Total Posts:42|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Speed of light

ken1122
Posts: 465
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/30/2016 5:55:09 PM
Posted: 1 month ago
On Earth resistance prevents us from going too fast, but in outer space there is no resistance so if we continued to add pulpultion , what is to prevent us from reaching the speed of light?

Ken
Annnaxim
Posts: 228
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/30/2016 6:40:51 PM
Posted: 1 month ago
At 10/30/2016 5:55:09 PM, ken1122 wrote:
On Earth resistance prevents us from going too fast, but in outer space there is no resistance so if we continued to add pulpultion , what is to prevent us from reaching the speed of light?

Ken
The inertia IN YOU.
The faster you go, the more inertia you build up, until at the speed of light it becomes infinite. So... no way you can attain the speed of light.
Photons of light can reach that speed because they have no mass.
ken1122
Posts: 465
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/30/2016 6:54:25 PM
Posted: 1 month ago
At 10/30/2016 6:40:51 PM, Annnaxim wrote:
At 10/30/2016 5:55:09 PM, ken1122 wrote:
On Earth resistance prevents us from going too fast, but in outer space there is no resistance so if we continued to add pulpultion , what is to prevent us from reaching the speed of light?

Ken
The inertia IN YOU.
The faster you go, the more inertia you build up, until at the speed of light it becomes infinite. So... no way you can attain the speed of light.
Photons of light can reach that speed because they have no mass.

Inertia is a type of resistance; in outer space there is no resistance. If I were in outer space, traveling at the speed of light compared to planet Earth, it would appear to me that I am motionless, and the planet Earth would be whizzing past me at the speed of light; right? So how does Inertia prevent a machine from taking me at the speed of light compared to planet Earth?

Ken
Graincruncher
Posts: 2,799
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/30/2016 7:18:02 PM
Posted: 1 month ago
At 10/30/2016 6:54:25 PM, ken1122 wrote:
At 10/30/2016 6:40:51 PM, Annnaxim wrote:
At 10/30/2016 5:55:09 PM, ken1122 wrote:
On Earth resistance prevents us from going too fast, but in outer space there is no resistance so if we continued to add pulpultion , what is to prevent us from reaching the speed of light?

Ken
The inertia IN YOU.
The faster you go, the more inertia you build up, until at the speed of light it becomes infinite. So... no way you can attain the speed of light.
Photons of light can reach that speed because they have no mass.

Inertia is a type of resistance; in outer space there is no resistance. If I were in outer space, traveling at the speed of light compared to planet Earth, it would appear to me that I am motionless, and the planet Earth would be whizzing past me at the speed of light; right? So how does Inertia prevent a machine from taking me at the speed of light compared to planet Earth?

Ken

Because you would need an infinite amount of energy to accelerate your ever-increasing relativistic mass. The faster you go, the higher the cost of further acceleration.
ken1122
Posts: 465
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/30/2016 7:21:59 PM
Posted: 1 month ago
At 10/30/2016 7:18:02 PM, Graincruncher wrote:
At 10/30/2016 6:54:25 PM, ken1122 wrote:
At 10/30/2016 6:40:51 PM, Annnaxim wrote:
At 10/30/2016 5:55:09 PM, ken1122 wrote:
On Earth resistance prevents us from going too fast, but in outer space there is no resistance so if we continued to add pulpultion , what is to prevent us from reaching the speed of light?

Ken
The inertia IN YOU.
The faster you go, the more inertia you build up, until at the speed of light it becomes infinite. So... no way you can attain the speed of light.
Photons of light can reach that speed because they have no mass.

Inertia is a type of resistance; in outer space there is no resistance. If I were in outer space, traveling at the speed of light compared to planet Earth, it would appear to me that I am motionless, and the planet Earth would be whizzing past me at the speed of light; right? So how does Inertia prevent a machine from taking me at the speed of light compared to planet Earth?

Ken

Because you would need an infinite amount of energy to accelerate your ever-increasing relativistic mass. The faster you go, the higher the cost of further acceleration.

If there is no resistance, why is there a higher cost to further acceleration from what appears to be a stand still?
Graincruncher
Posts: 2,799
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/30/2016 7:35:49 PM
Posted: 1 month ago
At 10/30/2016 7:21:59 PM, ken1122 wrote:
At 10/30/2016 7:18:02 PM, Graincruncher wrote:
At 10/30/2016 6:54:25 PM, ken1122 wrote:
At 10/30/2016 6:40:51 PM, Annnaxim wrote:
At 10/30/2016 5:55:09 PM, ken1122 wrote:
On Earth resistance prevents us from going too fast, but in outer space there is no resistance so if we continued to add pulpultion , what is to prevent us from reaching the speed of light?

Ken
The inertia IN YOU.
The faster you go, the more inertia you build up, until at the speed of light it becomes infinite. So... no way you can attain the speed of light.
Photons of light can reach that speed because they have no mass.

Inertia is a type of resistance; in outer space there is no resistance. If I were in outer space, traveling at the speed of light compared to planet Earth, it would appear to me that I am motionless, and the planet Earth would be whizzing past me at the speed of light; right? So how does Inertia prevent a machine from taking me at the speed of light compared to planet Earth?

Ken

Because you would need an infinite amount of energy to accelerate your ever-increasing relativistic mass. The faster you go, the higher the cost of further acceleration.

If there is no resistance, why is there a higher cost to further acceleration from what appears to be a stand still?

