August 21, 200718 yr Lol and to think we were talking about this in physics the other day. To all the people who think travelling back in time is possible you cannot be more wrong. As trapical said it is 100% not possible to go BACK in time. Do you want proof? Well out of the billions of billions of years life will go on wouldnt someone have already come back by now ;)? Exactly. If people could travel back in time, how is it that we don't encounter people from the future? All theoretical time machines allow travel from the time it is built to the future.
August 21, 200718 yr I agree that traveling into the past is impossible, but if it were, how would we know if someone is from the future? If I was them I wouldn't go around announcing it. You can't ever find a place that's nice and peaceful, because there isn't any. You may think there is, but once you get there, when you're not looking, somebody'll sneak up and write "(bleep) you" right under your nose. Try it sometime. I think, even, if I ever die, and they stick me in a cemetery, and I have a tombstone and all, it'll say "Holden Caulfield" on it, and then what year I was born and what year I died, and then right under that it'll say "(bleep) you."
August 21, 200718 yr I had nothing to do in seminar today, so I thought about this (for about an hour) and came up with a possible reason whey the germans THINK they broke the speed of light to understand this you need to know 2 things. 1. light particles (and all other elecromagnetic waves/particles) travel at a very close ratio to the speed of light, something like 99.999%. (nothing really goes the speed of light) 2. the earth rotates :o Ok, here is the explaination. By launching the microwaves from one point to the next (or however the heck they did it) they replicated the speed at which light waves/particles move. By launching them against the earths rotation, they made it appear as thought they got there slightly faster than the speed of light (something like 100.000001%). the timing method they used showed they made it from point A to point B slightly faster than the speed of light, because both points were accually moving (sounds pointless, but true). If they timing method they used was set on the earth (i think it would be) then it would be moving too. electromagnetic waves are uneffected by earths rotation, and would appear to move slightly faster than the speed of light I talked to my Physics teacher and he had heard about it, and said that was a distinct possiblity.
August 21, 200718 yr I had nothing to do in seminar today, so I thought about this (for about an hour) and came up with a possible reason whey the germans THINK they broke the speed of light to understand this you need to know 2 things. 1. light particles (and all other elecromagnetic waves/particles) travel at a very close ratio to the speed of light, something like 99.999%. (nothing really goes the speed of light) 2. the earth rotates :o Ok, here is the explaination. By launching the microwaves from one point to the next (or however the heck they did it) they replicated the speed at which light waves/particles move. By launching them against the earths rotation, they made it appear as thought they got there slightly faster than the speed of light (something like 100.000001%). the timing method they used showed they made it from point A to point B slightly faster than the speed of light, because both points were accually moving (sounds pointless, but true). If they timing method they used was set on the earth (i think it would be) then it would be moving too. electromagnetic waves are uneffected by earths rotation, and would appear to move slightly faster than the speed of light I talked to my Physics teacher and he had heard about it, and said that was a distinct possiblity. Answer is there =D> I just saw an example of that on youtube. Tbfgraphx14Happy to find I'm not the only one who eats glass.
August 21, 200718 yr 1. light particles (and all other elecromagnetic waves/particles) travel at a very close ratio to the speed of light, something like 99.999%. (nothing really goes the speed of light) Eh? What? Unless there's a big conspiracy in physics i'm pretty sure that light goes the speed of light, as well as all other EM radiation. Hence the name. Besides, your explanation is a little faulty, since the speed of light is constant for all observers in all reference frames. Even if you set someone off on a motorbike at say 100mph and get them to shine a torch in front of them, the speed of the torch beam (light) is measured as the same for the rider and a stationary observing friend. "Da mihi castitatem et continentam, sed noli modo"
August 21, 200718 yr 1. light particles (and all other elecromagnetic waves/particles) travel at a very close ratio to the speed of light, something like 99.999%. (nothing really goes the speed of light) Eh? What? Unless there's a big conspiracy in physics i'm pretty sure that light goes the speed of light, as well as all other EM radiation. Hence the name. Besides, your explanation is a little faulty, since the speed of light is constant for all observers in all reference frames. Even if you set someone off on a motorbike at say 100mph and get them to shine a torch in front of them, the speed of the torch beam (light) is measured as the same for the rider and a stationary observing friend. even if it does go at the speed of light (yet again, going off what my science teacher tells me) the theory still works the senario you said is with a stationary observer, mine is with a moving observer, going the opposite way as the light beams (remember what they used to measure the speed is also on the planet earth, and therefore moving)
August 21, 200718 yr LOOK, ITS POSSIBLE TO TIME TRAVEL, NOW LETS GO AND HAVE A TEA PARTY... :anxious:
August 21, 200718 yr Nope, assassin_696, light only travels at lightspeed in vacuum. Also, for referencee, please read this entry in Wikipedia, and post your thought about it. Pretty much sums it up, doesn't it? Here's a related link for all Wikipedia-sceptics. This signature is intentionally left blank.
