saintsman
Topic Author
Posts: 2037
Joined: Fri Mar 15, 2002 12:34 am

Faster Than The Speed Of Light

Sun Feb 22, 2004 7:29 am

Hypothetically of course, but is the speed of light the fastest man will be able to travel or will you be able to go faster?
 
timz
Posts: 6577
Joined: Fri Sep 17, 1999 7:43 am

RE: Faster Than The Speed Of Light

Sun Feb 22, 2004 8:27 am

As Arthur C Clarke pointed out, there's no law says you can't go faster than light-- you just can't travel at the speed of light.
 
david b.
Posts: 2894
Joined: Fri Jun 15, 2001 7:18 pm

RE: Faster Than The Speed Of Light

Sun Feb 22, 2004 9:49 am

Since you can't travel at the speed of light, you can travel faster then the speed of light.But if you could would time go backwards?
Teenage-know-it-alls should be shot on sight
 
sushka
Posts: 4657
Joined: Thu Nov 18, 1999 12:33 am

RE: Faster Than The Speed Of Light

Sun Feb 22, 2004 10:02 am

I don't think you would go back in time. You would just see things that have already happened, depending on your speed.
Pershoyu Spravoyu Litaki!
 
ArmitageShanks
Posts: 3780
Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2003 5:30 am

RE: Faster Than The Speed Of Light

Sun Feb 22, 2004 10:06 am

As your speed approached the speed of light, your mass would become infinite, that it would not be possible. As well as that time begins to slow down to the point where it would stop.

This is what I have seen on some NOVA shows anyway, lol.
 
wagz
Posts: 480
Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2003 12:48 pm

RE: Faster Than The Speed Of Light

Sun Feb 22, 2004 11:56 am

I don't buy any of that stuff Einstein came up with about travelling at the speed of light (like I know what I'm talking about  Yeah sure). Back in the day they said it was impossible to travel faster than the speed of sound, but we all know that isn't true.

All of that stuff about time travel is crazy. Sure, you might be able to see the past by looking at some distant object (like looking at some distant star in a telescope). Technically, if travelling faster than the speed of sound, one could listen to the same sound twice. When you get down to it though, the speed of light is just another velocity, granted an incredibly fast velocity (about 186,000 miles/sec).

All we need now is for someone to come up with a warp drive...
I think Big Foot is blurry... It's not the photographer's fault. There's a large out of focus monster roaming the countryside.
 
vikkyvik
Posts: 12526
Joined: Thu Jul 31, 2003 1:58 pm

RE: Faster Than The Speed Of Light

Sun Feb 22, 2004 12:12 pm

Relativistically speaking, time slows down even if you travel at a mile per hour. But the time change doesn't add up to anything until you're approaching the speed of light. Recently, someone told me that scientists actually observed particles traveling at velocities higher than the speed of light. I haven't confirmed that however. It is a tough concept to grasp - that there may be a limiting speed, and I don't wholeheartedly buy into it yet. But if you take the relativistic viewpoint, time and physical space are interrelated, and are not separate as such. Weird stuff, that's for sure.
~Vik
I'm watching Jeopardy. The category is worst Madonna songs. "This one from 1987 is terrible".
 
ThirtyEcho
Posts: 1411
Joined: Tue Jan 01, 2002 1:21 am

RE: Faster Than The Speed Of Light

Sun Feb 22, 2004 12:32 pm

Then there's the problem of paired quarks; one quark spins one way and the other spins the other way. If you disturb the rotation of one quark, the other quark immediately responds no matter how far apart they are and this would apply even if they were millions of light years apart. What is it that passes from quark to quark that signals the changed state of one of them? Whatever it is, it is bodaciously faster than light.

Think about that one the next time you're dragging a C152 in on a long final against a stiff headwind.
 
QantasA332
Posts: 1473
Joined: Sat Dec 13, 2003 5:47 pm

RE: Faster Than The Speed Of Light

Sun Feb 22, 2004 3:17 pm

It's very hard to give a concise answer on this awe inspiring (well, at least I think so  Laugh out loud) subject, but I'll give it a go.............