Because E=MC^2.
ken1122
Posts: 465
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/30/2016 8:30:03 PM
Posted: 1 month ago
At 10/30/2016 7:35:49 PM, Graincruncher wrote:
At 10/30/2016 7:21:59 PM, ken1122 wrote:
At 10/30/2016 7:18:02 PM, Graincruncher wrote:
At 10/30/2016 6:54:25 PM, ken1122 wrote:
At 10/30/2016 6:40:51 PM, Annnaxim wrote:
At 10/30/2016 5:55:09 PM, ken1122 wrote:
On Earth resistance prevents us from going too fast, but in outer space there is no resistance so if we continued to add pulpultion , what is to prevent us from reaching the speed of light?

Ken
The inertia IN YOU.
The faster you go, the more inertia you build up, until at the speed of light it becomes infinite. So... no way you can attain the speed of light.
Photons of light can reach that speed because they have no mass.

Inertia is a type of resistance; in outer space there is no resistance. If I were in outer space, traveling at the speed of light compared to planet Earth, it would appear to me that I am motionless, and the planet Earth would be whizzing past me at the speed of light; right? So how does Inertia prevent a machine from taking me at the speed of light compared to planet Earth?

Ken

Because you would need an infinite amount of energy to accelerate your ever-increasing relativistic mass. The faster you go, the higher the cost of further acceleration.

If there is no resistance, why is there a higher cost to further acceleration from what appears to be a stand still?

Because E=MC^2.

Care to explain that in english please? My point is, when you are in space, no matter how fast you are going compared to planet Earth, you will seem to be motionless. So if what seems motionless to you is actually the speed of light compared to Earth, what is to prevent you from going faster assuming you have a machine that can provide propulsion?

Ken
Graincruncher
Posts: 2,799
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/30/2016 9:06:22 PM
Posted: 1 month ago
At 10/30/2016 8:30:03 PM, ken1122 wrote:
At 10/30/2016 7:35:49 PM, Graincruncher wrote:
At 10/30/2016 7:21:59 PM, ken1122 wrote:
At 10/30/2016 7:18:02 PM, Graincruncher wrote:
At 10/30/2016 6:54:25 PM, ken1122 wrote:
At 10/30/2016 6:40:51 PM, Annnaxim wrote:
At 10/30/2016 5:55:09 PM, ken1122 wrote:
On Earth resistance prevents us from going too fast, but in outer space there is no resistance so if we continued to add pulpultion , what is to prevent us from reaching the speed of light?

Ken
The inertia IN YOU.
The faster you go, the more inertia you build up, until at the speed of light it becomes infinite. So... no way you can attain the speed of light.
Photons of light can reach that speed because they have no mass.

Inertia is a type of resistance; in outer space there is no resistance. If I were in outer space, traveling at the speed of light compared to planet Earth, it would appear to me that I am motionless, and the planet Earth would be whizzing past me at the speed of light; right? So how does Inertia prevent a machine from taking me at the speed of light compared to planet Earth?

Ken

Because you would need an infinite amount of energy to accelerate your ever-increasing relativistic mass. The faster you go, the higher the cost of further acceleration.

If there is no resistance, why is there a higher cost to further acceleration from what appears to be a stand still?

Because E=MC^2.

Care to explain that in english please? My point is, when you are in space, no matter how fast you are going compared to planet Earth, you will seem to be motionless. So if what seems motionless to you is actually the speed of light compared to Earth, what is to prevent you from going faster assuming you have a machine that can provide propulsion?


Ken

I'm not entirely sure why you think you'd necessarily 'seem to be motionless', as that's entirely untrue. But it's also irrelevant to the point; you cannot accelerate something with rest mass to the speed of light. The reason for this is derivative from E=MC^2. Energy and Mass are interchangeable in relativity, so as one rises, so does the other. This means the faster you're going (so the more kinetic energy you carry), the higher your mass in the eyes of relativity. The higher your mass, the more energy is required to push you to yet higher accelerations.

This produces a feedback loop where the faster you're going, the harder it is (i.e. more energy is required) to go faster still. As you approach the speed of light, your mass approaches infinity and therefore so does the energy required for further acceleration.
ken1122
Posts: 465
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/30/2016 9:14:09 PM
Posted: 1 month ago
At 10/30/2016 9:06:22 PM, Graincruncher wrote:
At 10/30/2016 8:30:03 PM, ken1122 wrote:
At 10/30/2016 7:35:49 PM, Graincruncher wrote:
At 10/30/2016 7:21:59 PM, ken1122 wrote:
At 10/30/2016 7:18:02 PM, Graincruncher wrote:
At 10/30/2016 6:54:25 PM, ken1122 wrote:
At 10/30/2016 6:40:51 PM, Annnaxim wrote:
At 10/30/2016 5:55:09 PM, ken1122 wrote:
On Earth resistance prevents us from going too fast, but in outer space there is no resistance so if we continued to add pulpultion , what is to prevent us from reaching the speed of light?

Ken
The inertia IN YOU.
The faster you go, the more inertia you build up, until at the speed of light it becomes infinite. So... no way you can attain the speed of light.
Photons of light can reach that speed because they have no mass.

Inertia is a type of resistance; in outer space there is no resistance. If I were in outer space, traveling at the speed of light compared to planet Earth, it would appear to me that I am motionless, and the planet Earth would be whizzing past me at the speed of light; right? So how does Inertia prevent a machine from taking me at the speed of light compared to planet Earth?

Ken

Because you would need an infinite amount of energy to accelerate your ever-increasing relativistic mass. The faster you go, the higher the cost of further acceleration.

If there is no resistance, why is there a higher cost to further acceleration from what appears to be a stand still?

Because E=MC^2.

Care to explain that in english please? My point is, when you are in space, no matter how fast you are going compared to planet Earth, you will seem to be motionless. So if what seems motionless to you is actually the speed of light compared to Earth, what is to prevent you from going faster assuming you have a machine that can provide propulsion?


