave the crew feeling it was a short journey (a few years) over a huge distance, you'd need to achieve relativistic speeds (>50% of c for any noticable time dilation, >85% of c for high time dilation effects).   The planet you left from, however, would have aged years or more, depending on the distance.Theoretically, a solar sail would be able to achieve near c speeds.  However, this would require a constant input of high energy laser light beams to gain such velocities.  Using simply sunlight would only result in speeds a fair deal faster than current chemical rockets, but still slower than reasonable for interstellar travel.  I believe that the Planetary Society expected their Cosmos 1 solar sail to pass the orbit of Pluto in roughly five years, however its launch failed.Fusion/Fission would never achieve relativistic speeds.  Only antimatter propulsion seems able to achieve "fast" interstellar travel speeds.  I believe beamed core and antimatter pulse propulsion systems have been theorized to reach ~85% of c.The reason it requires more and more energy to accelerate at higher and higher speeds is because the faster you go, the more massive your ship becomes.  At the speed of light it would have infinite mass, therefore require infinite energy to accelerate.  Photons don't experience this because they are massless.Several scientists have investigated "warp drive" type machines.  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alcubierre_drive and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Krasnikov_Tube are two proposed methods.

derekmcd · Mar 23, 2008

Replying to: <DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>I know people who look into Physics say nothing faster than the speed of light .But what is to say in 20 years from now , they may find some thing faster than the speed of light?They also say any craft that goes the speed of light will slow down and will need more energy than all the energy in the universe!!  Posted by nec208</DIV> The proper statement is that nothing can be accelerated to the speed of light.  An object in motion has kenetic energy.  There is an energy to mass equivalence as per E=MC^2.  The closer to the speed of light and object gets, the more energy/mass it gains.  The more mass/energy it gains, the more energy is required to accelerate that object to a higher speed.It is an endless cycle ultimately requiring an infinite amount of energy to achieve C. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <div> </div> <div>"If something's hard to do, then it's not worth doing." - Homer Simpson</div> </div>

nec208 · Mar 23, 2008

Imagine a blanket on the floor. To get from one end of the blanket to the other, you can go over the blanket. An alternative is that you could push the blanket "warping" it. Imagine from one end pushing the blanket from the side and creating folds. Each "fold" that you create is less space you have to actually travel over. So you can keep pushing it and folding it until you reach the other side of the blanket. Posted by blass-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------But if they found a way to do that would that not kill or destroy the universe?Some say a wormhole but they sound dangerous too.  Any object that goes over the speed of light you say would need more energy than all the energy in the universe, do to the mass?And because there is not enough energy than this is not posable.   <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

vogon13 · Mar 23, 2008

The Sixties nuclear impulse propulsion concept could, with some sturdy engineering, get you (and all the accoutrements of a nice sustainable colony) up to 8 to 10% C. It would be possible to colonize the galaxy in several million years with this technology. Considering that for the majority of the last 5 million years or so, people (and their hominid ancestors) have just been banging rocks together, this plan to settle the alaxy does not seem too unreasonable . .  .      <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> TPTB went to Dallas and all I got was Plucked !!So many people, so few recipes !!Let's clean up this stinkhole !! </div>

baulten · Mar 23, 2008

Replying to: <DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Imagine a blanket on the floor. To get from one end of the blanket to the other, you can go over the blanket. An alternative is that you could push the blanket "warping" it. Imagine from one end pushing the blanket from the side and creating folds. Each "fold" that you create is less space you have to actually travel over. So you can keep pushing it and folding it until you reach the other side of the blanket. Posted by blass-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------But if they found a way to do that would that not kill or destroy the universe?Some say a wormhole but they sound dangerous too.  Any object that goes over the speed of light you say would need more energy than all the energy in the universe, do to the mass?And because there is not enough energy than this is not posable.  Posted by nec208</DIV>This is due to relativistic mass.  As the spaceship's speed increases toward c, it becomes more massive.  At c, it would have infinite mass, requiring infinite energy.  So no, it's no possible unless there's something physicists have seriously overlooked.

