Pinch Paxton Posted March 24, 2004 Share Posted March 24, 2004 Of course it's possible to go past the speed of light. Why is it considered impossible? I never found that part out, but it better not have to do with light being the creation of images because that would be lame. -1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cap'n Refsmmat Posted March 24, 2004 Share Posted March 24, 2004 So you don't understand relativity? For starters, it is believed it would take infinite energy to get there, and plus, time would stop. Why do your particles have to go faster than light? Can't they go slower or just the same? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pinch Paxton Posted March 24, 2004 Share Posted March 24, 2004 So you don't understand relativity? Relativity is a concept that shows that things could be travelling faster than light. It was not designed to do this, but it does show this anyway. If you travel faster than light, time moves backwards. This would cause the illusion that light has not accelerated. C + 5 = C + 5 + time - 5 = C See, light is still a constant. Why do your particles have to go faster than light? Can't they go slower or just the same? Because of two reasons. 1/ Light travels to an observer. This requires another message before the light gets there. That would require the other message to travel faster than light. 2/ Particles like nutrinos are spaced apart. There needs to be a wave, not a particle to produce continuous movement. They cannot move on their own momentum, this is a falacy. But if you are talking about psychic prediction of a future event, you would have to be somehow connected to the future. I am thinking that nutrinos, or similar are the connection, plus they travel through us, and through our brain. Perhaps we could pick up the signal. Pincho. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fafalone Posted March 24, 2004 Share Posted March 24, 2004 Cap'n Refsmmat said in post # :I congratulate you! Good one! (even though I haven't seen Zarkov, I've heard of him) Just go back through the topics here in the pseudoscience forum and looks for ones started by zarkov... you'll see the hilarity and similarity to pincho Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fafalone Posted March 24, 2004 Share Posted March 24, 2004 Pinch Paxton said in post # : Relativity is a concept that shows that things could be travelling faster than light. It was not designed to do this, but it does show this anyway. lol. If you travel faster than light, time moves backwards. This would cause the illusion that light has not accelerated. C + 5 = C + 5 + time - 5 = C See, light is still a constant. ...so since we're talking purely mathematical manipulation, time ought to be destroyed by travelling exactly at c, since that would create a divide by zero error in the space time continuum! rofl. Because of two reasons. 1/ Light travels to an observer. This requires another message before the light gets there. That would require the other message to travel faster than light. 2/ Particles like nutrinos are spaced apart. There needs to be a wave, not a particle to produce continuous movement. They cannot move on their own momentum, this is a falacy. But if you are talking about psychic prediction of a future event, you would have to be somehow connected to the future. I am thinking that nutrinos, or similar are the connection, plus they travel through us, and through our brain. Perhaps we could pick up the signal. 1) No. If you really need to be explained why light is constant for all reference frames, refrain from claiming to know relativity well. 2) Neutrinos can exist as discrete particles. They have their own mass, and even oscillate between different types of themselves. ..and on the third point; not only do neutrinos not come from the future since they do not travel faster than c, but they interact so weakly with matter there's no biological mechanism that could possibly detect a considerable amount of them, much less interpret them into something usefull, and such gathering and decoding would require some sort of supernatural explanation, which I no doubt expect you to soon advocate. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pinch Paxton Posted March 24, 2004 Share Posted March 24, 2004 ...so since we're talking purely mathematical manipulation, time ought to be destroyed by travelling exactly at c, since that would create a divide by zero error in the space time continuum! rofl. *************************************************** Maths is used for E = MC2 1) No. If you really need to be explained why light is constant for all reference frames, refrain from claiming to know relativity well. *************************************************** My answer was not to do with relativity. It was to do with Scrodinger's Kittens. 2) Neutrinos can exist as discrete particles. They have their own mass, and even oscillate between different types of themselves. *************************************************** Nutrinos do not necessarily have mass. That was a scientific guess. It was based on them changing states. But they would change states if they travelled faster than light, and then they would have no mass. ..and on the third point; not only do neutrinos not come from the future since they do not travel faster than c, but they interact so weakly with matter there's no biological mechanism that could possibly detect a considerable amount of them, much less interpret them into something usefull, and such gathering and decoding would require some sort of supernatural explanation, which I no doubt expect you to soon advocate. ************************************************** I can tell by your answers that you are a follower of science, but not an actual theorist yourself. You never make any deductions, you just spout out actual known science like a dictionary. Why don't you actually think about what you are saying? Just think about nutrinos by yourself, instead of telling me the scientific guess. Why don't you think that anything can travel faster than light if light seems to have a predefined path. You know, you really have to make a contribution to science rather than just be part of it. Pincho. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sayonara Posted March 24, 2004 Share Posted March 24, 2004 Pinch Paxton said in post # : 1/ Light travels to an observer. This requires another message before the light gets there. That would require the other message to travel faster than light. The simpler explanation is "Light travels. Observers get in the way." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pinch Paxton Posted March 24, 2004 Share Posted March 24, 2004 I am talking about The Two slit theory, where light travels to a predetermined location. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sayonara Posted March 24, 2004 Share Posted March 24, 2004 It's not really a model for all transmission of light in the universe though, is it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pinch Paxton Posted March 24, 2004 Share Posted March 24, 2004 It's enough to show that the light hit a spot on photographic paper that was defined during the flight of the light particle. It made a decision whether to go through the top slit, or the bottom slit, or both. It's like driving a car on the road home, and you are hungry. You can see two Cafe ahead of you, one on the right side of the road, and one on the left. You have never been here before, but you want to visit the cafe that has the best food. Do you turn left or right? The light seems to know in advance which slit it is going to go through. It must have recieved a message. The message would have to travel faster than light to give the information to the photon. Pincho. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sayonara Posted March 24, 2004 Share Posted March 24, 2004 Fair enough, but your assumption is that light travelling from a source along a path that an observer intercepts is always making a decision, which is not evidenced by that experiment. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pinch Paxton Posted March 24, 2004 Share Posted March 24, 2004 You want light to change states to conform to science? Science is not part of the equation. Light doesn't need to change from a particle to a wave or anything like that. That's the problem.. science becomes a part of something, like it is unbreakable. The wave is the signal, the light is always a photon, never a wave. The interference pattern is the light interfering with the signal wave. The signal wave travels faster than light. Humans have an observable speed limit which is C, but it is not really time. Time is just our word for advancing forward, and we can only advance our equipment forward to the speed of C. We can only measure C, and then we need a new type of measurement. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cap'n Refsmmat Posted March 24, 2004 Share Posted March 24, 2004 And, in case you didn't notice, photons have no means of making "decisions." And plus, the light doesn't need to know where to go, like you, it just goes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pinch Paxton Posted March 24, 2004 Share Posted March 24, 2004 Light doesn't just go. It has been proved that it travels to a place that is to be observed. Read Scrodingers Kittens. Or find the Two Slit Experiment on Google search. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sayonara Posted March 24, 2004 Share Posted March 24, 2004 Pinch Paxton said in post # :You want light to change states to conform to science? I didn't say anything about light changing states. Not even close. Science is not part of the equation. Light doesn't need to change from a particle to a wave or anything like that. That's the problem.. science becomes a part of something, like it is unbreakable. The wave is the signal, the light is always a photon, never a wave. The interference pattern is the light interfering with the signal wave. The signal wave travels faster than light. Humans have an observable speed limit which is C, but it is not really time. Time is just our word for advancing forward, and we can only advance our equipment forward to the speed of C. We can only measure C, and then we need a new type of measurement. That's all irrelevant to the question of whether or not light has to make a decision before propagating in a certain direction. All of it. IRRELEVANT. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fafalone Posted March 24, 2004 Share Posted March 24, 2004 Pinch Paxton said in post # :Maths is used for E = MC2 1) No. If you really need to be explained why light is constant for all reference frames, refrain from claiming to know relativity well. *************************************************** My answer was not to do with relativity. It was to do with Scrodinger's Kittens. 2) Neutrinos can exist as discrete particles. They have their own mass, and even oscillate between different types of themselves. *************************************************** Nutrinos do not necessarily have mass. That was a scientific guess. It was based on them changing states. But they would change states if they travelled faster than light, and then they would have no mass. ..and on the third point; not only do neutrinos not come from the future since they do not travel faster than c, but they interact so weakly with matter there's no biological mechanism that could possibly detect a considerable amount of them, much less interpret them into something usefull, and such gathering and decoding would require some sort of supernatural explanation, which I no doubt expect you to soon advocate. ************************************************** I can tell by your answers that you are a follower of science, but not an actual theorist yourself. You never make any deductions, you just spout out actual known science like a dictionary. Why don't you actually think about what you are saying? Just think about nutrinos by yourself, instead of telling me the scientific guess. Why don't you think that anything can travel faster than light if light seems to have a predefined path. You know, you really have to make a contribution to science rather than just be part of it. Pincho. holy _______ ____ you're a uneducated idiot. discussion closed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
YT2095 Posted March 25, 2004 Share Posted March 25, 2004 actualy, My last post #whatever, was just meant as an idea of how you could incorporate a REAL random number generator into your program via some simple hardware and maybe an hour of soldering. I`ll freely give you ideas such as this, but as for main topic under discussion here, I withold any comment. I would certainly think howevr that it would be alot easier to move/control a single electron with your mind than it would be to control the weight of a falling ball bearing! but I base that call on logic alone, due to energy usage. ie/ moving 1 electron as opposed to several 100 kazillion in a ball bearing would be more likely if it were possible I don`t know enough about everything to comment eitherway, sorry! 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts