1. Photons are strange things that have properties of both matter and energy. We do not understand them fully. 2. Yes, sound is simply vibrations traveling through matter. But how you would have sound in space eludes me, because despite what Hollywood depicts, there isn't any matter in the vacuum of space for sound waves to travel through. 3. Going the speed of light, according to Einstein's theory of special relativity, is impossible for matter. However, going near the speed of light is theoretically possible (say 99.9% of the speed of light), but would require a tremendous amount of energy (think all the energy in the universe together should do the trick). 4. As I have said before, photons (which is light), isn't fully understood. However, other forms of EM Radiation can travel at the speed of light (sound cannot, but if it were to travel through a ludicrously hot plasma [think 10^10000 degrees, that may be possible). 5. Umm... Well, this is the way science works like it or not. This is why it takes intelligent people to be physicists, because normal people can't even conceive what others have proven, let alone come up with their own ideas. [QUOTE]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[/QUOTE] Say you had infinite energy to launch it with? Well for one you would blow the entire Universe and God knows what else when you released it all, not to mention it would keep coming at an infinite rate forever. [QUOTE]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.[/QUOTE] In my beliefs, time is a line, and cannot be altered because even if time travel is possible and you can "change something" nothing would happen, because no matter what you do, it will be the same line, because you have already gone back in time before you made the device and did it and nothing in the line would change. So you might say my beliefs go against some of those in M Theory.

1. Photons are strange things that have properties of both matter and energy. We do not understand them fully.
2. Yes, sound is simply vibrations traveling through matter. But how you would have sound in space eludes me, because despite what Hollywood depicts, there isn't any matter in the vacuum of space for sound waves to travel through.
3. Going the speed of light, according to Einstein's theory of special relativity, is impossible for matter. However, going near the speed of light is theoretically possible (say 99.9% of the speed of light), but would require a tremendous amount of energy (think all the energy in the universe together should do the trick).
4. As I have said before, photons (which is light), isn't fully understood. However, other forms of EM Radiation can travel at the speed of light (sound cannot, but if it were to travel through a ludicrously hot plasma [think 10^10000 degrees, that may be possible).
5. Umm... Well, this is the way science works like it or not. This is why it takes intelligent people to be physicists, because normal people can't even conceive what others have proven, let alone come up with their own ideas.

Quote

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

Say you had infinite energy to launch it with? Well for one you would blow the entire Universe and God knows what else when you released it all, not to mention it would keep coming at an infinite rate forever.

Quote

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.

In my beliefs, time is a line, and cannot be altered because even if time travel is possible and you can "change something" nothing would happen, because no matter what you do, it will be the same line, because you have already gone back in time before you made the device and did it and nothing in the line would change. So you might say my beliefs go against some of those in M Theory.

[I]That[/I] is the only kind of time travel that makes sense (none of this 'timeline' shit that Doc Brown keeps spouting :P). EDIT: [quote=Akar]4. As I have said before, photons (which is light), isn't fully understood. However, other forms of EM Radiation can travel at the speed of light[/quote] Photons, light, and Electromagnetic (EM) radiation are all one and the same.

That is the only kind of time travel that makes sense (none of this 'timeline' shit that Doc Brown keeps spouting ).

EDIT:

Quote from Akar

4. As I have said before, photons (which is light), isn't fully understood. However, other forms of EM Radiation can travel at the speed of light

Photons, light, and Electromagnetic (EM) radiation are all one and the same.

[QUOTE]That is the only kind of time travel that makes sense (none of this 'timeline' shit that Doc Brown keeps spouting :P ).[/QUOTE] ZOMG LOGIC! It must be the end of the world... a theory that ACTUALLY MAKES SENSE!

Quote

That is the only kind of time travel that makes sense (none of this 'timeline' shit that Doc Brown keeps spouting ).

ZOMG LOGIC! It must be the end of the world... a theory that ACTUALLY MAKES SENSE!

I always find it hard to explain... I figured it out by reading one of the Harry Potter books a few years ago (you know, the one with the 'Time Turner' thing, or whatever).

I always find it hard to explain... I figured it out by reading one of the Harry Potter books a few years ago (you know, the one with the 'Time Turner' thing, or whatever).

Doc Brown? is he a biology teacher? lolz

Doc Brown? is he a biology teacher? lolz

No, he was the "Mad Scientist" character from the Back to the Future series. I think that was his name, anyway :P EDIT: That's "Mad" as in "controversial", not "evil" or anything.