Saiph · Mar 24, 2008

Well, someone might find a way to beat C in the future.  But it's unlikely to happen in a direct fashion.I.e. I doubt they'll be able to make something that can go 1.1 C between here and Alpha Centuari for instance. Here's why:  Einsteinian relativity and mechanics does a very, very, very good job of describing largescale motion and forces.  Any theory devised in the future will, in all likelyhood, have a lot of the same traits, as it has to explain the same phenomena, and produce similar descriptions. It's like how relativity produces Newtonian Mechanics as long as you stay at low speeds and low gravitational forces.   Now, What will most likely happen (if it's possible) is someone will whip up a way to cheat the system, to go from point A to B in less time than light takes.  The most apparent methods involve taking a shortcut via wormholes or space-warping (i.e. you don't actually travel the entire distance!).  Another method people have thought of (but have no idea how to do) is to wrap a chunk of space-time about a ship, and send the ship/bubble at faster than C speeds, as the C barrier doesn't apply to space-time itself. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> --------------------SaiphMOD@gmail.com -------------------"This is my Timey Wimey Detector. Goes "bing" when there's stuff. It also fries eggs at 30 paces, wether you want it to or not actually. I've learned to stay away from hens: It's not pretty when they blow" -- The Tenth Doctor, "Blink" </div>

nec208 · Mar 24, 2008

This is due to relativistic mass.  As the spaceship's speed increases toward c, it becomes more massive.  At c, it would have infinite mass, requiring infinite energy.  So no, it's no possible unless there's something physicists have seriously overlooked.----------------------------------------------------------------------------------I understand what you saying <img src="http://sitelife.space.com/ver1.0/content/scripts/tinymce/plugins/emotions/images/smiley-surprised.gif" border="0" alt="Surprised" title="Surprised" />you are just usings different words here.And space craft that tries to go faster of the speed of light will need more and more energy do to the mass.Its just like trying to walk up a mountain top, you just need more and more energy.So the problem is there is not enough energy in the universe. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

nec208 · Mar 24, 2008

Now, What will most likely happen (if it's possible) is someone will whip up a way to cheat the system, to go from point A to B in less time than light takes.  The most apparent methods involve taking a shortcut via wormholes or space-warping (i.e. you don't actually travel the entire distance!).  Another method people have thought of (but have no idea how to do) is to wrap a chunk of space-time about a ship, and send the ship/bubble at faster than C speeds, as the C barrier doesn't apply to space-time itself. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------Well bending space or folding space I would say would be bad it may destroy every thing.I know mass bends space but thats different.Any light going to the sun will be off do to the bending of space .Here is pic of the sun how it is bending space  .But if people try to do that it may be bad.http://www.geocities.com/Omegaman_UK/relativity/REL7.gif   <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

gbehrend · Mar 25, 2008

I think there is something science did overlook.  Why does light travel as fast as it does, and how?  I think the answer is what scientists are calling dark matter, what I have called gravitons.My theory is that light travels between gravitons, like a rubber ball through an oily steel tube you could say.  Gravitons are what we have yet to see.  This also explains why the sun is hotter in the outer reaches then it is at it's surface.  The suns mass has stretched the graviton field, the more the field stretches, the more declerated particles become., and it creates a form of a resistor.  Graviton fields are always what I would call "negative".  In a graviton field the only way to travel with mass is to interact with another massive body.  Graviton fields act like a giant ocean of goo, separating dimensional matter from one another.  But that's another story. They actually have the theory almost mapped in the latest tests.  Impressive. So what I was trying to say is that the smallest things in the universe are ridden by light waves.  If you can travel faster then that, you are pure energy.  The trick is not to be faster, but to punch holes in the graviton fields with a astronomical burst of pinpointed mass.  They still wonder why they end up with particles that have more mass then when they started doing the collision tests.  I think what they don't realize is they are bringing particles into our dimension, through tiny holes in the graviton field. So, maybe I am nuts.. who knows ;-)<img src="http://sitelife.space.com/ver1.0/content/scripts/tinymce/plugins/emotions/images/smiley-innocent.gif" border="0" alt="Innocent" title="Innocent" />

