Why not faster than light?

Saiph · Feb 28, 2005

3^x goes to infinity, as does 5^x. However 5^x gets there faster, it grows faster. It's a "bigger infinity". Subtract from it the 3^x infinity, and you still get...infinity! Basically, there are different sizes of infinity, and only if you subtract two of the same size (i.e. a 3^x - 3^x) do you get zero. Okay, show me the evidence for this: <blockquote>In reply to:<hr />Dark matter is made from frozen gases under pressure, like hydrogen.<hr /></blockquote> I'm waiting. <blockquote>In reply to:<hr />Dark matter is the opposite of light matter<hr /></blockquote> Where did you get that idea? Is that supported by anything else? Or is that as random of a statement as me saying I have a leprechaun in my pocket?] Dark matter is matter that is not emitting observable amounts of light. PLanets, and most gas clouds, would be considered dark matter. The rest is "normal". The only mystery comes arises is because we can't think of enough structures and sources of matter that wouldn't put out much light to account for the gravitational effects we see. <blockquote>In reply to:<hr />Like I said before, you can draw your little box, if you want to, and use any geometry you can think of to shape it, all you have is an empty box. <hr /></blockquote> Well, if my geometry correctly describes what goes on in the box, I may have an empty box, but I know what's going on and can make predictions. <blockquote>In reply to:<hr />Put stuff in the box, then you will have a box full of little spherical things. I hope you have time to find a name for them all, because I sure as heck do not. <hr /></blockquote> Little spherical things? Really? If you put stuff in the box, then you've got a box full of stuff. <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 28, 2005

Solve for a, true; anything else is false. It is as simple as that. The problem with ... -3.14 + 3.14 ... = zero is that this is an assumtion that everything is round, but my computer is not round. ---Jatslo

astrophoto · Feb 28, 2005

Your statement of Dark Matter = opposite of Light Matter tuned me out forever, right there. What's your proof of that? It makes zero sense.

jatslo · Feb 28, 2005

3^x goes to infinity, as does 5^x. However 5^x gets there faster, it grows faster. It's a "bigger infinity". Subtract from it the 3^x infinity, and you still get...infinity! Basically, there are different sizes of infinity, and only if you subtract two of the same size (i.e. a 3^x - 3^x) do you get zero. Different Sizes? What a croc. You are changing realties to serve yourself. x, y, and z... Values? Maybe. I do not need to execute Jatslo to disprove you, because your writings are chalk full of holes. I have gone offensive and you are reeling back on your heels. You are a good writer though, and I am honored to read you. Little spherical things? Really? If you put stuff in the box, then you've got a box full of stuff. I guess, if your placing boxes inside boxes, and then you have a box of little spherical things and empty boxes. Go figure ;o) Not a source, just signing my name ;o) --- http://jatslo.com/ : Jatslo

jatslo · Feb 28, 2005

Just wait for the private sector to make an announcement. They are getting really close. If you think I am going to submit a written paper to this thread, you need to re-eval your reality. That would be like me asking you to explain relativity in fifty words or less. Not a source, just signing my name ;o) --- http://jatslo.com/ : Jatslo

Saiph · Feb 28, 2005

? actually, that's a scalar property due to using two real numbers. Works in any geometry, any setup. Now, if you assigned a direction to them, things get a little bit more difficult (as they become vectors) <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>

najab · Feb 28, 2005

>I wonder if the definition of infinity is the root cause of our disagreement?I believe it is. I'm basing my definition on basic mathematical principles, you're basing yours on something...erhm...else.

jatslo · Feb 28, 2005

Hey! Just leave it at that, because even though I represent a minority, this does not give you a license to squash me. This is the problem, we cannot squash each other. That SUCKS! ---Jatslo

yevaud · Feb 28, 2005

Now a brief word from me on this entire debate: Jatslo: Back in, I believe it was , the 1950's, Werner Heisenberg and Wolfgang Pauli were colleagues in research involving a TOE (Theory of Everything - Grand Unification). Heisenberg stated publically that he had solved it, but would tell everyone all about it later. In fact, what he said was "It's proven - only the details are missing." Well, he really hadn't actually solved this t&%$#@! problem, and it very much annoyed Pauli when Heisenberg made the public announcement, because his statements made him look foolish - and also implicated Pauli in his foolishness. Here's Pauli's response to demonstrate to Heisenberg how foolish he'd been: He held up a blank canvas, showing it to Heisenberg, and said "I am as great a painter as Titian. Only the details are missing..." Get it? "To inanity and beyond!" What Buzz Lightyear would have said if he was here. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> Differential Diagnosis: "I am both amused and annoyed that you think I should be less stubborn than you are." </div>

