jump to last post 1-23 of 23 discussions (159 posts)

Light Speed

  1. Mikel G Roberts profile image86
    Mikel G Robertsposted 6 years ago

    If I was on a space ship traveling at the speed of light (The natural speed limit proposed by Einstein) and I fired a gun would the bullet remain in the gun?

    My belief is no it would not. I believe the bullet would leave the gun at the same increased velocity that it would achieve if I had fired the gun from a body at rest. This thought leads me to believe Einstein was mistaken.

    I have heard about the new scientific discoveries of particles traveling faster than light. I'm just expressing another possible way we might discover the truth about light speed.

    Thoughts?

    1. Evolution Guy profile image61
      Evolution Guyposted 6 years agoin reply to this

      Funny. Very funny. No - I mean - hilarious. lol

      Perhaps you could add a few links to these particles that travel faster than light?

      1. Mikel G Roberts profile image86
        Mikel G Robertsposted 6 years agoin reply to this
        1. Evolution Guy profile image61
          Evolution Guyposted 6 years agoin reply to this

          Figured that is what you might be talking about.

          http://www.forbes.com/sites/timworstall … t-so-fast/

          LOL

      2. Paul Wingert profile image79
        Paul Wingertposted 5 years agoin reply to this

        An avergae bullet travels about 2,000 feet per second. Light travels 186,282 miles per second so Einstein was not mistaken.

    2. wilderness profile image93
      wildernessposted 6 years agoin reply to this

      On what are you basing that belief?  All evidence to date shows that the bullet cannot travel faster than C; it will stay in the gun.  Even photons "fired" from a speeding star do not exceed C, which is why we see a shift in the frequency of that light

      If the bullet is to reach the speed of light it will result in it having an infinite mass; more than the rest of the universe combined.  There is not enough energy in the gun to accelerate an infinite mass.  This is also why your spaceship cannot actually reach the speed of light, just very close to it.

      1. Mikel G Roberts profile image86
        Mikel G Robertsposted 6 years agoin reply to this

        Ok, based on what you're saying (assuming what you're saying is true)

        Then it follows that movement of any kind within the ship would be impossible as well...no?


        since no movement(change) of any kind could take place, aging might arrest, which may be where Einsteins belief in relativity came from(started)... hmm

        1. wilderness profile image93
          wildernessposted 6 years agoin reply to this

          Again, as you cannot actually reach C, movement will only occur at a very slow rate (to an outside observer).  To you, traveling at near C, time dilation will result in your apparent movement (to you) to be at a normal rate.

          Point of view is important; all is relative.  It's why it's called relativity.

          1. Mikel G Roberts profile image86
            Mikel G Robertsposted 6 years agoin reply to this

            ok...

            If I am on a craft already doing the speed limit (what you're calling C) and I move my hand forward, my hand "actually" would be moving faster than the craft and therefore faster than the speed limit.

            Relativity to an outside observer to my mind is inconsequential. Either your hand moves forward or it doesn't.

            ***Time Dilation is a contradiction in terms, time is a measurement. Saying an inch would become three inches long doesn't change the inch, it changes the measurement.

            1. Cagsil profile image60
              Cagsilposted 6 years agoin reply to this

              If your body was subjected to the effects of the speed, then YOU wouldn't be able to move. The above shows the flaw in your line of thinking.

            2. wilderness profile image93
              wildernessposted 6 years agoin reply to this

              As the craft cannot reach C (already pointed out) your hand can still move forward.  There will always be "room" between what the craft is traveling at and C and thus your hand can still move forward.  The craft may be travelling at .9999C, which means your hand could travel at .99995C for example. 

              Relativity is not inconsequential.  To an outside observer it might take 10,000 years for your hand to go from your belt to fully outstretched while to you it will take less than a second.  The outside observer will not be able, in their lifetime, to see any movement; to you it will be normal.

              1. Mikel G Roberts profile image86
                Mikel G Robertsposted 6 years agoin reply to this

                Then the craft isn't traveling at the speed limit, I am saying it is traveling at the maximum achievable speed, the speed limit.

                1. wilderness profile image93
                  wildernessposted 6 years agoin reply to this

                  The maximum achievable speed for a particle with a rest mass greater than zero is less than C.  Any number less than C. .99999999999999999C maybe.  Or 50,000 9's.

                  If the ship is actually traveling at C then the mass of that ship is infinite and the entire universe will immediately collapse into it at a velocity of C; you won't move your hand with a star occupying your belly button.  It addition the rate of time passage in the ship is 0; nothing can move anyway.

                  1. Mikel G Roberts profile image86
                    Mikel G Robertsposted 6 years agoin reply to this

                    Ok, I may not be smart enough to understand the mass properties your talking about, that seem to somehow prove your point.

                    Can you dumb it down any?

                    Why does mass have to go away? If we simply increase thrust (no matter what mass we are attempting to move) 'the mass' will move in proportion to the thrust (more thrust=move movement)

                    In my example we have infinite thrust, meaning we do not lack the ability to move the ship at unlimited speeds, the only thing that slows our craft is the 'Einstein Speed Limit'. Once we are at (not close to but at) that speed limit, why wouldn't additional thrust cause faster/more movement?