nec208 · Mar 25, 2008

dark matter is undetected mass in the universe and no they don't know what dark matter is.Mass causes gravity and more mass more gravity.Any big mass bends space like this. http://www.universetoday.com/am/uploads/2004-0423gravity-lg.jpgIf the space ship goes to the bend it will pull the space ship in and it will change the path of the light too.They don't know what causes the bend.But the more mass the bigger the bend in space.And mass has gravitons to it.Take the sun and the earth !! The sun has a strong graviton and will pull in the moon or the earth.The smaller the mass the less graviton.The light is mass and wave.    <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

Saiph · Mar 26, 2008

Actually science has spent a lot of time on why light goes at C.  As a matter of fact, this exact question is what led to the derivation of the speed of light itself, and the startling revelation that it appears to be a constant speed.   The basic answer, btw, is that the speed is dictated by the way electrical and magnetic fields interact. As for your idea of gravitons and solar atmospheric resistors, I'll point out a basic idea in thermodynamics:  Slower particles = cooler temperatures. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> --------------------SaiphMOD@gmail.com -------------------"This is my Timey Wimey Detector. Goes "bing" when there's stuff. It also fries eggs at 30 paces, wether you want it to or not actually. I've learned to stay away from hens: It's not pretty when they blow" -- The Tenth Doctor, "Blink" </div>

majornature · Mar 26, 2008

Replying to: <DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>I know people who look into Physics say nothing faster than the speed of light .But what is to say in 20 years from now , they may find some thing faster than the speed of light?They also say any craft that goes the speed of light will slow down and will need more energy than all the energy in the universe!!If this is all true ,than inter-star travel is not possible.What about a high-per window/Hyper Dimensia ?And what about lower than the speed of light but almost the speed of light? Could solar sails or plasma do it? And what about fission or fusion.Also time slows now when you going the speed of light than the people on the ground.So the people will get older on the ground but you will not.And you may find 20 years past on the ground but only 1 year for you.This is other problem that must be fix to we see inter-star travel .     Posted by nec208</DIV> You know, I was going to ask that question next.  Maybe in another dimension there may be possible our universal speed limit is no existent. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> We are born. We live. We experiment. We rot. We die. and the whole process starts all over again! Imagine That! <img id="6e5c6b4c-0657-47dd-9476-1fbb47938264" style="width:176px;height:247px" src="http://sitelife.space.com/ver1.0/Content/images/store/14/4/6e5c6b4c-0657-47dd-9476-1fbb47938264.Large.jpg" alt="blog post photo" width="276" height="440" /> </div>

Star_ski · Mar 26, 2008

Replying to: <DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>I know people who look into Physics say nothing faster than the speed of light .But what is to say in 20 years from now , they may find some thing faster than the speed of light?They also say any craft that goes the speed of light will slow down and will need more energy than all the energy in the universe!!If this is all true ,than inter-star travel is not possible.What about a high-per window/Hyper Dimensia ?And what about lower than the speed of light but almost the speed of light? Could solar sails or plasma do it? And what about fission or fusion.Also time slows now when you going the speed of light than the people on the ground.So the people will get older on the ground but you will not.And you may find 20 years past on the ground but only 1 year for you.This is other problem that must be fix to we see inter-star travel .     Posted by nec208</DIV>I found this site and the info it contained to be interesting: " String and M-Theory Basics, a More Complete Theory of Our Universe, and a Hypothesis for Practical "Faster Than Light" Travel".  Check it out here: http://www.slipstring.com/author.html

