Jello, that stuff is predicted by special relativity, a theory which was confirmed years ago.

Jello, that stuff is predicted by special relativity, a theory which was confirmed years ago.

[quote=AntiSleep]Jello, that stuff is predicted by special relativity, a theory which was confirmed years ago.[/quote] Thanks that was the answer I was looking for. :)

Quote from AntiSleep

Jello, that stuff is predicted by special relativity, a theory which was confirmed years ago.

Thanks that was the answer I was looking for.

[quote=Akar]indeed, however, those same theories which your stating also state that traveling the same speed as light, is impossible. Because light ALWAYS travels light speed away from you, regardless of the speed your going.[/quote] When a Photon - that obviously travels at the sped of light - would "watch" another Photon travelling in the same direction - again at the speed of light - it would not see the other Photon travelling next to itself (which you might assume since they both have the same speed), it would see the other photon moving away from it at the speed of light. This sounds pretty confusing at first, and does not fit into the newtonian understanding of speed at all. So this is NOT the proof that you can't travel at the speed of light. If you WERE travelling at the speed of light, Photons still could move away from you at the speed of light without anything going wrong. WoAHorde: The "tear" was just for the image, representing the event horizon.

Quote from Akar

indeed, however, those same theories which your stating also state that traveling the same speed as light, is impossible. Because light ALWAYS travels light speed away from you, regardless of the speed your going.

When a Photon - that obviously travels at the sped of light - would "watch" another Photon travelling in the same direction - again at the speed of light - it would not see the other Photon travelling next to itself (which you might assume since they both have the same speed), it would see the other photon moving away from it at the speed of light.
This sounds pretty confusing at first, and does not fit into the newtonian understanding of speed at all.
So this is NOT the proof that you can't travel at the speed of light. If you WERE travelling at the speed of light, Photons still could move away from you at the speed of light without anything going wrong.

WoAHorde: The "tear" was just for the image, representing the event horizon.

[quote=spinesheath]When a Photon - that obviously travels at the sped of light - would "watch" another Photon travelling in the same direction - again at the speed of light - it would not see the other Photon travelling next to itself (which you might assume since they both have the same speed), it would see the other photon moving away from it at the speed of light. This sounds pretty confusing at first, and does not fit into the newtonian understanding of speed at all. So this is NOT the proof that you can't travel at the speed of light. If you WERE travelling at the speed of light, Photons still could move away from you at the speed of light without anything going wrong. WoAHorde: The "tear" was just for the image, representing the event horizon.[/quote] That's some pretty deep stuff you have going on there, but yet again it is only theoretical, nothing proves this. Or does something prove it?

Quote from spinesheath

When a Photon - that obviously travels at the sped of light - would "watch" another Photon travelling in the same direction - again at the speed of light - it would not see the other Photon travelling next to itself (which you might assume since they both have the same speed), it would see the other photon moving away from it at the speed of light.
This sounds pretty confusing at first, and does not fit into the newtonian understanding of speed at all.
So this is NOT the proof that you can't travel at the speed of light. If you WERE travelling at the speed of light, Photons still could move away from you at the speed of light without anything going wrong.

WoAHorde: The "tear" was just for the image, representing the event horizon.

That's some pretty deep stuff you have going on there, but yet again it is only theoretical, nothing proves this. Or does something prove it?

Well, if you believe special relativity to be true, then you should also believe this, as it is the very reason why Einstein worked out his theory. There were some experiments showing that light ALWAYS travels at a given speed (though it varies for example in water, glass, vacuum, ...), no matter which inertial sytem you look at it from, or from where it was emitted. This leads to the very fact that even when you were moving at the speed of light, light would still travel at the speed of light from your point of view.

Well, if you believe special relativity to be true, then you should also believe this, as it is the very reason why Einstein worked out his theory.
There were some experiments showing that light ALWAYS travels at a given speed (though it varies for example in water, glass, vacuum, ...), no matter which inertial sytem you look at it from, or from where it was emitted. This leads to the very fact that even when you were moving at the speed of light, light would still travel at the speed of light from your point of view.

it isn't about believing it 'true', it is about it being the most precise model we currently have.

it isn't about believing it 'true', it is about it being the most precise model we currently have.

[quote=Minority]Scientists think that if you fell into a black hole, no-one would actually see you fall in, because the time you're experiencing would be infinitely slowed down to them (due to the 'infinite' gravity around the black hole).[/quote] This isn't true : time SEEMS to be distorb because the black-hole have a so high density that it attracts even the light, wich has a speed. And because it attracts it, the light reduce it speed, effectively, but don't forget that how we see is because light comes to our eyes... we do not see what happens in the immediate. Time is running "normaly" on a material object, even if it's near a black-hole... it's just that the images do not comes as fast as usual to your eyes. [quote=AntiSleep]Density has an effect, but first you need the mass.[/quote] For sure you need mass : density IS the result of the division of a mass (so you ahve one... :P) and the volume of what you want to calculate the density of. [quote=WoAHorde]Traveling at the speed of light with a mass is impossible, as it would require infinite energy.[/quote] Reaching light speed, theorically, would make us transform into pure energy... so we would auto-feed us of energy (so infine needing of energy becomes null). [quote=WoAHorde]The closer you approach the speed of light, the more your mass increases(kinetic energy).[/quote] Until it reaches the light speed... mass would be equal to zero (except if we consider light has a mass cause it can be attracted by black-holes...).