                    ***If your answer is the math proves it, then explain Zeno's Paradox. hmm

            3. fatfist profile image78
              fatfistposted 5 years agoin reply to this

              It's funny how a simple guy, like Mikel Roberts, has the ability to use his brain for critical thinking,....while others who are decorated with Ph.D's and Nobels can only use their brain to parrot what they memorized by rote in their Bibles of Relativity.
              Mikel has single-handedly destroyed the Religion of Relativity with these simple statements. Now everybody else is chasing their tails to shoot down his statements with their own contradictions.

              This discussion is epic. Keep up the good work Mikel.
              And oh,...if you want to get more laughs from these Relativity Bible-Thumpers....ask them to explain exactly WHY 'c' has a limit. What is the mechanism which keeps light at 'c' and not at 'c+n' or 'c-n'? Who is in charge of enforcing this limit in the highways of the universe....the spirit of Einstein perhaps? Is Einstein now a Heavenly Traffic Cop? Does he use a radar gun to do it? lol  You will fall off your chair by the contradictory responses you get from Relativists who attempt to defend their Religion.

              1. Mikel G Roberts profile image86
                Mikel G Robertsposted 5 years agoin reply to this

                smile Thanks for the support.






                (Who you calling 'simple' lol)

            4. emrldphx profile image60
              emrldphxposted 5 years agoin reply to this

              If you are on a craft going 99.9999% the speed of light, and you turn on a flashlight, the light will travel away from you at the speed of light. Somebody standing outside the craft holding still would see it going the speed of light as well...

              Relativity is really weird.

      2. Utkarsh raj profile image73
        Utkarsh rajposted 5 years agoin reply to this

        Ya that's right. The power of the C can be easily understood in terms of time even the time which slows down in the fast moving spaceships to ensure that threshold of speed is not crossed.

    3. Pearldiver profile image86
      Pearldiverposted 6 years agoin reply to this

      F..K I had a whole lot of thoughts on this subject... but they have completely passed me by faster than yesterday's sunlight! roll

    4. ediggity profile image60
      ediggityposted 6 years agoin reply to this

      The spaceship is traveling at the speed of light with you in it. The acceleration due to a gravity would be negligible , so the bullet Would fire out of the gun normally ( except with a little more bang because of the lack of oxygen) and travel for ever until acted upon by another force.  You in turn would be thrusted the opposite direction.  You could solve for the relative velocity using relativity and find that the bullet will travel a little bit less than c.  smile

    5. Acheolis profile image58
      Acheolisposted 6 years agoin reply to this

      Without pretending to know more the Albert E. I'll have to agree with your guess. wink

      "The person in the spaceship only needs to travel near to the speed of light. The faster they travel, the slower their time will pass relative to someone planted firmly on the Earth. If they were able to travel at the speed of light, their time would cease completely and they would only exist trapped in timelessness"

      http://everythingforever.com/einstein.htm

      1. Mikel G Roberts profile image86
        Mikel G Robertsposted 6 years agoin reply to this

        Your quote and link actually are the opposite of what my guess is.

        Timelessness denotes an existence without change. Everything just is means it eternally remains the same.
        Evolution, change, motion and time are all aspects of a reality that starts, has a now and ends/changes.

        Personally I don't believe faster than light travel is impossible. I don't believe existence just always was. I don't believe time dilates or mutates.

        We have no proof that the Milky way Galaxy isn't already traveling faster than light, all our motion may be faster than light motion. Light in our reality may be accelerated light speed much like the bullet fired from the gun in this thread.
        The only thing I know for sure is, even Einstein isn't/wasn't sure the math added up.

    6. profile image0
      jomineposted 5 years agoin reply to this

      You will get only nonsense as answer to this question.
      By the way I think that is a correct question  and your own answer is correct, that is, the bullet will travel at the speed of the bullet plus the speed of the space ship(If it is "c", then "c").

    7. A Troubled Man profile image60
      A Troubled Manposted 5 years agoin reply to this

      Einstein also said that particles with mass cannot travel at the speed of light. Your premise is false from the get go.

      1. Mikel G Roberts profile image86
        Mikel G Robertsposted 5 years agoin reply to this

        Premise? I thought it was a question.

        1. A Troubled Man profile image60
          A Troubled Manposted 5 years agoin reply to this

          Must you always require hand holding at such elementary levels? Your premise is false in that a ship can travel the speed of light. Do you understand now?

        2. profile image0
          jomineposted 5 years agoin reply to this

          You know Mikel, Einstein will personally come and shoot anything that try to attain the speed of light, so nothing can ever attain the speed of light, so your premise is false.

        3. profile image0
          AKA Winstonposted 5 years agoin reply to this

          Einstein is scripture.  So it shall be written; so it shall be done.

          1. emrldphx profile image60
            emrldphxposted 5 years agoin reply to this

            Thanks to Einstein, we have amazing things like synchronized clocks and GPS. Nobody ever said his theories won't be overturned some day, but they explain things the best anyone has been able to, and they make things possible that wouldn't be possible without them, so we go with it.

