About light speed...

dont know ..

but have u ever wondered ?? .
what happens to a vacuum cleaner if it sucks itself from the back ??

where does it go ????

hmmmmm ....

{ Stating the obvious never helped any situation !! }

As you approach light speed, all motion stops. As you go past light speed, motion reverses.

I have an old paper I wrote up on it. I figured out the equation to see the time difference between two points. Also how far out in space you''d have to go to see any given point in history.

Ben
http://therabbithole.redback.inficad.com

What''s behind you looks black, because there''s no light reaching you from that direction. What''s in front of you is a blinding light. This is because many more photons are reaching your eyes from that direction. It''s sort of like the Doppler Effect.

The Doppler Effect refers to sound. If you listen to the sound of an ambulance passing you on the street, you will notice a change in its siren''s pitch as it passes. As it approaches, more sound waves reach your ears each second. This increased frequency of sound waves is perceived as an increase in pitch, or a higher tone.

When the ambulance has passed you, this effect is reversed. There are increasingly fewer sound waves reaching your ears. This is perceived as a decrease in pitch, or a lower tone.

The same would apply when travelling at such a high speed. So you would experience a visual version of the Doppler Effect, known as the Doppleganger Effect. Here is the general equation:

quote:

---

Doppleganger Equation

T=(S*I)/((E/V)-P)

Where T is the amount of tears experienced by the person, S is a general stupidity rating used to determine how likely the person is to look at the intense light, I is the intensity of the light stared at, E is the equipment carried, V is the value of the equipment, and P is an offset used to determine whether said equipment includes a pocket calculator.

---

The most critical part of the equation, of course, is the pocket calculator. Its presence offers the person an opportunity to create a wormhole, at the end of which he will find a table with some snacks and a croquet ground.

Personally, I doubt very much a vast majority of theoretical physics. Some things just don''t make sense. Take the Big Bang theory. "In the beginning, there was nothing. Then it exploded, and there was something." Even a child wouldn''t believe that.

Unfortunately, modern mathematics has been based on a few faulty assumptions. The test of whether a theory is accepted by modern mathematicians has less to do with real world observation and proof than with consistency. If a theory is inconsistent with other accepted mathematical concepts, it is disregarded and ridiculed. But if a theory is consistent, it may well be readily accepted, whether or not the idea seems ridiculous.

Unfortunately, there is no guarantee that the other mathematical body of accepted material is necessarily correct. There is a very real possibility that what modern mathematicians expect new ideas to conform to in to some degree faulty.

Take the idea of infinity, for instance. Surely that''s been a part of standard mathematics for hundreds or thousands of years, right? No. From what I can gather, this idea was only accepted around the beginning of the twentieth century. And what was the test of that body of theory ? The fact that it could be incorporated into the mathematical body without causing noticeable consistencies.

Has there been any evidence to suggest that the theoretical assumptions regarding infinity are correct? Who has measured infinity? The question of whether "infinity" or "infinity+1" is larger is very much debatable. And yet there are mathematicians willing to proclaim that we have the answer, and that the other answer is incorrect! In my opinion, the decision seems to have been arbitrarily chosen.

Big Bang? What, are you kidding me? Let''s talk about something that''s important and provable, like the Greenhouse Effect. I''m tired of hearing people discuss this and not mention what I''ve thought obvious since junior high. In fact, hold on a moment. I''m going to start a new thread about that.


Jonathon

quote:

---

"Mathematics are one of the fundamentaries of educationalizing our youths." -George W. Bush

---

quote:

---

Original post by Jonathon
Personally, I doubt very much a vast majority of theoretical physics. Some things just don't make sense. Take the Big Bang theory. "In the beginning, there was nothing. Then it exploded, and there was something." Even a child wouldn't believe that.

---

...

quote:

---

Unfortunately, modern mathematics has been based on a few faulty assumptions. The test of whether a theory is accepted by modern mathematicians has less to do with real world observation and proof than with consistency. If a theory is inconsistent with other accepted mathematical concepts, it is disregarded and ridiculed. But if a theory is consistent, it may well be readily accepted, whether or not the idea seems ridiculous.

Unfortunately, there is no guarantee that the other mathematical body of accepted material is necessarily correct. There is a very real possibility that what modern mathematicians expect new ideas to conform to in to some degree faulty.