Quote from Minority

Scientists think that if you fell into a black hole, no-one would actually see you fall in, because the time you're experiencing would be infinitely slowed down to them (due to the 'infinite' gravity around the black hole).

This isn't true : time SEEMS to be distorb because the black-hole have a so high density that it attracts even the light, wich has a speed. And because it attracts it, the light reduce it speed, effectively, but don't forget that how we see is because light comes to our eyes... we do not see what happens in the immediate.
Time is running "normaly" on a material object, even if it's near a black-hole... it's just that the images do not comes as fast as usual to your eyes.

Quote from AntiSleep

Density has an effect, but first you need the mass.

For sure you need mass : density IS the result of the division of a mass (so you ahve one... ) and the volume of what you want to calculate the density of.

Quote from WoAHorde

Traveling at the speed of light with a mass is impossible, as it would require infinite energy.

Reaching light speed, theorically, would make us transform into pure energy... so we would auto-feed us of energy (so infine needing of energy becomes null).

Quote from WoAHorde

The closer you approach the speed of light, the more your mass increases(kinetic energy).

Until it reaches the light speed... mass would be equal to zero (except if we consider light has a mass cause it can be attracted by black-holes...).

The point is, you'd be well using the Universe's energy reserves when your in the 99 percentile. :P

The point is, you'd be well using the Universe's energy reserves when your in the 99 percentile.

I'm not sure I get what you mean... :omfg:

I'm not sure I get what you mean...

I think he means that you'd have used all of the energy in the Universe when you got to 99% light speed.

I think he means that you'd have used all of the energy in the Universe when you got to 99% light speed.

Oh... lol? I don't think this is true : light is by itself an energy and there's also energies that you don't need to consum to use... for exemple : geothermy (stars...).

Oh... lol?
I don't think this is true : light is by itself an energy and there's also energies that you don't need to consum to use... for exemple : geothermy (stars...).

Light by itself is pure energy. It doesn't have any mass, so it moves at [I]c[/I] when it has any energy. I also read an interesting hypothesis (which I unfortunately can't find again) on Everything2 where you are always travelling at light speed, but you're usually moving along the 'time' axis. When you move in our 3-dimensional space (relative an observer, of course), you transform some of you temporal energy ('time' energy) into kinetic energy, so you have less temporal energy and time slows down for you (relative to an observer). I just found that interesting.

Light by itself is pure energy. It doesn't have any mass, so it moves at c when it has any energy.

I also read an interesting hypothesis (which I unfortunately can't find again) on Everything2 where you are always travelling at light speed, but you're usually moving along the 'time' axis. When you move in our 3-dimensional space (relative an observer, of course), you transform some of you temporal energy ('time' energy) into kinetic energy, so you have less temporal energy and time slows down for you (relative to an observer). I just found that interesting.

Isn't that simply one of the basic principes of the relativity? :S

Isn't that simply one of the basic principes of the relativity? :S

[quote=payne]Oh... lol? I don't think this is true : light is by itself an energy and there's also energies that you don't need to consum to use... for exemple : geothermy (stars...).[/quote] Light is made up of photons, a massless particle. Thus, they need little or no energy. ;o

Quote from payne

Oh... lol?
I don't think this is true : light is by itself an energy and there's also energies that you don't need to consum to use... for exemple : geothermy (stars...).

Light is made up of photons, a massless particle. Thus, they need little or no energy. ;o

[QUOTE]The closer you approach the speed of light, the more your mass increases(kinetic energy). To propel an infinite mass, you need infinite energy.[/QUOTE] true, but I said the same speed [I]as[/I] light. In other words be right next to a stream of photons and travel along side them. The speed of light is 600 million miles per hour (give or take). Lets not mention Newtonian laws, they don't factor in well with things at high speeds or high concentrations of forces (such as gravity).

Quote

The closer you approach the speed of light, the more your mass increases(kinetic energy). To propel an infinite mass, you need infinite energy.

true, but I said the same speed as light. In other words be right next to a stream of photons and travel along side them.
The speed of light is 600 million miles per hour (give or take). Lets not mention Newtonian laws, they don't factor in well with things at high speeds or high concentrations of forces (such as gravity).

Yes, going the same speed of light would require an infinite mass. :P Thus infinite energy. As far as we know, we can't exceed lightspeed, or exactly reach if for that matter.

Yes, going the same speed of light would require an infinite mass. Thus infinite energy. As far as we know, we can't exceed lightspeed, or exactly reach if for that matter.