To put it shortly, one cannot exceed or equal the speed of light. This can be seen through the following equation:

V = (v1+v2)/(1-[v1 X v2 / c^2)

Consider two examples. First, imagine you walk at 1 km/hr down an aisle of a train, in the direction of the train's motion (the train is moving at 50 km/hr relative to the ground). What is your speed relative to the ground? Simple addition of velocities (Vtrain + Vyou) would show that you're moving at 51 km/hr relative to the ground. Now, imagine a rocket ship which is moving at 0.5c (1/2 the speed of light) away from you. The rocket then fires it's engines at a speed of 0.5c, also away from you. How fast is it going? Not c! Because speeds close to c are involved, the term "v1 X v2 / c^2" ensures that c is not exceeded or equalled. In train example's case, v1 and v2 are so small relative to c that the simple addition of velocities method I showed can be used. But for cases such as the rocket's where the involved speeds come close to c , it's different. If you look closely at the equation, you can see that no matter what speeds represent v1 and v2, c cannot be equalled or exceeded. Now...........


Recently, someone told me that scientists actually observed particles travelling at velocities higher than the speed of light.

Impossible, as per above and below...........


I should also mention that, as ArmitageShanks said, as something approaches the speed of light, momentum of that object becomes close-to-infinite. Therefore, it's clearly not possible to reach c because infinite impulse would be necessary, and such impulse couldn't happen!

Well, that's about it. If any of you have other questions about this please let me know. Sorry to have rambled on a bit,

QantasA332

PS: if you travel at or close to c, you wouldn't be able to travel to the past per se. Rather, you would age slower than people in an "earthen" reference frame.
 
Guest

RE: Faster Than The Speed Of Light

Sun Feb 22, 2004 3:36 pm

No, we won't be able to travel at the speed of light. We can't even design an airplane tha will fly faster then the speed of sound and make a profit.

 
B727-200
Posts: 1008
Joined: Fri Nov 05, 1999 11:28 am

RE: Faster Than The Speed Of Light

Sun Feb 22, 2004 7:27 pm

Hey QantasA332, you sound like a Rocket Scientist  Big thumbs up

Why is it that in equations, the speed of light (c) is squared?
 
SlamClick
Posts: 9576
Joined: Sun Nov 23, 2003 7:09 am

RE: Faster Than The Speed Of Light

Sun Feb 22, 2004 11:24 pm

Just think of it! When we have craft that will travel faster than light we can finally get TCAS 5. If an impending collision is sensed it will send one craft back or forward in time to prevent it.

Happiness is not seeing another trite Ste. Maarten photo all week long.
 
schreiner
Posts: 909
Joined: Fri Oct 26, 2001 7:50 am

RE: Faster Than The Speed Of Light

Sun Feb 22, 2004 11:43 pm

Not possible; something with mass is not capable of exeding the lightspeed. This because mass is related to lightspeed; near lightspees the mass of a object will grow endlessly.

Cheers,
Schreiner
Soaring the internet...
 
Beefmoney
Posts: 1071
Joined: Tue Oct 10, 2000 2:16 am

RE: Faster Than The Speed Of Light

Mon Feb 23, 2004 12:39 am

I'm probably going to regret this, but would someone kindly explain how a SPEED can influence MASS?

I'm a Junior in HS, havent taken physics yes (currently in Chem.), and I am having a horrible time trying to grasp the whole "theory of relativity" thing.

The problem is that it seems that the SPEED of light influences, and can apperantly completely change, basically every other "constant" that we know of (Time, Mass, etc..).

Although Im sure it makes sense somewhere beyond my comprehension abilities, it's just extremely hard to grasp the concept of how reaching or approaching a speed changes time or mass; or not being able to exceed said speed.

Thanks
 
wagz
Posts: 480
Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2003 12:48 pm

RE: Faster Than The Speed Of Light

Mon Feb 23, 2004 2:11 am

I also find it hard to understand how speed can influence mass. Then again, I never took any physics.

Assuming that speed does influence mass, then we would need something to prevent that. Now, here comes my inner Star Trek fan, we would need to create a warp field around the vessel in question. Now, I'm not even sure how a warp field works in a made up universe, but any vessel travelling faster than the speed of light must have one around it. Some inertial dampeners would be good too so the crew doesn't go "splat" on the back wall when the vessel is accelerated suddenly to light speed.

Not sure how any of this relates to aviation, but hey, its an interesting change of pace.

I think Big Foot is blurry... It's not the photographer's fault. There's a large out of focus monster roaming the countryside.
 
jhooper
Posts: 5561
Joined: Thu Dec 13, 2001 8:27 pm

RE: Faster Than The Speed Of Light

Mon Feb 23, 2004 5:30 am

QantasA332 ,

I'm not doubting what you say, but I am having difficulty understanding. Why can't you take v1 + v2 and come up with Vtotal? Why the (1-[v1 X v2 / c^2)
stuff?