    8. LewSethics profile image59
      LewSethicsposted 5 years agoin reply to this

      According to my understanding of einsteins Special theory of relativity, as you approach the speed of light time dialtes (slows down), so tha faster you go the slower the clock moves.  To the outside observer the bullet would be stationary, even if it was in midair, when the spaceship whizzed by, as the time inside the ship would be slowed but the time outside would be normal.
      To the guy inside the ship the gun would seem to behave normally, but in relation to the rest of the universe the bullet may take years to leave the barrel if the gun. 
      But as stated elsewhere here matter can't be accelerated to the speed of light (according to einsteins special theory of relativity), but if matter could travel at the speed of light time would stop, so the bullet would stay where it was until the ship slowed to below light speed and the clock started again.
      I would also like to remind everyone that the speed of light is a theory, and even though it may seem to be true there is still room for doubt.

      1. profile image0
        Cromperposted 5 years agoin reply to this

        ...and the moment you hit the speed of light you travel around every nook and cranny of the universe in an instant because time outside your ship passes at an infinite rate. So you would effectively find yourself alone and without a universe to look at because it would have died and gone.

      2. A Troubled Man profile image60
        A Troubled Manposted 5 years agoin reply to this

        Actually, the clock on the ship ticks perfectly normally for those aboard the ship. It is the clocks that are at rest relative to the ship that are ticking slower.



        Actually, it is a precisely measured fact.

  2. Cagsil profile image60
    Cagsilposted 6 years ago

    Of course the gun would fire at the same rate it usually does. The gun, the person firing the gun and the environment in which it is being fired at isn't subjected to actually traveling the speed of light.

    The passengers of the ship and it's contents are not going to be subjected to any affects or effects that which the outside part of the ship is. So, technically, anything inside the ship would work normal.

    This does nothing to change Einstein's work or knowledge about the Speed of Light.

    Do realize and I only use this as an example? In Star Trek, whenever have you ever seen them fire any weapon while in Warp? It's never happened, because they had to drop out of Warp before firing.

    1. Mikel G Roberts profile image86
      Mikel G Robertsposted 6 years agoin reply to this

      So the bullet if fired would stop (or would slow to the speed of the ship) once it reached the outside part of the ship?

      1. Cagsil profile image60
        Cagsilposted 6 years agoin reply to this

        You're joking right? The bullet would never reach the outside part of the ship, because you would never be unable to fire so that it could go outside the ship. The material the ship would be made out of, the bullet wouldn't go through.

        1. Mikel G Roberts profile image86
          Mikel G Robertsposted 6 years agoin reply to this

          Bullets can penetrate metal hulls, they do so all the time. In fact they have named the bullets designed to do so "armour piercing rounds" perhaps you have heard of them.

          Regardless of the abilities of the bullet, let's say the designers of the space ship capable of traveling at the speed limit proposed by Einstein, had installed a gun on the front of the craft and fired it, would the bullet leave the gun?

          1. Cagsil profile image60
            Cagsilposted 6 years agoin reply to this

            No

  3. cebutouristspot profile image75
    cebutouristspotposted 6 years ago

    I think that the bullet will leave the gun since when it was fired it was travelling at the same speed and the firing a bullet will add more force to the bullet.   As soon as it leave the gun it will rapidly decrease speed and would be back on the barrel.


    No Mathematical equation sorry

  4. psycheskinner profile image80
    psycheskinnerposted 6 years ago

    It doesn't matter how fast the craft moves.  The person, the gun the bullet and the air around the gun are not moving in relation to each other. So they are 'not moving' for purposed of bullet trajectory.

    1. Mikel G Roberts profile image86
      Mikel G Robertsposted 6 years agoin reply to this

      ?


      hmm

      1. irfansweb profile image52
        irfanswebposted 6 years agoin reply to this

        Yes this concept wants more research on this topic actually the face is that the science will never achieve its best.

      2. psycheskinner profile image80
        psycheskinnerposted 6 years agoin reply to this

        What was unclear.  If you stand on a bullet train and drop a rock, it goes straight down, right? I can talk about light speed or near light speed, but for any lesser speed where conventional macro-physics applies, what I said holds.

        1. Mikel G Roberts profile image86
          Mikel G Robertsposted 6 years agoin reply to this

          Yes, but if the bullet train is moving at the fastest possible speed in existence and you attempt to throw the rock in the direction the train is moving, isn't quite the same thing is it? Since the thread isn't about traveling at "lesser" speeds your ability to "talk all day" about them doesn't really apply then, but thanks.

          1. psycheskinner profile image80
            psycheskinnerposted 6 years agoin reply to this

            Given that we don't know if we can move at light speed at all, we don't know if standard macro-physics could apply.  And I'll post a suggestion on forum whenever I fee like it, thanks all the same (an activity you have "done all day" even more than me BTW).

            1. Mikel G Roberts profile image86
              Mikel G Robertsposted 6 years agoin reply to this

              ??? hmm

        2. wilderness profile image93
          wildernessposted 6 years agoin reply to this

          No it does not go straight down.  It travels in a parabola, having an initial velocity in the direction the train is going and undergoing an acceleration force from earths gravity.

          If you are traveling at that same initial velocity (in the train) it will appear to fall straight down but it is a false appearance.  If you want to get very technical you will have to add in earths (curved) path around the sun, the suns (curved) path around the galaxy and galactic motion as well.