Wow I missed a lot... Let's backtrack some shall we? [QUOTE]This isn't true : time SEEMS to be distorb because the black-hole have a so high density that it attracts even the light, wich has a speed. And because it attracts it, the light reduce it speed, effectively, but don't forget that how we see is because light comes to our eyes... we do not see what happens in the immediate. Time is running "normaly" on a material object, even if it's near a black-hole... it's just that the images do not comes as fast as usual to your eyes.[/QUOTE]Possibly the most logical explanation of the whole thread. This, more than anything else said, makes the most sense(to me anyways). But I have some questions 1) Since light doesn't have mass, does that mean blackholes attract energy or mass?(or both) 2) Do blackholes(theoretically) suck in sound? 3) So everyone says going the same speed(or beyond) is not possible eh? What about near the speed of light? And would it have the same effects? 4) Are light photons the only thing that can go c? 5) and last: Who makes all this so freaking confusing?!?! lolz but is there really not a better way that suits the general publics intelligence? :lol:

Wow I missed a lot... Let's backtrack some shall we?

Quote

This isn't true : time SEEMS to be distorb because the black-hole have a so high density that it attracts even the light, wich has a speed. And because it attracts it, the light reduce it speed, effectively, but don't forget that how we see is because light comes to our eyes... we do not see what happens in the immediate.
Time is running "normaly" on a material object, even if it's near a black-hole... it's just that the images do not comes as fast as usual to your eyes.

Possibly the most logical explanation of the whole thread. This, more than anything else said, makes the most sense(to me anyways).

But I have some questions

1) Since light doesn't have mass, does that mean blackholes attract energy or mass?(or both)
2) Do blackholes(theoretically) suck in sound?
3) So everyone says going the same speed(or beyond) is not possible eh? What about near the speed of light? And would it have the same effects?
4) Are light photons the only thing that can go c?
5) and last: Who makes all this so freaking confusing?!?! lolz but is there really not a better way that suits the general publics intelligence?

1. Light is weird like that. 2. They suck in the matter carrying the sound, so probably yes. 3. Huh? You mean that everyone is saying that you can't go at [I]c[/I]? Unless you have no mass, you can't. 4. I'm pretty sure it's just any 'particle' without mass. 5. Meh... the general public don't really care. [quote=payne]Isn't that simply one of the basic principes of the relativity? :S [/quote] Probably. The Universe fits together too neatly.

1. Light is weird like that.
2. They suck in the matter carrying the sound, so probably yes.
3. Huh? You mean that everyone is saying that you can't go at c? Unless you have no mass, you can't.
4. I'm pretty sure it's just any 'particle' without mass.
5. Meh... the general public don't really care.

Quote from payne

Isn't that simply one of the basic principes of the relativity? :S

Probably. The Universe fits together too neatly.

You need air or a surrounding atmosphere of something for there to be sound. As far as time travel and stuff goes, http://timetravelfund.com/ :D totally worth it, my friend did it. So we were talking about time travel stuff and somethings got me thinking. Is the speed of light the maximum speed of any kind of particle in our universe, like even 1 electron? Say we are able to use a tremendous amount of energy to fire 1 tiny hydrogen atom at the speed of light. Does the electron stop spinning around the nucleus? because if it did it would exceed [I]c[/I] Also everyone was saying(even the one professor in the room) how time travel is actually within our grasp now, and we could do it if we wanted. Something to do with this one scientists invention that involved tons of weird lazers going up a spiral(like a stack of CDs) and that if you launched something down the center of it, it would pop out in time the very moment you turned it on. I asked what happened when they tried it and they told me the inventor was "too scared to turn it on, because of the things he might see written on the notes, probably telling him how to build a better one" I was like, thats a load of bs, but everyone else was like "no" treating like an established fact. I'm gonna google w/e I can find out about it right now, but if anyone has any insight on this, post up.

You need air or a surrounding atmosphere of something for there to be sound.
As far as time travel and stuff goes, http://timetravelfund.com/ totally worth it, my friend did it.

So we were talking about time travel stuff and somethings got me thinking.
Is the speed of light the maximum speed of any kind of particle in our universe, like even 1 electron?
Say we are able to use a tremendous amount of energy to fire 1 tiny hydrogen atom at the speed of light. Does the electron stop spinning around the nucleus? because if it did it would exceed c

Also everyone was saying(even the one professor in the room) how time travel is actually within our grasp now, and we could do it if we wanted. Something to do with this one scientists invention that involved tons of weird lazers going up a spiral(like a stack of CDs) and that if you launched something down the center of it, it would pop out in time the very moment you turned it on. I asked what happened when they tried it and they told me the inventor was "too scared to turn it on, because of the things he might see written on the notes, probably telling him how to build a better one" I was like, thats a load of bs, but everyone else was like "no" treating like an established fact. I'm gonna google w/e I can find out about it right now, but if anyone has any insight on this, post up.

To fire 1 tiny hydrogen atom at the speed of light would require infinite energy. Horde has been explaining this :P

To fire 1 tiny hydrogen atom at the speed of light would require infinite energy. Horde has been explaining this