speed of electricity
- Thread starter B34ST1Y
- Start date
- Status
CntdwnToExtn
Fully Optimized
- Messages
- 1,746
- Location
- Parents Basement...Still
phhh, speed of light to travel in time i say phhh
88mph!!!!! tha's all you need!!!! oh ya...and 1.21 gigawatts too!!! hahah..man..i need to lay off the booze.
88mph!!!!! tha's all you need!!!! oh ya...and 1.21 gigawatts too!!! hahah..man..i need to lay off the booze.
ShoobieRat
Fully Optimized
- Messages
- 2,932
You guys need to do some serious study before you start making these statements of fact.
Some of you are right...a few of you are using redneck logic.
1. The speed of an electron in a pure environment is relative to the speed of light (though you are correct, it is not exactly the same).
2. Electrons do not behave the same as light waves and light particles. (Some behaviors are similar, though many are not.)
3. It is possible to mathematically go faster than the speed of light, but the calculations can only be achieved through a relative relation and not physically in parallel.
4. Depending on your discipline of physics, time can be constant, or simple a variable quantitative attribute (especially in relation).
5. Also depending on your discipline of physics, if you turned your headlights on while traveling at the speed of light, you would either A: see nothing, or B: see your lights perfectly well (due to the relative nature of particles in motion, particularly at relatavistic speeds).
6. You can spend much longer than 7 minutes waiting to reach the singularity (if you follow that theoretical understanding) of a black hole once achieving the so called "event horizon."
7. You can have variances in time that are not the cause of speed.
8. It is possible to go forwards in time, and come back, without any passage of actual time.
9. It is possible to deal with time directly without distance.
Some of you are right...a few of you are using redneck logic.
1. The speed of an electron in a pure environment is relative to the speed of light (though you are correct, it is not exactly the same).
2. Electrons do not behave the same as light waves and light particles. (Some behaviors are similar, though many are not.)
3. It is possible to mathematically go faster than the speed of light, but the calculations can only be achieved through a relative relation and not physically in parallel.
4. Depending on your discipline of physics, time can be constant, or simple a variable quantitative attribute (especially in relation).
5. Also depending on your discipline of physics, if you turned your headlights on while traveling at the speed of light, you would either A: see nothing, or B: see your lights perfectly well (due to the relative nature of particles in motion, particularly at relatavistic speeds).
6. You can spend much longer than 7 minutes waiting to reach the singularity (if you follow that theoretical understanding) of a black hole once achieving the so called "event horizon."
7. You can have variances in time that are not the cause of speed.
8. It is possible to go forwards in time, and come back, without any passage of actual time.
9. It is possible to deal with time directly without distance.
Apokalipse
Golden Master
- Messages
- 14,559
- Location
- Melbourne, Australia
einstein said that it is impossible to accelarate to the speed of light. this is because at the same time as time slowing down, your mass increases. if you reached the speed of light your mass would become infinite. you have a limited force in which you can accelerate with
although I'm not sure if light itself has a mass
if light doesn't have a mass, it might be able to accelerate as fast in relation to your speed, which would be faster than its normal speed
but then again, light might also have a limit to the speed which it can travel. it might only be able to travel at the one speed (the speed of light)
although I'm not sure if light itself has a mass
if light doesn't have a mass, it might be able to accelerate as fast in relation to your speed, which would be faster than its normal speed
but then again, light might also have a limit to the speed which it can travel. it might only be able to travel at the one speed (the speed of light)
ShoobieRat
Fully Optimized
- Messages
- 2,932
First off, please spell Einstein's name correctly with a capital 'E'. We salute genious, not insult it.apokalipse said:
Anyway, your comments can go both ways depending on which discipline of physics you follow. Light can either have a mass, or cannot, and both can be supported. Particle light cannot travel at theoretical speeds of light, but lightwaves (packet light) can.
Since the speed of light is the fastest thing we can observe, this is the greatest known speed a particle or wave can achieve physically.
Light may not be able to physically exceed its maximum speed (c) but it can be slowed and even stopped. The ability to slow and/or move light is relatively simple and easily observable. The ability to stop light is by far harder, but possible as well.
If you observe quantum physics, it is easily possible for a light particle to exceed the speed of its originator base (your car headlamp for instance).
killians45
Fully Optimized
- Messages
- 3,243
Okay, here's is an indepth explanation on this. First off, this question is based off of an imposible scenario. Objects can NOT travel at or above the speed of light.
First of all, you need to realize that when you say you are traveling at the speed of light, that has to be with respect to, or relative to, something else. It is an underlying fundamental assumption of Einstein's special theory of relativity that uniform, non-accelerated motion has no meaning of and by itself. That is, there is, by assumption, no meaning to the idea of moving uniformly at the speed of light in an empty universe. That state is completely equivalent to being at rest in an empty universe..
I preface my answer with this comment because it leads immediately to the answer to the question. Imagine that you are in your car 'traveling at the speed of light' and that you turn on your headlights. That state of motion is utterly equivalent to being at rest in an empty universe. Since, when at rest, the light from your headlights would be launched forward from your car at the speed of light, relative to you, with a certain color spectrum, that is exactly what would happen if somehow you could be moving instead at the speed of light.
In other words, the presence or absence of other objects or matter in the universe relative to which, if present, you could make a determination that you were moving at the speed of light makes absolutely no difference to your own experiences and experiments. The light that you launch behaves in exactly the same way whether the other referential matter exists or not.