          1. LewSethics profile image59
            LewSethicsposted 5 years agoin reply to this

            don't forget the locomotion

            1. wilderness profile image93
              wildernessposted 5 years agoin reply to this

              Absolutely!  You MUST do the locomotion around it as it falls or you won't see the true path. big_smile

  5. melpor profile image89
    melporposted 6 years ago

    Mike, the  bullet will leave the gun but it will be moving very slow from the observer's perspective on the ship since it cannot exceed the speed of light because time slows down as a moving object approach the speed of light. The closer it is to the speed of light the slower it will move. The bullet will move slower since it is moving faster than everything on the spaceship.

    This is the same approach particle scientists used at the particle accelerator in Switzerland to study the behavior of sub-atomic particles after a collision experiment. All the observed events of the particle progresses at a slower rate due to the speed of the particles which are traveling around the tube near the speed of light. Time slows down to prevent anything from traveling faster than the speed of light. To an observer standing outside of the spaceship he will not see the bullet leave the gun but it will appear to go backward if he was able to see it.

    1. wilderness profile image93
      wildernessposted 6 years agoin reply to this

      One little mistake - the observer on the ship has had time slowed for him, too - the bullet will move quickly in his perspective.

      It is the outside observer that will see it taking a year to reach the end of the barrel.

      1. melpor profile image89
        melporposted 6 years agoin reply to this

        You are right Wilderness, the bullet is moving faster than the observer traveling near the speed of light so time will move even slower for the bullet to keep it from exceeding the speed of light. The speed of the bullet is closer to the speed of light than the observer that is why it will move slower than the observer.

  6. Mikel G Roberts profile image86
    Mikel G Robertsposted 6 years ago

    I kinda wish I could believe like you guys do. But the fact remains that I don't.
    I believe sometime in the future people will be whisking around at 10X the speed of light. Time will remain constant to both them and the millions of outside observers. I believe there will be people sitting around in chat rooms discussing the mathematically sound principle of Relativity that is proven to be yet another paradox of reality by the faster than light trips to work they take everyday. Just like the conversations that we of today have about Zeno's Paradox, the mathematically sound principle that touch is impossible.

    hmm

    1. ediggity profile image60
      ediggityposted 5 years agoin reply to this

      Well, we all gotta believe somethin.  smile

      1. Cagsil profile image60
        Cagsilposted 5 years agoin reply to this

        lol lol

    2. Mikel G Roberts profile image86
      Mikel G Robertsposted 5 years agoin reply to this

      Paradoxial Mathematics?

      Do you suppose the Zeno's Paradox and this Relativity Paradox might be the same thing? Some kind of mathematical anomoly?

      hmm

  7. profile image0
    Nonsense Debunkerposted 5 years ago

    Mikel,
    Congrags for thinking!

    All knows not the answer! Your view and Einstein's view are NOT mutually exclusive! Both can be correct! The postulate states:

    The speed of light is the same for all OBSERVERS!

    It is this redundant beast called 'observer' which brings all confusion! It means;

    The speed of light is APPARENTLY constant. It is this way, a car moving with the same velocity as you is APPARENTLY stationary. It is not REALY stationary.

  8. profile image0
    Nonsense Debunkerposted 5 years ago

    Mikel
    Whether or not it is physically imposible to move at c is absolutely irrelevant to your question because yours is an hypothetical assumption that you are already moving at c initialy.

    According to SR, you are still in an inertial frame of riference irrespective of your velocity. So you firing the gun, the bullet will certainly receed from you with normal velocity as per the postulate;

    The laws of physics APPEARS the same in all inertial frames of riferences.

    Someone capable of thinking like you immediately see that the bullet REALY moves faster than light. That is 100% correct!! The confusion? Einstein is talking of the APPARENT velocity of the bullet. Just as seen by the ground OBSERVER. For reasons unexplained in SR, the ground observer will a slowmotion movie of reality. In the case of you moving at c, the 'broadcasters of reality' will have slowed for you the 'movie' to an halt. You will only stare to one instance and won't see the bullet moving. This is called 'time stopping on you' in their idiotic language.

  9. profile image0
    Nonsense Debunkerposted 5 years ago

    The Einstein's barrier is sanely stated this way;

    APPARENTLY, nothing can move faster than light.

    That is to say we can't measure and find a velocity faster than light. It is a theory not of reality but of measurements! But to measure and find apparent velocities isn't extraordinary. The fact that should ring in the mind of fools is that measurements does NOT necessarily reflect reality. Nature can perform very simple tricks on us! 'Time dillation' can even be experienced by a boy counting drum beats from a vehicle receeding away from him. Infact, two similarly beaten drums will be heard each beating slowlier than each other in two cars receeding away from each other. Yes, if you judged only using ears, infact you won't hear anything receeding away from you faster than sound no matter how fast the thing is ACTUALLY moving!!

  10. wilderness profile image93
    wildernessposted 5 years ago

    You are mistaken.  Consider the following scenarios:

    An observer, a drum player and a plane with a pilot.  Let the drummer produce a beat every 2 seconds and the driver move towards him at twice the speed of sound.  The observer and drummer will hear a beat every two seconds, the pilot will hear a beat perhaps every 1 second as each beat has less distance to travel.  As the pilot passes the drummer he will no longer hear any beats as the sound cannot catch him.  Upon the end of the test pilot and observer compare their watches, each says the same time.

