again as you approach the speed of light, your mass becomes infinite, and therefore you need infinite energy, which we do not have.
there was a discovery somewhere in the galaxy that some sort of gas partical blasted out of the black hole at twice the speed of light.....about 4-5 years ago, someone wanna google it up?
The reasons why an objsects relativistic mass increases with velocity, is becasue the propulsion method, or 'energy transfer system' used isn't very efficient. The porblem here, is that NO propulsion system we have is efficient enough to get anywhere near 100% - (even things like the paticle accelerators arn't good enough for what we need, since the masses they deal with (rest, not relativistic) are not large enough) - and it's the 'leakage' (energy going where we don't want it, or building up in the wrong place), that causes all the problems.
If wee could transfer energy to an object in an efficient as possible manner - i.e. at a consistent direction and rate to the whole of the object, then it's reletavistic mass shouldn't be a problem - (until it hits something...). Unfortuantely the ONE force we know of which even comes close to this is one we have yet to fully figure out...
Gravity... It may or may not be able to accelerate objects beyond the speed of light - but it remains our best hope for doing so...
If wee could transfer energy to an object in an efficient as possible manner - i.e. at a consistent direction and rate to the whole of the object, then it's reletavistic mass shouldn't be a problem - (until it hits something...). Unfortuantely the ONE force we know of which even comes close to this is one we have yet to fully figure out...
Gravity... It may or may not be able to accelerate objects beyond the speed of light - but it remains our best hope for doing so...
Just to debunk the train/plane at c-5, and the person who starts jogging at 5mph.
Given currently accepted math/laws of physics, your mass would be so great at that point that I seriously doubt you'd be jogging anywhere.
Just food for thought.
IMHO, traveling past the speed of light is easy, once you add a few more dimensions to the universe, or pop into one that already has them.
Given currently accepted math/laws of physics, your mass would be so great at that point that I seriously doubt you'd be jogging anywhere.
Just food for thought.
IMHO, traveling past the speed of light is easy, once you add a few more dimensions to the universe, or pop into one that already has them.
Originally posted by: eastvillager
Just to debunk the train/plane at c-5, and the person who starts jogging at 5mph.
Given currently accepted math/laws of physics, your mass would be so great at that point that I seriously doubt you'd be jogging anywhere.
Just food for thought.
IMHO, traveling past the speed of light is easy, once you add a few more dimensions to the universe, or pop into one that already has them.
LOL!
Sorry, it simply does not work that way. To the traveler there is no increase in mass, there is no change in how your clock works or the length of your ruler. Further, there is no speed limit, you can accelerate to your hearts content as long as you wish. What you will notice is that the signal you are using to communicate with your home base will change to longer and longer wave lengths and your distance from home base will not increase in a manner predicted by the laws of Newton. One other thing you will notice is that no matter how long or how hard you accelerate you will always measure the speed of light to be c and your flashlight will always work. So you simply cannot travel at the speed of light, because light always propagates at c, without regard to any motion you may have with respect to some other body.
yup, for velocities close to c you can't use simple addition of lengths of velocity vectors, you need to use:
u' = (u + v)/(1 + (u*v)/c^2)
so if you have train moving 0.9c and you throw something off the train in the direction of movement that also has relative speed of 0.9c (in the train "space"... yes i k now, my english sucks) you have:
u' = (0.9c + 0.9c)/(1 + (0.81c^2)/c^2) = 1.8c/(1 + 0.81) = 1.8c/1.81 ~ 0.995c
Everything in this thread has been said at least once, just let it die already.
If you have a question or a comment, there is a high possibility that someone else has already said it.
</subscription to thread that should have died ages ago>
If you have a question or a comment, there is a high possibility that someone else has already said it.
</subscription to thread that should have died ages ago>
Originally posted by: Idleuser
and god created the universe but we can't prove that
depends on your interpretation of God. all i know is, He will always leave something hidden, i.e. molecule > atom > proton > quark > ?.. ? .., ? = God.
Ok, So If I was on a space ship in a geosynchronous orbit around the earth which I know to be 11,070 Km/hour (6,880 Miles/hour) = 3075 meters/second. If I point a torch in the direction of motion around the earth then is the light leaving the torch traveling faster than the speed of light. Furthermore if I turn around 180 degrees is the light leaving the torch at less than the speed of light to compensate? I think not, light travels at the speed of light (sorry for the recursion) So I believe that the speed of light can be broken. Another idea is that if you are at the speed of light for less than planck time (5.391 * 10 to the power -43 seconds) then molecules will not break down as the electrons will not at any time stop. This was part of an interesting debate I had with my physics teacher.
What are your views?
What are your views?
But that's not actually traveling, is it? It is teleportation, which has no speed and travels no distance.
I remember my 6th grade science teacher telling us that we could not travel the speed of light because the time is slower in space so you can never hit the speed of light
RelaxTheMind
Platinum Member
- Oct 15, 2002
- 2,245
- 0
- 76
if you could travel faster than the speed of light you can technically "pass" through some objects.
I know how.. if you're running, and you turn on a flashlight... then that light would be going faster than the speed of light by however fast you're running. I'm so smart.
OK i get how it takes infinite energy to reach the speed of light... It sort of reminds me of calculus and limits... But I was thinking that it only takes infinite energy to reach the exact speed of light, but does that mean it takes infinite energy to go faster than the speed of light ? Or is it possible that FTL is less than infinite energy ?
light travels slower in certain mediums, in those mediums you can exceed the speed of light, the speed of light in a vacuum is unattainable
If you are going the speed of light, which cant be done, you must have 0 mass, then you can go anywhere in the universe in 0 time at all. We had a unit in special relativity in physics. fun stuff. Sorry if this has already been posted.
If you want to move 1 meter to your right you can start walking to the left and walk around the earth until you reach that point. You can also step one meter to your right. That does not mean you suddenly moved 40,000 km in that one step, it just means you moved one meter. By folding time/space you do not increase your speed, you just shorten the distance.
Because of the Heisenberg's uncertainty principle?
There must be a way round that...
We need Star Trek's Heisenberg compensator
lol no seriously... there might be a way we haven't discovered yet.
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 21K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
-
Facebook
Twitter