This leads into another interesting question, however. And that is whether the rest of the matter (mass) in the universe in some way affects your own local observations. So far this question has come up in relation to theories of gravity. If effect, the question is how does the universal gravitational constant, G, which determines how strongly gravitating masses attract each other, know what value to assume if there is no other mass in the universe. Mach proposed, essentially on philosophical grounds, that G must be determined by the sum total of all of the mass in the universe. Einstein assumed in his General Theory of Relativity that G is simply a universal constant, independent of the specific mass distribution of the universe. On the other hand, Brans and ****e later proposed a so-called scalar-tensor theory of gravity in which the local value of G depends upon the rest of the mass in the universe through an additional scalar field that does not appear in Einstein's theory.
As far a black holes, I"ve heard a few theories. The most interesting conversation I've had came up with the following. If you were in a ship falling into a black hole, you're acceleration on the ship will increase at amazing speeds. Now, to the casual observer, you ship would actually appear to slow down, and get slower and slower. Once it hit the point of no return it would appear to just sit there for a very (possilby thousands of years if not infinite???) long time. If you wanna know the reason why, just use your brain and think on how we see objects and what happens with black holes, should explain itself.
First of all, you need to realize that when you say you are traveling at the speed of light, that has to be with respect to, or relative to, something else. It is an underlying fundamental assumption of Einstein's special theory of relativity that uniform, non-accelerated motion has no meaning of and by itself. That is, there is, by assumption, no meaning to the idea of moving uniformly at the speed of light in an empty universe. That state is completely equivalent to being at rest in an empty universe..
I preface my answer with this comment because it leads immediately to the answer to the question. Imagine that you are in your car 'traveling at the speed of light' and that you turn on your headlights. That state of motion is utterly equivalent to being at rest in an empty universe. Since, when at rest, the light from your headlights would be launched forward from your car at the speed of light, relative to you, with a certain color spectrum, that is exactly what would happen if somehow you could be moving instead at the speed of light.
In other words, the presence or absence of other objects or matter in the universe relative to which, if present, you could make a determination that you were moving at the speed of light makes absolutely no difference to your own experiences and experiments. The light that you launch behaves in exactly the same way whether the other referential matter exists or not.
This leads into another interesting question, however. And that is whether the rest of the matter (mass) in the universe in some way affects your own local observations. So far this question has come up in relation to theories of gravity. If effect, the question is how does the universal gravitational constant, G, which determines how strongly gravitating masses attract each other, know what value to assume if there is no other mass in the universe. Mach proposed, essentially on philosophical grounds, that G must be determined by the sum total of all of the mass in the universe. Einstein assumed in his General Theory of Relativity that G is simply a universal constant, independent of the specific mass distribution of the universe. On the other hand, Brans and ****e later proposed a so-called scalar-tensor theory of gravity in which the local value of G depends upon the rest of the mass in the universe through an additional scalar field that does not appear in Einstein's theory.
As far a black holes, I"ve heard a few theories. The most interesting conversation I've had came up with the following. If you were in a ship falling into a black hole, you're acceleration on the ship will increase at amazing speeds. Now, to the casual observer, you ship would actually appear to slow down, and get slower and slower. Once it hit the point of no return it would appear to just sit there for a very (possilby thousands of years if not infinite???) long time. If you wanna know the reason why, just use your brain and think on how we see objects and what happens with black holes, should explain itself.
killians45, you my friend are very intelligent. Good post.
EDIT: I have one comment to make regarding what you see in a black hole.
Everything that you see would be distorted and twisted. Why?
Because as light is being sucked into the singularity,
it is warping and stretching.
EDIT: I have one comment to make regarding what you see in a black hole.
Everything that you see would be distorted and twisted. Why?
Because as light is being sucked into the singularity,
it is warping and stretching.
killians45
Fully Optimized
- Messages
- 3,243
ty Alot of it, though, was cut n paste because I'm to lazy to type that much... well, sometimes.... figured if I can find someone else who did at least SOME of it, I'll just borrow bits. Some is mine, some is copied... can't take all the credit, now can I?? The theory at the end about the black hole is very interesting to go into. Basically what the person on the ship would see and what the obsever on another ship would see. Alot of people said it would either just disappear or speed to relatavistic speeds. Then there is the above. Sounds more sound a theory to me.
Alot of it, though, was cut n paste because I'm to lazy to type that much... well, sometimes.... figured if I can find someone else who did at least SOME of it, I'll just borrow bits. Some is mine, some is copied... can't take all the credit, now can I?? The theory at the end about the black hole is very interesting to go into. Basically what the person on the ship would see and what the obsever on another ship would see. Alot of people said it would either just disappear or speed to relatavistic speeds. Then there is the above. Sounds more sound a theory to me.killians45
Fully Optimized
- Messages
- 3,243
well, the reason we came up with the conclusion is the following. Image you are with a friend, he is in another ship and gets sucked into a black hole. You are outside the effects so see the whole thing. Now, the way we see things is by light/photons bouncing back. The closer to the black hole you get light begins to slow down. It begins to take longer and longer for those photons to come back to you. At the event horizon, or prior to it, the light is taking longer and longer. So, you could sit there for a very long time, and you are seeing the light return to you at slower speeds. Your friend could of been swallowed thousands (this is a VERY big guess) of years ago, but it took that long to get the light back to you mean while he is long gone. Just a theory, though based off of facts.
- Status