vogon13 · Apr 13, 2005

{bump} <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>

coral · May 29, 2005

Hi iam new to this forum and have not had time to read everything so if i repeat upon a subject i apoligise. Two questions really, first why if two space ships were travelling at the speed of light towards each other would they only pass at the speed of light and not twice the speed of light. (i would welcome a deatiled answer). And secondly why would time change with the speed of light as time is really only a linier concept that is relative to an individual. I am not sure why if u travel around the sun and back to earth in say 10 seconds why 17 minutes would have passed on earth as was stated on an earlyer post. i am interested to know your opinions and any facts that could be brought forward on the matter. P.S. if the mass of an object tends toward infinity as it increases toward the speed of light. Then is the some way of reducing the mass of the object to a finite value. If not purhaps the only way to travel is in the form a energy patterns which would have no mass, dont want to sound like to much of a trek fan, sounds a bit like transporters lol. Another possiblity is (oh dear iam going to say it) some sort of engine that could warp space, this would still adhere to relativity as u are not travelling faster than the speed of light in relation to local space. i was also amused by your argument about infinity being a number, if u try to use infinity in an equation surly the equation becomes useless as the equation will always equal infintiy which can not be defined. I totally agree with najaB that you can not use infinity as you would use a number as in my opinion it is more a statement.

yevaud · May 29, 2005

The speed of light is the ultimate "speed limit" in our universe, and nothing with mass can travel *at* the SOL. That's what they call a "First Principal." For that matter, photons (which have no mass) travel *at* the SOL (unless some odd conditions occur, which I won't go into, except to say the SOL is *locally* reduced, not exceeded). But nothing can exceed the SOL. Ok, so consider this: if a photon travels at the SOL, but the source that emit's it is moving away from us, what happens? Does the velocity of the Photon lower?" No. The frequency is lowered, which is what's known as "Red-Shifting." If it were the other way, e.g. towards us, it'd *increase* in frequency, known as "Blue-Shifting." But the photon that reaches us is still moving at the SOL. So (assuming something with mass *could* do this), if two objects were to pass each other in the way you say, they wouldn't even know they were heading towards each other, until the instant they passed. Because the ships are moving at the speed of light, which carries information. And the information, in the form of the light reflected/emitted from one ship can't "outrun" the ship itself. Ok? The second answer is known as "Time Dilation." As anything with mass begins to try to get closer to the speed of light, it's mass increases. As it's mass increases, it effects the continuum around it more and more (Edit: forgot this - and as it does so, your "local" time slows down). Also, since it now masses more, it takes more energy to keep it accelerating towards the speed of light. And around and around. And since it would take an infinite amount of energy to accelerate something with mass right to light speed, obviously it'll never happen. In fact, assuming you had the energy available, you'd just keep getting incrementally closer to the SOL (0.9, 0.09. 0.009, 0.0009...), but never , ever reach it. But...when the velocity becomes large enough <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> Differential Diagnosis: "I am both amused and annoyed that you think I should be less stubborn than you are." </div>

coral · May 29, 2005

thanks for ur reply and i it is wot i thought but the bit about the two space ships i was more interested in a outside view of the event. From a outside perspective would the two ships not look like they were travelling at twice the speed of light? I believe they would appear to be from that perspective. Also is it not possible to travel faster than light in the sense that u travel from point A to point B in a time less than the time light would take to travel there. Although this is yet again speculation of the ability to warp space. Arrr relativity is so annoying to get your head round as you have to think of each point in space around the event of travel at the SOL in its own perspective. LOL i have a head ach

PS are photons surposed to have mass and if not how is the SOL a limiting factor as there is speculation of particle that can travel faster than the SOL eg tcyons (obviously these are theoretical particles).

