FunkyAce07 Posted November 22, 2012 Share Posted November 22, 2012 Alright, now they have this thing about neutrinos being possibly faster than light. With this they say ruins cause and effect.... Now if you go faster than the speed limit away from a person next to you and looked back at them they will have appeared to be going in reverse as you are catching the light that was reflected off of them in the past. Now say you travel 2 times the speed of light away to 10 light years away the person you would see would be that of 5 years ago. Now you travel back to them at 2 times the speed of light they would seem to be moving around in fast forward at 2 times the actual speed because in 5 years of traveling towards them at twice the speed of light you will have encountered 10 years of light that had reflected off of them in only 5 years.... after your 20 light year round trip completed in only 10 years you would come back and see the person only 10 years after you had left on your journey.... you would even out and not somehow time travel.... What paradox does this present? I do not know.... The actual speed limit of the universe.... We used to believe that the speed of light was instantaneous, but we discovered we were wrong.... Why can "Instantaneous" not be the speed limit? Before "The Big Bang" there was in theory no mass.... Therefore no reference, no medium what so ever. So say light traveled 3 inches vs. 3 light years, it could all be the same. Was there even a distance to travel or was there only a distance to travel after "The Big Bang?" If time and distance traveled at speed "instantaneous" we would not even know. However, this gives a "track" for light to travel on, a speed in which it is allowed to travel. You would not be able to see anything beyond the light traveling "expanding universe" because of course you could never travel faster than the speed of light according to science today. What is beyond the universe to govern the light to travel at that speed? The tiny space in between atoms and the billions of miles between galaxies would all be the same with nothing to reference from. How traveling "instantaneous" would seem to cause a paradox. Say you could travel at the speed of "instantaneous" you would travel 10 light years away and back you would just be right where you started. You would appear to be in two places at once, because light is so slow. However one you would actually not be in. Now if you traveled faster than "instantaneous" you would actually need to be in two places at once, obviously defying physices. Say you traveled 2 times the speed of "instantaneous" and say light traveled at "instantaneous" you would travel far away or close it would all be the same and you would see yourself in the past.... sometime... in theory.... Another very extreme theory.... This theory allows black holes to exist.... maybe it would be more or less a "rip" in space, time, and distant. Causing the "instantaneous" speed. It would just be a super "non-dense" space in which is the complete opposite of what is believed. It would mean that the black hole could appear to be only a million miles wide, but actually be just the same as the width of the universe, but you would not know. It would not be stretched left or right, but up or down if you want to think of the universe as being flat like a blanket. A black hole would be more or less a cone shape, the base of the cone being the edge of the event horizon. The black hole would oddly not be "Sucking" things in with extreme gravity, but more or less be an almost negative space where the universe is actually expanding into. I know the universe is supposed to be a "vacumm" but what if a black hole was just an even more stretched less dense area than the rest of the universe. Then it would act as if it were really dense by expanding outwards, into the black hole. If a supernova were just such an outward blast that it expands to quickly for time and space and kind of stretched it out. So, my conclusion is that if you traveled faster than the speed of light it would only cause optical illusions, not time travel. To complete time travel you would actually need to travel faster than "instantaneous." Alright, now they have this thing about neutrinos being possibly faster than light. With this they say ruins cause and effect.... Now if you go faster than the speed limit away from a person next to you and looked back at them they will have appeared to be going in reverse as you are catching the light that was reflected off of them in the past. Now say you travel 2 times the speed of light away to 10 light years away the person you would see would be that of 5 years ago. Now you travel back to them at 2 times the speed of light they would seem to be moving around in fast forward at 2 times the actual speed because in 5 years of traveling towards them at twice the speed of light you will have encountered 10 years of light that had reflected off of them in only 5 years.... after your 20 light year round trip completed in only 10 years you would come back and see the person only 10 years after you had left on your journey.... you would even out and not somehow time travel.... What paradox does this present? I do not know.... The actual speed limit of the universe.... We used to believe that the speed of light was instantaneous, but we discovered we were wrong.... Why can "Instantaneous" not be the speed limit? Before "The Big Bang" there was in theory no mass.... Therefore no reference, no medium what so ever. So say light