Why not faster than light?

spacechump · Oct 17, 2004

AbsoluteZero, Read my response a bit up from yours to answer your question. It's not really an increase in mass but in energy of the overall system. But mass is related to energy so sometimes others mention energy as mass.

fangsheath · Oct 17, 2004

Well, Einstein avoided saying mass increases. He generally described it as your kinetic energy increasing. Your energy increases, beyond what would be expected from Newtonian mechanics (energy = mass * 0.5 * the square of velocity). And if you hit something, your energy is greater than the above equation indicates, the discrepancy getting much larger as you approach light speed. But it is important to keep in mind that this effect is only RELATIVE. If you are on a ship and the ship accelerates, you do NOT see any mass or energy discrepancy on the ship. Everything seems perfectly "normal." Let's say you leave the Alpha Centauri system headed for earth, 4.3 light-years away. If you apply enough thrust to accelerate at 3g, the ship does so, smoothly and steadily, seemingly passing light speed without so much as a bump, and continues to accelerate smoothly as long as you apply the same thrust. After about 8 months you will apparently be traveling at 2c, your ship's mass has not changed, your mass has not changed. As you approach earth, you begin to decelerate at 3 g and finally land, about 3 years after you left. You find that an astronomer with a powerful telescope has been watching your journey. He reports to you that about 5 years ago, he saw you leave the Alpha Centauri system, ultimately reaching a cruising speed of about 0.87c before decelerating. Now the discrepancy in mass comes from the fact that he never saw you exceed c, yet the amount of energy you had to expend was such that one would think you had reached 2c (which you did from your point of view). And if you had hit anything while you were cruising at maximum speed, the results would have absolutely suggested that you had been going 2c. So you tell me, did your mass increase? Why does it happen? Why does gravity happen? What causes electric charge? I do not know. I do know that the kinds of effects I have described are not theory. They are observed, routine, hi

zenith · Oct 18, 2004

another one that needs clearing up... if photons are massless, why then does it take the millions of years that it does for it to reach the surface of the star? if a photon is massless, then it shouldnt be affected by gravity yes?

bobvanx · Oct 18, 2004

<blockquote>In reply to:<hr />Look, warp drive is sci fi. <hr /></blockquote> Oh, you old stick-in-the-mud. Whoooosh!

kmarinas86 · Oct 18, 2004

from someone named "Steve"

fangsheath · Oct 18, 2004

Light can be a tricky thing to conceptualize, and we should be careful about applying conventional ideas to it. It turns out that a photon does have mass, in a sense. Physicists like to say that it has no rest mass. But it does have momentum, therefore, in a sense, mass, and it does respond to gravitational fields. However, photons do not behave the way particles with rest mass do. For example, a photon does not speed up as it approaches the earth, the way a spaceship would if no thrust were being applied. In the vacuum of space, photons travel at the-speed-of-light-in-a-vacuum. Period. A photon will change its path, though, in response to gravity. It will also change its frequency. But it does not change its speed, as any object with rest mass does. It's kinda hard to wrap your brain around, I know.

bobvanx · Oct 20, 2004

I've liked the notion of photons having momentum but zero rest mass ever since I heard that. It made a sort of symmetry: physical objects get infinitely massive as they approach c while a photon, with zero rest mass, has momentum because it's traveling at lightspeed. But there is something about all this that points out where our blind spot is, where our equations break down, and that is that we don't really know where momentum comes from. We don't have a good understanding of why things have mass, and why they have inertia.

rogers_buck · Oct 20, 2004

>> But there is something about all this that points out where our blind spot is, where our equations break down, and that is that we don't really know where momentum comes from. We don't have a good understanding of why things have mass, and why they have inertia. The Higgs field is the current top contender for answering this question. If you read the "why does gravity attract" thread it gets discussed there. I can't help but thinking that virtual particles might be an alternate explanation. When you change an inertial frame you are in effect time traveling in imaginary time. Of course you drag real time along with you by distorting space-time so your universe doesn't get overly strange - apart from the time dialation effect. It stands to reason that there would be a pressure differentia from virual particlesl that would resist such changes by applying a relativistic gravitational pressure force. The polarity of that force would depend on if youo were trying to accelerate or slow down. This would also be the answer to what pushes two masses together. If the Higgs boson is responsible, then any technology to alter their effects will have to wait until unification and a better understanding of the universe. Our technology at present only encompasses the first two forces to be unified, E&M. If my speculation has any merit, then virtual photons can be effected by present day appliances. It might be possible to interfere these particles into leaving you alone. The labratory demonstrations of the vacuum energy is an example of such a technology. A more robust technology might produce the intertial dampers of science fiction.