Now, consider this example: Spaceship 1 fires it's engines at 0.5c away from the earth and Spaceship 2 fires it's engines at 0.5c away from the earth in the opposite direction. Why can't you say that Spaceship 1 is traveling at the speed of light relative to Spaceship 2? (speed is relative, isn't it?)

I would appreciate an explanation of why this doesn't work. And if you're going to use formulas, then explain why the formula applies.

Thanks.
Last year 1,944 New Yorkers saw something and said something.
 
MD11Engineer
Posts: 13916
Joined: Sun Oct 26, 2003 5:25 am

RE: Faster Than The Speed Of Light

Mon Feb 23, 2004 6:32 am

Until now there have been no greater speeds for signal propogation measured than the speed of light in vacuum. Also, the speed of light superimposed on the movement of the earth around the sun, actually genial simple experiment by Michaelson and Morley, showed that the total speed of speed of light and speed of the earth around the sun is... the speed of light.Since 1887 this experiment has been repeated countless times with more modern and accurate equipment and just shown the same result. Another experiment done was the acceleration of particles, esp. electrons in particle accelerators. It could be shown that the hhigher the speed of the electrons was, the higher the force was needed to accelerate them further. Out of the increase of force you can calculate the mass of the electros and it was proven that the mass of the electrons increased with growing speed, leading up to an infinite mass at speed of light. This applies to all particles with a mass at rest.
Another weirde effect of the special theory of relativity is that time slows down for partcles at high speed. This could be proven by observing certain instable elementary particles ( pi-mesons) out of cosmic radiation. If generated in the lab they fall apart after acertain time in the microsecond range. The problem is that you can observe the same particle generated by an elementary particle reaction in the high atmosphere on ground. The speed of these particles is known. If the normal half life as measured with the particles at rest applies, they shouldn´t arrive on ground, but should convert into other particles long before. The amount of life time added is explainable by the time slowing down for the high speed particle comparedto the "resting" earth.
QantasA332´s formula is based on the Lorenz transformation, which takes the measured results into account that there hasn´t been any speed measured faster than C.
Sorry, all of Einstein´s Theory of Relativity is a result of conventional mathematics applied to the results of experiments, which looked baffling to the peopler who did them and have been proven so far through other experiments. To explain the whole special theory of relativity I would need about 50 pages. The general theory of relativity is even weirder. On the other hand you don´t have to worry too much about it, because most effects only become measurable once you reach about 10% of the speed of light.

There have been some advanced theories talking about particles with a higher speed than light, but those can never slow down and haven´t been proven to my knowledge. Unlike the speed of sound, which was a technical barrier, speed of light seems to be a natural barrier.

Jan



Je Suis Charlie et je suis Ahmet aussi
 
QantasA332
Posts: 1473
Joined: Sat Dec 13, 2003 5:47 pm

RE: Faster Than The Speed Of Light

Mon Feb 23, 2004 8:44 am

Hey QantasA332, you sound like a Rocket Scientist...

No, I'm not really...it's just highschool/early-university-level physics!  Laugh out loud

Why is it that in equations, the speed of light (c) is squared?

In case of E = mc^2, c is squared because it acts as a conversion factor between m and E. In the case of the equation I gave above, I'm not sure, but I think c is squared to serve the same purpose (i.e. as a conversion factor).

I'm probably going to regret this, but would someone kindly explain how a SPEED can influence MASS?

Speed doesn't influence mass. Speed certainly influences momentum, but not mass. There is a difference. If you expand/clarify your question a bit, I might be able to answer in more detail.

Why can't you take v1 + v2 and come up with Vtotal? Why the (1-[v1 X v2 / c^2) stuff?

The "(1-[v1 X v2 / c^2) stuff" is a fact of special relativity. That part of the equation is a "spin-off" of the Lorentz factor. It just "IS", but can be proven, though it would take quite some typing and time for me to explain it here. I can say however that it does involve geomety and algebra -- not all that foreign!

Now, consider this example: Spaceship 1 fires it's engines at 0.5c away from the earth and Spaceship 2 fires it's engines at 0.5c away from the earth in the opposite direction. Why can't you say that Spaceship 1 is traveling at the speed of light relative to Spaceship 2? (speed is relative, isn't it?)