    Now consider a pulsar, pulsing once each hour, an observer and a spaceship pilot.  Set the pilot moving at very near C towards the pulsar.  Each pulse has less distance to cover and you would expect the time between pulses to decrease.  In practice, this is a function of V (speed), but the time dilation experienced by the pilot is a function of V squared; the pilot will experience pulses at perhaps once every 10 hours instead of the expected 30 minutes.  When the text is over, compare watches of the pilot and observer; the pilots clock will say it is much earlier than the observers, again from the effects of time dilation.  As the pilot passes the pulsar he will still see the pulses as he is travelling less than the speed of light and it will catch him.  The time between pulses will remain very nearly the same, but the frequency of light reaching him will decrease enormously as he is now moving away from the pulsar.

    Actual speed in the plane (relative to the drum) could be calculated from the time between beats, while the spaceship can use only the doppler effect to calculate speed; his notion of passing time is skewed from that of the observer and the pulsar.

    Your example of using sound to observe time dilation is flawed.  It can produce a simulation of time dilation, but the watches will remain the same; it is not actual time dilation.

    1. Mikel G Roberts profile image86
      Mikel G Robertsposted 5 years agoin reply to this

      and again, I agree the math says and proves it is so. But the Math also Proves that touch is impossible and yet... it isn't.

      1. wilderness profile image93
        wildernessposted 5 years agoin reply to this

        Unfortunately for that argument experience in the one case demonstrates that the math is right and works - in the other case experience proves the opposite.

        Math may "prove" you can't touch a table with your finger but... what if you apply the exact same math concept to the back of your finger instead of the front.  Eventually the front will touch the table.  The back won't; it is stopped by the flesh and bone of the finger, but the math still works to the point that the front touches.

        If you try to apply that to the speed of light - you run into a problem in that the entire ship is traveling at the same speed.  It isn't like your finger where measuring distance from one part results in a different result than measuring from a different part.

        1. Mikel G Roberts profile image86
          Mikel G Robertsposted 5 years agoin reply to this

          Twisting the concept so it seems there isn't an anomoly in the absoluteness of mathematics doesn't accomplish anything. It is simply a form of denial.

          1. wilderness profile image93
            wildernessposted 5 years agoin reply to this

            The mathematics that "prove"you can't touch a table carries a basic flaw in that the "proof" assumes a constantly varying acceleration away from the table.  That doesn't happen in real life.  If the physical conditions in that proof were to actually take place it would then be correct.

            There is no anomaly.

            1. Mikel G Roberts profile image86
              Mikel G Robertsposted 5 years agoin reply to this

              Ok what part of this is wrong?

              Zeno's Paradox(Math) states touch (arriving at a destination) is impossible.
              Touch proves Zeno's Paradox(Math) is incorrect.
              Math is an absolute science. (1+1 always equals 2 etc.)

              That is an anomoly.

              1. profile image0
                Cromperposted 5 years agoin reply to this

                The maths is correct. The problem lies in the application of it.
                In Zeno's paradox the fact that the motion of the objects remains constant whilst the maths is dividing the distance between the two exponentially is not taken into account. For Zeno's paradox to have any validity, the velocity of the objects would need to slow down exponentially along with the maths.
                The paradox (when applied) actually shows that the velocity of the objects coming together increase in relative velocity until they reach an infinite speed. The problem is that the maths changes the rules every 50% of the way.

                1. wilderness profile image93
                  wildernessposted 5 years agoin reply to this

                  I would have said that the velocity decreased to 0, not infinite.

                  Other than that, this explains the paradox well.  A negative acceleration must be applied, resulting in a constantly decreasing velocity, which is exactly the objects cannot come together in less than infinite time.  A paradox which is easily found and explained.

                  1. profile image0
                    Cromperposted 5 years agoin reply to this

                    Yes the velocity would decrease to 0, but 'relative' to the maths (if the maths was watching the finger moving) the finger would accelerate to an infinite speed because it is the maths which is changing over the distance.

                2. Mikel G Roberts profile image86
                  Mikel G Robertsposted 5 years agoin reply to this

                  Identical to the math involved in 'Relativity'. Which is why I believe we will be able to go faster than light speed and time will remain constant for all of existence.

                  This mathematical anomoly is something profound.

                  1. wilderness profile image93
                    wildernessposted 5 years agoin reply to this

                    Zenos paradox is not only not identical to the math involved in relativity, it is nothing at all like it.  The paradox basically says that (1/2)^n is always positive, while relativity says that mass and time dilation become 1/0 at the speed of light.  One is certainly true (the paradox) but has little to do with physics unless the limit as n approaches infinity is used instead of 1 divided by 2 to the nth power.  The other is a meaningless figure - while the numeral can be written, the number it supposedly represents does not exist.  We laymen may interpret it as infinity, but it is not - it does not exist at all and has no meaning in mathematics.

                  2. profile image0
                    Cromperposted 5 years agoin reply to this

                    We will never be able to travel faster than light because it would take infinite energy to do so.