Ken

I'm not entirely sure why you think you'd necessarily 'seem to be motionless', as that's entirely untrue. But it's also irrelevant to the point; you cannot accelerate something with rest mass to the speed of light. The reason for this is derivative from E=MC^2. Energy and Mass are interchangeable in relativity, so as one rises, so does the other. This means the faster you're going (so the more kinetic energy you carry), the higher your mass in the eyes of relativity. The higher your mass, the more energy is required to push you to yet higher accelerations.

This produces a feedback loop where the faster you're going, the harder it is (i.e. more energy is required) to go faster still. As you approach the speed of light, your mass approaches infinity and therefore so does the energy required for further acceleration.

When you say "rest mass", rest mass relative to what? Planet Earth? Or some other planet perhaps traveling a million miles per hr relative to planet Earth?

Ken
Graincruncher
Posts: 2,799
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/30/2016 9:19:57 PM
Posted: 1 month ago
At 10/30/2016 9:14:09 PM, ken1122 wrote:
At 10/30/2016 9:06:22 PM, Graincruncher wrote:
At 10/30/2016 8:30:03 PM, ken1122 wrote:
At 10/30/2016 7:35:49 PM, Graincruncher wrote:
At 10/30/2016 7:21:59 PM, ken1122 wrote:
At 10/30/2016 7:18:02 PM, Graincruncher wrote:
At 10/30/2016 6:54:25 PM, ken1122 wrote:
At 10/30/2016 6:40:51 PM, Annnaxim wrote:
At 10/30/2016 5:55:09 PM, ken1122 wrote:
On Earth resistance prevents us from going too fast, but in outer space there is no resistance so if we continued to add pulpultion , what is to prevent us from reaching the speed of light?

Ken
The inertia IN YOU.
The faster you go, the more inertia you build up, until at the speed of light it becomes infinite. So... no way you can attain the speed of light.
Photons of light can reach that speed because they have no mass.

Inertia is a type of resistance; in outer space there is no resistance. If I were in outer space, traveling at the speed of light compared to planet Earth, it would appear to me that I am motionless, and the planet Earth would be whizzing past me at the speed of light; right? So how does Inertia prevent a machine from taking me at the speed of light compared to planet Earth?

Ken

Because you would need an infinite amount of energy to accelerate your ever-increasing relativistic mass. The faster you go, the higher the cost of further acceleration.

If there is no resistance, why is there a higher cost to further acceleration from what appears to be a stand still?

Because E=MC^2.

Care to explain that in english please? My point is, when you are in space, no matter how fast you are going compared to planet Earth, you will seem to be motionless. So if what seems motionless to you is actually the speed of light compared to Earth, what is to prevent you from going faster assuming you have a machine that can provide propulsion?


Ken

I'm not entirely sure why you think you'd necessarily 'seem to be motionless', as that's entirely untrue. But it's also irrelevant to the point; you cannot accelerate something with rest mass to the speed of light. The reason for this is derivative from E=MC^2. Energy and Mass are interchangeable in relativity, so as one rises, so does the other. This means the faster you're going (so the more kinetic energy you carry), the higher your mass in the eyes of relativity. The higher your mass, the more energy is required to push you to yet higher accelerations.

This produces a feedback loop where the faster you're going, the harder it is (i.e. more energy is required) to go faster still. As you approach the speed of light, your mass approaches infinity and therefore so does the energy required for further acceleration.

When you say "rest mass", rest mass relative to what? Planet Earth? Or some other planet perhaps traveling a million miles per hr relative to planet Earth?

Ken

It's what you have left when you subtract the mass of relative motion in a frame of reference, so that you always end up with the same figure in all frames of reference.

https://en.wikipedia.org...
keithprosser
Posts: 1,964
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/30/2016 9:39:39 PM
Posted: 1 month ago
AFAIK, there is no reason - beyond it being built into the laws of physics of our universe.

There are 'brute facts' about our universe that we have no deeper explanation for. For example, electricity seems to come in two flavours - negative and positive - so electricity can be attractive or repulsive, but gravity is only ever attractive. Why don't we ever see repulsive gravity? Such thing don't seem to have an explanation - it seems to be just 'how things are' in our universe.

Of course if you don't like taking the speed of light speed limit as a brute fact, you can take, for example, the effect of velocity on mass as an explanation, but that only makes relativistic mass into a brute fact.

At some point, all explanations 'bottom out' with some brute fact that has no explanation. But people are never satisfied and we can ask why our universe has the brute facts it has and not some other set of fundamental brute facts. Can there be a universe that is not subject to special relativity where infinite velocities are possible, for instance?

The answer to that is the most common one in science: Nobody knows. Some people will say that a non-relativistic universe is impossible, other that it isn't. But nobody knows for sure - at least not on 28 October 2016. What we will know on 28 October 3015 or even 29th October 2016 is also unknown, unfortunately!

Put another way, in our universe space, time, mass and energy are interconnected in such a way that the speed of light is the universe's speed limit. Why the universe is like that is anybody's guess.
ken1122
Posts: 465
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/30/2016 10:18:28 PM
Posted: 1 month ago
At 10/30/2016 9:19:57 PM, Graincruncher wrote:
At 10/30/2016 9:14:09 PM, ken1122 wrote:
At 10/30/2016 9:06:22 PM, Graincruncher wrote:
At 10/30/2016 8:30:03 PM, ken1122 wrote:
At 10/30/2016 7:35:49 PM, Graincruncher wrote:
At 10/30/2016 7:21:59 PM, ken1122 wrote:
At 10/30/2016 7:18:02 PM, Graincruncher wrote:
At 10/30/2016 6:54:25 PM, ken1122 wrote:
At 10/30/2016 6:40:51 PM, Annnaxim wrote:
At 10/30/2016 5:55:09 PM, ken1122 wrote:
On Earth resistance prevents us from going too fast, but in outer space there is no resistance so if we continued to add pulpultion , what is to prevent us from reaching the speed of light?