It just doesn't work that way, due to that Lorentz-originating term in the original equation I gave.

Another experiment done was the acceleration of particles, esp. electrons in particle accelerators. It could be shown that the hhigher the speed of the electrons was, the higher the force was needed to accelerate them further.

This is because of the situation that I explained before involving increasing momentum as c is approached. As the particles speed up close to c, their momentum near infinity, meaning the impulse required to speed them up further would be near infinity -- clearly impossible! Thus, at any point during their acceleration towards c, increasing impulse would be necessary to increase their speed.


I hope all that helps a bit. Again, special relativity is such an amazing and confusing subject, so explanations are hard to state well and concisely.

Well, back to aerodynamics for me,
QantasA332

 
bhill
Posts: 1676
Joined: Thu Sep 13, 2001 8:28 am

RE: Faster Than The Speed Of Light

Mon Feb 23, 2004 8:58 am

You would also need an infinte amount of energy also..Thats the trick..


Engage!!!

Bob
Carpe Pices
 
ArmitageShanks
Posts: 3780
Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2003 5:30 am

RE: Faster Than The Speed Of Light

Mon Feb 23, 2004 9:30 am

Spot on QuantasA332!!
 
MD11Engineer
Posts: 13916
Joined: Sun Oct 26, 2003 5:25 am

RE: Faster Than The Speed Of Light

Mon Feb 23, 2004 9:58 am

In German we distinguish between the mass at rest (within the system of reference) and the relativistic mass increase. Mass at a certain speed can be expressed as:

m(v)= m/sqr(1-v^2/c^2) m=Mass at rest; v=speed



This mass increase derives of the change in momentum. Just to think about it: Momentum equals Mass times speed. At speed of light a particle must have an infinite momentum. The speed is fixed (=c), so the only thing to change is the mass, which must be infinite. Thisalso means the kinetic energy applied to accelerate the particle must be infinite.

Sorry, it is long ago since I studied physics seriously, I just got my old Berkeley Physics Course textbooks out of the shelf.


Jan
Je Suis Charlie et je suis Ahmet aussi
 
QantasA332
Posts: 1473
Joined: Sat Dec 13, 2003 5:47 pm

RE: Faster Than The Speed Of Light

Mon Feb 23, 2004 10:37 am

...the only thing to change is the mass, which must be infinite...

As I said, mass does not become infinite. I'm not sure where you got that equation from, MD11eng...... The equation for relativistic momentum (p) is as follows:

p = ymv , where y (really gamma, but I don't have the proper designation) is the Lorentz factor, m is mass, and v is, of course, velocity (speed for our purpose).

I'll explain it again. Here's what happens: as v approaches c, y nears infinity, simply meaning that p increases, not m. Simple.

I hope that helps,
QantasA332
 
jhooper
Posts: 5561
Joined: Thu Dec 13, 2001 8:27 pm

RE: Faster Than The Speed Of Light

Mon Feb 23, 2004 10:49 am

It just doesn't work that way, due to that Lorentz-originating term in the original equation I gave.

I should definitely read up on this, because I'm really interested. But so far, nobody has been able to explain it in terms I understand. The "it just IS" explanation, or the "because look at the equation" explanation is difficult for me to accept. Like I said before, I'm not doubting you, because lots of really intelligent people say exactly what you did, but I guess I just don't have the background I need to understand.
Last year 1,944 New Yorkers saw something and said something.
 
QantasA332
Posts: 1473
Joined: Sat Dec 13, 2003 5:47 pm

RE: Faster Than The Speed Of Light

Mon Feb 23, 2004 11:23 am

Fine Jhooper, I'll try to explain it simply and concisely. Get ready.

First imagine what's called a "mirror clock", or two mirrors with a pulse of light bouncing between them. Now imagine those two mirrors moving horizontally past you at some speed. Draw a diagram of the mirrors first at "position one", where the light is just leaving the bottom mirror, then, further along the page at "postition two" where the light has just hit the upper mirror, and finally at "position three", where the light is again at the bottom mirror. While the light is really just moving straight up and down, a stationary observer sees the light describing a zig-zagging up/down and across movement (this part is quite hard to explain -- sorry if it's a bit confusing). Now, set up the following equations, keeping in mind that the distance between all the positions according to the stationary observer is v X t, the distance between the upper and lower mirrors according to an observer moving with the mirror clock is c X t0, and the diagonal distance between the lower mirror at position one and the upper mirror at position two is c X t. Also note that a right triangle is made up between position one and two (and three, but we'll only treat position three here), with c X t as the hypotenuse and c X t0 and v X t as the legs. Now:

