Why we can't reach the speed of light?
- Thread starter patrickg
- Start date
- Views: 8696
Re: Why we can\'t reach the speed of light?
MJB, I sorta follow your exposition, kinda. Got a question though. Since motion is relative... how is it that you can determine which end does what? If I hold on to one end of a rubber band (wormhole) and race off with it or stand still and you race off with the other end, how does the rubber band know the difference?
Philosophical consideration: Can there be a doubter doubting that he is a doubter doubting? PULEASE don't answer, "I doubt it!"
Patrick
MJB, I sorta follow your exposition, kinda. Got a question though. Since motion is relative... how is it that you can determine which end does what? If I hold on to one end of a rubber band (wormhole) and race off with it or stand still and you race off with the other end, how does the rubber band know the difference?
Philosophical consideration: Can there be a doubter doubting that he is a doubter doubting? PULEASE don't answer, "I doubt it!"
Patrick
Re: Why we can\'t reach the speed of light?
HMMMM, Egon, is this a sugestion of deeper meaning? Is the part of the continuum of spectra which exceed/lie outside the range of a given receptor's detection capability in frequency, duration, or amplitude, dark, as regards that receptor? A totally different "DARK" from the absence of spectral content. You sly devil, Plato would be proud to know you. The rest of us are still trying to decide. Just kidding. Welcome back, hope you had a great time and will share appropriate portions with us. I'm still amazed this thread was resurected after a year.
Well thanks for the added confusion. Now we have two kinds of dark: 1. lack of E-M content and 2. lack of E-M content that meets the needs of our detector. Not an entirely unfamiliar situation. There is truth then there is truth as someone perceives it.
Again, welcome back.
Patrick
HMMMM, Egon, is this a sugestion of deeper meaning? Is the part of the continuum of spectra which exceed/lie outside the range of a given receptor's detection capability in frequency, duration, or amplitude, dark, as regards that receptor? A totally different "DARK" from the absence of spectral content. You sly devil, Plato would be proud to know you. The rest of us are still trying to decide. Just kidding. Welcome back, hope you had a great time and will share appropriate portions with us. I'm still amazed this thread was resurected after a year.
Well thanks for the added confusion. Now we have two kinds of dark: 1. lack of E-M content and 2. lack of E-M content that meets the needs of our detector. Not an entirely unfamiliar situation. There is truth then there is truth as someone perceives it.
Again, welcome back.
Patrick
Charlie_Iliff
Veteran Member
- Joined
- Jun 13, 2001
- Messages
- 1,890
- Location
- Arnold, MD
- Tractor
- Power Trac PT1845, John Deere 2240, John Deere 950, John Deere 755, Jacobsen Turf Cat II
Re: Why we can\'t reach the speed of light?
<font color=red>Think we could get a grant to study this?</font color=red>
Shouldn't be a problem: Just print out this thread and send it to the gubmint. They'll send some guys in white coats with the grant money.
<font color=red>Think we could get a grant to study this?</font color=red>
Shouldn't be a problem: Just print out this thread and send it to the gubmint. They'll send some guys in white coats with the grant money.
MJB
Gold Member
- Joined
- Jun 1, 2000
- Messages
- 499
- Location
- Syracuse, New York
- Tractor
- 1952 Case DC-4, 2001 JD4300 MFWD, HST
Re: Why we can\'t reach the speed of light?
I see where you are going with this. Their speed relative to each other is not the determining factor, just their speed relative to an arbitrary point fixed in space. The speed of the end on earth would be moving extremely slowly compared to the SOL while the other end would be moving very quickly. Since the SOL is a scalar value, not a vector, the direction of travel does not matter. The end moving near the SOL could just orbit the earth. If relative speed was the determining factor you could build a time machine twice as quickly by sending the two ends of the wormhole on two spaceships, each traveling near the SOL but in opposite directions. This, of course, would not result in a time machine at all since time would elapse much more slowly for both ends of the wormhole. The real bummer is that using this method it would take as many years to make a time machine as the total time differential that you wish the machine to cover. Are we having fun yet?/w3tcompact/icons/smile.gif
I see where you are going with this. Their speed relative to each other is not the determining factor, just their speed relative to an arbitrary point fixed in space. The speed of the end on earth would be moving extremely slowly compared to the SOL while the other end would be moving very quickly. Since the SOL is a scalar value, not a vector, the direction of travel does not matter. The end moving near the SOL could just orbit the earth. If relative speed was the determining factor you could build a time machine twice as quickly by sending the two ends of the wormhole on two spaceships, each traveling near the SOL but in opposite directions. This, of course, would not result in a time machine at all since time would elapse much more slowly for both ends of the wormhole. The real bummer is that using this method it would take as many years to make a time machine as the total time differential that you wish the machine to cover. Are we having fun yet?/w3tcompact/icons/smile.gif
heehaw
Veteran Member
- Joined
- Sep 15, 2000
- Messages
- 2,076
- Location
- russellville, arkansas
- Tractor
- Kubota M4900, B7510 and RTV
Re: Why we can\'t reach the speed of light?
