Speed of light broken

[heada]

It seems that it may not have been broken after all.

https://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2007-08/ns-lst081607.php

-Aaron

 

[Nuke Rocketeer]

Well, here is a question for you.

If i had a spaceship that could fly at the speed of light, how long would it take to get its occupants comfortably and safely to Mars. Assume 35 million miles as distance from earth to Mars.

1. How long would the flight take?

2. How much time would pass for its occupants on board?

188 seconds, but it would not matter, as the acceleration/deceleration would turn the occupants into jelly.

 

[eastvolt]

If a ship accelerated to exactly the speed of light, physics breaks.

The math says time on the ship would stop. The ship would travel instantaneously - able to occupy every point in the universe at once. This can't happen, of course, so don't even try to imagine it. Physics doesn't work anymore at that point. The equations break down. Singularities result. Bad Things happen.

For what happens at near 'c', see my previous post.

Nope, wrong answer. Try again.

 

[eastvolt]

188 seconds, but it would not matter, as the acceleration/deceleration would turn the occupants into jelly.

Another wrong answer, but getting warmer.

 

[jadebox]

What I want to know is how that would appear.

You see 2 near speed of light space ships coming at each other, but the space in between them isn't closing respective to their combined speed.

To someone in one of the rockets, the other rocket would appear to be approaching at about 90% of the speed of light. An observer between the two rockets would see the gap closing at faster than the speed of light. It all depends on your frame of reference.

-- Roger

 

[Forrest Scott W]

Hey Y'all;

Remember,
There Are No Absolutes
Relativity might fall under that too, but I'm not absloutely sure.

 

[Chicagonative17]

Light is an absolute and that is proven. At any point of view, light is ALWAYS the same speed.

 

[eastvolt]

Well, here is a question for you.

If i had a spaceship that could fly at the speed of light, how long would it take to get its occupants comfortably and safely to Mars. Assume 35 million miles as distance from earth to Mars.

1. How long would the flight take?

2. How much time would pass for its occupants on board?

ANSWER:

Well, of course the answer is approx. 15 hours. And the time elapsed on board for the astronauts would again be approx. 15 hours.

 

[ben]

188 seconds, but it would not matter, as the acceleration/deceleration would turn the occupants into jelly.

I wonder if I would get money for being the first person turned into jelly going past the speed of light? :rotflol:

Ben

 

[Nerull]

ANSWER:

Well, of course the answer is approx. 15 hours. And the time elapsed on board for the astronauts would again be approx. 15 hours.

And where does this come from?

Assuming your not accelerating at all, and can just magically travel at c, it'll take 3 minutes. For any other measure you need to give your acceleration - and then run into the problem that its impossible to accelerate to c.

 

[eastvolt]

And where does this come from?

Assuming your not accelerating at all, and can just magically travel at c, it'll take 3 minutes. For any other measure you need to give your acceleration - and then run into the problem that its impossible to accelerate to c.

As I stated in my original question, i asked how long it would take to reach Mars if i had a vehicle capable of the speed of light, comfortably and safely. Safely of course means getting their alive, and comfortably means just that - comfortably.

Of course comfortably is relative, but lets assume the astronaunts are highly trained with compression suits. With 10G acceleration, which i imagine would probably not be comfortable, it would take 15 hours. Maximum speed reached at this acceleration would be approx. 1% the speed of light. At this speed, relativistic effects would be negligible.

Of course, for the real cushy butts, a 1G acceleration would increase the time about 3.16 with the maximum speed reduced by the same factor.

 

[Nerull]

Few would consider 10g safe or comfortable.

Even well trained pilots can only withstand 9g for a few minutes at most - a few seconds if they actually have to operate anything, rather than just using every ounce of strength to keep from passing out. 10g for 15 hours is probably lethal.

I'd say you'll have a max of perhaps 2gs if you want "comfort". Perhaps 5 if you've got people strapped in well, trained, and still expect them to operate controls. Of course after a few hours of that they'll probably be too exhausted to do much of anything.

 

[Art Upton]

Humm...

In the middle ages it was known to be proven that the earth was the center and all objects in the sky revolved around it.

In the 1800s, it was known to be proven that the human body could not endure the 35mph speeds new technology was being worked on for mass transportation.

In the early 1900s, it was known you could not fly faster then the speed of sound.

If I make sure I start considering my health (I love my steak and beer), I'm sure I will live long enough to see our current laws of science broken just a few years before I die.

 

[Nate]

Humm...

In the middle ages it was known to be proven that the earth was the center and all objects in the sky revolved around it.

In the 1800s, it was known to be proven that the human body could not endure the 35mph speeds new technology was being worked on for mass transportation.

In the early 1900s, it was known you could not fly faster then the speed of sound.

If I make sure I start considering my health (I love my steak and beer), I'm sure I will live long enough to see our current laws of science broken just a few years before I die.

I agree completely. Just because our math can't handle faster than light travel doesn't mean it's 100% impossible. It DOES mean there might be a mistake in the equation, after all, it's still mostly theory at this point anyway.

 

[eastvolt]

It DOES mean there might be a mistake in the equation, after all, it's still mostly theory at this point anyway.

Uh, you better go look up the definition of what a scientific theory is. To a layperson, the term "theory" usually means a hunch or guess, but in the scientific community, a "theory" is the highest form of scientific knowledge there is which is based upon many observations and data. A scientific theory is regarded as "fact" by the scientific majority.

Also every modern test of Einstein's theories, including those from the gravity-b probe have proven him right so far. Does this means its 100% correct? Of course not. In fact, no scientific theory can be proven to be 100% correct.

In the middle ages it was known to be proven that the earth was the center and all objects in the sky revolved around it.

THis was never proven. It was stated by the Catholic Church in attempts to coincide with the fact that the Earth is the center of the universe.

In the 1800s, it was known to be proven that the human body could not endure the 35mph speeds new technology was being worked on for mass transportation.

Again, nothing proven here. THis was just a "hunch" some scientists had at the time with absolutely ZERO data to back this claim up.

In the early 1900s, it was known you could not fly faster then the speed of sound.

Again, nothing was known or proven here other than a hunch.

Geesh. THe next thing you'll say is that planes develop lift because the air moves faster on top of the wing than it does below it.

 

[jderimig]

The theory of quantum mechanics does allow speeds in excess of c, Einstein never thought much of Q.M.

As far as the earth being or not being the center, if the universe is infinite then any position can be the center.

 

[Nate]

Uh, you better go look up the definition of what a scientific theory is. To a layperson, the term "theory" usually means a hunch or guess, but in the scientific community, a "theory" is the highest form of scientific knowledge there is which is based upon many observations and data. A scientific theory is regarded as "fact" by the scientific majority.

I know what a theory is thank you very much. You think I build supersonic missiles in my free time but don't consider myself part of the scientific community?

Also every modern test of Einstein's theories, including those from the gravity-b probe have proven him right so far. Does this means its 100% correct? Of course not. In fact, no scientific theory can be proven to be 100% correct.

Yes. This is exactly what I was saying. Do you have a point to make or are you just arguing for the sake of being angry?
Theories may be regarded as fact, but only because we have no proof to the contrary. You can never prove something can't happen, you can only prove it can. think on that.

 

[Chicagonative17]

Uh, you better go look up the definition of what a scientific theory is. To a layperson, the term "theory" usually means a hunch or guess, but in the scientific community, a "theory" is the highest form of scientific knowledge there is which is based upon many observations and data. A scientific theory is regarded as "fact" by the scientific majority.

Also every modern test of Einstein's theories, including those from the gravity-b probe have proven him right so far. Does this means its 100% correct? Of course not. In fact, no scientific theory can be proven to be 100% correct.



THis was never proven. It was stated by the Catholic Church in attempts to coincide with the fact that the Earth is the center of the universe.



Again, nothing proven here. THis was just a "hunch" some scientists had at the time with absolutely ZERO data to back this claim up.



Again, nothing was known or proven here other than a hunch.

Geesh. THe next thing you'll say is that planes develop lift because the air moves faster on top of the wing than it does below it.

I think he knows this, he is just making a point that that was an almost unanymous belief. The same kind of belief we have now about not being able to break the speed of light.

 

[roadkill]

Einstein himself was the first
one to say that he might have been
mistaken a little bit somewhere....


He was a true genius and still quite a few laps
ahead of the rest of us - even after all these years...

 

[zefram]

Dr. Zephram Cochran would be proud

I am. :burnout:

 

[jadebox]

I think he knows this, he is just making a point that that was an almost unanymous belief. The same kind of belief we have now about not being able to break the speed of light.

But there's a big difference. That knowlege that information cannot travel faster than the speed of light and that it would take an infinite amount of energy to accelerate any object with mass to the speed of light is backed by both theory and evidence, not belief.

-- Roger

 

[Art Upton]

I am. :burnout:

But your from NJ ?

Everyone knows the first contact with Vulcans was in PA, even if they built your statue out west :surprised:

 

[Art Upton]

But there's a big difference. That knowlege that information cannot travel faster than the speed of light and that it would take an infinite amount of energy to accelerate any object with mass to the speed of light is backed by both theory and evidence, not belief.

-- Roger

Hi Roger, I do understand your points.

But the only belief I have; is that I will continually see theorys and evidences disproven in all walks of life.

 

[amarillo_rocket]

The misconception a lot of people have is they assume science is based on facts and therefore is absolute truth. Life would be awfully boring it that was the case and we get to some point where everything is figured out and there is nother more to learn. As someone pointed out in a previous post the science of the middle ages is definitely not the science of today, the "facts" changed. Computers are great, but they can only compute based on the formula's and equations they are presented, so having computers can often only allow us to make errors to the 1 millionth power verses the 10th power. Wow, shaking up the entire physics world and reality as we understand it by exceeding the speed of light!! Personally I hope they did it!! It's fun to go back to square one!

 

[Chicagonative17]

My personal opinion is that some theories and even laws will eventually be broken. I believe this because formulas will not work in given situations. It might be the case for the speed of light, but even that is still a stretch. We might break it one day, but I don't think today is the day.

 

[Art Upton]

.... Personally I hope they did it!! It's fun to go back to square one!

Yes, it will be fun for us.

But for an established establishment, it will ruin a sanctum of work; a way of life that has been built up based on beliefs, theories, and facts of the day.

That is why the science or even alchemy of the middle ages was so hard to disprove; in that a vested interest had quite abit at stake.

The same holds true in most ways of life and science today. Alot of business and academia is at stake.

 

[Chilly]

Opie & Anthony...of all people...discussed this & mentioned a point that caught my eye;

They made this huge announcemnt based on an experiment where the two prisms were THREE FRICKEN FEET APART!!!

:rotflol::rotflol:

Do ya THINK that there might be some challenging in measuring time & speed to the...what, 25th decimal point of a second or so?

Good grief.

Well, there we have it...throw away your Physics texts 'cause the oracles have spoken!

Maybe next they'll figure out that cold fusion thing...

 

[eastvolt]

Opie & Anthony...of all people...discussed this & mentioned a point that caught my eye;

They made this huge announcemnt based on an experiment where the two prisms were THREE FRICKEN FEET APART!!!

:rotflol::rotflol:

Do ya THINK that there might be some challenging in measuring time & speed to the...what, 25th decimal point of a second or so?

Actually, thats not that difficult. Light travels roughly one foot per nanosecond. There are plenty of instruments that can measure with nanosecond resolution.

 

[roadkill]

All of today's 'modern' science consists of what we know or what we can theorize based on today's concepts that time most likely will prove rather myopic like has happened thruout the known history...

Just look back and realize that only a bit over 100 years ago mankind had its first successful powered flight, 60 years ago the first supersonic flight, 50 years ago the first satellite, less than 40 years ago we walked on the moon...

All these are accomplishments the scientists a generation or few before held impossible, just like today's concept of speed of light being 'absolute'.

We will break the 'light barrier' - its not a question of 'if' but only 'when' - just like we have broken all the previous artificial barriers erected by mainstream scientists...

Einstein said that in the infinite Universe nothing is absolute but the stupidity of man, looks like myopia is a close second....

 

[Chicagonative17]

That is a good point. But my belief is that time only moves in one direction, no matter if the speed of time changes due to approaching C, you can't break C because that would make time go backwards, that is, if time follows a consistent patern after C as it did before C. The only way we would break C is if there was an anomoly in an equasion or in a consistant pattern. Which is possible but HIGHLY unlikely.