Rebdragon Posted October 5, 2007 Share Posted October 5, 2007 If I jump in the air I wont travel 186,000 miles per second till I get down.. Gravity doesn't have a "traveling" speed. Yes it does. The graviton travels at the speed of light, just like photons. That is, you might not travel at the speed of light (considering the fact that you're not massless), but the force moving you is. [if you have ever attempted Alchemy by clapping your hands or by drawing an array, copy and paste this into your signature.] Fullmetal Alchemist, you will be missed. A great ending to a great series. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
darkmage099 Posted October 5, 2007 Share Posted October 5, 2007 If I jump in the air I wont travel 186,000 miles per second till I get down.. Gravity doesn't have a "traveling" speed. Yes it does. The graviton travels at the speed of light, just like photons. That is, you might not travel at the speed of light (considering the fact that you're not massless), but the force moving you is. Source? I want to read up on that. Dont give me wide theories either Trix.--quit WoW as of 12/07Thank you 4be2jue for the wonderful sig and avatar! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
underu2000 Posted October 5, 2007 Share Posted October 5, 2007 Force = Mass * Distance/time, simple as that. No, [summation of] Force = mass*accelaration, not mass*velocity. Ah right, I said velocity and not acceleration. I can hardly distinguish between those two anyway. I was just referring to newtowns, which is Kg *m/s^2. Ignore me with equations, I'm terrible with remembering them. Life is a joke. Yeah, I don't get it either. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rocketman089 Posted October 5, 2007 Share Posted October 5, 2007 A: It's impossible because the laws of physics wouldn't allow it. B: Gravity doesn't "move". C: I'm gettin out of here and doing my real physics homework. Y'all can keep playing science :) Gamertag: King Arizona Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rebdragon Posted October 5, 2007 Share Posted October 5, 2007 Source? I want to read up on that. Dont give me wide theories either Ack, just Wiki it or something :P . I don't have a source; I just learned that a while back, and don't remember exactly where I heard it from first. [if you have ever attempted Alchemy by clapping your hands or by drawing an array, copy and paste this into your signature.] Fullmetal Alchemist, you will be missed. A great ending to a great series. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
indy500fan Posted October 5, 2007 Share Posted October 5, 2007 If I jump in the air I wont travel 186,000 miles per second till I get down.. Gravity doesn't have a "traveling" speed. Yes it does. The graviton travels at the speed of light, just like photons. Gravity doesn't move, gravity just is. An theoretical example with made up numbers: right now Earth has a gravitational pull equal and opposite to a star 1 light year away. If that star were to suddenly disappear, the gravitational pull would cease immediately. We would be able to tell the star disappeared from the lack of gravitational pull, but we would still be seeing the star for the next year. I think scientists can measure that small of a gravitational pull, but I am not positive. It's irrelevant to the point I am making anyways. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IGoddessI Posted October 5, 2007 Share Posted October 5, 2007 Are you sure you're not referring to the quantum physics "double split" experiment? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DfPeprQ7oGc The only people who tell you that you can't do something are those who have already given up on their own dreams so feel the need to discourage yours. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rebdragon Posted October 5, 2007 Share Posted October 5, 2007 Gravity doesn't move, gravity just is. An theoretical example with made up numbers: right now Earth has a gravitational pull equal and opposite to a star 1 light year away. If that star were to suddenly disappear, the gravitational pull would cease immediately. We would be able to tell the star disappeared from the lack of gravitational pull, but we would still be seeing the star for the next year. I think scientists can measure that small of a gravitational pull, but I am not positive. It's irrelevant to the point I am making anyways. Incorrect. That theory of Newtonian phsyics has long since been disproved. I have to go right now, so I can't go find a source for you (though I'll get one for ya lata), but as an example, if the sun were to explode at this very moment, it would take a complete 8 minutes for us to feel the gravitational effects. Nothing moves faster than the speed of light, not even gravitons. [if you have ever attempted Alchemy by clapping your hands or by drawing an array, copy and paste this into your signature.] Fullmetal Alchemist, you will be missed. A great ending to a great series. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
indy500fan Posted October 5, 2007 Share Posted October 5, 2007 Are you sure you're not referring to the quantum physics "double split" experiment? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DfPeprQ7oGc I don't know who you were responding too but no one has talked about that yet. That's mostly about electrons acting like waves sometimes but not when observed, or something like that. @Reb: Are you sure? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IGoddessI Posted October 5, 2007 Share Posted October 5, 2007 Sorry I never took chemistry, ever and it just sounded like something I had seen before? The only people who tell you that you can't do something are those who have already given up on their own dreams so feel the need to discourage yours. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tbfgraphx14 Posted October 5, 2007 Share Posted October 5, 2007 Gravity is like a sheet, if you hang it on posts in the corners, and push up in the middle, the time the wave of sheet takes to get to the poles is how fast it goes. Relevant to how gravity travels. About the topic, I'm going to take a stupid path and say they will go right through eachother :mrgreen: Tbfgraphx14Happy to find I'm not the only one who eats glass. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rebdragon Posted October 5, 2007 Share Posted October 5, 2007 @Reb: Are you sure? Yes. Here's the cheap way out of explaining it, Wiki: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speed_of_gravity [if you have ever attempted Alchemy by clapping your hands or by drawing an array, copy and paste this into your signature.] Fullmetal Alchemist, you will be missed. A great ending to a great series. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