No, he was the "Mad Scientist" character from the Back to the Future series. I think that was his name, anyway

EDIT: That's "Mad" as in "controversial", not "evil" or anything.

[quote=Akar][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] "not well" is a nice understatement. Newtonian laws don'e fit at all when you get close to c. Also, travelling "next" to photons is a weird thing: As I said before, those photons will always move with c from your view. A spectator might be able to "see" you next to the photons. [quote=Jello-Jigglers]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:[/quote] From our view, time DOES run slower near to a black hole. It even is slower on sea level than it is on the Mt.Everest. Again, from our view. If you were on the Mt.Everest, you wouldn't be able to notice a difference unless again comparing it to sea level. This has nothing to do with photons leaving black holes slower. Light HAS a mass, just no rest mass. Since E = mc², the photon's energy is mass, too. Now that's a weird thing, since you'd need infinite energy to accelerate something that has mass to c, but photons never are slower than c, and thus you don't have to accelerate them. I think we already have come as far as 99.99% of c or so for electrons, and maybe 99.9% for protons. Maybe even more. So it is possible to get very close to c, but that stuff really has quite some energy... There are the newtonian laws, which suit the general public's needs very well, and are fairly simple. As a non-scientist, you'd probably get along well without relativity...

Quote from Akar

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).

"not well" is a nice understatement. Newtonian laws don'e fit at all when you get close to c.
Also, travelling "next" to photons is a weird thing: As I said before, those photons will always move with c from your view. A spectator might be able to "see" you next to the photons.

Quote from Jello-Jigglers

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?

From our view, time DOES run slower near to a black hole. It even is slower on sea level than it is on the Mt.Everest. Again, from our view. If you were on the Mt.Everest, you wouldn't be able to notice a difference unless again comparing it to sea level. This has nothing to do with photons leaving black holes slower.

Light HAS a mass, just no rest mass. Since E = mc², the photon's energy is mass, too. Now that's a weird thing, since you'd need infinite energy to accelerate something that has mass to c, but photons never are slower than c, and thus you don't have to accelerate them.
I think we already have come as far as 99.99% of c or so for electrons, and maybe 99.9% for protons. Maybe even more. So it is possible to get very close to c, but that stuff really has quite some energy...

There are the newtonian laws, which suit the general public's needs very well, and are fairly simple. As a non-scientist, you'd probably get along well without relativity...

Accelerating an electron to 99.99% of the speed of light wouldn't require too much energy, perhaps a nuclear fission reaction. However, we're talking about stuff on a scale to humans...

Accelerating an electron to 99.99% of the speed of light wouldn't require too much energy, perhaps a nuclear fission reaction. However, we're talking about stuff on a scale to humans...

I doubt that we'd get a human-sized object to go anywhere near as fast as c. However, it is possible to make a particle travel faster than the [I]local[/I] speed of light (since light is slowed down significantly in very dense materials). The only place where this happens often is in nuclear reactors, where tremendous amounts of energy are used. When this happens, it has to give off kinetic energy as light.

I doubt that we'd get a human-sized object to go anywhere near as fast as c. However, it is possible to make a particle travel faster than the local speed of light (since light is slowed down significantly in very dense materials). The only place where this happens often is in nuclear reactors, where tremendous amounts of energy are used. When this happens, it has to give off kinetic energy as light.

[quote=Akar]Accelerating an electron to 99.99% of the speed of light wouldn't require too much energy, perhaps a nuclear fission reaction. However, we're talking about stuff on a scale to humans...[/quote] [quote=AES)Minority]To fire 1 tiny hydrogen atom at the speed of light would require infinite energy. Horde has been explaining this :P[/quote] Are these 2 statments contradictory? Just wondering cause it is obvious that e- are miniscule compared to hydrogen, but relative to humans they are both tiny.

Quote from Akar

Accelerating an electron to 99.99% of the speed of light wouldn't require too much energy, perhaps a nuclear fission reaction. However, we're talking about stuff on a scale to humans...

Quote from AES)Minority

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

Are these 2 statments contradictory? Just wondering cause it is obvious that e- are miniscule compared to hydrogen, but relative to humans they are both tiny.

Well, a hydrogen atom is basically a Proton and an Electron. As I said earlier, some particle accelerators got both of these beyond 99% of c, but that's still an infinite amount of energy away from c itself. And the hydrogen atom wouldn't stay as a whole; the two particles would have so much kinetic energy that the binding between the two gets ridiculously small in comparison. So no electron spinning around the proton, and no electron with v > c (electrons spinning around the core is a pretty much outdated theory anyways). Weren't there some materials where c' > c? I think there was something with light entering glass from an angle... well don't really remember anymore.

Well, a hydrogen atom is basically a Proton and an Electron. As I said earlier, some particle accelerators got both of these beyond 99% of c, but that's still an infinite amount of energy away from c itself.
And the hydrogen atom wouldn't stay as a whole; the two particles would have so much kinetic energy that the binding between the two gets ridiculously small in comparison. So no electron spinning around the proton, and no electron with v > c (electrons spinning around the core is a pretty much outdated theory anyways).

Weren't there some materials where c' > c? I think there was something with light entering glass from an angle... well don't really remember anymore.

Also, what were the effects of accelerating e- to 99.9% c if any?

Also, what were the effects of accelerating e- to 99.9% c if any?

Hmmm... that topic still on astrohpysic/physic theme, but leaved the main one : 4th dimension... Oh well... I have some questions : - Anyone could try to explain me well the Einstein's relativities theories (there's 2 I think)? - I know NOTHING about Newtonian's law... any help please? :P

Hmmm... that topic still on astrohpysic/physic theme, but leaved the main one : 4th dimension...
Oh well... I have some questions :
- Anyone could try to explain me well the Einstein's relativities theories (there's 2 I think)?
- I know NOTHING about Newtonian's law... any help please?

[quote=payne]Hmmm... that topic still on astrohpysic/physic theme, but leaved the main one : 4th dimension... Oh well... I have some questions : - Anyone could try to explain me well the Einstein's relativities theories (there's 2 I think)? - I know NOTHING about Newtonian's law... any help please? :P[/quote] Haha yeah i'm no science nerd either. :) Help?

Quote from payne

Hmmm... that topic still on astrohpysic/physic theme, but leaved the main one : 4th dimension...
Oh well... I have some questions :
- Anyone could try to explain me well the Einstein's relativities theories (there's 2 I think)?
- I know NOTHING about Newtonian's law... any help please?

Haha yeah i'm no science nerd either. Help?

[QUOTE]- Anyone could try to explain me well the Einstein's relativities theories (there's 2 I think)?[/QUOTE] Einstein came up with the theory of special relativity, and the theory of general relativity. Special relativity mainly has to deal with light and speed. All you need to know about the general relativity theory is e = mc^2, or energy is equal to mass multiplied by celeritas (spelling, Latin word for speed of light) squared. In other words it is saying a great deal of energy can come from mass, but it takes a a lot of energy to synthesize mass. [QUOTE] - I know NOTHING about Newtonian's law... any help please?[/QUOTE] Really? These are very basic: 1. For every action there is an equal reaction 2. Friction 3. Gravity You should of learned this stuff in elementary.

Quote

- Anyone could try to explain me well the Einstein's relativities theories (there's 2 I think)?

Einstein came up with the theory of special relativity, and the theory of general relativity. Special relativity mainly has to deal with light and speed. All you need to know about the general relativity theory is e = mc^2, or energy is equal to mass multiplied by celeritas (spelling, Latin word for speed of light) squared. In other words it is saying a great deal of energy can come from mass, but it takes a a lot of energy to synthesize mass.

Quote

- I know NOTHING about Newtonian's law... any help please?

Really? These are very basic:
1. For every action there is an equal reaction
2. Friction
3. Gravity
You should of learned this stuff in elementary.

Haha ok so I'm just making myself sound dumber than I really already am... I knew that I had simply forgotten they called it Newtonian's law. :)

Haha ok so I'm just making myself sound dumber than I really already am... I knew that I had simply forgotten they called it Newtonian's law.

Okay... thanks :D

Okay... thanks

An interesting thing about FTL: Assuming you could get something faster than light, you wouldn't be able to decelerate it. Ironic, eh?

An interesting thing about FTL: Assuming you could get something faster than light, you wouldn't be able to decelerate it. Ironic, eh?

thats if you stay matter. if you exceed the speed of light you should turn into energy.

thats if you stay matter. if you exceed the speed of light you should turn into energy.

You'd then consume yourself to keep the momentum even if you became energy.

You'd then consume yourself to keep the momentum even if you became energy.