Ken
The inertia IN YOU.
The faster you go, the more inertia you build up, until at the speed of light it becomes infinite. So... no way you can attain the speed of light.
Photons of light can reach that speed because they have no mass.

Inertia is a type of resistance; in outer space there is no resistance. If I were in outer space, traveling at the speed of light compared to planet Earth, it would appear to me that I am motionless, and the planet Earth would be whizzing past me at the speed of light; right? So how does Inertia prevent a machine from taking me at the speed of light compared to planet Earth?

Ken

Because you would need an infinite amount of energy to accelerate your ever-increasing relativistic mass. The faster you go, the higher the cost of further acceleration.

If there is no resistance, why is there a higher cost to further acceleration from what appears to be a stand still?

Because E=MC^2.

Care to explain that in english please? My point is, when you are in space, no matter how fast you are going compared to planet Earth, you will seem to be motionless. So if what seems motionless to you is actually the speed of light compared to Earth, what is to prevent you from going faster assuming you have a machine that can provide propulsion?


Ken

I'm not entirely sure why you think you'd necessarily 'seem to be motionless', as that's entirely untrue. But it's also irrelevant to the point; you cannot accelerate something with rest mass to the speed of light. The reason for this is derivative from E=MC^2. Energy and Mass are interchangeable in relativity, so as one rises, so does the other. This means the faster you're going (so the more kinetic energy you carry), the higher your mass in the eyes of relativity. The higher your mass, the more energy is required to push you to yet higher accelerations.

This produces a feedback loop where the faster you're going, the harder it is (i.e. more energy is required) to go faster still. As you approach the speed of light, your mass approaches infinity and therefore so does the energy required for further acceleration.

When you say "rest mass", rest mass relative to what? Planet Earth? Or some other planet perhaps traveling a million miles per hr relative to planet Earth?

Ken

It's what you have left when you subtract the mass of relative motion in a frame of reference, so that you always end up with the same figure in all frames of reference.

https://en.wikipedia.org...

But in outer space, there is no frame of reference. If you are motionless in outer space, and object "A" whizzes past you at a million mph, if we make object "A" the frame of reference, you will be whizzing around outer space at a million mph; right?

K
Graincruncher
Posts: 2,799
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/30/2016 10:22:57 PM
Posted: 1 month ago
At 10/30/2016 10:18:28 PM, ken1122 wrote:
At 10/30/2016 9:19:57 PM, Graincruncher wrote:
At 10/30/2016 9:14:09 PM, ken1122 wrote:
At 10/30/2016 9:06:22 PM, Graincruncher wrote:
At 10/30/2016 8:30:03 PM, ken1122 wrote:
At 10/30/2016 7:35:49 PM, Graincruncher wrote:
At 10/30/2016 7:21:59 PM, ken1122 wrote:
At 10/30/2016 7:18:02 PM, Graincruncher wrote:
At 10/30/2016 6:54:25 PM, ken1122 wrote:
At 10/30/2016 6:40:51 PM, Annnaxim wrote:
At 10/30/2016 5:55:09 PM, ken1122 wrote:
On Earth resistance prevents us from going too fast, but in outer space there is no resistance so if we continued to add pulpultion , what is to prevent us from reaching the speed of light?

Ken
The inertia IN YOU.
The faster you go, the more inertia you build up, until at the speed of light it becomes infinite. So... no way you can attain the speed of light.
Photons of light can reach that speed because they have no mass.

Inertia is a type of resistance; in outer space there is no resistance. If I were in outer space, traveling at the speed of light compared to planet Earth, it would appear to me that I am motionless, and the planet Earth would be whizzing past me at the speed of light; right? So how does Inertia prevent a machine from taking me at the speed of light compared to planet Earth?

Ken

Because you would need an infinite amount of energy to accelerate your ever-increasing relativistic mass. The faster you go, the higher the cost of further acceleration.

If there is no resistance, why is there a higher cost to further acceleration from what appears to be a stand still?

Because E=MC^2.

Care to explain that in english please? My point is, when you are in space, no matter how fast you are going compared to planet Earth, you will seem to be motionless. So if what seems motionless to you is actually the speed of light compared to Earth, what is to prevent you from going faster assuming you have a machine that can provide propulsion?


Ken

I'm not entirely sure why you think you'd necessarily 'seem to be motionless', as that's entirely untrue. But it's also irrelevant to the point; you cannot accelerate something with rest mass to the speed of light. The reason for this is derivative from E=MC^2. Energy and Mass are interchangeable in relativity, so as one rises, so does the other. This means the faster you're going (so the more kinetic energy you carry), the higher your mass in the eyes of relativity. The higher your mass, the more energy is required to push you to yet higher accelerations.

This produces a feedback loop where the faster you're going, the harder it is (i.e. more energy is required) to go faster still. As you approach the speed of light, your mass approaches infinity and therefore so does the energy required for further acceleration.

When you say "rest mass", rest mass relative to what? Planet Earth? Or some other planet perhaps traveling a million miles per hr relative to planet Earth?

Ken

It's what you have left when you subtract the mass of relative motion in a frame of reference, so that you always end up with the same figure in all frames of reference.

https://en.wikipedia.org...