Take the idea of infinity, for instance. Surely that's been a part of standard mathematics for hundreds or thousands of years, right? No. From what I can gather, this idea was only accepted around the beginning of the twentieth century. And what was the test of that body of theory ? The fact that it could be incorporated into the mathematical body without causing noticeable consistencies.

Has there been any evidence to suggest that the theoretical assumptions regarding infinity are correct? Who has measured infinity? The question of whether "infinity" or "infinity+1" is larger is very much debatable. And yet there are mathematicians willing to proclaim that we have the answer, and that the other answer is incorrect! In my opinion, the decision seems to have been arbitrarily chosen.

---

What exactly do you consider to be "modern mathematics"? What assumptions are you talking about? Infinity is a concept, not a number. You cannot measure it, you do not add numbers to it. If you asked a true mathematician, they would tell you that infinity+1 makes no sense. Infinity as a concept has been used in math for hundreds of years. It is the basis for (parts of) calculus. Mathematics today is the sum of literally thousands of years of some of the greatest human thinking ever and you have a lot of nerve saying that it is faulty.

quote:

---

Big Bang? What, are you kidding me? Let's talk about something that's important and provable, like the Greenhouse Effect. I'm tired of hearing people discuss this and not mention what I've thought obvious since junior high. In fact, hold on a moment. I'm going to start a new thread about that.

---

No, Jonathon, we're not kidding you. Why don't you spend some time learning about this stuff before you decide it's rediculous. Here is a small list of some quotes from your original post:

"Personally, I doubt..."
"Some things just don't make sense."
"Even a child wouldn't believe that."
"...whether or not the idea seems ridiculous."
"From what I can gather..."
"In my opinion..."
"...what I've thought obvious since junior high."

Theoretical physics and math are unimportant bunk because you , children , and junior high students don't understand them? What makes you think the universe was designed for you to understand? Do you think you can bring down countless people who have dedicated their lives to these studies because you sat down and thought about it a little when you were in junior high ? Would you like me to recommend some books for you? How about some universities you can spend 10 years in getting up to speed with people who know what they're talking about?

Why don't you stick to the greenhouse effect? And while you're at it, look up "hubris".

I apologize for losing my temper.

-Rob

Edited by - rgillen on May 18, 2001 4:32:07 PM

The reason that an object changes size as it approaches the speed of light is really quite simple.

Place a rod of wood on a table, and slide the rod along by pushing one end. Why is it that when one end is moved, the other end moves as well?

Your hand repels some atoms in the block of wood. Those atoms move a bit, repel more atoms, and it continues. A ripple travels down the rod of wood. Since we know that electric fields are the cause of this, and electric fields spread at the speed of light, this ripple therefore travels at the speed of light along the piece of wood.

If an engine is on the back end of a rocket, then it will drive itself towards the front end of the rocket. If you had a suction engine on a rocket (don''t ask), then light speed would stretch the rocket out.

For the normal pushing engine, as a rocket approaches the speed of light, its atomic structure is completely messed around. At the speed of light, all the atoms would be on one plane. Past the speed of light, the rocket would theoretically flip, but if you think about this, you''ll realise that nothing made of more than one particle can stay intact if it''s being pushed like that. Accelerating something through even magnetic fields wouldn''t have that effect, so if we''re to travel at the speed of light, that''s how it must be done.

</blah>

quote:

---

The reason that an object changes size as it approaches the speed of light is really quite simple.

Place a rod of wood on a table, and slide the rod along by pushing one end. Why is it that when one end is moved, the other end moves as well?

Your hand repels some atoms in the block of wood. Those atoms move a bit, repel more atoms, and it continues. A ripple travels down the rod of wood. Since we know that electric fields are the cause of this, and electric fields spread at the speed of light, this ripple therefore travels at the speed of light along the piece of wood.

If an engine is on the back end of a rocket, then it will drive itself towards the front end of the rocket. If you had a suction engine on a rocket (don''t ask), then light speed would stretch the rocket out.

For the normal pushing engine, as a rocket approaches the speed of light, its atomic structure is completely messed around. At the speed of light, all the atoms would be on one plane. Past the speed of light, the rocket would theoretically flip, but if you think about this, you''ll realise that nothing made of more than one particle can stay intact if it''s being pushed like that. Accelerating something through even magnetic fields wouldn''t have that effect, so if we''re to travel at the speed of light, that''s how it must be done.