traveled 3 inches vs. 3 light years, it could all be the same. Was there even a distance to travel or was there only a distance to travel after "The Big Bang?" If time and distance traveled at speed "instantaneous" we would not even know. However, this gives a "track" for light to travel on, a speed in which it is allowed to travel. You would not be able to see anything beyond the light traveling "expanding universe" because of course you could never travel faster than the speed of light according to science today. What is beyond the universe to govern the light to travel at that speed? The tiny space in between atoms and the billions of miles between galaxies would all be the same with nothing to reference from. How traveling "instantaneous" would seem to cause a paradox. Say you could travel at the speed of "instantaneous" you would travel 10 light years away and back you would just be right where you started. You would appear to be in two places at once, because light is so slow. However one you would actually not be in. Now if you traveled faster than "instantaneous" you would actually need to be in two places at once, obviously defying physices. Say you traveled 2 times the speed of "instantaneous" and say light traveled at "instantaneous" you would travel far away or close it would all be the same and you would see yourself in the past.... sometime... in theory.... Another very extreme theory.... This theory allows black holes to exist.... maybe it would be more or less a "rip" in space, time, and distant. Causing the "instantaneous" speed. It would just be a super "non-dense" space in which is the complete opposite of what is believed. It would mean that the black hole could appear to be only a million miles wide, but actually be just the same as the width of the universe, but you would not know. It would not be stretched left or right, but up or down if you want to think of the universe as being flat like a blanket. A black hole would be more or less a cone shape, the base of the cone being the edge of the event horizon. The black hole would oddly not be "Sucking" things in with extreme gravity, but more or less be an almost negative space where the universe is actually expanding into. I know the universe is supposed to be a "vacumm" but what if a black hole was just an even more stretched less dense area than the rest of the universe. Then it would act as if it were really dense by expanding outwards, into the black hole. If a supernova were just such an outward blast that it expands to quickly for time and space and kind of stretched it out. So, my conclusion is that if you traveled faster than the speed of light it would only cause optical illusions, not time travel. To complete time travel you would actually need to travel faster than "instantaneous." Also, I know more extreme thinking... could you cause something to go faster than the speed of light? What would if you say had a "perfect vacumm," for any air resistance or resistance of any other partices, with a disc made of a very strong magnetic material that would rotate at a high speed. The container for the disc would be polarized to push against the disc pushing inward on all directions to attempt to help fight the centrifugal force that would pull the disc apart. Now the disc has a radius of 200 meters..... you slowly begin to accelerate the disc, so you can 1. gear it high as hell 2. put as little strain on the disc from acceleration as possible, and get the edge of the disc up to say 75% the speed of light.... Now what if you were to extend a second portion of the disc out and it made it up to a 400 meter radius..... now the entire disc would be spinning at the same rpms, which would put the speed of the disc at 300 meters radius at the speed of light. Then 400 meters out would be 125% the speed of light. If you cannot go faster than the speed of light then it would for some reason be forced to rip into pieces just because of that law.... if it were to stay together though then it would appear to be going slower towards the edge and I'm assuming anything between 300-400 meters would appear to just be stopped.... not a paradox, just an optical illusion... -3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mathematic Posted November 22, 2012 Share Posted November 22, 2012 "Alright, now they have this thing about neutrinos being possibly faster than light." Turned out to be a faulty connection in the timing mechanism. After being fixed, the anomaly went awaay. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FunkyAce07 Posted November 25, 2012 Author Share Posted November 25, 2012 "Alright, now they have this thing about neutrinos being possibly faster than light." Turned out to be a faulty connection in the timing mechanism. After being fixed, the anomaly went awaay. O... Well, makes sense.... I figured that it would turn out to be that way.... Very unfortunate.... I just hadn't heard the final conclusion yet. I still don't see why things couldn't outrun light.... Either by something mechanical as I suggested or if you the items passing into the event horizon.... or if it could just appear to accelate constantly until it nears the speed of light. Once hitting the speed of light or near that of it would begin to appear to stop accelerating as it neared the horizon then kind of appearing to plane out near the speed of light... although it has actually surpassed the speed of light and could be on the other side of the black hole... So it could appear to be on one side of the black hole completely opposite of where it actually is... like a jet to a blind person.... tell a blind person to point at a loud jet high in the sky they will point far behind it because that's where it appears through echo-location to them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
