0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
quote:Originally posted by lightarrow(see the thread:http://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=2010&whichpage=2)The fact is that in practice the speed of light is infinite. What I mean: when a body's speed is not much, our definition of speed: v = space/time is a good definition, but when the body's speed is very high (that is, near the speed of light) our definition is not good anylonger, because space and time are not (enough) independent each other anylonger. If you were inside a space-ship moving faster and faster, you would see planets, stars, approaching you in greater and greater amount, without any limit, that is, the number of stars you would see passing by you in one second, e.g., would approach infinity. Of course we are assuming the average number of stars in a volume of space is constant, but this doesn't change the essence of the concept.
quote:Originally posted by realmswalkerits such a basic tenet of modern physics...but i dont get why it is this way...!?!why cant any thing go faster than light? why did einstein set that as the constant and what not?i mean its illogical to think that if you have an engine with infinite output and you kept pushing on something, that it couldnt overcome the speed of light eventually....idk
quote:Then there is a theoretical class of objects known as tachyons that can only ever travel faster than the speed of light, and can never slow down to being as slow as the speed of light (if such objects exist, then they will be very strange objects indeed, and whereas with ordinary matter, you need to add energy to make it go faster, with tachyons you need to add energy to slow it down, and you could never add enough energy to get it to slow down to the speed of light).
quote:If you could, you'd get where you're going before you left where you were. And thats against the rules.
quote:thats not entirely true. you are always where you are, and when you are. The only thing that arrives before, is your image. If light was not a barriar, than the next milestone would be instantanious. Even if you take no time at all to move from point a to point b, the image would appear at point b slightly after the image at point a dissappears. if you were to travel faster than instantanous, than you would meet up with yourself at the point, and there cannot be two of you in existance.
quote:Originally posted by science_guycould a tachyon possibly be an antiphoton?
quote:But if your image arrived before you it would still go againts the rules as that image would contain information which is basically the same thing as you arriving before you left.
quote:no. photons are like their own anti-particles, but i don't think anything should be a photon's anti-particle, because if you annihilate photons, what do you get as a result?
quote:Originally posted by science_guyif light is considered energy, than maybe the annihilation of an anti-photon and a photon is the reverse effect of the annihilation of any other matter/antimatter reaction: Maybe it would create mass.
quote:Originally posted by science_guywow, our topic has been graced with DoctorBeaver's presence![^][^]What was the theory that concerned this?
quote:Originally posted by science_guyVery interesting.Can you explain why mass gets larger when you get closer to the speed of light? I would understand why time might slow down...could going faster be an example of converting time into space? Whereas going slower is an example of converting space into time?
quote:Originally posted by science_guyCan you explain why mass gets larger when you get closer to the speed of light? I would understand why time might slow down...
quote:Originally posted by DoctorBeaverquote:Originally posted by science_guyVery interesting.Can you explain why mass gets larger when you get closer to the speed of light? I would understand why time might slow down...could going faster be an example of converting time into space? Whereas going slower is an example of converting space into time?[xx(]
quote:I suppose the starting point should be whether someone can explain what mass is.Mass seems to be nothing but a number that tells you how responsive or unresponsive something is to external force, which is just another way of saying that the closer an object is to travelling at the speed of light, the more unresponsive it becomes to external forces that may try and alter its velocity.
quote:Originally posted by science_guyIf you were observing a ship going closer to the velocity of light, would it actually appear to increase in mass, or would it just require more force to move, and therefore appear to increase in mass because of greater resistance to movement?
quote:Originally posted by science_guyI've always liked Italian Stuff.
quote:General relativity predicts that gravitational radiation should exist and propagate as a wave at the speed of light.
quote:Originally posted by Soul SurferThere IS one question in this sequence that I have not yet found a clear answer to and that is does the gravitational attractive force force between two bodies only depend on the rest mass of the bodies or does it increase with the increasing velocity? I think that it may only apply to the rest mass. In which case materials orbiting black holes will actually find it very difficult to get into the hole because one definition of a black hole event horizon is that it is the point where the escape velocity reaches the speed of light. The orbital velocity is a little bit lower than this but is still quite close to the velocity of light and so the relativistic mass ingrease is very noticable requiring a lot of extra enegy input to get an orbit that low.
quote:Originally posted by jyskI causiously suggested that the influence of gravity was instantanious in a post earlier in this thread. I carefully choose the word "influence" rather then the word "speed". I might be the only guy here who thinks there is a difference.
quote:Originally posted by thebrain13so light arrow, does that mean that if I were traveling very fast, all the time in circles on earth, that I would measure the strength of gravity as greater than 9.81 ms^2?
quote:Originally posted by Soul SurferI have been trying to understand how strongly relativistic motion affects the orbits of objects close to (or even inside) a black hole.
quote:So you are saying that the acceleration of a body under gravity towards the centre of gravity as it approaches the event horizon of a black hole does not change as its mass increases as a result of its velocity increase.
The influence of the sun's gravitation (or sudden loss thereof) would be instantly apparent to us even if we were on Pluto, while it would be some time before we realised that it had been removed due to light speed lag.