August 22, 200718 yr Nope, assassin_696, light only travels at lightspeed in vacuum. Also, for referencee, please read this entry in Wikipedia, and post your thought about it. Pretty much sums it up, doesn't it? Here's a related link for all Wikipedia-sceptics. honestly i think they germans would have been smart enough to do it in a vacuum. that really would enhance the effects of the earths rotation on the instruments measuring the speed. the light would be less moved by the air in the atmoshpere
August 22, 200718 yr Oh, by the way, Earth's rotation doesn't affect light speed measurements, as prooven by the failed MichelsonÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬ÃâMorley experiment. This signature is intentionally left blank.
August 22, 200718 yr Does earths rotation and speed through space make us experience time slightly slower, then say out in space? Do astronauts experience time faster? The ones that are not spinning around earth. :?: Tbfgraphx14Happy to find I'm not the only one who eats glass.
August 22, 200718 yr Nope, assassin_696, light only travels at lightspeed in vacuum. Also, for referencee, please read this entry in Wikipedia, and post your thought about it. Pretty much sums it up, doesn't it? Here's a related link for all Wikipedia-sceptics. Sorry, I was referring to the fact that he said nothing really goes at the speed of light, I had actually forgotten about the speed of light through varying densities, but it doesn't really affect my point. giboscam, my point was actually that as meol has said, one of the principles of relativity is the constancy of the speed of light for observers in all reference frames, for which there is no preferred frame of reference. "Da mihi castitatem et continentam, sed noli modo"
August 22, 200718 yr MY BRAIN GO BOOM NOW. Lol I hope that that gibs is right otherwise I can't even think of the ramifications. CANE Just to be different. Think about it. A freaking Dragon Cane with a Dragonstone gem.The spec will simply your character equiping a glove and beachslapping the enemy, who will break down and do the Cry emote for 10 seconds straight.
August 22, 200718 yr What the heck are you talking about? Light doesnt change speed *period*. Its a constant... the CONSTANT speed of light. The only other explanation for travelling FASTER than the speed of light was something to do with a light wave being "slingshot"'d around itself and catching up with the front of the wave, therefore travelling faster but that was extremly complicated and im not explaining it. And all this stuff about earths rotation affecting the speed of light is junk.. thats just getting into frames of references and time/length/mass dialation. Lvl 80 construction. Dragon Drops: 11 (4 Chains, 2 Axes, 1 Med, 2 Skirts, 1 Legs, 1 2h) God Wars Drops: 4 Zamorakian Spears, 1 Godsword Shard 1
August 22, 200718 yr What the heck are you talking about? Light doesnt change speed *period*. Its a constant... the CONSTANT speed of light. The only other explanation for travelling FASTER than the speed of light was something to do with a light wave being "slingshot"'d around itself and catching up with the front of the wave, therefore travelling faster but that was extremly complicated and im not explaining it. And all this stuff about earths rotation affecting the speed of light is junk.. thats just getting into frames of references and time/length/mass dialation. Dude, light changes speed depending on what it's going through. It's been calculated that light from the center of the sun takes a rediculous amount of time to emerge at the surface (can't remember the figure -- it was in the order of thousands of years from memory). Granted, this only makes it slower, but light won't always travel at ~ 300 million ms-1. The constant 'c' is the constant. It's a measure of the speed of light in a vaccum. Broadly speaking, light will travel at 'c' the majority of the time as space is almost a proper vaccum.
August 22, 200718 yr MY BRAIN GO BOOM NOW. Lol I hope that that gibs is right otherwise I can't even think of the ramifications. yea, i don't think i am so right anymore 1 last countertheory to breaking the speed of light. As an object of mass moves (yet again, everything has mass. even EM rays). As mass accelerates it gains more mass. When an object hits light speed it has infinite mass. this infinite mass would cause numberless problems, including a quatar (stuff circling around a black hole) with earth at its center, and all of earths mass compacted into 1 atom (ouch). Saying they broke they speed of light is also saying that the object weighs > infinity :-k also, when you approach the speed of light time moves slower, and stops when you get the speed of light (has been proven with jets and atomic clocks). when you pass the speed of light then time moves backwards (for the object, not the observer). So if you went faster than the speed of light then you would be younger than than when you started (hmm... practical application?) Ok, all this physics is giving me a headache. I am going to go play my bass for a bit
August 23, 200718 yr Nope, assassin_696, light only travels at lightspeed in vacuum. Also, for referencee, please read this entry in Wikipedia, and post your thought about it. Pretty much sums it up, doesn't it? Here's a related link for all Wikipedia-sceptics. You have learned well young aprentice. : MY BRAIN GO BOOM NOW. Lol I hope that that gibs is right otherwise I can't even think of the ramifications. yea, i don't think i am so right anymore 1 last countertheory to breaking the speed of light. As an object of mass moves (yet again, everything has mass. even EM rays). As mass accelerates it gains more mass. When an object hits light speed it has infinite mass. this infinite mass would cause numberless problems, including a quatar (stuff circling around a black hole) with earth at its center, and all of earths mass compacted into 1 atom (ouch). Saying they broke they speed of light is also saying that the object weighs > infinity :-k also, when you approach the speed of light time moves slower, and stops when you get the speed of light (has been proven with jets and atomic clocks). when you pass the speed of light then time moves backwards (for the object, not the observer). So if you went faster than the speed of light then you would be younger than than when you started (hmm... practical application?) Ok, all this physics is giving me a headache. I am going to go play my bass for a bit I could very possibly be wrong (so please condrict me if I am), but the last time I checked up on mass and speed you don't gain mass with speed. Also, the speed of light isn't an infinite speed, so even if mass was gained with speed then the mass wouldn't be infinite. I'm not sure how something's mass would be infinite either. :-k Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think I'm right. :pray: Cowards can't block Warriors.