Using the pythagorean theorem we get
c^2 = a^2 + b^2
So, using our already-described terms:
c^2 X t^2 = (c^2 X t0^2) + (v^2 X t^2) -- (note that I'm just breaking up the terms into their components to perform the squaring).
Rearranging:
(c^2 X t^2) - (v^2 X t^2) = c^2 X t0^2
Rearranging again:
t^2 X (1-[v^2/c^2]) = t0^2
Rearranging again:
t^2 = t0^2/(1 - [v^2/c^2])
And finally rearranging one last time:
t = t0/(the square root of [1 - [v^2/c^2]]).

That final equation is the equation for time dilation. From that equation's bottom term, however, we get the Lorentz factor (the Lorentz factor = 1/(the square root of [1 - v^2/c^2]) ). And that is what the term in the bottom of the original equation I gave comes from.


Phew! I hope that helps...

As I said, back to aerodynamics for me!! At least its various topics are heaps easier to explain!!

Cheers,
QantasA332



 
MD11Engineer
Posts: 13916
Joined: Sun Oct 26, 2003 5:25 am

RE: Faster Than The Speed Of Light

Mon Feb 23, 2004 11:28 am

QantasA332,

Acc. to my books y= 1/(1-v^2/c^2)^1/2. y by itself is just a dimensionless factor.

also, if you have a look at your momentum formula, you will see that for v to be maximum c, m WILL have to be infinite (c is a fixed velocity), which is the relativistic mass increase, which can be measured in any particle accelerator. This is the reason why cyclotrons don´t work to well for high speed electrons, because the mass increase is so pronounced, that you will need a increase in the magnetic fields to keep them on track, therefore the development of the synchrotron.

BTW my books:
Berkeley Physics course Vol 1 Mechanics, Charkles Kittel et al, German edition 1985

Gerthsen Kneser Vogel Physik, 12th edition 1974

These were books I used during my first semester studying physics at Freie Universität Berlin
Other books I used, but don´t own anymore are Goldstein, Theoretical Mechanics and Richard Feynmann, The Feynmann Lectures, Vol. 1


Measurements concerning the increase of mass of accelerated electrons has been published by Walter Kaufmann in 1902, later repeated by A.H. Bucherer.

Jan
Je Suis Charlie et je suis Ahmet aussi
 
MD11Engineer
Posts: 13916
Joined: Sun Oct 26, 2003 5:25 am

RE: Faster Than The Speed Of Light

Mon Feb 23, 2004 11:42 am

QantasA332,

We are talking about a different interpretation of the same formula.

Jan
Je Suis Charlie et je suis Ahmet aussi
 
QantasA332
Posts: 1473
Joined: Sat Dec 13, 2003 5:47 pm

RE: Faster Than The Speed Of Light

Mon Feb 23, 2004 11:43 am

Please forgive me, MD11, I was wrong on that! After refering back, I see that mass does indeed increase as v increases...thanks for setting me straight!  Laugh out loud

Cheers,
QantasA332
 
MD11Engineer
Posts: 13916
Joined: Sun Oct 26, 2003 5:25 am

RE: Faster Than The Speed Of Light

Mon Feb 23, 2004 11:58 am

QantasA332,

No problem!

Jan
Je Suis Charlie et je suis Ahmet aussi
 
MD11Engineer
Posts: 13916
Joined: Sun Oct 26, 2003 5:25 am

RE: Faster Than The Speed Of Light

Mon Feb 23, 2004 12:10 pm

A nice introduction without too much mathematics would be:

Gary Zukav: The Dancing Wu Li Master, Bantam Books

or:

Stephen Hawking: A short History of Time

Rgds,

Jan
Je Suis Charlie et je suis Ahmet aussi
 
QantasA332
Posts: 1473
Joined: Sat Dec 13, 2003 5:47 pm

RE: Faster Than The Speed Of Light

Mon Feb 23, 2004 12:17 pm

The mathematics isn't the problem -- I know all that stuff -- it was just a small stuff-up on my part.

Cheers,
QantasA332

PS: Jhooper, please do let me know if my last post helped to clear things up for you.
 