                    The best way to understand this is to think of a car hitting a brick wall. At 5MPH the wall will probably stop the car, but at 50MPH the car will smash through it. It's the same car with the same mass at a stand still, but at velocity its mass increases. This is how energy converts to mass, and we can calculate how much energy would be required to propel the car at certain speeds. You don't need to be a scientist to understand this even if you don't understand the maths.

  11. profile image0
    Nonsense Debunkerposted 5 years ago

    Wilderness,
    I said IF and only if you have a drum beat as the only clock, you will certainly be fooled by dopple effect into thinking that you are experiencing 'time dillation' of course another clock will not be as 'foolish' as 'sonic relativists' just as we would if we discoverd a signal moving faster than light!

    1. wilderness profile image93
      wildernessposted 5 years agoin reply to this

      Understood.  My point is that the "time dilation" from sonic observations is not the time dilation referred to by special relativity.  One is a simulation of the actual effect while the other actually happens.

      The pilot/driver, etc. actually experiencing the dilation cannot detect it; it is only found by comparing with an outside observer.  Remember, it is not the actual movement of the car that produces dilation; it is the relative motion of the drum to the car that produces the relative dilation effect.  Otherwise we would have to include the motion of the earths rotation, the earth around the sun, the sun around the galaxy and the galaxy through space.

  12. profile image0
    Nonsense Debunkerposted 5 years ago

    Wildernes,
    Of course mine was just an analogy. My point is that nature can easily fool us.

    There is something I don't get you about 'actuality' what is the definition of 'actuality' in relativity? So what do you mean by

    "the time dillation of SR ACTUALLY happens"

    I mean each of the two clocks are observed to each tick slowlier than the other. So which clock is ACTUALLY dilating? As far as I know, NON! It is just the same as my drums! What you don't seem to realise is that SR does not say that both observers will at the end compare their clocks and find that they ticked differentially. VERY WRONG!! the differential ticking is only observed while the frames are in relative motion. The halting and comparing clocks moves the problem to GR!!

    1. wilderness profile image93
      wildernessposted 5 years agoin reply to this

      When you send up one of two identical clocks, showing the same time and date, with an astronaut and it shows a different time when it lands (it has "ticked" slower) than the one left on ground it is due to time dilation.

      It is very confusing because while the universe doesn't differentiate between two items moving relative to each other, WE do.  One of the two is designated as the reference - the best we can do is to claim that the one that has experienced acceleration is the moving one, but even that doesn't always follow.  After all, the earth is constantly being accelerated in a circular path around the sun.

  13. profile image0
    Cromperposted 5 years ago

    It would be impossible to travel at the speed of light, but if you DID travel at the speed of light you would freeze in time and pass through every corner of the universe until it (and you) ceased to exist.
    But essentially, if you fired the gun at the speed of light, no one outside your spacecraft watching you fly by would see anything happening because you would be frozen. The bullet would never emerge from the gun.

  14. Mikel G Roberts profile image86
    Mikel G Robertsposted 5 years ago

    What part of math absolutely proves it is impossible to touch, don't you guys understand?

    1. wilderness profile image93
      wildernessposted 5 years agoin reply to this

      If you are referring to Zeno's Paradox, none of it.  I understand it quite well.  I'll even write you a hub on it tomorrow.

      1. Mikel G Roberts profile image86
        Mikel G Robertsposted 5 years agoin reply to this

        Thanks, but I already wrote it.

        1. wilderness profile image93
          wildernessposted 5 years agoin reply to this

          I found it.  I'll still write it - I have an entirely different take on the matter.  I'll even link to you as a different viewpoint and explanation.  Should be interesting.

          1. Mikel G Roberts profile image86
            Mikel G Robertsposted 5 years agoin reply to this

            kewl

            1. wilderness profile image93
              wildernessposted 5 years agoin reply to this

              Done.  It can be found in my latest hubs.

              1. Mikel G Roberts profile image86
                Mikel G Robertsposted 5 years agoin reply to this

                Nice Hub. I still disagree, but nicely done. wink


                *** The part I have trouble agreeing with is the part where you state the ball (that IS moving at a constant velocity) slows down as it gets closer to the light beam. That continual reduction in velocity being why it can't ever get to the light beam.

                Then in the next paragraph you restate that ball is in constant motion at a set velocity.  hmm

                1. wilderness profile image93
                  wildernessposted 5 years agoin reply to this

                  Maybe I messed up.  There are supposed to be three balls, one control at a constant velocity, one changing while looking at the paradox and one again fixed velocity while looking at the paradox.

                  I'll have to re-check my wording there.  Thanks

  15. profile image0
    Nonsense Debunkerposted 5 years ago

    Again, all seem to know not the flaw in zeno's paradox. First, it is a purely logical question. Einsteins barrier is a statement about nature that need observation to debunk.

    The flaw in Zeno's paradox is the inherent but hidden assumtion that motion proceeds in jerky manner. This flaw is done in caculus but there is no problem since calculus is just a tool.