---

Its really not that simple . Its not a matter of the forces working on the rod but rather a stretch of the dimensions themselves. The time-dimension (4th if you like) is also stretched, and i would belive that a rod of time (a second) is quite obvious to what kinda of engine drives the ship its measured in.

------------------------------------------------------------
The consequence of a belief shouldn''t be a motivational reason to
believe

what about the vacuum cleaner ??? ..
what about the vacuum cleaner ??? ..





{ Stating the obvious never helped any situation !! }

Great going guys. Now my head hurts...



------------
FlipCode

quote:

---

what about the vacuum cleaner ??? ..
what about the vacuum cleaner ??? ..

---

Im with snes16bit on that one. Makes my head hurt!

quote:

---

Original post by rgillen
Mathematics today is the sum of literally thousands of years of some of the greatest human thinking ever and you have a lot of nerve saying that it is faulty.

---

quote:

---

Do you think you can bring down countless people who have dedicated their lives to these studies because you sat down and thought about it a little when you were in junior high ?

---

Isn't that what people said to Galileo?

quote:

---

Would you like me to recommend some books for you? How about some universities you can spend 10 years in getting up to speed with people who know what they're talking about?

---

Not necessary. Thanks!

quote:

---

I apologize for losing my temper.

---

Quite all right. I didn't post without expecting some constructive criticism. I'm just sorry for getting you upset.

Of course I'm not an astrophysicist, and I realize that I don't have all the information necessary to offer a firm critique of these concepts. But then again, no one has been able to explain it well enough for me to understand some of this stuff. (And I am not slow, by any stretch of the imagination.)

I have studied music for many years. But there is no concept in all of Western music theory (also developed over thousands of years,) which is so esoteric that I could not explain it simply and clearly enough for a junior high school student to understand.

Come on. Why do people believe that there are mysteries of modern medicine that every single medical student in the world can understand, yet is so ethereal that no common, non-professional person could possibly fathom ? And what principle of law is so simple that every lawyer understands it perfectly, yet no layman ever could ?

The same goes for math and science. If you really understand a concept, you should be able to explain it clearly and concisely, so that everyone in this forum can understand it.

So how about it? Will you please explain to me exactly why the Big Bang theory is correct? Or why the concepts of light speed or infinity should not be questioned? I'd really appreciate that. That would not only help me to learn something, but also keep me from being so helplessly ignorant. But please don't say that I am too stupid to question what someone else tells you is true. Or are you an astrophysicist yourself?

Oh, alright. That was a cheap shot. I apologize. But still, I don't place much faith in authority.



Edited by - Jonathon on May 20, 2001 8:18:44 PM

What everybody here is forgetting is that Einstein''s theory of relativity makes the basic assumption that lihgt travels at the same speed no matter how fast the object measuring the speed of light is moving.

Basically this means that light will travel at the speed of light no matter how fast you are going.

So what i can gather from this is that nothing would look different. I don''t know if this is totally correct (mostly because is is impossible for anything besides light to travel at the speed of light so this is all theoretical). However, I think this is right.

By the way: Yes I have taken several astronomy courses in college, yes we have studied Relativity, no I do not even understand half of it.

Also, just because this is an assumption does not mean that it is incorrect, the theory of Relativity is one of the most, if not the most, accurate theory ever proposed...it has never failed a test designed to test it.

quote:

---

If you really understand a concept, you should be able to explain it clearly and concisely, so that everyone in this forum can understand it.

---

The problem with most science and math is that it requires a great deal of math to understand. Many of these concepts were developed using math which is why some of us spend a great deal of time learning math... To understand.

What we can do without math is tell you in our own words how the general theory of relativity for instance relates to everyday concepts.

I dont think that our minds (at least mine ) can really handle these concepts with out the tools that math and physics are.

I guess what im trying to say is that there is no easy way of understanding every concept, sometimes you have to do the hard work yourself.

quote:

---

So how about it? Will you please explain to me exactly why the Big Bang theory is correct? Or why the concepts of light speed or infinity should not be questioned? I'd really appreciate that. That would not only help me to learn something, but also keep me from being so helplessly ignorant. But please don't say that I am too stupid to question what someone else tells you is true. Or are you an astrophysicist yourself?