User avatar
pwm2txlhopper
Posts: 1396
Joined: Tue Jan 27, 2004 10:40 am

RE: Faster Than The Speed Of Light

Mon Feb 23, 2004 12:33 pm

Simply put, even if you could build something that could acheive those speeds, the human body couldn't withstand the forces they would generate. if the human body blacks out at 8 or 9 G's, just imagine. Not possible.
 
QantasA332
Posts: 1473
Joined: Sat Dec 13, 2003 5:47 pm

RE: Faster Than The Speed Of Light

Mon Feb 23, 2004 1:15 pm

If your craft accelerated very gradually, G's wouldn't reach black-out numbers, and you'd be fine. The top speed isn't an issue, it's the acceleration.

Cheers,
QantasA332
 
funflyer
Posts: 817
Joined: Sat Aug 09, 2003 4:53 am

RE: Faster Than The Speed Of Light

Mon Feb 23, 2004 1:20 pm

Lets say your in a car and you get to the speed of light, what happens to your head lights?
Who cares about status?
 
MD11Engineer
Posts: 13916
Joined: Sun Oct 26, 2003 5:25 am

RE: Faster Than The Speed Of Light

Mon Feb 23, 2004 2:31 pm

For you in the car the headlights look the same, your clock runs normal, your car has the normal lenght, but for an outside observer your car would be extremely short in the direction of travel, actually at speed of light you would disappear altogether, and your clock would run slower. Additionally, ass long as you approach the observer, your head light´s wavelenght would be moved towards the blue spectrum, while on departure it would become reddish. For you in turn everything outside would appear to be flat.

Jan
Je Suis Charlie et je suis Ahmet aussi
 
HaveBlue
Posts: 2155
Joined: Fri Jan 30, 2004 3:01 pm

RE: Faster Than The Speed Of Light

Mon Feb 23, 2004 2:46 pm

FunFlyer,

The first time I heard that question it was posed by the comedian Richard Wright. I spent some time thinking about what the real answer would be.

Jan,

This was my hypothesis, you smarter types can tell me how far off I am.

When a plane goes faster than the speed of sound, to the observer a few hundred yards away the plane appears to go by silent, then the sound it produced hits you seconds later. So, using that as an example, I thought that the car would go by, and moments later you would see the image of the car going by you, but after it had already actually passed. My other thought was that you would see the headlights fuse illuminated, because it is... but that since you were traveling faster than the light it is producing, there wouldn't be the beam of light ahead of it. You would just see the concave mirror with an illuminated fuse on the front of the car, but no projection, since the vehicle is traveling faster than the light can project.


It is an interesting question, and I'll be interested to see what the scientifically inclined have to say about it.
 
saintsman
Topic Author
Posts: 2037
Joined: Fri Mar 15, 2002 12:34 am

RE: Faster Than The Speed Of Light

Mon Feb 23, 2004 4:58 pm

What a facinating subject and great replies.

One question regarding G forces. If you were to travel in space there is no gravity. So how would you feel the acceleration as you started to move at light speed?
 
QantasA332
Posts: 1473
Joined: Sat Dec 13, 2003 5:47 pm

RE: Faster Than The Speed Of Light

Mon Feb 23, 2004 6:53 pm

If you were to travel in space there is no gravity. So how would you feel the acceleration as you started to move at light speed?

According to the Theory of General Relativity, gravity is indistiguishable from acceleration. In an accelerating spaceship, gravity is felt by the occupants. This General Relativity stuff is a whole other topic, so please don't get me started like my previous posts........ Laugh out loud

Cheers,
QantasA332
 
vikkyvik
Posts: 12526
Joined: Thu Jul 31, 2003 1:58 pm

RE: Faster Than The Speed Of Light

Mon Feb 23, 2004 7:45 pm

Saintsman and QantasA332,
I don't think you need to get into general relativity to discuss acceleration. Gravity is simply the force that the Earth or another object imposes on you. It causes an acceleration. In the case of moving in a non-gravitational environment, if your spaceship accelerates, then it is imposing a force on your body (this force is needed to move your body, and the rest of the ship, occupants, and whatever else is in it). This force is irrespective of gravity; if the ship were to continue accelerating forever at the same rate (neglecting relativistic considerations), then you would feel a constant force, as you feel a constant gravitational force on Earth.
It's basically the notion of inertia - a body at rest tends to remain at rest, and you have to exert a force to move it. If that body is you, then you feel something pushing you. Hope this is correct and helps.
~Vik
I'm watching Jeopardy. The category is worst Madonna songs. "This one from 1987 is terrible".
 
lehpron
Posts: 6846
Joined: Tue Jul 10, 2001 3:42 am

RE: We'll Never Reach Light

Tue Feb 24, 2004 3:19 am

I believe in Einstien, but many physicists (and folks on A.net) treat his work like limits to scientific belief rather than guidelines to further discoveries, as if science can be treated like religion and anyone who bothers to object is just dumb...  Insane Science evolves, it does not stand firm.