But in outer space, there is no frame of reference. If you are motionless in outer space, and object "A" whizzes past you at a million mph, if we make object "A" the frame of reference, you will be whizzing around outer space at a million mph; right?

K

No. Space itself is a frame of reference.
Discipulus_Didicit
Posts: 3,089
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/30/2016 10:35:02 PM
Posted: 1 month ago
At 10/30/2016 6:54:25 PM, ken1122 wrote:
Inertia is a type of resistance; in outer space there is no resistance.

Wrong. In space there is no air-generated friction, other types of resistance do exist. If it didnt then every particle in the universe would be traveling at the speed of light in random directions, if matter could exist at all under such conditions.
Cobalt - You could be scum too.
Matt - I suppose. But I also might not be.

Kiri - Yeah, I don't know what DD is doing.
Vaarka - He's doin'a thingy do

DD - The best advice most often goes unheeded.
Wise Man - KYS, DD.
DD - Case in point ^
Quadrunner
Posts: 1,083
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/30/2016 10:49:20 PM
Posted: 1 month ago
At 10/30/2016 5:55:09 PM, ken1122 wrote:
On Earth resistance prevents us from going too fast, but in outer space there is no resistance so if we continued to add pulpultion , what is to prevent us from reaching the speed of light?

Ken

It certainly never seemed logical from my outside perspective that we could not theoretically get a massive object to reach the speed of light.

Seeing how light bends and gets sucked into these blackholes I'm not entirely sure it lacks 'mass' which to my understanding is the very basis of the idea that velocity is somehow capped in Newtonian level physics. Heck we don't even know what mass is to my knowledge. All we can do thus far is observe its properties. Still its what they teach, so there must be more thought involved then I've been able to put into it.

If I were to take a random stab at why their logic is what it is....I would hypothesize that when you reach the speed of light, the shear amount of energy per unit is so great that the properties change to that of light, and light has not been shown to travel faster then light.
Wisdom is found where the wise seek it.
Genius_Intellect
Posts: 339
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/31/2016 12:01:11 AM
Posted: 1 month ago
At 10/30/2016 10:49:20 PM, Quadrunner wrote:
Seeing how light bends and gets sucked into these blackholes I'm not entirely sure it lacks 'mass' which to my understanding is the very basis of the idea that velocity is somehow capped in Newtonian level physics.

Black holes don't bend light, they bend the space the light travels through. Newtonian physics assumes that space-time distortion is negligible, so it doesn't work when dealing with celestial or relativistic masses.

Heck we don't even know what mass is to my knowledge. All we can do thus far is observe its properties. Still its what they teach, so there must be more thought involved then I've been able to put into it.

Mass is caused by interaction with the Higgs field. As particles move through the Higgs field, they absorb Higgs bosons that weigh them down. The harder you push against the Higgs field, the more Higgs bosons you absorb. No matter how hard you push, you'll always have "drag" from the Higgs field, and thus you can never catch up with photons that move through the field unaffected. "Rest mass" is the mass a particle has in its lowest energy state, when it has minimum (but not zero) movement, and thus minimum interaction with the Higgs field. Some particles have greater interaction with the Higgs field than others, hence different rest masses.

If I were to take a random stab at why their logic is what it is....I would hypothesize that when you reach the speed of light, the shear amount of energy per unit is so great that the properties change to that of light, and light has not been shown to travel faster then light.

You can never reach the speed of light, because you'd need an infinite amount of energy to overcome the drag of the Higgs field. Supposing we did this, and assuming a finite number of Higgs bosons in the universe, you'd probably absorb them all and every piece of matter attached to them, thus sucking the cosmos into a black hole. You can now keep pace with light, because you're both travelling zero distance in zero time. To travel faster than light, you'd have to travel zero distance in less than zero time, and would need more than infinite energy.

Of course, I'm not a physicist, so I'm probably talking crap.
Quadrunner
Posts: 1,083
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/31/2016 12:46:49 AM
Posted: 1 month ago
At 10/31/2016 12:01:11 AM, Genius_Intellect wrote:
At 10/30/2016 10:49:20 PM, Quadrunner wrote:
Seeing how light bends and gets sucked into these blackholes I'm not entirely sure it lacks 'mass' which to my understanding is the very basis of the idea that velocity is somehow capped in Newtonian level physics.

Black holes don't bend light, they bend the space the light travels through. Newtonian physics assumes that space-time distortion is negligible, so it doesn't work when dealing with celestial or relativistic masses.

Heck we don't even know what mass is to my knowledge. All we can do thus far is observe its properties. Still its what they teach, so there must be more thought involved then I've been able to put into it.

Mass is caused by interaction with the Higgs field. As particles move through the Higgs field, they absorb Higgs bosons that weigh them down. The harder you push against the Higgs field, the more Higgs bosons you absorb. No matter how hard you push, you'll always have "drag" from the Higgs field, and thus you can never catch up with photons that move through the field unaffected. "Rest mass" is the mass a particle has in its lowest energy state, when it has minimum (but not zero) movement, and thus minimum interaction with the Higgs field. Some particles have greater interaction with the Higgs field than others, hence different rest masses.

If I were to take a random stab at why their logic is what it is....I would hypothesize that when you reach the speed of light, the shear amount of energy per unit is so great that the properties change to that of light, and light has not been shown to travel faster then light.

You can never reach the speed of light, because you'd need an infinite amount of energy to overcome the drag of the Higgs field. Supposing we did this, and assuming a finite number of Higgs bosons in the universe, you'd probably absorb them all and every piece of matter attached to them, thus sucking the cosmos into a black hole. You can now keep pace with light, because you're both travelling zero distance in zero time. To travel faster than light, you'd have to travel zero distance in less than zero time, and would need more than infinite energy.

