|
Light Speed
Link |
by IndigoKrow
on 2005-08-28 21:08:27
|
| I'e never quite understood the reasons why it is impossible to attain light speed. I as curious as to why that is. |
|
Re: Light Speed
Link |
by
on 2005-08-28 22:24:05 |
the mathematical reason: as the speed of an object approaches the speed of light, its relative mass approaches zero. propulsion is only as effective as the momentum of the ballast you are ejecting. if it has zero mass, it has zero momentum. 
|
|
Re: Light Speed
|
|
I thought it was the other way around: as you approach lightspeed, your mass Increases. At lightspeed you'd have infinite mass, therefore it is impossible to accelerate to lightspeed. Or something like that anyway, I never quite understood all of it and there's some stuff I'm leaving out because I don't remember it @_@ Oops, I just disagreed with Gendou about Physics again. If I keep this up he's gonna boot me :P  |
|
Re: Light Speed
|
| we need hyperspace damn it, if we have that, lightspeed would be a piece of cake. Oops, did i confuse reality with Star Wars? |
|
Re: Light Speed
|
|
Hyperspace would be GREAT to have, but if it's at all possible then it's a longggg way in the future. For now, I'd be happy with a way to get to just 50% of lightspeed, that would make traveling the solar system easy as pie. |
|
Re: Light Speed
Link |
by
on 2005-08-30 16:27:19 |
|
Yeah, really. Who cares about actually making it to the speed of light when we've only approached a small fraction of it. Save the hyperspace stuff for later. Let's worry about making it to Mars in only a few weeks rather than seconds. |
|
Re: Light Speed
|
|
WITH NO OFFENSE MEANT WHATSOEVER HERE IS MY OPINION: Light-speed would be useless. Why? As an object reaches light-speed, it is converted into a form of light. This is accepted by quite a few scientists. I myself concur. However of course, you may choose not to agree. As the object would become a form of light, that object would instantly cease to be what it was. Not to also mention the amount of strain and stress anything has to go through to reach light-speed. You would die from the mass increase alone; you would get shorter and shorter; and you'd probably be dead long before achieving light-speed. By the way, Gendou, I thought that the formula for relativistic momentum was the gamma factor by the initial mass by the velocity of the object. For those not aware, the gamma factor (derived from the Michaelson-Morely experiments with inferometers) is a factor used to find the relativistic happenings of an object. It is equal to (1)/(The square root of(1)-(the velocity of the object divided by the speed of light) to the power of two)) Therefore, 1/((sqrt 1-(v/c)^2))Upon actually reaching light-speed, we have v/c equal to 1. Squaring that we get 1. Then we subtract that from 1 (which equals zero) and find the square root. It's zero. Therefore, since we have 1/0, we have infinity. The object would have infinite momentum correct? I may be wrong so please tell me if I am.
Control the power, do not let it control you.
|
|
Re: Light Speed
Link |
by EricSoLazy
on 2005-09-10 13:35:30 (edited 2005-09-10 13:43:53)
|
|
Yes, when you approch the speed of light you get "heavier" to a point it would require infinte energy to move you cause you would have infinte mass. Now for the reasons for this happening as orignally asked for. Amd im going to write this very simply, as you go faster and faster, you gain more and more energy, and because E=mc^2, that energy is translated into mass thats why you get more mass, your lenght changes as well and you seem to slow down time wise, because all these are relative, BUT light is not and through a long and complicated lecture I come to the point that reaching the speed of light with an odject having mass would require infinite energy Hyperspace as most scifi makes it is bullshit, there is no magical realm in which we can "teleport" through space, it might however be possible to bend space in which to points in space become closer together thus reducing the amount of time needed to travel, and its not so far off we have right now some of the building blocks to make such a system.
WHOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO
|
|
Re: Light Speed
|
|
EricSoLazy, could you please elaborate on the actual building blocks on such a system? I thought that to bend space-time considerably one has to introduce an object with a lot of gravity.
Control the power, do not let it control you.
|
|
Re: Light Speed
Link |
by EricSoLazy
on 2005-09-13 08:52:11
|
|
Yes, normally a great deal of mass would bend space-time, but when scientists play around with ways to bend space time thier equations seem to al end up with that negative energies will bend space time, we dont know that for sure, but it is possible.
WHOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO
|
|
Re: Light Speed
|
|
You misunderstand me. You said we have the "building blocks" of such a system. We got the theories, I know that. But, do we have some type of technology that hints towards that? By building blocks did you just mean the theories? Could you please clarify this?