swansont Posted November 25, 2012 Share Posted November 25, 2012 A massive particle requires an infinite amount of energy to travel at c. It will never have an infinite amount of energy, thus it will never travel at c much less exceed it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ydoaPs Posted November 27, 2012 Share Posted November 27, 2012 A massive particle requires an infinite amount of energy to travel at c. It will never have an infinite amount of energy, thus it will never travel at c much less exceed it. For the Higgs field to have a zero value, it must have energy. So, could one not take advantage of that to alter the mass of a normally massive particle? Control the energy to get rid of the mass and let it zoom at c. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
swansont Posted November 27, 2012 Share Posted November 27, 2012 For the Higgs field to have a zero value, it must have energy. So, could one not take advantage of that to alter the mass of a normally massive particle? Control the energy to get rid of the mass and let it zoom at c. I'm not conversant enough on the Higgs to say. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Arnaud Antoine ANDRIEU Posted November 28, 2012 Share Posted November 28, 2012 I'm not conversant enough on the Higgs to say. it is clear, the laws of the hhh is a true false discovery Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
uncool Posted November 28, 2012 Share Posted November 28, 2012 For the Higgs field to have a zero value, it must have energy. So, could one not take advantage of that to alter the mass of a normally massive particle? Control the energy to get rid of the mass and let it zoom at c. For one thing, it wouldn't really be the same "particle" any more, if I'm not mistaken. For another, quantum field theory does require being at a minimum for the "potential" term in the Lagrangian, doesn't it? Which would make it impossible to construct a meaningful theory by "getting rid of the mass" that would be the same theory. =Uncool- Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Cuthber Posted November 28, 2012 Share Posted November 28, 2012 Any theory that says that c isn't the speed limit needs to explain why we observe that it is. Why, for example, do particle accelerators get "stuck" as the speed approaches c? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alpha2cen Posted November 28, 2012 Share Posted November 28, 2012 This is the case of exceeding the speed of light. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ydoaPs Posted November 28, 2012 Share Posted November 28, 2012 Absolute coordinate? Excuse me? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ACG52 Posted November 28, 2012 Share Posted November 28, 2012 The day alpha learned how to use Paint was a sad day for us all. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alpha2cen Posted November 28, 2012 Share Posted November 28, 2012 Absolute coordinate? Excuse me? This site tells us the meaning. http://www.toolingu.com/definition-300140-52599-absolute-coordinates.html 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ydoaPs Posted November 29, 2012 Share Posted November 29, 2012 This site tells us the meaning. http://www.toolingu.com/definition-300140-52599-absolute-coordinates.html You're joking, right? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alpha2cen Posted November 29, 2012 Share Posted November 29, 2012 You're joking, right? The concept is used in the many areas, i.e., design, cad, etc.. Where is the origin not moving in the Universe? So, using the coordinate system to explain it is right, isn't it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ydoaPs Posted November 29, 2012 Share Posted November 29, 2012 The concept is used in the many areas, i.e., design, cad, etc.. Where is the origin not moving in the Universe? So, using the coordinate system to explain it is right, isn't it? All co-ordinates are relative. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
swansont Posted November 29, 2012 Share Posted November 29, 2012 The concept is used in the many areas, i.e., design, cad, etc.. But not in physics. CAD generally doesn't involve any relativistic complications like simultaneity. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alpha2cen Posted November 29, 2012 Share Posted November 29, 2012 This is more detail figure. The coordinate system is changed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ACG52 Posted November 29, 2012 Share Posted November 29, 2012 These drawings are meaningless. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alpha2cen Posted November 29, 2012 Share Posted November 29, 2012 These diagrams only show a possibility of existence of a place which is exceeding the speed of light without vanishing. Below diagram is one of the expansion model of the Universe. The speed difference is relative. The value, speed difference / distance, is very small. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