August 23, 200718 yr I could very possibly be wrong (so please condrict me if I am), but the last time I checked up on mass and speed you don't gain mass with speed. Also, the speed of light isn't an infinite speed, so even if mass was gained with speed then the mass wouldn't be infinite. I'm not sure how something's mass would be infinite either. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think I'm right. Yes you are correct, I belive at 99.5% speed of light you need 70,000 more force then if you were just pushing something regulary. Check on those numbers though. I want to know what happens if you ride a motorcycle and ride nearly the speed of light and shine your light forward, if light always goes 186,000 miles a second then wouldn't the light go back at you? :wall: Tbfgraphx14Happy to find I'm not the only one who eats glass.
August 23, 200718 yr I could very possibly be wrong (so please condrict me if I am), but the last time I checked up on mass and speed you don't gain mass with speed. Also, the speed of light isn't an infinite speed, so even if mass was gained with speed then the mass wouldn't be infinite. I'm not sure how something's mass would be infinite either. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think I'm right. Yes you are correct, I belive at 99.5% speed of light you need 70,000 more force then if you were just pushing something regulary. Check on those numbers though. I want to know what happens if you ride a motorcycle and ride nearly the speed of light and shine your light forward, if light always goes 186,000 miles a second then wouldn't the light go back at you? :wall: No, the light is still going faster than you and would keep moving forward. You have the source of light, so there wouldn't be a constant stream from the same spot, so it would always be ahead of you. Cowards can't block Warriors.
August 23, 200718 yr Is it just a claim? I always thought before you hit the speed of light you gained infinite mass, which would need an infinite amound of force to keep it accelerating. Either that or I don't listen in schience class lol. Doomy edit: I like sheep
August 23, 200718 yr Is it just a claim? I always thought before you hit the speed of light you gained infinite mass, which would need an infinite amound of force to keep it accelerating. Either that or I don't listen in schience class lol. yea, that is what they always tell us I am sorry if any of my theorys are wrong. I am going off a video I seen in 7th grade and a few things my Physics teacher taught me
August 23, 200718 yr A curious consequence of relativity theory is that relativistic mass does increase with speed. But invariant mass (how many atoms are in stuff) does not increase with speed, and is fixed. The use of the word mass to mean relativistic mass confuses lots of people (myself included) when they talk about mass increasing with speed. Despite the general usage of invariant mass in the scientific literature, the use of the word mass to mean relativistic mass is still found in many popular science books. For example, Stephen Hawking in A Brief History of Time writes "Because of the equivalence of energy and mass, the energy which an object has due to its motion will add to its mass." and Richard Feynman in The Character of Physical Law wrote "The energy associated with motion appears as an extra mass, so things get heavier when they move." Evidently, Hawking and Feynman and many others use this terminology because it is intuitive and useful when you want to explain things without using too much mathematics. The standard convention followed by some physicists seems to be: use invariant mass when doing research and writing papers for other physicists but use relativistic mass when writing for non-physicists. It is a curious dichotomy of terminology which inevitably leads to confusion. A common example is the mistaken belief that a fast moving particle must form a black hole because of its increase in mass The rest of the article can be found here http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/R ... /mass.html "Da mihi castitatem et continentam, sed noli modo"
August 23, 200718 yr This truely is fascinating. If by what people are saying, if moving 10 lightyears away from earth, and looking at earth, you see 10 years into the past. But its not actually that because it just takes that long for the light reflections from 10 years ago to reach your current point. If this applys to looking at places from earth, we could technically see the beggining of the universe with a powerful enough telescope. Oh, a question I just thought of... If we somehow placed a very big mirror 100 lightyears from Earth, and looked at that mirror from earth and saw earths reflection... Would you see earth as it was 100 years ago, or would it be at its current state? Veni Vidi ViciI came, I saw, I conquered.Hail to the wiki! For all your information needs.
August 23, 200718 yr If we somehow placed a very big mirror 100 lightyears from Earth, and looked at that mirror from earth and saw earths reflection... Would you see earth as it was 100 years ago, or would it be at its current state? Correct me if i'm wrong, but intuitively, the light that we would see would have left earth 200 years ago by the time it got back to earth (100 x 2) would it not? I'm tired, I could be wrong on this. "Da mihi castitatem et continentam, sed noli modo"
Create an account or sign in to comment