jatslo · Feb 27, 2005

Warp drive works by compressing space time ahead of the nacelles and expanding it behind. The ship travels within the bubbles, at less than c. So in the warp bubble closest to the skin of the ship, the true speed is far less than c. The next larger bubble holds that bubble going less than c, and with some additional true speed as well. And so on. Compounding all the motion yields an apparent speed greater than the speed of light. It does not compress space-time, because space-time is not alterable. I think you are trying to generate a field that deflects particles, so that the structure of the craft does not. This is called a force field. For example, if you were traveling through Earth’s atmosphere, the friction of all the particles hitting you, would compress you; crush you. What you are suggesting is a field that takes the brunt of the force so that you will not suffer the affects of the increased pressures. There are a number of ways to do this, but warping space-time it not one of them. An anti-gravity field is one way that you could theoretically accomplish this task. Do not listen to these people one are bashing your realities, because if it were not for outlandish, crazy, and foolishness, we would not have achieved all that we have achieved to date, and these people are simply roadblocks and obstacles that you must overcome. Skeptics are counter-productive to the forward progress of humankind when they can neither prove nor disprove anything. They are a thorn in the side of humanity, in which they are governed by STRIFE, so do not be deterred from your reality. It may very well lead to a different solution, once you fully understand what it is that you are trying to contemplate. Not a source, just signing my name ;o) --- http://jatslo.com/ : Jatslo

jatslo · Feb 27, 2005

" The light barrier, on the other hand, can't even theoretically be breached. This is no a practical limit, but a theoretical one. " For starters, you are misrepresenting the light barrier, by suggesting that the max speed of light is 185,000 miles per second, or what ever. You all cannot even agree on the exact speed of light; therefore, your statements are false. Why don’t you just call it what it is, and stop referring to it as the speed of light? How about the 185,000 miles per second barrier, but how can mankind achieve these speeds? Well, it really depends on where you are, and what is with you at a particular point in space-time. Now of we are talking of empty space, then there really is not anything around that is going to apply pressure, but if there is atmosphere then you have some structural problems to deal with. In short, you basically need to cut through this stuff to reach these speeds, but how do you. Make some super matter that withstands the force, or generate a force that briers the brunt so that you do not have to. It is not theoretically possible is a misrepresentation of the facts, and you dam# well know it. Not a source, just signing my name ;o) --- http://jatslo.com/ : Jatslo

Saiph · Feb 27, 2005

1) I can give you a speed for light, in a vacuum, down to at least 9 decimal places. It is one of the best (if not the best) measured quantities in science. C= 299,792,458 m/s It equals, according to maxwells equations of electromagnetism (some of the most concise, accurate, and general equations out there btw) to be: C= 1/(permitivity*permeability of free space) Those two words, are empirically, and accurately measured quantities that arise in determing the strength of electrical and magnetic field. They are "fundamental universal constants" 2) Have you even read anything about relativity? You're arbitrarily throwing objections up and stating unsupported claims. Just cause I have a ton of this "super matter" does not isolate me from the affects of acceleration. To do that I would have to find a way to completely negate the law of inertia. 3) THERE IS NO COMPLETELY EMPTY SPACE!!!!!!!!!!! How many times do I have to point that out. It is no longer even theoretically possible due to the ramifications of another of sciences most successful theories, and empirical observation! <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>