    Zeno goes ahead and becomes only interested with the moment when the cheeter has arrived at where the tortoise was. Notice that by so doing, he renders the velocity of cheeter undefined!! The cheeter could have gone at varying velocities BUT STILL ARIVE THERE AT THAT TIME. the only thing required is the 'average velocity' consider the classic combination of velocities which zeno won't differentiat in his disection. zero and infinite. Instead of cheeter moving from point p with constant velocity arriving at q, where the tortoise was, at time t, cheetah could have  simply tarried at point p until time t and then jerk with 'infinite velocity' to point q. The point is that zeno can't state that this is not what is infact happening! Yet if indead cheetar was jerking in such a manner, he won't catch the tortoise.

    1. Mikel G Roberts profile image86
      Mikel G Robertsposted 5 years agoin reply to this

      roll Thanks for Playing.

  16. profile image0
    Nonsense Debunkerposted 5 years ago

    In the end, zeno proofs in a looong not that motion is imposible but that it is imposible to shoot at infinite velocity. Which is infact a no brainer!!

  17. profile image0
    Nonsense Debunkerposted 5 years ago

    Some people still think that Einstein's barrier is a proven fact. What a bunch of morons! If Newton's laws of motion could be challenged, no theory is unchallengable. Physicists might have bowed to Einstein but nature does not give a shit on Einstein's words.

    All you need to do to decrown a bird's head of too big a crown is spot a signal, (NOT AN OBJECT) shooting just even slightly faster than c such that it relay information. You disembowel relativity! There is practically nothing left! Why? Simple, consider the extreem case. We have a rocket shooting at relativistic speed. Take your telescopes ready all we need to do is observe a moving clock but using signal s which is propergating exceedingly faster than c so that it relays to me a clocks reading nearly instantaneously. The clocks will be observed to tik nearly at the same rate!!

    1. wilderness profile image93
      wildernessposted 5 years agoin reply to this

      Of course Einsteins work has been challenged and will continue to be challenged.  We've even found times where he was wrong, in the quantum world.  In this particular case, however, (speed of light being a speed limit) there have been no successful challenges.

      1. profile image0
        jomineposted 5 years agoin reply to this

        Speed of light is independent on the observer??? Then what happened to the "objectivity" in science?
        What they should say is, speed of light is independent of the source.
        Then we have an example - sound. The speed of light is also independent of the source. Why? Like sound, light is not also on the source. Some object on a speeding source take the speed of the source because the object picks up the speed of the moving source owing to the fact that both has same speed, as one is 'on' another. So when somebody throws the object, its speed will be = speed of source + speed at which it is thrown.
        But for light and sound they are not on the source to pick up the speed of the source.
        So the inference - both are waves. The difference, sound is supra-atomic, so we know the medium, light- subatomic, so we do not know the medium.

  18. profile image0
    Nonsense Debunkerposted 5 years ago

    One area I am suspicious in is gravitantional waves if any. The assertion that they will propergate at c seems suspicious for gravity is still a different phenomenon from electromagneticsm. Why the majical equality?  Perharps they shoot faster than electromagnetic waves. This of course would mean that the whole of GR is on its way to dust pin!! So I warn those guys looking for gravitantional waves to be sure that they measure very well. It will be ridiculus if the waves are infact undulating in a different medium than EM waves which alows them to shoot faster which is likely for there is no known interaction between gravity and electromagnetism. Infact if the Gwaves shoots excedingly faster than EMwaves, Newton's law of gravity was more correct than Einstein's!!

    1. wilderness profile image93
      wildernessposted 5 years agoin reply to this

      Gravity may work instantaneously - we don't know.  It may be a wave, or not - we don't know.  While we can correctly predict the pull of gravity, that is about all we can do in that field.  Unfortunate as it may be the key that holds everything together in the world of physics and cosmology.

      1. profile image0
        Cromperposted 5 years agoin reply to this

        The effects of gravity are instantaneous. I think this is usually demonstrated during total eclipses and the bending of light as it passes the sun. String theory is based on the idea that gravity is the string holding all atoms together. If you pull on the string at one end, the effect will be felt immediately at the other end no matter how long the string is.

        1. wilderness profile image93
          wildernessposted 5 years agoin reply to this

          Mmm.  I had not come across any proof that gravity was instantaneous - I'll have to check that out.  It doesn't seem right to use an eclipse as the moon is slowly moved into position, but I'm probably missing something.

          Thanks for the tip.

          1. Randy Godwin profile image93
            Randy Godwinposted 5 years agoin reply to this

            The moon actually has no affect on the phenomena other than allowing the light being bent by the sun's gravity to be observed because of the eclipse.  Is this what you mean?  smile

            1. wilderness profile image93
              wildernessposted 5 years agoin reply to this

              I guess so, I don't know how you would use that to determine the propagation speed of gravity.  I'm just guessing as I haven't yet looked into it.

  19. Greek One profile image76
    Greek Oneposted 5 years ago

    the correct answer is '42'

    1. Mikel G Roberts profile image86
      Mikel G Robertsposted 5 years agoin reply to this

      I just got off the phone with Jim Carey... after a lot of thought we have to say we disagree. 42 is incorrect.

      We keep coming up with 23.

      hmm

  20. Randy Godwin profile image93
    Randy Godwinposted 5 years ago

    I remember a few years ago hearing about some type of identical "dangling" particles or something similar.  If one of the twin particles were placed across the universe from the other and one was moved, the other particles would move at the same time, no matter the distance.