Control the power, do not let it control you.
|
|
Re: Light Speed
Link |
by EricSoLazy
on 2005-09-13 13:02:35
|
|
I was just refering to that we have been able to create negative energy, but not isolate it and then be able to harness it.. so maybe step 1 out of 1000000 is done
WHOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO
|
|
Re: Light Speed
|
|
Sorry to continue to pester you, but do you know how EXACTLY we have found negative energy? (I'm sorry, you said created. Did you mean "created?" Does this then refute or contradict the Law of the Conservation of Energy in any way?)
Control the power, do not let it control you.
|
|
Re: Light Speed
Link |
by EricSoLazy
on 2005-09-13 17:07:23
|
|
Pester me?.. no. I love negative energy, to a point I feel bad that I might be overhyping it. But negative energy is created when light is "squeezed" so that the energy fluctuation that it has (heisenburg)is pushed down past zero into negative energy per unit of space. Its really weird stuff http://www.physics.hku.hk/~tboyce/sf/topics/wormhole/wormhole.html thats a good site, a bit old, and thinks time travel might be possible..HA
WHOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO
|
|
Re: Light Speed
|
|
I should have guessed: wormholes and the like subject matter. I've actually heard all about this in a book I once read nearly three years ago. The problem with it is its impracticality, at least in my opinion.
Control the power, do not let it control you.
|
|
Re: Light Speed
Link |
by EricSoLazy
on 2005-09-14 20:43:04
|
|
Yeah, I dont really like how its tied into wormhole thoeries.. but negative energies is a complete side of physics that is being ingored even though it has huge ramifications such as negative mass, wormholes most likly dont exist, but negative energy does.
WHOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO
|
|
Re: Light Speed
Link |
by MiCHiYo μ
on 2006-11-10 17:36:32
|
|
okay. old thread revival. from light speed, it went to wormholes. anyhow... Gendou, didn't EINSTEIN prove that as a certain object approaches the speed of light, its mass becomes greater and so it's just merely impossible to reach that speed? We've went past the speed of sound, so it might look possible, but when you think about it, speed of sound and speed of light are wavelengths different. So is it all fiction or is there a hole? -michiyo- 
 beware. the QueeN oF SiGGieS is here. kill that mr. scrolly or your siggy goes BAI BAI. it's solidarity month! let's be united! +[-- GeNDouNiaNS: i am half-back! visit my blog by clicking on the siggie banner! updated: 12.07.07 --]+
~*..:: i'm never going to give up... if i do, then it wasn't worth trying. ::..*~
|
|
Re: Light Speed
Link |
by SuicidopoliS
on 2006-11-11 03:36:26
|
|
Michiyo said: "We've went past the speed of sound, so it might look possible, but when you think about it, speed of sound and speed of light are wavelengths different. So is it all fiction or is there a hole?" Both are completely incomparable! While one is electro-magnetic ( light ) and transported by particles ( = "massless" photons ), the other is a moving pressure front with no mass/particle-transport involved! Also: light needs no medium to travel ( hence, the speed of light is at it's max in vacuum ), while sound does need one ( there is no sound in vacuum, since there is no medium to distort ). The point is: what we know about one, doesn't tell us much about the other... .oO° Life's THE CURE, the rest are details! °Oo. |
|
Re: Light Speed
Link |
by
on 2006-11-11 14:18:18 |
|
I didn`t really understand, why the speed of light isn`t variable. light insists of photons, right? So why can`t we slow them down so that it`s easier to reach the speed? You would travel to the past, when you`re faster than light!   |
|
Re: Light Speed
Link |
by
on 2006-11-11 14:31:56 (edited 2006-11-11 14:42:06)
|
|
Very good Suicidopolis. The speed of light in a vacuum is a fundamental property of the universe which stays the same in all reference frames. Slowing down a particle, photon for example, does not change the properties of the universe, but of the particle itself. One interesting fact is that photons ONLY exist traveling at the speed of light. This is because photons are transverse electromagnetic waves. Their existence is a perpendicular dance of alternating fluctuations on the electric and magnetic axis. See, a fluctuating electric field produces a magnetic field, and vice versa. Photons do seem to slow down in the presence of matter. They are actually not slowing down, but interacting with the charged electrons. This interaction takes non-zero time, effectively slowing down the progression of the photon. See here or here for more information. If i was running backwards and you walked by me, you would not say that you are walking faster than I can run! :P
|
Go to page: 0,
1 Displaying 1 to 20 of 24 Entries.