Why we can't reach the speed of light?

[StoneHeartFarm]

Re: Why we can\'t reach the speed of light?

Patrick,

Famous last words:

"Don't worry boss, nobody will buy a watch without hands!"

"A Japanese tractor! What do the Japanese know about tractors!"

"Frozen dinners! Who would want frozen dinners?"

 

[Anonymous Poster]

Re: Why we can\'t reach the speed of light?

this is why we call it warp speed

 

[JonE]

Re: Why we can\'t reach the speed of light?

Well, I can see that this site produces a lot of "Rube Goldberg" like threads. I can also see you don't appreciate my attempt at jest. However, assuming once again there is a God of course, I believe it would be improper to refer to him as an "it'! Further he may not so much as have a "sex" as have the qualities we attribute to a man. Such as diciplining arrogant, disobediant people. Also Jesus and Adam were in the form of a man in "his image".
In any event, I do believe it is possible for matter to travel faster that the speed of light. We just don't know how yet. It is painfully obvious that mankind ( or should I say humankind) falls far short of knowing everything about even something as simple as photosynthysis (a little black box?) that goes on every day right in our midst let alone something that happens in outer space!
Even very recently, physicists and astronomers etc. have been rethinking Einsteinian theory of relativity. The fact that the speed of light is not a constant should tell you something. One thing is constant, is not affected by any abberations (unlike light) and has been theoretically calculated is the speed of gravity. No longer simply thought of as instantaneous. Astronomer Tom Van Flandern has been researching this for some time. So if you could design a propultion system based on gravitation and not on electromagnetic or chemical priciples, we could most certainly move faster that the speed of light. To quote that old euphamism, the speed of light would be compared to "molasses on a cold day"

You guessed it, I don't like KoolAid!

 

[LazyK]

Re: Why we can\'t reach the speed of light?

Harv...This thread I've waited 'til the end / 'Cuz I'm not sure if light can bend / I know a way beyond a doubt / To find out what it's all about / Your mind can reach the Take-Off Star / Departure isn't very far / So get on board, you'll know it's right /
The answer's on the SPEED-O-FLIGHT....(maybe I served too many Portabello mushrooms with the shrimp last night!)

Lazy K - Chip

 

[Harv]

Re: Why we can\'t reach the speed of light?

<font color=blue>too many Portabello mushrooms</font color=blue>

Now there's a crop to consider! /w3tcompact/icons/wink.gif

 

[toddler]

Re: Why we can\'t reach the speed of light?

Hey can I chime in. Loved Space Time and Special Relativity when I took it. Was at Cornell as a cocky highschool student, and it made me realize I had to learn to think in new ways. I liked a lot of the answers above, although doesn't E= mcc(gamma) Patrick??

Anyway, the fudge factor isn't really important, our perspective is. It's called relativity for a reason, right, and perhaps there is more to light and energy, and time than we have yet figured out. By the way, we've solved the twins paradox, and you don't get someplace before you left, but you can fit a 100' tree in a 90' barn without cutting it, if you go fast enough.

Anyway, I suspect we'll eventually figure out a way to get from point a to point b in less time than light would take. But because of how you posed the question Patrick, I can't tell you if that means we'll exceed the speed of light from our perspective. And clearly if it happens, you won't see it happen, you'd just measure the result.

Maybe if you use two contained singularies for example, orbitting around a fixed point. It doesn't matter for the example if they're moving towards each other or away from each other. The dips they create in the space/ time between them won't follow the rules of normal space, or even of an isolated singularity, so if you go between them, and measure the distance, and I watch you go between them and measure the distance, and we come up with different distances, and your numbers say you travelled farther and by our timing therefore exceeded the speed of light during the time you were there, then did you?? Since we're talking about it, you're now in my timeline. But were you while in the football shaped area between the singularities??
Kind of like the twins paradox. If space is stretched by the singularities, even though I never saw you accellerate to greater than the speed of light, and you never saw it happen, the numbers would say you did. Maybe while we're in the same time continuum it can't happen, but if the singularities stretched that space, and only that finite area of space... Maybe..... Still, that doesn't count as accellerating an object to greater than light speed. Oh well. Bed time.
Todd

 

[TWINKLE_TOES]

Re: Why we can\'t reach the speed of light?

Harv and Lazy K

<font color=blue>Why we can't reach the speed of light?</font color=blue>

We are way to short, the speed of light can be only be reached with Jacobs ladder.

Where do Quantum Mechanics buy their tools?

Does Nuclear Fission require really small hooks?

Mushroom anyone./w3tcompact/icons/wink.gif

Al

 

[glennmac]

Re: Why we can\'t reach the speed of light?

What's the "twins paradox", and what's the solution to it?

 

[toddler]

Re: Why we can\'t reach the speed of light?

Glennmac,
The twins paradox is that once you reach a relativistic speed and maintain it, you think you are stationary and everything else is moving. So if you take two twins, and put one in a spaceship and accellerate them to near light speed and have them go to a point, then have them reverse direction and come back to earth at the same speed, they will by younger than the twin on the earth. But how can that be if they saw the earth move away from them. When they get back, or when the earth gets back to them, shouldn't the twin on the earth be the younger one???
It turns out, there really isn't a paradox. It's all a matter of point of view, and the twin on the ship will be younger.
Rather than my taking a lot of time to write it up, check out this link http://www.pigsty.demon.co.uk/twins.html

I mostly agree with his math, but prefer to "visualize" it differently. I like to think of the ship twin as sending out a laser beam of light, which is watched by both twins, and see how long each would think it takes to reach it's destination. For example, if the ship twin fires the laser at the destination point at the start of the journey, and the destination is 1.72 light years away per the above example, and the ship is going .86c, the earth twin sees the light go 1.72light years at light speed, and it takes two years, while the ship chases the laser beam. So it sees the light leave the ship at .14c. The ship twin sees the light move away from it's ship at full light speed (remember, that's why it's relativity, light always appears to go c) towards a point moving toward it at near light speed, so it takes less time for the laser to hit the mark. The ship twin can also fire the laser towards earth several times during the trip, and if you do math using gamma to correct for adding relativistic speeds, the ship twin will come up with less time elapsing. Just think about the ship twin firing the laser at the earth when they reach the far point and what each one sees. I haven't done this in years, but I thought with my method both legs appear to take the same amt of time to the ship twin?? Too tired to cruch those numbers. Sorry. Maybe Patrick can clarify it.

but the end result is that there is no paradox, it's just a matter of perspective. you can't assume both twins see the same distances or speeds.

ya think those thick glasses let particle physicists see around corners?

Todd

 

[toddler]

Re: Why we can\'t reach the speed of light?

Sorry, both legs do take the same amt of time from the ship twins point of view using my method or the link's. I just didn't read the link's numbers carefully enough.
Todd