Saiph · May 29, 2005

the reason the speed of light, btw, is considered the speed limit (and upon which Special relativity is built) is twofold. 1) The solution of Maxwell's equations that describe electricity and magnetism, and specificially the speed at which an electro-magnetic wave (light) propagates in a vacuum, gives a single answer, that has no term inidicating the speed of the observers. It is ~3x10^8 m/s. There is nothing that says ~3x10^8 m/s plus or minus the observers speed. It's and absolute, fixed upon the values of two fundamental constants (that dictate the strenght of electricity and magnetism). 2) Observation has always given the speed of light to be in line with the equations, meaning it is always ~3x10^8 m/s in a vacuum. No matter how you move. BTW, I'm saying ~3x10^8 m/s because I don't wish to quote the exact figure, known to very high precision. Now, from the outside perspective, it looks like each ship is traveling ~SOL (or "C"). And the distance between them is diminishing rapidly, faster than if on was going C and the other stationary. But that isn't the same thing as either moving faster than C. They are individually moving slower than C through space (what you'd measure if you put meter sticks for them to pass by). Each ship sees the other as going very fast, but still less than SOL. THey also observe the "stationary" observer as moving at nearly the SOL, as they will always observe themselves (or rather can always observe) as stationary, and other things moving. These completely different points of view are reconciled when one realizes that to keep the SOL constant, but alter the observers velocity, distance and time have to be maleable, to shift in such a way as to keep the speed of light (which is measured in distance/time, that's why it's a speed) the same. The observers all experience different distances to objects, and different periods of time for the same set of ev <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>

absolutezero · May 30, 2005

The speed of a photon changes as it moves from one medium to another, but unlike a particle with mass, the change is instantaneous. Photons are incapable of moving at any speed other than whatever the speed of light is for a particular medium Simple question, if light is travelling through absolute zero does it slow down? If light is being consumed by a black hole, is the light losing speed due to the massive gravitational pull?

najab · May 31, 2005

>Simple question, if light is travelling through absolute zero does it slow down?"Photons are incapable of moving at any speed other than whatever the speed of light is for a particular medium..." ...at whatever temperature the medium is.>If light is being consumed by a black hole, is the light losing speed due to the massive gravitational pull?The light isn't slowed down, space is stretched.

grooble · May 31, 2005

If space can be stretched, can it be compressed / folded?

yevaud · May 31, 2005

Yes. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> Differential Diagnosis: "I am both amused and annoyed that you think I should be less stubborn than you are." </div>

najab · May 31, 2005

>If space can be stretched, can it be compressed / folded?In the region of space near a black hole, most anything is possible.

yevaud · May 31, 2005

Look at gravitational lensing of light, Groob. There's a perfect example of the metric being warped by gravity. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> Differential Diagnosis: "I am both amused and annoyed that you think I should be less stubborn than you are." </div>

absolutezero · May 31, 2005

"Photons are incapable of moving at any speed other than whatever the speed of light is for a particular medium..." ...at whatever temperature the medium is. " najab, If light is in a different medium, for example, absolutezero, or getting sucked into a black hole, then would light slow down from 186,000 miles/second? Or is it still traveling at that speed...but not?

yevaud · May 31, 2005

The speed of light is determined by the medium that the light is transmitted through. For example, in transmission of light through water, SOL is actually lower than the SOL in a vacuum. In the case of a Black Hole, gravity is warping space around itself. In that instance, the SOL is still that of light in a vacuum, but the apparent distance it has to travel through is skewed by the warpage. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> Differential Diagnosis: "I am both amused and annoyed that you think I should be less stubborn than you are." </div>

najab · May 31, 2005

>If light is in a different medium, for example, absolutezero...Well, I'm assuming that you're not transparent, so the light would not pass through you at all. <img src="/images/icons/wink.gif" /> Seriously though, you do know that absolute zero is a temperature, not a medium?

absolutezero · Jun 1, 2005

"Photons are incapable of moving at any speed other than whatever the speed of light is for a particular medium..." ...at whatever temperature the medium is. --najab Naja, if the medium's temperature is "absolute zero" does the speed of light slow down, as in it is not going as fast as 186,000 miles/second. ? And if light is travelling through water or any other substance, is it slowed down less then 186,000 miles/second?

najab · Jun 1, 2005

I believe (though I am not 100% certain) that the phase of the material matters, not it's temperature. That is, the speed of light in liquid water is different from the speed of light in ice, but the speed of light in ice is constant, regardless of how cold the ice is.

Why not faster than light?

Saiph

Guest

jatslo

Guest

astrophoto

Guest

jatslo

Guest

jatslo

Guest

Saiph

Guest

najab

Guest

jatslo

Guest

yevaud

Guest

vogon13

Guest

coral

Guest

yevaud

Guest

coral

Guest

Saiph

Guest

absolutezero

Guest

najab

Guest

grooble

Guest

yevaud

Guest

najab

Guest

yevaud

Guest

absolutezero

Guest

yevaud

Guest

najab

Guest

absolutezero

Guest

najab

Guest

Similar threads

TRENDING THREADS

Latest posts

Share this page