swansont Posted November 29, 2012 Share Posted November 29, 2012 Also, I know more extreme thinking... could you cause something to go faster than the speed of light? What would if you say had a "perfect vacumm," for any air resistance or resistance of any other partices, with a disc made of a very strong magnetic material that would rotate at a high speed. The container for the disc would be polarized to push against the disc pushing inward on all directions to attempt to help fight the centrifugal force that would pull the disc apart. Now the disc has a radius of 200 meters..... you slowly begin to accelerate the disc, so you can 1. gear it high as hell 2. put as little strain on the disc from acceleration as possible, and get the edge of the disc up to say 75% the speed of light.... Now what if you were to extend a second portion of the disc out and it made it up to a 400 meter radius..... now the entire disc would be spinning at the same rpms, which would put the speed of the disc at 300 meters radius at the speed of light. Then 400 meters out would be 125% the speed of light. If you cannot go faster than the speed of light then it would for some reason be forced to rip into pieces just because of that law.... if it were to stay together though then it would appear to be going slower towards the edge and I'm assuming anything between 300-400 meters would appear to just be stopped.... not a paradox, just an optical illusion... The force needed to preserve the integrity of such a system is well beyond any structure that can be built, so yes, it would tear itself apart before anything reached c. These diagrams only show a possibility of existence of a place which is exceeding the speed of light without vanishing. Below diagram is one of the expansion model of the Universe. The speed difference is relative. The value, speed difference / distance, is very small. ! Moderator Note The OP was not asking about the expansion of the universe, so please stop hijacking the thread Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Cuthber Posted November 29, 2012 Share Posted November 29, 2012 .. Now what if you were to extend a second portion of the disc out and it made it up to a 400 meter radius..... now the entire disc would be spinning at the same rpms, No it wouldn't http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Angular_momentum#Conservation_of_angular_momentum 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FunkyAce07 Posted January 6, 2013 Author Share Posted January 6, 2013 (edited) If you were to take a disc say .50 of a mile in diameter and spin it to 75% the speed of light and then expand that disc out to 1 mile in diameter then the portion .25 miles from the center of the disc would be traveling at 75% the speed of light still and would force the portion .50 miles from the center of the disc to travel at 125% the speed of light. Doing all of this in as near of a perfect vacumm as possible and making the disc perfectly balanced all around and using super strong magnets to help fight the effects of centrifical force on the outer portions of the disc to even out the forces acting on it as to if it were traveling a straight line. Then in my theory anything closer to the center of the disc than .375 miles would appear to moving extremely fast and anything further from the center of the disc than .375 miles would be seen as moving just the slower than speed of light; in all reality it would be traveling faster you just wouldn't be able to see or read it with equipment, but by logical thinking you would know that it was moving faster..... would this be possible? Edited January 6, 2013 by FunkyAce07 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ACG52 Posted January 6, 2013 Share Posted January 6, 2013 No. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Janus Posted January 6, 2013 Share Posted January 6, 2013 If you were to take a disc say .50 of a mile in diameter and spin it to 75% the speed of light and then expand that disc out to 1 mile in diameter then the portion .25 miles from the center of the disc would be traveling at 75% the speed of light still and would force the portion .50 miles from the center of the disc to travel at 125% the speed of light. Doing all of this in as near of a perfect vacumm as possible and making the disc perfectly balanced all around and using super strong magnets to help fight the effects of centrifical force on the outer portions of the disc to even out the forces acting on it as to if it were traveling a straight line. Then in my theory anything closer to the center of the disc than .375 miles would appear to moving extremely fast and anything further from the center of the disc than .375 miles would be seen as moving just the slower than speed of light; in all reality it would be traveling faster you just wouldn't be able to see or read it with equipment, but by logical thinking you would know that it was moving faster..... would this be possible? Even without Relativity, you wouldn't get this result without inputing energy into the disc. Expanding the disc by a factor of 2 will increase its moment of inertia by a factor of 4. Angular momentum must remain conserved and it is a product of angular velocity and the moment of inertia. Thus multiplying the MI by 4 forces the angular velocity to drop to 1/4. 1/4 the angular velocity and twice the radius means 1/2 the tangential velocity at the rim. Ergo, the portion .50 miles from the center would now be moving at 37.5% of c. So to maintain the same angular velocity, you must input energy into the disc. Once you consider the effects of Relativity, you find that as any part of the disc approaches c, the energy needed to maintain the angular velocity approaches infinity. 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