    The scientists announcing this discovery claimed it had been tested somehow.  I've never heard anything about it since.  The scientists claimed it would enable super fast computers and instant radio messaging to spacecraft even light years away.  Anyone know anything about this?

    1. wilderness profile image93
      wildernessposted 5 years agoin reply to this

      Very little.  It's a part of string theory, and my understanding is that it has indeed been verified.  It involves changing the spin of subatomic particles rather than moving them, though.

      1. Randy Godwin profile image93
        Randy Godwinposted 5 years agoin reply to this

        Thanks, Wilderness.  I just remember them being referred to as "dangling" particles or something similar.  I don't know if this would prove the instantaneous gravity theory, but it would seem to have some bearing on it.  smile

        1. wilderness profile image93
          wildernessposted 5 years agoin reply to this

          Or it may show that the space between two "linked" particles has disappeared as far as they are concerned.  That they are actually touching somehow.  Through the infamous "subspace" maybe.

          I don't know - this stuff is beyond me.

          1. Randy Godwin profile image93
            Randy Godwinposted 5 years agoin reply to this

            Me too, but fascinating nonetheless!  smile

            1. wilderness profile image93
              wildernessposted 5 years agoin reply to this

              It is that.  It usually leaves me shaking my head in confusion, but is fascinating nevertheless.

              I watched a report on an experiment the other day where individual photons were being shot at a target.  They acted as a wave instead of a particle, but ONLY when no one was watching.  If an observation detector was turned on they reverted to acting like particles.  Turn off the detector and they were waves.

              Things like that just baffle me.

              1. Randy Godwin profile image93
                Randy Godwinposted 5 years agoin reply to this

                Those were merely female photons playing hard to get.  smile

                1. wilderness profile image93
                  wildernessposted 5 years agoin reply to this

                  lol  Maybe so.  Maybe so.

          2. profile image0
            Cromperposted 5 years agoin reply to this

            I could be wrong in what I said. I was thinking that the position of a visible star which would otherwise be obscured by the sun (if it wasn't for the bending of light through gravity) would still be obscured if the effect of gravity also travelled at the speed of light. But that doesn't seem right thinking about it.

            I also seem to remember reading somewhere that there is gravitational attraction between all matter in the universe, even matter from which light has not reached us yet. Must look it up!

            1. wilderness profile image93
              wildernessposted 5 years agoin reply to this

              You could well be right on gravity too far away for light to reach us.  I have never seen any limiters on the G equation for attraction between two masses.

              Doesn't mean it's not there, and doesn't meant that it shouldn't be there, but I've never seen it.

  21. Wesman Todd Shaw profile image91
    Wesman Todd Shawposted 5 years ago

    First of all - the speed of light isn't constant.  So when you speak of the speed of light - you aren't talking about a constant speed.

    I certainly realize that the speed of light used to be thought to be constant - but that's the past.

    1. wilderness profile image93
      wildernessposted 5 years agoin reply to this

      No, it isn't.  Continually more accurate instruments and methods have shown that it does vary by medium and, I think, local gravity.  Although that could be due as much to relativity as anything.

      1. Wesman Todd Shaw profile image91
        Wesman Todd Shawposted 5 years agoin reply to this
        1. wilderness profile image93
          wildernessposted 5 years agoin reply to this

          Interesting - thanks.  I didn't realize we had produced such a low temperature that we had slowed light to anything like that.

        2. A Troubled Man profile image60
          A Troubled Manposted 5 years agoin reply to this

          All they did was dump the photons into a Bose-Einstein condensate and made copies of the original photons. So what?

    2. A Troubled Man profile image60
      A Troubled Manposted 5 years agoin reply to this

      The speed of light is invariant, in other words, it does not vary. If it is moving through mediums other than space, then it will interact with whatever is present in the mediums giving the appearance that it has slowed, but it nonetheless interacts with whatever is in the medium at c.

  22. Randy Godwin profile image93
    Randy Godwinposted 5 years ago

    So if the car is traveling at the speed of light, what happens when you turn on the headlights?  smile


    Seriously though, if a fly was in the back of the car and flew to the front seat--in a hypothetical sealed interior, of course--would the fly be going faster than the speed of light?

    1. ediggity profile image60
      ediggityposted 5 years agoin reply to this

      No. smile

      1. Randy Godwin profile image93
        Randy Godwinposted 5 years agoin reply to this

        I knew that fly was lying!

    2. emrldphx profile image60
      emrldphxposted 5 years agoin reply to this

      According to our understanding, you can't go the speed of light. The amount of energy needed to accelerate you that quickly doesn't exist in the entire universe.(without turning you into pure energy, at least).

      The more energy you put into accelerating, the more 9's you add on to your 99.9999% the speed of light figure.

      If, however, you are going 99.9999999% the speed of light and turn on your headlights, you will measure the light travelling away from you at the speed of light. Someone standing still outside your window would also measure the light travelling away from you at the speed of light... not faster than the speed of light as you would expect.

  23. SpanStar profile image60
    SpanStarposted 5 years ago

    Maybe it's just me but all these article which talk about traveling at the speed of light is talking about particles lighter then air but some reason we think someone weighing more then air can sail through the universe at light speed-like I said maybe it's just me-I don't know?

 
working