We take a look at what would happen to the human body if it could travel at the speed of light.
What would happen if you moved at the speed of light? : Read more
What would happen if you moved at the speed of light? : Read more
What would happen if you moved at the speed of light?
- Thread starter Admin
- Start date
Even if you had the where with all and 1 year to achieve c, I don't think one could survive it without very heavy and firm shielding. Even though there are only a few particles in a cubic of space, at that speed those particles become a flux. It would shred your body structure.....and craft structure.
Imagine the flux if going 100 or 1000 c. These would be c collisions. Producing a huge flux of disintegrating, ionizing charge fragments.
Like standing in front of a CERN stream.
Imagine the flux if going 100 or 1000 c. These would be c collisions. Producing a huge flux of disintegrating, ionizing charge fragments.
Like standing in front of a CERN stream.
What is explained is closed systematic! Open systemic, you at '0'kps never approach the speed of light 'c' ((+)300,000kps |0| (-)300,000kps) closer than (+/-)300,000kps. It is a "go with" constant.
Also, according to the Heisenberg uncertainty principle if you know your velocity in the universe (in this case to exactitude) you can never know your position (in this case you'd be all over the map (in the dead center of Stephen Hawking's "Grand Central Station" of the universe, aka where Einstein landed in his mind's eye trip to the speed of light))!
Also, according to the Heisenberg uncertainty principle if you know your velocity in the universe (in this case to exactitude) you can never know your position (in this case you'd be all over the map (in the dead center of Stephen Hawking's "Grand Central Station" of the universe, aka where Einstein landed in his mind's eye trip to the speed of light))!
Last edited:
This is a question where we get a reverse Dunning Kruger effect - it is beyond the region of physics that science really knows or understands and everything said ends up being essentially speculation.
What everyone does know is that mass dilation increases the effective mass of objects near the speed of light until at light an object's mass becomes infinite. (making that impossible) Similarly time dilation may slow the speed of time at the speed of light to zero. From the objects perspective as it accelerates it becomes infinitely fast.
A fairly obvious point is that the speed of light is an intersection point between the STL and FTL realms of speed. Another obvious point is that light itself does have mass though zero rest mass.
If the mass of a massed object could somehow be balanced to zero then it could move at the speed of light. In fact it would immediately accelerate to the speed of light - for 'free'. There are two basic hypothetical approaches to balancing mass to zero - either adding something with negative mass or creating some kind of 'shield' that hides the mass. Curiously if we could create one a real Schrodinger box would be a possible way of achieving the second.
So maybe not completely absolutely impossible after all.
What everyone does know is that mass dilation increases the effective mass of objects near the speed of light until at light an object's mass becomes infinite. (making that impossible) Similarly time dilation may slow the speed of time at the speed of light to zero. From the objects perspective as it accelerates it becomes infinitely fast.
A fairly obvious point is that the speed of light is an intersection point between the STL and FTL realms of speed. Another obvious point is that light itself does have mass though zero rest mass.
If the mass of a massed object could somehow be balanced to zero then it could move at the speed of light. In fact it would immediately accelerate to the speed of light - for 'free'. There are two basic hypothetical approaches to balancing mass to zero - either adding something with negative mass or creating some kind of 'shield' that hides the mass. Curiously if we could create one a real Schrodinger box would be a possible way of achieving the second.
So maybe not completely absolutely impossible after all.
Last edited:
Some (not me except in picturing) have already been there, done that, in the math. The total mass matter and energy of the universe equals zero. Truly bothered those who came up with reduction to zero (0-point) until Stephen Hawking told them not to let it bother them. He told them the universe is always there (at the 0-point of infinity (the zeroing point of the infinities -- the infinities remaining though not locally, relatively, finitely)).
Last edited:
Worked that out myself once. Realized that with neg mass we could have a universe with a zero net mass. Never had or found a way to prove it or test it though.
Dark matter could be neg mass maybe - would be fascinating..
At the speed of light one's mass becomes infinite,
but is that mass symmetric or only in the direction of travel?
Otherwise one would turn into an actual black hole at the speed of light.
All light would be photon sized black holes.
but is that mass symmetric or only in the direction of travel?
Otherwise one would turn into an actual black hole at the speed of light.
All light would be photon sized black holes.
You can't because as both Albert Einstein and Stephen Hawking should have, and did indirectly stating, realize light's coordinate point past-future histories SPACETIME is in fact place positional (place super-positional (c=1 | t=0)) rather than any particular velocity as we understand velocities. Place positional where? Everywhere and nowhere in particular . . . the ultimate in connected quantum entanglement . . . and remembering that we are always in motion, our atomic and subatomic makeup is always in motion, the Earth, the Solar System, the Milky Way.... all of it is always in emergent motion (with Einstein's and Hawking's, and my, SPACETIME sole exception to the rule (sole exception to the law)).What would happen if you moved at the speed of light? Well, you can't.
Well! There is still the 'Trojan' . . . universally spontaneous entangling concurrent (t=0) REALTIME NOW (t=0) instant.
Last edited:
If you were accelerated to c, your molecular and atomic cohesion would break down, and the particles that made you would start an eternal divergence.
The very smallest being diverged into the very largest.
The very smallest being diverged into the very largest.
You don't accelerate to 'c'. Increase in acceleration, calculated in increases in gravities rather than . . . lights don't take you to the speed of light. Objects have been observed in the universe to be traveling near the speed of light, relatively speaking, which means they were probably invisibly un-observably traveling beyond the speed of light relative to observers and observations here on Earth, but in the observations, there was no observation of implosive crushing into a state of black hole.