Common sense would say that you would not be able to see anything once you approach light. Consider that if you are in a plane going the speed of sound you can still hear the plane as you are moving with the plane, in space if you are moving near light, you will be able to see the ship you're in as long as there is light from within -- the outside view will slowly approach the path of movement as a receeding circlular view from behind. Once you pass light, you can't see where you are going because you are moving too fast for the light of objects to hit your eyes in the ship, you'll only be able to see objects directly in front, everything else is dead black!

Another duh, is friction in space which would prevent traveling near light all together. There are molecles of H+ in space, just they are about a meter apart in outerspace, while air molecules are 100 nanometer apart on earth at sealevel. The faster you travel, via dynamic pressure, the more drag you will see. The reason that in space our satelites don't fall out of thier near-perfect orbits in because they are travelling too slow to make a difference.

Tell me then if air friction has any basis on you when you walk around or get out of bed? You are circulating are and there is a wake behind you just not strong enough to prevent you from moving. You are moving too slow and have more than enough energy to overcome it.

Moving at 10% light in deep space, you'd probably see the drag equivalent of moving at 2 knots at sea level. Small indeed, but we assume there is no friction in space, which means in addition to whatever force is required to go up to 10% light, we have to funnel an additional x newtons per square meter over the frontal area of the spaceship.

Another consideration, the acidity of space. There are atoms of H+ in space, for the most part, which by the time in runs into the spaceship, reacts with the skin. As you 'fly' in space, the ship collects more and more hydrogen atoms which should be an obvious problem if space becomes viscous at we approach light. The spaceship will deteriorate faster with increasing speed -- this is a serious safety issue is the hull can be breached due to the reaction of highspeed space atmospheric flight.



The meaning of life is curiosity; we were put on this planet to explore opportunities.
 
zak
Posts: 1926
Joined: Mon Sep 22, 2003 12:17 pm

RE: Faster Than The Speed Of Light

Tue Feb 24, 2004 3:54 am

speed of light has been experimentally broken intentionally on multiple occasions before with an effect called superluminal tunneling

it has first being done here in köln 1993 where a speed of 4.7c (1c=speed of light in a vacuum) was achieved. i think currently speeds over 300c have been achieved.
here are a few links about it:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/841690.stm (english)
http://www.freememes.com/space/Superluminal+tunneling (english)
http://online.kitp.ucsb.edu/online/qo02/nimtz/ (english VERY scientific)
http://abenteuer-universum.vol4u.de/ftl.html (deutsch)
10=2
 
lehpron
Posts: 6846
Joined: Tue Jul 10, 2001 3:42 am

RE: Faster Than The Speed Of Light

Tue Feb 24, 2004 4:33 am

Well yeah if it is done on earth then the conditions would not be like in outer space, it could be done...to what avail is what I ponder. I'll check those links out some other time, gtg 2 class.
The meaning of life is curiosity; we were put on this planet to explore opportunities.

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: timh4000 and 40 guests

Popular Searches On Airliners.net

Top Photos of Last:   24 Hours  •  48 Hours  •  7 Days  •  30 Days  •  180 Days  •  365 Days  •  All Time

Military Aircraft Every type from fighters to helicopters from air forces around the globe

Classic Airliners Props and jets from the good old days

Flight Decks Views from inside the cockpit

Aircraft Cabins Passenger cabin shots showing seat arrangements as well as cargo aircraft interior

Cargo Aircraft Pictures of great freighter aircraft

Government Aircraft Aircraft flying government officials

Helicopters Our large helicopter section. Both military and civil versions

Blimps / Airships Everything from the Goodyear blimp to the Zeppelin

Night Photos Beautiful shots taken while the sun is below the horizon

Accidents Accident, incident and crash related photos

Air to Air Photos taken by airborne photographers of airborne aircraft

Special Paint Schemes Aircraft painted in beautiful and original liveries

Airport Overviews Airport overviews from the air or ground

Tails and Winglets Tail and Winglet closeups with beautiful airline logos