I have had personal experience with something traveling faster than the speed of light, and i am sure you have too. just visit one of our larger cities, stop at a stop light, and see how fast the guy behind you blows his horn when the light changes!!!! now he saw the light, pushed his horn, and the sound got to my ears long before my eyes ever saw that thing turn green, so i know it all happened faster than the speed of light.
heehaw
I have had personal experience with something traveling faster than the speed of light, and i am sure you have too. just visit one of our larger cities, stop at a stop light, and see how fast the guy behind you blows his horn when the light changes!!!! now he saw the light, pushed his horn, and the sound got to my ears long before my eyes ever saw that thing turn green, so i know it all happened faster than the speed of light.
heehaw
Egon
Epic Contributor
Re: Why we can\'t reach the speed of light?
Mike:
Them thar insects don't need cultivating. My poor o'll body and all the bug bites can attest to that. The rocks don't require cultivating either. They just grow all on their own. Ask my back! It's just that the few patches of soil between the rocks need the attention of the roatiller.
Now have you ever spent summer in the northern latitudes? Back in the days of the Dew Line they used to scramble fighters when a mosquito flew by!
Egon
Mike:
Them thar insects don't need cultivating. My poor o'll body and all the bug bites can attest to that. The rocks don't require cultivating either. They just grow all on their own. Ask my back! It's just that the few patches of soil between the rocks need the attention of the roatiller.
Now have you ever spent summer in the northern latitudes? Back in the days of the Dew Line they used to scramble fighters when a mosquito flew by!
Egon
Egon
Epic Contributor
Re: Why we can\'t reach the speed of light?
HeeHaw:
When you go to the big town just drive an old pickup with a big steel back and front bumper and a big ball hitch sticking back out about two feet and a headache rack holding some chains and boomers Ain't no one get near you with their nice shinny cars in a rig like that.
And if'n someone does honk just start by backing up a little. That'll decrease the doppler effect!
Egon
HeeHaw:
When you go to the big town just drive an old pickup with a big steel back and front bumper and a big ball hitch sticking back out about two feet and a headache rack holding some chains and boomers Ain't no one get near you with their nice shinny cars in a rig like that.
And if'n someone does honk just start by backing up a little. That'll decrease the doppler effect!
Egon
Egon
Epic Contributor
Re: Why we can\'t reach the speed of light?
Patrick:
Just think; as we are looking at events that have happened eons ago there may be nothing out there at all now. Maybe we are alone!
Egon
Patrick:
Just think; as we are looking at events that have happened eons ago there may be nothing out there at all now. Maybe we are alone!
Egon
Re: Why we can\'t reach the speed of light?
MJB, Welllllllllllllllllll, I need a bit more detail on the "arbitrary fixed point in space." The origin of a coordinate system 0,0 or 0,0,0, for 2D and 3D respectively is an arbitrary fixed point in space. Is this HMMMM, lessee now, "Origin of the Universe" that you refer to somehow invariant with respect to all inertial frames of reference? I can't seem to rationalize a single fixed point in space about which all motion is measured, in light (there I go again) of many other accepted theories, especially those pertaining to relativistics.
I'm not so much disagreeing with you as requesting amplifying detail for the "fixed point in space" which is the implied reference for all motion in the universe. Try to include the idea that all motion is relative in your explanation, as that would make it easier for my old grey matter.
Patrick
MJB, Welllllllllllllllllll, I need a bit more detail on the "arbitrary fixed point in space." The origin of a coordinate system 0,0 or 0,0,0, for 2D and 3D respectively is an arbitrary fixed point in space. Is this HMMMM, lessee now, "Origin of the Universe" that you refer to somehow invariant with respect to all inertial frames of reference? I can't seem to rationalize a single fixed point in space about which all motion is measured, in light (there I go again) of many other accepted theories, especially those pertaining to relativistics.
I'm not so much disagreeing with you as requesting amplifying detail for the "fixed point in space" which is the implied reference for all motion in the universe. Try to include the idea that all motion is relative in your explanation, as that would make it easier for my old grey matter.
Patrick