---

I dont think that you would find any serious scientist who would postulate that these concepts are DEFINATELY true. What you seem to miss is that pretty much all our theories today are empirically (is that a word? ) derived. This means that we cant know for sure if any concept of science is true. What we do know for sure is that most of these concepts are very usefull tools and maybe, just maybe, a step in the right direction

When it comes to math, math is 100% based on definitions (axioms) and everything we know of math is derived (using logic) from these definitions. Since a definition, per definition cant be wrong, the math concepts we use today (infinity etc) are TRUE (unless our logic is flawed which i doubt).

my 2c
------------------------------------------------------------
The consequence of a belief shouldn't be a motivational reason to
believe

Edited by - newdeal on May 20, 2001 10:58:45 PM

quote:

---

Original post by GreenGoblin

I know that we can''t move at light speed or faster than it or anything, but what would happen if someone were to move at light speed? What would the world look like? How could we percieve colors, if there''s no light bouncing off of objects or anything? What would the person/thing (we''ll call it Bob) look like? Would it have to look like pure energy, or what?

---

Imagine you travel the same speed than the medium that supplies you with information... the world will begin to look really strange!

Doppler Effect: If you look forward, light is blue-shifted (higher frequency), if you look backward, light is red-shifted (lower frequency).

quote:

---

Original post by Ranok

What everybody here is forgetting is that Einstein''s theory of relativity makes the basic assumption that lihgt travels at the same speed no matter how fast the object measuring the speed of light is moving.

---

Isn''t this the most mind-boggling feature in the universe? I mean, I hold up a lantern and measure the speed of light that''s emitting. My result: 300000 km/s. Then somebody else''s moving towards me with significant speed and measures the very same light from my lantern that''s going past him and his result is: 300000 km/s.

So the bottom line is ---> Photons are no Billard balls! :-)

yeah, it´s pretty funny.. (if that´s the word).

actually the speed doesn´t change if the lantern moves towards you, but the wavelength does (you can use this to measure the speeds of stars and galaxies, if they´re moving away there´s a shift to the red, if they come towards you blue. Doppler effect with light).

KalvinB:

time doesn´t reverse when you go past light speed. Mainly because you can´t. If youre close to 1.0c (say .95) and keep accelerating the curve is going to even out, you´ll get more and more increase in mass and less acceleration for the energy you´ve invested.

If you´re really interested in this check out the books by Stephen Hawking..

E=Mc^2

If you look at that logically, once you achieve the speed of light, you have zero mass.

Anything with zero mass, no longer has the substance to hold together, and tends to fly apart in all directions. Somewhat like the particles in any other beam of light.

In other words, once you achieve the speed of light, you become as light, a ripple of radiation, that spreads out in all directions from its point of origin.

True dissolution!

Virtual Worldlets(link now fixed ), the home of online worlds

Where´d you get that idea?

Actually you should get infinitely heavy...

besides, that´s the wrong formula for calculating the mass of an object nearing c.

Jonathon-

Thank you for your response. It is rare to find a reasonable person interested in debate as opposed to argument. I again apologize for losing my temper and taking some cheap shots.

quote:

---

Original post by Jonathon

Isn''t that what people said to Galileo?

---

True, but my point is that it takes much more knowledge and preparation to understand cutting-edge science today then in his day. He was certianly before his time, but he also spent much of his life learning and experimenting. Keep in mind that those same people opposed Galileo''s ideas because they didn''t make "sense" to them.

quote:

---

Of course I''m not an astrophysicist, and I realize that I don''t have all the information necessary to offer a firm critique of these concepts. But then again, no one has been able to explain it well enough for me to understand some of this stuff. (And I am not slow, by any stretch of the imagination.)

I have studied music for many years. But there is no concept in all of Western music theory (also developed over thousands of years,) which is so esoteric that I could not explain it simply and clearly enough for a junior high school student to understand.

---

Here is a great web page about relativity and faster-than-light travel. It''s long but very thorough.

quote:

---

Come on. Why do people believe that there are mysteries of modern medicine that every single medical student in the world can understand, yet is so ethereal that no common, non-professional person could possibly fathom ? And what principle of law is so simple that every lawyer understands it perfectly, yet no layman ever could ?