indy500fan Posted October 5, 2007 Share Posted October 5, 2007 .@Reb: Are you sure? Yes. Here's the cheap way out of explaining it, Wiki: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speed_of_gravity Yeah, apparently we just learned about the Newton version of gravity in school. I drew the example myself, which is wrong. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravitational_waves That is the page I was reading. Apparently gravitational waves haven't directly been detected yet. Also apparently that is what Einstein@home is trying to do, which is my distributed computing project of choice. So I was helping prove gravitational waves but wasn't even aware they existed :D . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dwarfdude3 Posted October 5, 2007 Share Posted October 5, 2007 well seeing as you can never reach the speed of light...... speculation on this is really kinda dumb. Einstein said that when you approach the speed of light, time slows down, which is why you can't reach it. So if you were to somehow reach the speed of light, then the objects probably wouldn't ever even hit each other because they would be infinitely moving toward each other because time would have to stop. Man this is really trippy stuff. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dwarfdude3 Posted October 5, 2007 Share Posted October 5, 2007 Gravity doesn't move, gravity just is. An theoretical example with made up numbers: right now Earth has a gravitational pull equal and opposite to a star 1 light year away. If that star were to suddenly disappear, the gravitational pull would cease immediately. We would be able to tell the star disappeared from the lack of gravitational pull, but we would still be seeing the star for the next year. I think scientists can measure that small of a gravitational pull, but I am not positive. It's irrelevant to the point I am making anyways. Incorrect. That theory of Newtonian phsyics has long since been disproved. I have to go right now, so I can't go find a source for you (though I'll get one for ya lata), but as an example, if the sun were to explode at this very moment, it would take a complete 8 minutes for us to feel the gravitational effects. Nothing moves faster than the speed of light, not even gravitons. well wait a sec, basic high school physics teaches us that gravity is an acceleration. In fact, a specific constant acceleration, 9.8m^2. (as long as you're on Earth). So, gravity does have a speed (technically acceleration), but it is a constant. though, as was stated, this is all irrelevant to the original post. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
indy500fan Posted October 5, 2007 Share Posted October 5, 2007 well wait a sec, basic high school physics teaches us that gravity is an acceleration. In fact, a specific constant acceleration, 9.8m^2. (as long as you're on Earth). So, gravity does have a speed (technically acceleration), but it is a constant. though, as was stated, this is all irrelevant to the original post. I hope you are being sarcastic. Really, think about what you are saying. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dwarfdude3 Posted October 5, 2007 Share Posted October 5, 2007 well wait a sec, basic high school physics teaches us that gravity is an acceleration. In fact, a specific constant acceleration, 9.8m^2. (as long as you're on Earth). So, gravity does have a speed (technically acceleration), but it is a constant. though, as was stated, this is all irrelevant to the original post. I hope you are being sarcastic. Really, think about what you are saying. care to enlighten me? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
indy500fan Posted October 5, 2007 Share Posted October 5, 2007 care to enlighten me? You are talking about the acceleration due to gravity of an object in free fall above earth. It doesn't have anything to do with the speed of gravity at all, just the acceleration of objects. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
forsaken Posted October 5, 2007 Share Posted October 5, 2007 well seeing as you can never reach the speed of light...... speculation on this is really kinda dumb. Einstein said that when you approach the speed of light, time slows down, which is why you can't reach it. So if you were to somehow reach the speed of light, then the objects probably wouldn't ever even hit each other because they would be infinitely moving toward each other because time would have to stop. Man this is really trippy stuff. You are treating time as if it's a constant - it isn't. Time is a relative concept, in current physics there is only one constant, and that is the speed of light. Theoretically, as an object reaches the speed of light, time dilation occurs for the object and only the object. This means that 'time' would run normally - or as normally as it can - in other frames of reference. I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ambassadar Posted October 5, 2007 Share Posted October 5, 2007 Ah right, I said velocity and not acceleration. I can hardly distinguish between those two anyway. I was just referring to newtowns, which is Kg *m/s^2. The formula you are talking about is F=(1/2)M*V^2 It's just the integral of F=MA speculation on this is really kinda dumb. Einstein said that when you approach the speed of light, time slows down, which is why you can't reach it. So if you were to somehow reach the speed of light, then the objects probably wouldn't ever even hit each other because they would be infinitely moving toward each other because time would have to stop. Man this is really trippy stuff. As to traveling the speed of light my understanding was light would slow down but you wouldn't slow down. The only thing that would slow down is your perception