gbehrend · Mar 28, 2008

Replying to: <DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Actually science has spent a lot of time on why light goes at C.  As a matter of fact, this exact question is what led to the derivation of the speed of light itself, and the startling revelation that it appears to be a constant speed.   The basic answer, btw, is that the speed is dictated by the way electrical and magnetic fields interact. As for your idea of gravitons and solar atmospheric resistors, I'll point out a basic idea in thermodynamics:  Slower particles = cooler temperatures. Posted by Saiph</DIV>When the field is stressed it thins.  The thinner the field the higher the associated particle mass, based on opposing dimensional mass and gravity.  The higher the particle mass, the more resistance to the physical elements (hydrogen, carbon) because of the excited partcles, and the fact that you are thinning the "Pipe" in the path that the particles being emitted from the sun take on thier journey out.  If we could sample the outer surface of the sun and examine the particles, we would note that certain particles would dissapear, or "burn out" before they left the effects of this field.  Some of this matter (and anti-matter) is absorbed directly into the field and somtimes through it, into a place we may never see

By the way, the reason we cannot see any of this is the reason light travels the way it does and the reason it travels in waves.  It rides this field like ships in multi-dimensional ocean, having ALMOST no mass, I think it slides between large and small gravitons being forced away by the gravitons themselves, (pretty much how we accelerate particles now, only this repulsion seems to act instantly and with as much energy as the origional wave)  We cant see the gravitons, because they have what I call opposing mass, meaning the mass of the light is almost equal to the mass of the graviton field, and being they cannot occupy the same space, they elementally oppose each other.  The slightest change in mass and the graviton opposes it with equal opposite force.  Think about a baseball going through a pitching machine.  as the photon passes, it is squeezed into the gravitons, and ejected from the other side.  Now picture 1000 of these in a room, only instead of being able to feed the balls in from one direction, no matter where you feed them in, they will shoot out the opposite side at the same velocity they went in, and the ball would travel through these in a wave path as it is forced through the gravitons, it some instances moving them, in others being moved by them. But, I have studied none of this in the classroom, so I am sure it shows

This is a theory I have been working on since about 85.  But I never thought real deep about the details of light, just about how dimensions are seperated and how they exchange mass and energy.  Just like matter, dimensions must react with each other in order for either of them to exist. What is kind of cool, is when thories work, it works all over, until it doesn't work anymore

dragon04 · Apr 6, 2008

Replying to: <DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'> You know, I was going to ask that question next.  Maybe in another dimension there may be possible our universal speed limit is no existent. Posted by majornature</DIV>"Faster than the speed of light" is kind of a misnomer. In its frame of reference (and ours) it is indeed impossible to travel faster than the speed of light.I hope this doesn't sound too esoteric, but what we're really looking to do is travel other than the speed of light. That's the attractiveness of any dimension "outside" (or inside. or maybe other than) the 3 physical ones that we live in plus time; the rules and constraints of our 4 dimensional space-time don't have to apply.   <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> "2012.. Year of the Dragon!! Get on the Dragon Wagon!". </div>

schmack · Apr 9, 2008

Replying to: <DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>"Faster than the speed of light" is kind of a misnomer. In its frame of reference (and ours) it is indeed impossible to travel faster than the speed of light.I hope this doesn't sound too esoteric, but what we're really looking to do is travel other than the speed of light. That's the attractiveness of any dimension "outside" (or inside. or maybe other than) the 3 physical ones that we live in plus time; the rules and constraints of our 4 dimensional space-time don't have to apply.   Posted by dragon04</DIV> Hi guys, I STILL can't understand why something would "Gain mass" as it accelerates towards the speed of light. (not even going to mention the whole "time dilation" thing) where does the extra mass come from? my suspision is that it doesn't get any larger physically either, so where does the extra mass come from, and where does it go when the thing slows down again to less relativistic speeds? <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> Assumption is the mother of all stuff ups Gimme some Schmack Schmack! </div>