Of course, I'm not a physicist, so I'm probably talking crap.

When you are saying drag, are you talking about something that would physically slow the object down, or inertia, the resistance to change in velocity?
Wisdom is found where the wise seek it.
Genius_Intellect
Posts: 339
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/31/2016 3:08:41 AM
Posted: 1 month ago
At 10/31/2016 12:46:49 AM, Quadrunner wrote:
When you are saying drag, are you talking about something that would physically slow the object down, or inertia, the resistance to change in velocity?

It "slows" the innate velocity from c to 0. A massless particle moves at c, while a massed particle moves at ~ 0 unless energy is added. The Higgs field is more stable at higher than lower energy, so adding energy to the particle destabilizes the Higgs field and allows the particle to move at v > 0. Adding a_fuck-tonne of energy causes such a destabilization that the Higgs field interacts with itself, producing a detectable Higgs boson (i.e. mass acquired mass).

I'm really talking out of my_ass, so take my explanation with a grain of salt.
Akhenaten
Posts: 854
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/31/2016 12:00:01 PM
Posted: 1 month ago
The aether spins at the speed of light. Thus, light waves travel on a conveyor belt with both spin torque and wave energy.
KthulhuHimself
Posts: 995
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/31/2016 6:00:56 PM
Posted: 1 month ago
At 10/30/2016 5:55:09 PM, ken1122 wrote:
On Earth resistance prevents us from going too fast, but in outer space there is no resistance so if we continued to add pulpultion , what is to prevent us from reaching the speed of light?

Ken

It would require an infinite amount of energy, as expressed in E=m^7;c^2-mc^2 (because ^7; reaches infinity at v=c). You can read more about it here: https://en.wikipedia.org...
Annnaxim
Posts: 228
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/1/2016 9:31:05 AM
Posted: 1 month ago
At 10/30/2016 10:49:20 PM, Quadrunner wrote:

Seeing how light bends and gets sucked into these blackholes I'm not entirely sure it lacks 'mass' which to my understanding is the very basis of the idea that velocity is somehow capped in Newtonian level physics. Heck we don't even know what mass is to my knowledge. All we can do thus far is observe its properties. Still its what they teach, so there must be more thought involved then I've been able to put into it.

Light doesn't move in straight lines; it follows geodetics in non-eucllidian space-time. Because space-time is bent near a black hole, light follows the geodetic "lines" into the hole.
The fact that this is true, was proven by Arthur Eddington in his famous test of general realtivity during a solar eclipse (https://en.wikipedia.org...) almost 100 years ago in 1919.
chui
Posts: 507
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/1/2016 11:44:37 AM
Posted: 1 month ago
At 10/30/2016 10:22:57 PM, Graincruncher wrote:
At 10/30/2016 10:18:28 PM, ken1122 wrote:
At 10/30/2016 9:19:57 PM, Graincruncher wrote:
At 10/30/2016 9:14:09 PM, ken1122 wrote:
At 10/30/2016 9:06:22 PM, Graincruncher wrote:
At 10/30/2016 8:30:03 PM, ken1122 wrote:
At 10/30/2016 7:35:49 PM, Graincruncher wrote:
At 10/30/2016 7:21:59 PM, ken1122 wrote:
At 10/30/2016 7:18:02 PM, Graincruncher wrote:
At 10/30/2016 6:54:25 PM, ken1122 wrote:
At 10/30/2016 6:40:51 PM, Annnaxim wrote:
At 10/30/2016 5:55:09 PM, ken1122 wrote:
On Earth resistance prevents us from going too fast, but in outer space there is no resistance so if we continued to add pulpultion , what is to prevent us from reaching the speed of light?

Ken
The inertia IN YOU.
The faster you go, the more inertia you build up, until at the speed of light it becomes infinite. So... no way you can attain the speed of light.
Photons of light can reach that speed because they have no mass.

Inertia is a type of resistance; in outer space there is no resistance. If I were in outer space, traveling at the speed of light compared to planet Earth, it would appear to me that I am motionless, and the planet Earth would be whizzing past me at the speed of light; right? So how does Inertia prevent a machine from taking me at the speed of light compared to planet Earth?

Ken

Because you would need an infinite amount of energy to accelerate your ever-increasing relativistic mass. The faster you go, the higher the cost of further acceleration.

If there is no resistance, why is there a higher cost to further acceleration from what appears to be a stand still?

Because E=MC^2.

Care to explain that in english please? My point is, when you are in space, no matter how fast you are going compared to planet Earth, you will seem to be motionless. So if what seems motionless to you is actually the speed of light compared to Earth, what is to prevent you from going faster assuming you have a machine that can provide propulsion?


Ken

I'm not entirely sure why you think you'd necessarily 'seem to be motionless', as that's entirely untrue. But it's also irrelevant to the point; you cannot accelerate something with rest mass to the speed of light. The reason for this is derivative from E=MC^2. Energy and Mass are interchangeable in relativity, so as one rises, so does the other. This means the faster you're going (so the more kinetic energy you carry), the higher your mass in the eyes of relativity. The higher your mass, the more energy is required to push you to yet higher accelerations.

This produces a feedback loop where the faster you're going, the harder it is (i.e. more energy is required) to go faster still. As you approach the speed of light, your mass approaches infinity and therefore so does the energy required for further acceleration.

When you say "rest mass", rest mass relative to what? Planet Earth? Or some other planet perhaps traveling a million miles per hr relative to planet Earth?

Ken

It's what you have left when you subtract the mass of relative motion in a frame of reference, so that you always end up with the same figure in all frames of reference.

https://en.wikipedia.org...