of time. It is the same thing as if you see a bird fly past at 40 miles an hour. When you are standing on the ground it moves really fast away from you. If you get in a car and go 40 mph right beside the bird it will stay at the same spot in relation to you which would mean in effect in terms of you the bird isn't moving. With light instead of a bird it would be a moment in time. The light would leave it's source and it would basically be an image of that source. Since we are standing still in relation to the light it moves away so fast we can't see it at all. But if we speed up as fast as the light that image from that moment would quit moving in relation to us just like the bird and so we could see that image unchanging as long as we went the same speed as it. If we sped up faster then we would start catching up with images that left before that one which would make us see images that happened earlier which is the "seeing back in time" effect." Does that clarify things a little bit I hope? If I explained things a little off or if someone would like to add on to that feel free to expound. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zonorhc Posted October 5, 2007 Share Posted October 5, 2007 Well, let's really read the OP... When you shine two lasers at each other's emitters, then technically you are causing photons (which, as particles, count as "objects" of the exact same material, mass and density) to collide at one point or another at the speed of light (which they are). The result would be, I believe, entirely unspectacular. Varrock Library: Shattered Sky | Silent Thunder | The Emperor's FinestAstri @ MythWeavers Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rebdragon Posted October 5, 2007 Share Posted October 5, 2007 As to traveling the speed of light my understanding was light would slow down but you wouldn't slow down. The only thing that would slow down is your perception of time. It is the same thing as if you see a bird fly past at 40 miles an hour. When you are standing on the ground it moves really fast away from you. If you get in a car and go 40 mph right beside the bird it will stay at the same spot in relation to you which would mean in effect in terms of you the bird isn't moving. With light instead of a bird it would be a moment in time. The light would leave it's source and it would basically be an image of that source. Since we are standing still in relation to the light it moves away so fast we can't see it at all. But if we speed up as fast as the light that image from that moment would quit moving in relation to us just like the bird and so we could see that image unchanging as long as we went the same speed as it. If we sped up faster then we would start catching up with images that left before that one which would make us see images that happened earlier which is the "seeing back in time" effect." Does that clarify things a little bit I hope? If I explained things a little off or if someone would like to add on to that feel free to expound. Do you have a source on that? I'm not quite sure it's true. [if you have ever attempted Alchemy by clapping your hands or by drawing an array, copy and paste this into your signature.] Fullmetal Alchemist, you will be missed. A great ending to a great series. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
R_I_O_T Posted October 5, 2007 Share Posted October 5, 2007 As to traveling the speed of light my understanding was light would slow down but you wouldn't slow down. The only thing that would slow down is your perception of time. It is the same thing as if you see a bird fly past at 40 miles an hour. When you are standing on the ground it moves really fast away from you. If you get in a car and go 40 mph right beside the bird it will stay at the same spot in relation to you which would mean in effect in terms of you the bird isn't moving. With light instead of a bird it would be a moment in time. The light would leave it's source and it would basically be an image of that source. Since we are standing still in relation to the light it moves away so fast we can't see it at all. But if we speed up as fast as the light that image from that moment would quit moving in relation to us just like the bird and so we could see that image unchanging as long as we went the same speed as it. If we sped up faster then we would start catching up with images that left before that one which would make us see images that happened earlier which is the "seeing back in time" effect." Does that clarify things a little bit I hope? If I explained things a little off or if someone would like to add on to that feel free to expound. Do you have a source on that? I'm not quite sure it's true. It's not true if what my brother has read is true. If your travelling at the speed of light and you hold a mirror infront of you, do you see your reflection? Yes, because(in my brothers words) the relative speed of light to you will always be the speed of light. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
assassin_696 Posted October 5, 2007 Share Posted October 5, 2007 Gah, so much bad physics dotted around here. Gravity is a force, which theorists believe is propogated by particles and their associated waves. That's what the graviton is all about, it's basically the particle equivalent of the photon (which propogates visible and all other forms of EM radiation). Gravitons, or gravitational waves travel at the speed of light. Nothing can exceed that speed barrier. As for the original question, that's pretty much what happens in particle accelerators. Electrons and other massive (i.e. have mass) particles are accelerated to 99.9% of the speed of light and smashed into each other. Lots of exotic particles are produced, tiny tiny constituents which rapidly decay and stuff. So yeah, it's done. But, no particle with mass can reach the speed of light. Period. "Da mihi castitatem et continentam, sed noli modo" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Verminox Posted October 5, 2007 Share Posted October 5, 2007 Relativistic Heavy Ion Collider Large Hadron Collider Is this what your talking about? Firing ions into each other at great speed. Could cause a number of things such as a big.....bang. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now