Guest facultas Posted July 17, 2003 Share Posted July 17, 2003 if light as no mass how is it a black hole can consume it? acording to the therory of zero point gravity tecnologies a object of any size could obtanian zero mass/weight there for creating the possobility of ligth travel or greater. look it up. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Radical Edward Posted July 17, 2003 Share Posted July 17, 2003 non euclidean space. and whut? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Blike Suckz Posted July 17, 2003 Share Posted July 17, 2003 I believe the superhero "Flash" is capable of traveling faster than the speed of light, and superman can travel darn near it too. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JaKiri Posted July 17, 2003 Share Posted July 17, 2003 Worst post ever. Well, not even close, but it's still pretty bad. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Blike Suckz Posted July 18, 2003 Share Posted July 18, 2003 just because everyone here is so DAMN serious about things. Relax its just a joke and this is just a forum. Sometimes you have to be abstract and easy going to make the most brilliant observations and understand things. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ryoken Posted September 9, 2003 Share Posted September 9, 2003 Ahh... Such as: Blike Suckz Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Janus Posted September 14, 2003 Share Posted September 14, 2003 Radical Edward said in post #73 : yes. electrons often travel faster than light. But that's only in mediums where light has an apparent speed below c. do not confuse the speed of light in various mediums with c. c only refers to the speed of light in a vacuum, and not to its apparent speed in any other medium. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aman Posted September 15, 2003 Share Posted September 15, 2003 I've seen some good arguments and rationalizations of how things could actually all be moving at C,or why not faster than C, from a to b to be where they are. In my mind the whole universe works faster than C and we only perceive up to that limit. I imagine there is a little consensus but I can't devise an experiment yet that will prove it. Still workin. Just aman Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kitkitkit Posted January 20, 2004 Share Posted January 20, 2004 If electrons move faster than light, why dont they go back in time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cap'n Refsmmat Posted January 20, 2004 Share Posted January 20, 2004 It depends on if that is light in a vacuum or light through glass... What are the electrons in? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kitkitkit Posted January 20, 2004 Share Posted January 20, 2004 erm.....Im more for things that go bang, i just thought i might have a go at what i thought was an intelligent question. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cap'n Refsmmat Posted January 20, 2004 Share Posted January 20, 2004 Don't worry, I do that all the time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
-Demosthenes- Posted January 20, 2004 Share Posted January 20, 2004 I think that the electrons aren't going faster than light, they're going through worm-holes. It's impossible ot go faster than light unless you you an infinite amount of energy, which is impossible, or so Einstein said. It seems more reasonalbe that they travel through tiny worm-holes than using infinite amounts of energy to go faster than light. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cap'n Refsmmat Posted January 21, 2004 Share Posted January 21, 2004 If they went through worm holes, wouldn't you observe it in the humans walking in it? Suddenly a bit of them leaps ahead as it goes through the worm hole, and they get injured as it separates. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sayonara Posted January 21, 2004 Share Posted January 21, 2004 I think he's talking about wormholes on a sub-atomic scale. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cap'n Refsmmat Posted January 21, 2004 Share Posted January 21, 2004 Wouldn't it collapse? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sayonara Posted January 21, 2004 Share Posted January 21, 2004 I imagine that depends on what sort of wormhole it is. Even if it did collapse, it would only need to exist long enough for the electron to pass through it and then the whole idea still works. Although it is speculation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cap'n Refsmmat Posted January 21, 2004 Share Posted January 21, 2004 I also think they would notice it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
-Demosthenes- Posted March 4, 2004 Share Posted March 4, 2004 They? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
atinymonkey Posted March 4, 2004 Share Posted March 4, 2004 The worm men. They live in the worm holes. Presumably. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aman Posted April 2, 2004 Share Posted April 2, 2004 Imagine a wormhole that goes to a planet 2 million light years away. On Earth we see it as it was 2 million years ago. You step in the wormhole and you are there. 2 million years have passed for you in an instant and you see it as it is now relative to Earth. You look back at Earth and you see it as it was 2 million years before. You jump in another wormhole and your back on Earth in the present. You travelled faster than the speed of light 4 million light years in minutes and yet only minutes have passed on Earth. Intuitively faster than the speed of light has no effect relative to your departure point but sub-light does, or am I wrong. Just aman Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheProphet Posted July 2, 2004 Share Posted July 2, 2004 Why is being right embarassing? Relativistic effects are perfectly accountable for without separating space from time. I strongly doubt Einstein said we exist anywhere other than space-time, since he basically came up with space-time. One from the historiebooks: Einstein himslef always kept x,y,z from t.. It was Minkowski that came upp with the idea of Spac-Time combined.. so it becam 4d... but since Einsteins is most well known, he gets creed! Minkowski was further more one of Eintsteins teachers! Or even Bether his Mentor! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nirav Posted August 2, 2004 Share Posted August 2, 2004 If electrons move faster than light, why dont they go back in time. c my friend... if ever electrons travel faster than light( although it can never happen) then their time wont run back.. instead its time will become imaginary which is clearly hypothetical time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheProphet Posted August 2, 2004 Share Posted August 2, 2004 c my friend... if ever electrons travel faster than light( although it can never happen) then their time wont run back.. instead its time will become imaginary which is clearly hypothetical time. No relativity says that Time will go backwards.. but it's Mass that must become imaginary! Imaginary Time is another thought experiment by Hawkings... but this had to do with backing time even longer than the begining of Big Bang... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ben_Phys618 Posted August 3, 2004 Share Posted August 3, 2004 One from the historiebooks: Einstein himslef always kept x,y,z from t.. It was Minkowski that came upp with the idea of Spac-Time combined.. so it becam 4d... but since Einsteins is most well known, he gets creed! Minkowski was further more one of Eintsteins teachers! Or even Bether his Mentor! Well, it was minkowski's concept of space-time that said what we call the present depends on our position and motion relative to the 4 axes, which leads to interesting paradoxes. He came up with this by modifying the galilean concept of space-time under his assumption of inseparable 4-d coordinates. Einstein used this minkowskian space-time, but separated x,y,z from t. This seems to be the most comatible combination of the two concepts. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now