But in outer space, there is no frame of reference. If you are motionless in outer space, and object "A" whizzes past you at a million mph, if we make object "A" the frame of reference, you will be whizzing around outer space at a million mph; right?

K

No. Space itself is a frame of reference.

Aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaah!
Subutai
Posts: 3,189
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/1/2016 11:59:30 AM
Posted: 1 month ago
At 10/30/2016 5:55:09 PM, ken1122 wrote:
On Earth resistance prevents us from going too fast, but in outer space there is no resistance so if we continued to add pulpultion , what is to prevent us from reaching the speed of light?

Ken

There have been a lot of answers in this thread, and only one so far has been right, although the explanation was a little strange. Regardless of whether you're on Earth or in space, it would take an infinite amount of energy for any massive particle to travel at the speed of light. Only massless particles (like photons) can.

This is because the energy-momentum relation in special relativity is that E=sqrt((p^2)(c^2)+(m^2)(c^4)), where p is the momentum, m is the mass, and c is the speed of light. In special relativity, for massive particles, p=myv, where y (it's supposed to be gamma, but I have no way of writing that in these forums) is the gamma factor (y=1/(sqrt(1-((v^2)/(c^2))))) and v is the velocity. If v equals c, the gamma factor is infinity, which means that, for massive particles, the momentum is infinite, meaning that it has an infinite amount of energy. Besides the obvious absurdities in these facts, it would also imply that, to speed up a massive particle from any sub-c velocity to the speed of light would take an infinite amount of energy, since any massive particle with a sub-c velocity has finite energy.

Now massless particles can still travel at the speed of light, as, even if the particle is traveling at the speed of light, a massless particle has finite momentum, and thus has a finite energy.
I'm becoming less defined as days go by, fading away, and well you might say, I'm losing focus, kinda drifting into the abstract in terms of how I see myself.
chui
Posts: 507
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/1/2016 3:14:12 PM
Posted: 1 month ago
At 10/30/2016 10:18:28 PM, ken1122 wrote:


But in outer space, there is no frame of reference. If you are motionless in outer space, and object "A" whizzes past you at a million mph, if we make object "A" the frame of reference, you will be whizzing around outer space at a million mph; right?

K

I agree .

So it seems reasonable to suggest that if an object passes us just below light speed and we fire our engines we should achieve a relative velocity above light speed. That is what Galilean relativity predicts. However Einstein's work on special relativity shows that space and time do not behave as we expect.

Time dilates in other frames and lengths contract in other frames. Einstein showed this with some clever thought experiments and his theory is backed up by careful experiments. So we have no reason to doubt his theory.

But it does defy logic. But the history of science is full of theories which are correct but which defy logic. Newton's laws of motion defy logic in that the Greek philosophers failed to arrive at them by logic alone and only by observing reality did Newton deduce them.

To give a bit more detail let's develop your scenario by introducing a third object which we are initially at rest with which I will call R. We are passed by a ship A going at c-1 ie 1 m/s less than light speed. We then accelerate in the opposite direction so that we are travelling at 2m/s relative to R. We then deduce that we must be travelling at c+1 relative to A. That is logical, it is Galilean relativity, but it is incorrect. When we measure our speed relative to A we find that it has only increased by a tiny amount of around 7 x 10^-9 m/s. If the rocket were to measure its speed relative to R it is still c-1 but measures our speed relative to R as only 7x10^-9 m/s.

The math for this can be found here:-
https://en.wikipedia.org...

I am working out the relative speed between us and A using
v=(u+V)/(1+uV/c^2) where u is our speed relative to R and V is A's speed relative to R.

By the way if we increased our speed relative to R to c-1 and we measure our relative speed to A it will be 1.7 x10^-9 m/s slower than light speed.
Ramshutu
Posts: 4,063
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/1/2016 4:02:34 PM
Posted: 1 month ago
At 10/30/2016 5:55:09 PM, ken1122 wrote:
On Earth resistance prevents us from going too fast, but in outer space there is no resistance so if we continued to add pulpultion , what is to prevent us from reaching the speed of light?

Ken

"If we continued to add acceleration, what is to prevent us from reaching the speed of light?"

Nothing.

That may sound contentious, or weird; but if you are in a space ship, and keep accelerating, you WILL appear to break the "speed of light" if you keep accelerating.

If you strapped yourself into a spaceship with a huuuuuge rocket, with lots of fuel, and start accelerating. You will get faster and faster and faster.

You will get to a speed where you cross the solar system in an hour. Then cross the galaxy in an hour. Then be able to cross the distance between galaxies in an hour; then cross the entire universe in an hour if you accelerate for long enough.

So, if you are sitting in the space ship; you can travel MASSIVE distances in short spaces of time if you accelerate for long enough.....

....but you're not actually traveling faster than the speed of light.

To everyone not on the space ship, you're traveling at just a fraction of a hair below the speed of light, even though you think you're traveling billions of light years per hour.

The reason for the difference, is that while you are traveling at 10 billion light years per hour, the stop watch you are using is ticking slower than everyone elses.

In fact, if you measure your speed as 10 billion light years per hour, your clock will be ticking at a rate of just a fraction over 1 hour every 10 billion years.

If you could measure the speed of light traveling behind you when you're moving at this speed; it would travel past you at the speed of light.

To observers elsewhere, if it could be measured, they would see the light lag behind you and slowly slowly slowly gain on you, then over take you at a slow, slow slow rate.

The reason you see it zip past at the speed of light, is because your clock is ticking much slower than the other observers.
Quadrunner
Posts: 1,083
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/1/2016 5:57:29 PM
Posted: 1 month ago
At 11/1/2016 9:31:05 AM, Annnaxim wrote:
At 10/30/2016 10:49:20 PM, Quadrunner wrote:

Seeing how light bends and gets sucked into these blackholes I'm not entirely sure it lacks 'mass' which to my understanding is the very basis of the idea that velocity is somehow capped in Newtonian level physics. Heck we don't even know what mass is to my knowledge. All we can do thus far is observe its properties. Still its what they teach, so there must be more thought involved then I've been able to put into it.

Light doesn't move in straight lines; it follows geodetics in non-eucllidian space-time. Because space-time is bent near a black hole, light follows the geodetic "lines" into the hole.
The fact that this is true, was proven by Arthur Eddington in his famous test of general realtivity during a solar eclipse (https://en.wikipedia.org...) almost 100 years ago in 1919.

I love being wrong! It brings so much more incite then being right.
Wisdom is found where the wise seek it.
Fkkize
Posts: 2,149
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/1/2016 10:13:10 PM
Posted: 1 month ago
At 11/1/2016 4:02:34 PM, Ramshutu wrote:
At 10/30/2016 5:55:09 PM, ken1122 wrote:
On Earth resistance prevents us from going too fast, but in outer space there is no resistance so if we continued to add pulpultion , what is to prevent us from reaching the speed of light?

Ken

"If we continued to add acceleration, what is to prevent us from reaching the speed of light?"

Nothing.

Do you have a source for that? I was under the impression that basically every equation in SR is undefined for v>c since you would be taking the sqrt of a negative number.
: At 7/2/2016 3:05:07 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
:
: space contradicts logic
Ramshutu
Posts: 4,063
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/2/2016 12:23:34 PM
Posted: 1 month ago
At 11/1/2016 10:13:10 PM, Fkkize wrote:
At 11/1/2016 4:02:34 PM, Ramshutu wrote:
At 10/30/2016 5:55:09 PM, ken1122 wrote:
On Earth resistance prevents us from going too fast, but in outer space there is no resistance so if we continued to add pulpultion , what is to prevent us from reaching the speed of light?

Ken

"If we continued to add acceleration, what is to prevent us from reaching the speed of light?"

Nothing.

Do you have a source for that? I was under the impression that basically every equation in SR is undefined for v>c since you would be taking the sqrt of a negative number.

Yes. If memory serves, the term is known as "Proper Velocity".

If you travel at 299792 km/s (or about 99.9998 % c), for every second elapsed for you travelling at that speed would be just shy of 10 minutes.

That means, if you were travelling through the solar system, if you passed the sun at T=0, you'd pass the earth at about T = 0.8 seconds.

So, to you, you are traveling about 150 million km / second, about 500 times the speed of light.

I wanted to share the example, as I think it illustrates the idea of what local and non-local "frames of reference" actually mean, something that isn't by any means obvious.
chui
Posts: 507
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/2/2016 12:57:09 PM
Posted: 1 month ago
At 11/1/2016 4:02:34 PM, Ramshutu wrote:


The reason for the difference, is that while you are traveling at 10 billion light years per hour, the stop watch you are using is ticking slower than everyone elses.

With respect Ram I must disagree with you. It only ticks slower from their perspective. From your perspective it is the other way around, you have normal time they have slow time. If you measure your speed it will not be billions of light years per second it will still be less than light speed due to length contraction. However you would be able to cross the galaxy, but only because it gets thinner. I can see that this would imply a higher speed than c but it would never be possible to measure a speed higher than c, and in science what we measure is of course what is real.
Ramshutu
Posts: 4,063
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/2/2016 2:17:45 PM
Posted: 1 month ago
At 11/2/2016 12:57:09 PM, chui wrote:
At 11/1/2016 4:02:34 PM, Ramshutu wrote:



The reason for the difference, is that while you are traveling at 10 billion light years per hour, the stop watch you are using is ticking slower than everyone elses.

With respect Ram I must disagree with you. It only ticks slower from their perspective. From your perspective it is the other way around, you have normal time they have slow time. If you measure your speed it will not be billions of light years per second it will still be less than light speed due to length contraction. However you would be able to cross the galaxy, but only because it gets thinner. I can see that this would imply a higher speed than c but it would never be possible to measure a speed higher than c, and in science what we measure is of course what is real.

We're both right. For the same reasons; and the difference here is really how we're thinking about the effects.

In reality, the constant speed of light for all observers, time dilation and length contraction are all exactly the same thing thought about in different ways

Lets use a thought experiment here to explain what I'm talking about.

You are in a space ship traveling through the solar system, passing the sun and the earth. You are traveling at 99.9998% of the speed of light, meaning that for you, 1 second passes for every 8 minutes of the earth.

As you pass perpendicular to the sun, you start a clock. When you pass perpendicular to the earth, you stop it.

You know the distance from the earth to the sun is 150 million km.

Your clock states 1 second has elapsed. Thus you have traveled 150 million km, in 1 second.

The sneakiness of this, is I am using time from one frame of reference, with distance at a different frame of reference.

Lets say you wanted to measure the distance between the sun and the earth if you were traveling at that speed? How could you make the measurement?

The only way of doing it, is by using light; say beaming radar out from your ship, and measuring the time it takes to return.

You do that, and to you the light zips off at the speed of light, bounces off the earth and returns to you. Everyone knows that light travels at 299,000 km/s, and will take about a second to hit the earth and bounce back to you. Indicating the distance between the sun and the earth is a little short of about 299,000km; indicating that you are NOT traveling faster than the speed of light according to your frame of reference.

So in that respect, you are most assuredly right; we're not really breaking the speed of light locally; but when you use distances measured at other reference frames as your baseline you can (it's called proper velocity, I believe).