Read your own add-on, CM (which is a good one): "Light is only half of what you think it is." Until an object smacks you in the face, the light in light-time is always behind the times and, thus, slower than the objects. ("*Warning* Objects seen in this rearview mirror are closer than they look!")
Never forget that relativity predicts its own breakdown, its own downfall. It is likely that an object observed closing in on the speed of light and closing in on smacking the Earth, is already distantly passed in a space and time of doing either. The Heisenberg 'Uncertainty Principle' doesn't just apply to the microcosm of quantum mechanics.
At a constant acceleration of just one gravity (ugh!), you measure the speed of light aboard your ship to be c = 300,000kps . . . forever. Massively increasing the gravities won't do anything about the constant of the speed of light, but it will do something about bending you and every particle of your ship out of shape.
Read your own add-on, CM (which is a good one): "Light is only half of what you think it is." Until an object smacks you in the face, the light in light-time is always behind the times and, thus, slower than the objects. ("*Warning* Objects seen in this rearview mirror are closer than they look!")
Never forget that relativity predicts its own breakdown, its own downfall. It is likely that an object observed closing in on the speed of light and closing in on smacking the Earth, is already distantly passed in a space and time of doing either. The Heisenberg 'Uncertainty Principle' doesn't just apply to the microcosm of quantum mechanics.
At a constant acceleration of just one gravity (ugh!), you measure the speed of light aboard your ship to be c = 300,000kps . . . forever. Massively increasing the gravities won't do anything about the constant of the speed of light, but it will do something about bending you and every particle of your ship out of shape.
Last edited:
Well, there have long been particle beams accelerated to the speed of light. And cosmic rays and managed in the accelerators we built. Obviously these elementary particles have not become infinitely heavy, we have many measurements. Why continue with the insane theories of infinite mass at "C"?
Particle mass has inertia. Inertia is a property of mass that opposites acceleration. That opposition is manufactured with rotation. The opposition is always equal to the acceleration.
The opposition inertia is an acceleration also, and it is orientated 90 degrees, or incident, or perpendicular to the stimulus acceleration.
When a particle is first accelerated, the first thing it does is line up incident to the acceleration. Only now, will the charge move in the direction of the external acceleration.
½ of the acceleration is converted into forward motion. The other ½ accelerates the inertial rotation.
This inertial acceleration has two effects. This is the rotation of the particle, not velocity of the particle. The first effect is the contraction of the particle. This decreases the acceleration area on the particle. Which means now it takes more acceleration to accelerate it. It’s interaction area shrunk. And with this contraction of area, the rotational spin will increase, the spin rate will increase. This decrease in size, increases the density of the rotating fields. This is expressed as mass. It will now take more acceleration for the same increase in velocity.
As the acceleration is increased, the particle goes thru stage after stage of contraction. And reduced target size and increasing mass. This is why it keeps taking more and more acceleration.
These stages of absorption have a limit. This is because the inertial rotation can only work at certain spin rates. There will be a point, where the spin rate can not increase. At this time, all of the acceleration will go into trying to squeeze the particle, instead of pushing it. And all the energy that it tries to absorb, will be re-emitted. It will be ejected. There is a limit to contraction of mass.
However. I think we can accelerate mass, without a mass gain. With intermittent acceleration. Especially the electron. Electrons by nature are anti inertial particles. But that another story.
But even being able to accelerate without mass gain……...faster than c will not occur.
We have nothing faster to accelerate with.
The opposition inertia is an acceleration also, and it is orientated 90 degrees, or incident, or perpendicular to the stimulus acceleration.
When a particle is first accelerated, the first thing it does is line up incident to the acceleration. Only now, will the charge move in the direction of the external acceleration.
½ of the acceleration is converted into forward motion. The other ½ accelerates the inertial rotation.
This inertial acceleration has two effects. This is the rotation of the particle, not velocity of the particle. The first effect is the contraction of the particle. This decreases the acceleration area on the particle. Which means now it takes more acceleration to accelerate it. It’s interaction area shrunk. And with this contraction of area, the rotational spin will increase, the spin rate will increase. This decrease in size, increases the density of the rotating fields. This is expressed as mass. It will now take more acceleration for the same increase in velocity.
As the acceleration is increased, the particle goes thru stage after stage of contraction. And reduced target size and increasing mass. This is why it keeps taking more and more acceleration.
These stages of absorption have a limit. This is because the inertial rotation can only work at certain spin rates. There will be a point, where the spin rate can not increase. At this time, all of the acceleration will go into trying to squeeze the particle, instead of pushing it. And all the energy that it tries to absorb, will be re-emitted. It will be ejected. There is a limit to contraction of mass.
However. I think we can accelerate mass, without a mass gain. With intermittent acceleration. Especially the electron. Electrons by nature are anti inertial particles. But that another story.
But even being able to accelerate without mass gain……...faster than c will not occur.
We have nothing faster to accelerate with.
Similar threads
TRENDING THREADS
-
Basic Error: The accelerating Universe conclusion - reason- Started by Gibsense
- Replies: 171
-
-
Astronomers urge FCC to halt satellite megaconstellation launches
- Started by Admin
- Replies: 13
-
Asteroid-mining company AstroForge gets 1st-ever FCC license for commercial deep-space mission
- Started by Admin
- Replies: 0
-
-
Vega continues to be unusual:' Lack of planets around young star puzzles astronomers
- Started by Admin
- Replies: 0
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram