Speed of light broken

[eastvolt]

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...

Keep in mind, that every year, there are more and more experiments that provide more data and validation for Einstein's equations. We are not getting close to breaking the speed of light, we are getting farther away. The more data that we get that supports Einstein's theory, the more unlikely it is that it will be broken.

 

[jadebox]

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...

But the speed of light will still remain a barrier.

In the past we looked at the world through a small window - where things were large enough to see and didn't move very fast. That's why Newtonian physics seemed to explain things well.

Now we've opened the window all the way from looking at things down to the quantum level as well as at speeds up to the speed of light. Quantum mechanics and relativity have been shown to describe the way the things actually are to such a degree of precision that there's no room for the window to open any more. We still need to resolve the conflicts from the way we understand things at each end of the spectrum, but we at least know the scope of the problem now.

--Roger

 

[roadkill]

There will be another window someday,
it might be generations from now or perhaps
several millenia from now.

But one day it will be there...

It is hard to believe that today's concepts turn
out to be the pinnacle of our scientific evolution
unless we manage to self-erase our species from
the face of the planet. Which of course seems
more and more likely every day....

 

[eastvolt]

Well, in the long period since we "broke" the sound barrier, we still haven't got a successful supersonic commercial aircraft. The speed of commercial air travel and virtually remained constant in the last 40-50 years.

 

[Art Upton]

Well, in the long period since we "broke" the sound barrier, we still haven't got a successful supersonic commercial aircraft. The speed of commercial air travel and virtually remained constant in the last 40-50 years.

We had a very successful supersonic aircraft.
I knew a few who chose to take it a few times even at its considerable extra cost.

It was legislated out of success

 

[Forrest Scott W]

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.

Oh,:surprised: I thought it was when you threw three white mice over your left shoulder while looking west on a new moon and then sprinkled garlic on a red ant hill while singing your national anthem backwards.

 

[uncle_vanya]

Oh,:surprised: I thought it was when you threw three white mice over your left shoulder while looking west on a new moon and then sprinkled garlic on a red ant hill while singing your national anthem backwards.

Naaa... The way planes fly is that they fall and miss the ground. The poor things don't know any better - brains the size of a molecule at best. Me, I'm too smart for my own good. I can't seem to forget the ground sucks.

:trytofly:

 

[Chicagonative17]

https://www.cultofbob.co.uk/flies/

 

[jadebox]

Naaa... The way planes fly is that they fall and miss the ground.

Actually, that's a good description of the way satellites stay in orbit.

-- Roger

 

[by basher]

I thought Einstein had a fear of relatives.

Anyway, I like to ponder the speed of gravity. If the Sun were to suddenly disappear, would the Earth leave it's orbit instantly, or would it continue in its orbit for eight more minutes?

 

[jadebox]

I thought Einstein had a fear of relatives.

Anyway, I like to ponder the speed of gravity. If the Sun were to suddenly disappear, would the Earth leave it's orbit instantly, or would it continue in its orbit for eight more minutes?

It's not known for sure right now, but it's highly likely that the "speed of gravity" is equal to the speed of light:

https://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/GR/grav_speed.html

-- Roger

 

[Chicagonative17]

I thought Einstein had a fear of relatives.

Anyway, I like to ponder the speed of gravity. If the Sun were to suddenly disappear, would the Earth leave it's orbit instantly, or would it continue in its orbit for eight more minutes?

That is interesting, but I don't think it would be 8 minutes, thats how long it takes light to travel here, and I don't think gravitational forces move at the speed of light.

 

[Art Upton]

That is interesting, but I don't think it would be 8 minutes, thats how long it takes light to travel here, and I don't think gravitational forces move at the speed of light.

Hi Ian,

what speed do Gav-A or Gav-B waves travel?

 

[Chicagonative17]

Hi Ian,

what speed do Gav-A or Gav-B waves travel?

I am not entirely sure, but I have always heard that gravitational waves fluctuate at sub-c levels, and this is why there are changes in magnetic fields around planetary and stellar objects. Because of the fluctuation, the theory of relativity starts to come into play.

 

[Nuke Rocketeer]

Another wrong answer, but getting warmer.

try again pal.

speed of light ~186,000 miles/second
Distance to Mars, 35,000,000 miles,

divide distance by speed to get time,

its 188 seconds.

If it were 15 hours, Mars would be over 10 billion miles away, out past the orbit of Pluto.

 

[eastvolt]

try again pal.

speed of light ~186,000 miles/second
Distance to Mars, 35,000,000 miles,

divide distance by speed to get time,

its 188 seconds.

If it were 15 hours, Mars would be over 10 billion miles away, out past the orbit of Pluto.

Uh No . . . try again

Actually, 15 hours is probably pushing it. A more reasonable answer is around 47 hours, or roughly two days.

I won't tell you why its wrong - you seem smart enough to figure that out, but i'll give you a hint - reread my original question on this.

 

[Chicagonative17]

:boxing:

I think there are WAY too many unknown factors to come close to an accurate calculation. You have to start factoring in "safe" acceleration, both negative and positive. You have to factory in relativity as you get closer to C and further from C. You also need to know the distance traveled because it will change at different points of orbit and it will also change once you approach C...and much more factors.

You can't fight over something that we will probobly NEVER have an accurate calculation for, or at least until will know how to factor in change in time, distance, and a safe accerlation to and from C. Come to think of it, space and matter change shape as you approach C. Too many things on topic to even argue about.

 

[eastvolt]

:boxing:

I think there are WAY too many unknown factors to come close to an accurate calculation. You have to start factoring in "safe" acceleration, both negative and positive. You have to factory in relativity as you get closer to C and further from C. You also need to know the distance traveled because it will change at different points of orbit and it will also change once you approach C...and much more factors.

You can't fight over something that we will probobly NEVER have an accurate calculation for, or at least until will know how to factor in change in time, distance, and a safe accerlation to and from C. Come to think of it, space and matter change shape as you approach C. Too many things on topic to even argue about.

Nope. 48 hours assumes an acceleration / de-acceleration of 1G. With that acceration in mind, you don't even come close to any speeds where relativistic effects would come into play. So with that said, the times calculated are probably pretty close to what you could expect. Distance traveled was defined in the original question. And in a 48 hour timeframe, the distance really wouldn't change that much.

With that said, the important point and the trick to the question was to take into account "comfortable" and "safe" acceleration and to realize with such low acceleration, speeds approaching the speed of light would never even removetly be reached for such a short distance.

Nuke Rocketeer got it completely wrong in that he didn't take into account the acceleration.

 

[Chicagonative17]

Nope. 48 hours assumes an acceleration / de-acceleration of 1G. With that acceration in mind, you don't even come close to any speeds where relativistic effects would come into play. So with that said, the times calculated are probably pretty close to what you could expect. Distance traveled was defined in the original question. And in a 48 hour timeframe, the distance really wouldn't change that much.

With that said, the important point and the trick to the question was to take into account "comfortable" and "safe" acceleration and to realize with such low acceleration, speeds approaching the speed of light would never even removetly be reached for such a short distance.

Nuke Rocketeer got it completely wrong in that he didn't take into account the acceleration.

I thought the origional question was how fast you could get to mars if you went the speed of light.

 

[jadebox]

I thought the origional question was how fast you could get to mars if you went the speed of light.

Since you cannot accelerate a spaceship to the speed of light (safely or not), there really is no correct answer to the question. It takes light three to twenty minutes to reach Mars from earth - which provides as good an answer as any (since all are equally invalid).

:surprised:

Anyway, if it didn't require infinite energy it would take about 36* days to accelerate from zero to 186,000 miles per second at a steady 3gs. You'd be well past Mars by the time you reached that speed.

* 3Gs = 0.0182683131 miles per second per second

186000 miles per second / 0.0182683131 miles per second per second = 10181564 seconds or about 36 days.

-- Roger

 

[Chicagonative17]

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?

Here is what was stated before. So according to recently done math, this is impossible.

So all these answers going back and forth about this question are incorect because it just won't happen.

 

[eastvolt]

I thought the origional question was how fast you could get to mars if you went the speed of light.

No, the question stated how fast it would take to get to Mars safely and comfortably if you had a spaceship capable of going the speed of light.

 

[Chicagonative17]

So you mean that the spaceship CAN go the speed of light, but won't? Well then how fast is it traveling? How fast did it end up going in your calculations?

 

[eastvolt]

Here is what was stated before. So according to recently done math, this is impossible.

So all these answers going back and forth about this question are incorect because it just won't happen.

Firstly, no math was provided in *this* thread that states this is impossible. If you think otherwise, please state your proof or quote the actual post.

Secondly, this is a hypothetical physics textbook type question. Yeah, we know its impossible to accelerate any mass to the speed of light given the present understanding of physics. However, thats not the point of the question. The whole point of the exercise was to show that even with a vehicle that could travel at the speed of light, that for short distances, you would barely even reach that speed and that relativistic effects are practically negligible.

This is my last response to this topic.

 

[Chicagonative17]

Anyway, if it didn't require infinite energy it would take about 36* days to accelerate from zero to 186,000 miles per second at a steady 3gs. You'd be well past Mars by the time you reached that speed.

* 3Gs = 0.0182683131 miles per second per second

186000 miles per second / 0.0182683131 miles per second per second = 10181564 seconds or about 36 days.

This is the math, proving it would be impossible to travel the speed of light safely from Earth to Mars.

Even if you could go the speed of light with a spaceship, the speed of light at C would affect calculating the time it takes durastically. Time slows and then stops appraching and then hitting C. If you calculate the relative time between flying from point A to point B when going C, you would get a MUCH different answer than when you are using normal math equations.

 

[eastvolt]

This is the math, proving it would be impossible to travel the speed of light safely from Earth to Mars.

Even if you could go the speed of light with a spaceship, the speed of light at C would affect calculating the time it takes durastically. Time slows and then stops appraching and then hitting C. If you calculate the relative time between flying from point A to point B when going C, you would get a MUCH different answer than when you are using normal math equations.

That math doesn't prove anything in the context of the original question. (i.e. nowhere does it state the ship *has* to travel at the speed of light)

Here is the original question:

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?

The correct answers:

1. As long as you take into account acceleration (i.e. 1G, 2G, 3G, etc...), your answer is correct. If you assume the ship is actually starting from zero and instantaneously reaching the speed of light, your answer is wrong

2. Approx. the same time as occupant on board as would pass on earth. ie... relativistic effects are negligible since only about 1% the speed of light is achieved at those accelerations.

 

[Chicagonative17]

As you stated in your own quote above, "...how long would it take to get its occupants COMFORTABLY and SAFELY to Mars...". You can't go from zero to instant C comfortably and safely. You proved yourself as stated above that the 1,2 and 3 G acceleration was correct. So you actual proved correct in both instances in "The correct answers: #1".

 

[Nuke Rocketeer]

Check out this link on this topic.

https://stupac2.blogspot.com/2007/08/we-have-not-broken-speed-of-light.html

 

[Chicagonative17]

Somehow I knew that this would happen. As somebody stated before, the scientist who made the claim will be remembered as "the scientist who claimed they broke the speed of light". Even though they didn't go that fast, they had to have been going preety gosh darn fast.

 

[eastvolt]

Somehow I knew that this would happen. As somebody stated before, the scientist who made the claim will be remembered as "the scientist who claimed they broke the speed of light". Even though they didn't go that fast, they had to have been going preety gosh darn fast.

I can make objects go to nearly the speed of light too. Its not that hard. Just plugging in my vacuum cleaner, i can make electrons travel close to the speed of light.