jatslo · Feb 27, 2005

1) I can give you a speed for light, in a vacuum, down to at least 9 decimal places. It is one of the best (if not the best) measured quantities in science. C= 299,792,458 m/s Wow, that is the biggest number that I have seen so far, thank you. It equals, according to maxwells equations of electromagnetism (some of the most concise, accurate, and general equations out there btw) to be: C= 1/(permitivity*permeability of free space) No, C = -Infinity + Infinity Those two words, are empirically, and accurately measured quantities that arise in determining the strength of electrical and magnetic field. They are "fundamental universal constants" Not without infinity, they are not! 2) Have you even read anything about relativity? You're arbitrarily throwing objections up and stating unsupported claims. There is plenty support for my claims, but I really do not have time to query. Just cause I have a ton of this "super matter" does not isolate me from the affects of acceleration. To do that I would have to find a way to completely negate the law of inertia. It does, if your craft is made of 50.999... % of dark matter, but that is not the point. Thank you for making it possible to "negate the law of inertia". 3) THERE IS NO COMPLETELY EMPTY SPACE!!!!!!!!!!! How many times do I have to point that out. It is no longer even theoretically possible due to the ramifications of another of sciences most successful theories, and empirical observation! Implying that we cannot remove vacuum from space, does not give you the license to treat space-time as if it has substance, when in fact it DOES NOT! Maybe we should cut down on the exclamation points; it sounds as if we are yelling at one another. Were are two adults, having an discussion, right? Not a source, just signing my name ;o) --- http:

Saiph · Feb 27, 2005

bah! I call BS! Your infinity statements are garbage, plain and simple. They have no more meaning than saying: 4 - 4 = 0 You're just using bigger numbers. Did you know that, under most cases, infinity - infinity does not = 0? It often = infinity again. How aren't they fundamental constants? They appear everywhere in electromagnetism, must be measured experimentall (can't calculate them from first principles) and can't be broken down into components. You don't have time to put up support for your claims? Then stop advertising them! When you do have time, post them then. Until then, stop making inane statements that have no applicability to the subject at hand. <blockquote>In reply to:<hr />It does, if your craft is made of 50.999... % of dark matter, but that is not the point. Thank you for making it possible to "negate the law of inertia". <hr /></blockquote> That, is a load of hogwash. Why? Cause nobody know's what the majority of darkmatter is. Let alone able to imply such an exotic (and unheard of) property to it. Spacetime can be treated as a "fabric" or rather a distortion of a geometrical system (like taking a cartesion grid, and sheering it so the axis aren't perpendicular anymore), which can be altered by applying relative velocities and acceleration. Whenter it really is like that or not, is irrelevant, because the tool works. <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>

yevaud · Feb 27, 2005

<img src="/images/icons/rolleyes.gif" /> "The eyes are open, but the sense is shut." William Shakepeare. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> Differential Diagnosis: "I am both amused and annoyed that you think I should be less stubborn than you are." </div>

jatslo · Feb 28, 2005

Your infinity statements are garbage, plain and simple. They have no more meaning than saying: 4 - 4 = 0 You're just using bigger numbers. Did you know that, under most cases, infinity - infinity does not = 0? It often = infinity again. -infinity + Infinity = 0; Plain and simple, and if it equals anything else, your a telling a fabrication; fib... If you change the value, your equation is doomed. All you are doing is plugging a really big freaking hole in your theory. -4 + 4 = 0; -infinity + infinity = 0; that would be like me suggesting that -4 + 4 = 0, or infinity How aren't they fundamental constants? They appear everywhere in electromagnetism, must be measured experimental (can't calculate them from first principles) and can't be broken down into components. They show up as anomalies, so you change the equation to cancel it out. This is a misrepresentation of the facts. You don't have time to put up support for your claims? Then stop advertising them! When you do have time, post them then. Until then, stop making inane statements that have no applicability to the subject at hand. I do not need to bring in the big guns, because you are already doing a superb job shooting your own foot ;o) That, is a load of hogwash. Why? Cause nobody knows what the majority of dark matter is. Let alone able to imply such an exotic (and unheard of) property to it. Dark matter is the opposite of light matter, it is randomly scattered throughout the universe, and because they are opposites, they attract each other and clump up. When there is enough matter, a star is born. The reason you cannot see dark matter is because the dark energy inside it absorbs your precious light particles. Dark matter is lighter than the traditional matter that we know of. Dark matter is made from frozen gases under pressure, like hydrogen. Not heated like you suggested, but

kmarinas86 · Feb 28, 2005

-infinity + Infinity = 0 of course, but what this is what it really is: lim -a + a = 0 a - /> +inf This has nothing to do with physical laws. Dark matter is the opposite of light matter No it isn't. Just because one is light and one is dark does not mean they are diametrically opposite. They have different properties, but do not assume that they are absolute opposites - they aren't.