baulten · Apr 10, 2008

schmack: I may be wrong about this, but I believe the gain in mass is due to the increase in kinetic energy.  As we all know, Energy = mass via E=mc^2, so as something's kinetic energy increases, its mass increases.  This does not violate conservation of mass because to accelerate the object you transfer energy from the accelerator to the object, giving it more mass.Correct me if I'm wrong, but that's how I understand it ><

derekmcd · Apr 10, 2008

Replying to: <DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>schmack: I may be wrong about this, but I believe the gain in mass is due to the increase in kinetic energy.  As we all know, Energy = mass via E=mc^2, so as something's kinetic energy increases, its mass increases.  This does not violate conservation of mass because to accelerate the object you transfer energy from the accelerator to the object, giving it more mass.Correct me if I'm wrong, but that's how I understand it ><  Posted by baulten</DIV> This is correct, but only to an observer outside the frame of reference of said mass.  The actual rest mass of the object never changes in that rest mass is the minimum amount of energy that object can have.  Mass is really just how much resistance to acceleration an object has... the least amount of resistance is at rest.  Accelerate the object, its resistance is increased requiring more force to change its velocity.  Consider a bullet in a vaccuum passing by me at 1000 m/s, the amount of energy required of my finger to add 1 m/s is considerable.  Now, if I was in the same frame of reference as the bullet, I would consider it at rest traveling at 0 m/s... the amount of energy required of my finger to add the same 1 m/s is considerably less. The bullet travelling at 1000 m/s is considered to have more relativistic mass (i.e. more kenetic energy and momentum).  Its rest mass doesn't change... there is no physical matter added to that bullet to make it weight more.  Just more energy making it more resistant to changes velocity.  <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <div> </div> <div>"If something's hard to do, then it's not worth doing." - Homer Simpson</div> </div>

DrRocket · Apr 13, 2008

Replying to: <DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>schmack: I may be wrong about this, but I believe the gain in mass is due to the increase in kinetic energy.  As we all know, Energy = mass via E=mc^2, so as something's kinetic energy increases, its mass increases.  This does not violate conservation of mass because to accelerate the object you transfer energy from the accelerator to the object, giving it more mass.Correct me if I'm wrong, but that's how I understand it ><  Posted by baulten</DIV>What you have said is correct.  One must be a bit careful in interpreting this because the (correct) implication is that the measurement of mass varies with the reference system of the observer.  A stationary observer watching a massive object in motion will see the mass of that object increase.  However, an observer moving with the object will see the object as being stationary and not see a mass increase.  But the two observers also see differences in their measurements of time and distance.  They also perceive energy differently.  The one thing that they see as being the same is the velocity of light.This all follows from the special theory of relativity, which has nothing to do with photons bouncing off of gravitons or indeed with gravity or accelerating reference frames at all.  For a good treatment of the special theory of relativity -- which does not require much mathematics except for algebra -- see any book on modern physics.  The Feynman Lectures on Physics is particularly good.You will not see much mention made of gravitons.  Gravitons, assuming that they exist, would be part of a quantum theory of gravity.  Thus far we have been unable to formulate such a theory in a consistent manner.  This despite the efforts of many of the world's better minds.  I am confident that such a theory will eventually be formulated, but when is a matter of pure conjecture.  There have been predictions that such a theory is imminent for many years, yet none is on the horizon.  The attempt to reach that goal via string theory seems to have stalled in the face of daunting mathematics and lack of any physical predictions for the experimentalists.By the way, the special theory of relativity not only prohibits any massive object from traveling at or above the speed of light, it also prohibits the transmission of information at superluminal speed.FYI one of the keys to the development of the special theory of relativity is the derivation via Maxwell's equations of the speed of an electromagnetic wave.  One can go through the solution of those equations to derive the wave speed, which turns out to be be essentially the experimentally measured speed of light.  This was the clue that permitted the deduction that radio waves and light waves are the same thing.  It also caused some consternation with Newtonian mechanics because that derivation provides the speed of light with no reference to any specific coordinate system -- the surprising result being that the speed of light is independent of the inertial reference frame.  <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