The same goes for math and science. If you really understand a concept, you should be able to explain it clearly and concisely, so that everyone in this forum can understand it.

---

Good point. Many of the very well educated tend to enjoy keeping laymen in the dark. I guess there could be several reasons. First, it takes time to learn the basics of a subject (see NewDeal''s response). Also, learning something and being able to teach it are very different things. The sort of things this post is talking about are relatively new. Today junior high students can do the same experiments that Galileo did and come to the same conclusions. Maybe there will be a day when relativity is taught in high school.

quote:

---

So how about it? Will you please explain to me exactly why the Big Bang theory is correct? Or why the concepts of light speed or infinity should not be questioned? I''d really appreciate that. That would not only help me to learn something, but also keep me from being so helplessly ignorant. But please don''t say that I am too stupid to question what someone else tells you is true. Or are you an astrophysicist yourself?

---

Well, like NewDeal said, the Big Bang is a theory. What science has done is come up with an educated guess based on observations and then tested it with more observations. An example is the Doppler shift that you mentioned before. You can tell what direction a star is moving by observing the spectrum of the light it gives off. Exactly how that works is too long to explain here (I''m sorry that sounds like a cop-out), but the point is that the results of these experiments show that everything is moving away from everything else. The data has been checked, the experiments have been revised, and it still seems to be true. The theory, then, is that the universe is expanding and must have started from somewhere.

What happens a lot of times is that scientists derive equations, run experiments to prove them, and then have to come up with words to describe what they mean. Words, of course, can be very ambiguous. Big Bang theory does not say that the universe was empty except for a tiny piece of something that "blew up" and became stars and planets. It says that the universe itself was tiny. You could not go outside of it to see becuse there was no "outside". The problem is that this doesn''t make "common sense". Where was the universe, then? What did it "expand" into if there was nothing else around? These are just the words that are used to explain the equations and data. Regardless of whether the conclusions put into words make sense, equations keep getting derived and experiments keep backing them up. Skepticism is good, but even Galileo knew the old theories thoroghly before proposing his new ones.

quote:

---

But still, I don''t place much faith in authority.

---

That''s fine - I admit that there is no guarantee that any of this is true. I just think that you should learn for yourself and then make an informed decision rather than slap authority in the face just because it''s authority.

Thanks,
Rob

P.S. I''m not an astrophysicist, but I play one on the internet.

quote:

---

Original post by Ranok

What everybody here is forgetting is that Einstein''s theory of relativity makes the basic assumption that light travels at the same speed no matter how fast the object measuring the speed of light is moving.

Basically this means that light will travel at the speed of light no matter how fast you are going.

---

As I understand it, the Theory of Relativity also indicates that when two objects approach each other head on, the speed of their approach is equal to the total of their individual speeds. For example, two cars travelling at 30mph and collide head on will experience the same amount of damage as if one of the cars was parked, and the other crashed into the parked car at 60mph. (At least, that is my understanding.) Wouldn''t the same be true of the approach speed between the person travelling at light speed and the oncoming light? Wouldn''t the combined relative speed be twice the speed of light?

In a similar way, if light travels from one star toward another star, and light from the second star travels toward the first star, won''t the two bits of light meet in the middle? And won''t they pass each other in half the time it takes to reach the other star?

quote:

---

By the way: Yes I have taken several astronomy courses in college, yes we have studied Relativity, no I do not even understand half of it.

---

That''s what I''m worried about. I''m not saying that these theories are necessarily wrong. I have no way of knowing myself. All I have to go on is my intuition. But I''m worried that there are many people who perhaps have not studied all the evidence to support a given theory, and are willing to accept the theory as true nonetheless. That is dangerous, I think. (Well, O.K., it''s probably not a Klingon plot or anything. But I think it''s always better to question things, just as a game designer must question the assumptions and conventions of game development in order to invent improvements.)


Also, just because this is an assumption does not mean that it is incorrect...



That is certainly true.

quote:

---

...the theory of Relativity is one of the most, if not the most, accurate theory ever proposed...it has never failed a test designed to test it.

---

Perhaps. But I''m not sure how the theory was tested, or even how it could be tested. Of course, there are people who know, but I''m not one of them.




Jonathon

quote:

---

"Mathematics are one of the fundamentaries of educationalizing our youths." -George W. Bush

---