najab · Feb 28, 2005

<blockquote>In reply to:<hr />-infinity + Infinity = 0; Plain and simple, and if it equals anything else, your a telling a fabrication; fib... If you change the value, your equation is doomed. All you are doing is plugging a really big freaking hole in your theory.<hr /></blockquote>Actually, -Infinity + Infinity is equal to Infinity, not zero. As anyone who has done junior-college Maths would know, any arithmetic expression which uses Infinity as one of it's terms is equal to Infinity.Infinity is NOT a number!!!

kmarinas86 · Feb 28, 2005

Infinity whether added or subtracted is an infinite series... Infinity - Infinity it's simply a bunch of (1-1)'s times something that is not finite. It is really possible to add something that is not a number? 1 - 1 = a*0 a is actually undefined <s>1/0 - 1/0 = a</s> This has nothing to do with Gravity, Electromagnetism, nor Strong or Weak forces. It's always possible to define a number - all numbers ARE defined. Infinity is not a number, but infinite series of numbers exist (i.e. pi).

jatslo · Feb 28, 2005

I just finished my mathematics classes, and infinity is a real number. Try looking up "Real Number" And 1 = Whole Number; -1 is an Integer Not a source, just signing my name ;o) --- http://jatslo.com/ : Jatslo

jatslo · Feb 28, 2005

Infinity is a REAL NUMBER, just like 3.14... is a REAL NUMBER... ... -1, -1, -1, 0, 1, 1, 1 ... ... -1, -1, -1 + 1, 1, 1 ... = 0 Whole, and Integer numbers! Integer numbers + Whole Numbers = ZERO If it equals anything else you are stretching the truth of your reality, real, real, real... Not a source, just signing my name ;o) --- http://jatslo.com/ : Jatslo

najab · Feb 28, 2005

>I just finished my mathematics classes, and infinity is a real number.Infinity is NOT a number. It has no definable value.

najab · Feb 28, 2005

>Infinity is a REAL NUMBER, just like 3.14... is a REAL NUMBER...3.141 is a real number. Pi is an irrational number, of which 3.141... (to any number of decimal places) is only an approximation.The (qualitative, not quantitative) difference between Pi and Infinity is that Pi can be defined - the ratio of a circle's diameter to radius - while no such definition is possible for Infinity.

jatslo · Feb 28, 2005

No it isn't. Just because one is light and one is dark does not mean they are diametrically opposite. They have different properties, but do not assume that they are absolute opposites - they aren't. Do the math, it is not an assumption, and forget about utilizing E = MC ². This tool is flawed because infinite energy, infinite mass, the speed of light do not mesh. E = MC ² places limitations on realities when in fact there are no limitations. I suggest you stick with Newton on this one, and then use Einstein to confirm your suspicions. Not a source, just signing my name ;o) --- http://jatslo.com/ : Jatslo

jatslo · Feb 28, 2005

3.141 is a real number. Pi is an irrational number, of which 3.141... (to any number of decimal places) is only an approximation. I wonder if the definition of infinity is the root cause of our disagreement? That is interesting, and I did not know that individuals actually believe this facsimile. Thank You. … -3.14 + 3.14 … = 0: There now it is REAL NUMBER by your definition! Infinity is a REAL NUMBER, and whoever told you otherwise should have their teaching methods examined. All you are doing is plugging really big freaking holes in your theories, because you do not fully understand the mechanics that are involved in one point in space-time. Get REAL!!! Then look up REALITY ;o) Not a source, just signing my name ;o) --- http://jatslo.com/ : Jatslo

kmarinas86 · Feb 28, 2005

I thought you could divide by zero - but then I learned calculus. Ok so if 0 = a * 0 then 0/0 = a = undefined a is undefined - it can be anything! See, Indeterminate Quotient Forms http://www.sosmath.com/calculus/indforms/otherquotient/otherquotient.html

Why not faster than light?

spacechump

Guest

fangsheath

Guest

zenith

Guest

bobvanx

Guest

kmarinas86

Guest

fangsheath

Guest

bobvanx

Guest

rogers_buck

Guest

jatslo

Guest

jatslo

Guest

Saiph

Guest

jatslo

Guest

Saiph

Guest

yevaud

Guest

jatslo

Guest

kmarinas86

Guest

najab

Guest

kmarinas86

Guest

jatslo

Guest

jatslo

Guest

najab

Guest

najab

Guest

jatslo

Guest

jatslo

Guest

kmarinas86

Guest

Similar threads

TRENDING THREADS

Latest posts

Share this page