nec208 · Apr 28, 2008

I STILL can't understand why something would "Gain mass" as it accelerates towards the speed of light. (not even going to mention the whole "time dilation" thing) where does the extra mass come from? my suspision is that it doesn't get any larger physically either, so where does the extra mass come from, and where does it go when the thing slows down again to less relativistic speeds?From what I was reading it is a energy problem .You need more energy  than what the universe has to go faster than the speed of light.By the time you at the speed of light you need more energy then what is in the universe . <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

DrRocket · Apr 28, 2008

Replying to: <DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>I STILL can't understand why something would "Gain mass" as it accelerates towards the speed of light. (not even going to mention the whole "time dilation" thing) where does the extra mass come from? my suspision is that it doesn't get any larger physically either, so where does the extra mass come from, and where does it go when the thing slows down again to less relativistic speeds?From what I was reading it is a energy problem .You need more energy  than what the universe has to go faster than the speed of light.By the time you at the speed of light you need more energy then what is in the universe . Posted by nec208</DIV>The reason that you cannot understand it is because it is outside of your normal experience, and is not at all intuitive.  It took real genius to recognize the principles involved and work out the consequences.  According to relativity, mass and energy are really two sides of the same thing.  An object in motion has kinetic energy and that kinetic energy is reflected as an increase in mass relative to the rest mass.  Note that since speed depends on the reference frame used to measure it, so does mass.  The ratio of mass to rest mass is called gamma and is 1/sqrt(1 - v^2/c^2). Here v is the speed of the body and c is the speed of light in a vacuum.  This factor is very non-linear in v and is only appreciable for values of v that are significant relative to c.  That is why you do not notice the effect in ordinary experience.The mass gain with energy applies to thermal energy as well, which is really just kinetic energy at a molecular level.  Again the effect is small, but if you warm something up, it gains weight.If you study the above formula a bit you see that as v approaches c, gamma starts to look like 1/(very small number) which is a very large number.  In fact it approaches infinity as v approaches c.  So as v approaches c the object has a mass, hence energy, approaching infinity.  You cannot actually reach infinity, so you cannot actually make an object with a non-zero rest mass travel at c.  Only particles with zero rest mass, like photons, can travel at c.  Very roughly what happens there is that in E=mc^2, the m is the rest mass times gamma.  For photons, m is zero and gamma is infinty, and zero times infinity is technically not defined, but there is a limiting process that one can go through and via that process the product can be anything.  Outside factors for photons give the energy as h times the frequency, where h is Planck's constant. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

derekmcd · Apr 28, 2008

Replying to: <DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>The reason that you cannot understand it is because it is outside of your normal experience, and is not at all intuitive.  It took real genius to recognize the principles involved and work out the consequences. Posted by DrRocket</DIV> Real genius?  I had to laugh at that one. <img src="http://sitelife.space.com/ver1.0/content/scripts/tinymce/plugins/emotions/images/smiley-laughing.gif" border="0" alt="Laughing" title="Laughing" />  I, certainly, lay no claims to be a genius, but you can be damned sure I can pick out the fake ones. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <div> </div> <div>"If something's hard to do, then it's not worth doing." - Homer Simpson</div> </div>

speed of light ?

nec208

Guest

Philotas

Guest

blass

Guest

baulten

Guest

derekmcd

Guest

nec208

Guest

vogon13

Guest

baulten

Guest

Saiph

Guest

nec208

Guest

nec208

Guest

gbehrend

Guest

nec208

Guest

Saiph

Guest

majornature

Guest

Star_ski

Guest

gbehrend

Guest

dragon04

Guest

schmack

Guest

baulten

Guest

derekmcd

Guest

DrRocket

Guest

nec208

Guest

DrRocket

Guest

derekmcd

Guest

Similar threads

TRENDING THREADS

Latest posts

Share this page