chess online
| From | Message | ||
|---|---|---|---|
|
 Light speed theoriesMany scientists convey their theories about light speed and how nothing can travel faster etc. Then they show diagrams with two light sources travelling toward each other and claim that the approaching lights would experience the other travelling at 2 X light speed...... How can this be if nothing travels faster than light? Well here is the absolute simplicity of it. Most people omit a very important part of the description about light. "Light travels at 186,000 MPS from its source." It is sometimes suggested that if the light source was to travel near to light speed the light itself would slow down. WHY?? OK, the light is travelling near to light speed, but in relation to what???? From what stationary base point is the speed calculated (Remember most of space is empty) Light speed IS constant and is measured from source. Whatever that source is doing itself has no bearing on the light that is emitted. |
||
|
light speed is a measurement current understanding of it, its a bit like man can't fly, or go through the sound barrier or travel mach5, they are already looking at mach10 but there is gravitational issues but that does not necessarily apply when in space. I like to think about jet streams, so there might also be these type of jet streams but on a much larger speed scale in space. Being one who loves to break with conventional theory. Science and theory tends to go with trends it takes an unconventional mind to go against the heard and the long lists of famous people who doubt you wrong only in time to be proven right. There is one constant in the universe is the laws of mathematics unfortunately I think even our greatest minds in this field only see 25% of the big picture. |
||
|
I agree with one thing, at least. |
||
|
the speed of light speed of light will not be definitive |
||
|
Assuming more know. Electromagnetic radiation propagates at a set rate dependant upon the way the energy reacts with itself. Because we don't understand why does not mean that it may be possible to alter this. Speed of light IS definitive and is relative to its source. In this finite universe, (in-so-much-as all that is within it is defined and tangible), there will be always be a limit to the amount of knowledge and physical matter that exists. The only part of the universe that is unmeasurable and limitless is space itself. Anyway - back to chess now - gotta learn to win more..... |
||
|
assumption is the definition of the word |
||
|
WE ALREADY HAVE A WAY....maybe particle? say large enough to carry a tiny camera! at almost or even half light speed we could reach the nearest stars in say 5 or 6-years. Snap a pic and see if there are any exoplanets or moons. Considering how long it going to take to get that spacecraft we sent to Pluto, or the ones we sent past Neptune, it does not seem so long!! just a thought! |
||
|
that is going to be some tube upwards to get the speed to hit that thing into space. Great Idea!! |
||
|
Gravity |
||
|
perpetual motion achievable. That slingshot theory is part of it. When you look to ancient history its amazing that they found Sirius B. en.wikipedia.org |
||
|
on and on and on and on and on that going??? |
||
|
it does exist in nature is possible, thanks for your confidence in the idea |
||
|
Superconductors while in an effort to get superconducting material at room temperature. Once they can master that one then we may be a little closer to solving our energy problems. |
||
|
one way Near-lightspeed nano spacecraft might be possible within the near future built on existing microchip technology with a newly developed nano scale thruster. Researchers at the University of Michigan are developing thrusters that use nanoparticles as propellant. Their technology is called “nano-particle field extraction thruster,” or nanoFET. These devices act like small particle accelerators shooting conductive nano-particles out into space.[20] Given the light weight of these probes, it would take much less energy to accelerate them. With on board solar cells they could continually accelerate using solar power. One can envision a day when a fleet of millions or even billions of these particles swarm to distance stars at nearly the speed of light, while relaying signals back to earth through a vast interstellar communication network. |
||
|
What a super idea, but.... Earth will be travelling at light speed MINUS forward velocity. Thus any transmission received on Earth will be at a much lower frequency. It is a fact of physics that the lower the transmitted frequency is, the short the distance it will propagate. Therefore more energy will be required to send the signal back. As the travelling craft tends toward light speed then the energy required will tend towards infinity. |
||
|
ianuk 14-Jul-12, 05:19 |
Deleted by ianuk on 14-Jul-12, 06:10.
|
||
|
Kick this one into the light again (Pun intended) When we talk of travelling through space we are unwittingly relating it to the Earth as a point of reference. Lets theorise on a point deep out in space. A small rock that is "travelling". What is it that makes us assume it is actually travelling? Well its position is mapped along with all other objects, stars, planets that are also mapped. The positional relationships between these objects is used to determine their motion through the cosmos. But only in relation to each other. Who is to say which of these is travelling in which direction and at what speed. To another object somewhere else they will all assume a different trajectory and velocity. But to each of those objects individually it would seem that all the others are moving. Speed of motion and indeed light speed is always measured from point of source. How would is be possible to travel at any other speed to the one at present and how could you possible say how fast that is anyway. Even if you could measure from a fixed point how can you be sure that the fixed point is not the one that is moving? As far as travelling faster than light. Of course its possible, but there would be no change in any of the laws of physics. Here's why. Lets assume you are positioned adjacent to an object that is radiating a light source in the direction you are facing. That light will be travelling away from you at light speed. Suddenly the object begins to travel in a reverse direction away from you at ¾ light speed. The light you are observing is now travelling away from you at ¼ light speed. Now you begin to travel forwards at ½ light speed relative to your original location. You will now be travelling faster than the light you are observing by ¼ light speed. Are you now travelling faster than light? I am even finding E=mc² a little hard to comprehend now. As I understand it, the faster you go the more energy you need to accelerate. WHY? Newtons 1st law covers that one. Stop accelerating and you remain in a constant state. Add more energy and that state will change. Whilst it may be here on Earth that the faster you go the more power you need to go faster, (that being due to wind resistance) out in space there is no resistance or friction, so any energy input will have a direct influence. |
||
|
the velocity of info maxes out at c |
||
|
The silliness of relativity There once was a fellow named Dwight Whose speed was much greater than light He set out one day In a relative way And returned on the previous night Of course, such silliness is just that...silliness. Look at the special Theory of relativity itself E = M C-squared where E is energy = is the equals sign M is mass and C-squared is the speed of light squared So why is the speed of light given the letter C? I let the king of all knowledge (Google) research it, and it seems that it comes from the Latin word "celeritas" which means swift. In Texas, any word that ends in RITAS means it is a frozen drink made with tequila, likke margaritas or strawberryritas. Now, if you're talking a frozen tequila drink make with CELEry...count me out. Maybe the Speed Of Light should be given a more appropriate label...like (S.O.L.) Although SOL could be confused with the common name for our mother star the Sun or Sol. But S-O-L also has an American expression tagged to it meaning "Sh*t Outta Luck" (I hope that passes the censors) Anyway, I whole-heartedly appreciate these kinds of discussions. I like the feeling of headspins. When it comes to completely understanding physics though, I am truly SOL. LOL! |
||
|
Someone once said. A kid in class asks "If light travels at 186,000 miles per second, why are the afternoons so long." |
||
|
Back to google, for a moment Instead of Google, use Blackle.com. It saves electricity. And then, anything made with tequila, makes me happy... So seriously, how did Einstein figure out that energy is equal to the sum total of mass times the speed of light squared? It must have been an epiphany that equaled Eureka! So probably, that's why I'm not a physicist. I would give a lot to experience such an epiphany. It must have been a higher high than any drug. I've never done any drug in my life, besides some alcohol and cigarettes (that stopped more than 8 years ago). My best high like that would be when I did my first static line parachute jump, and then my first freefall a couple of weeks later. Well, at least I must have felt like Newton at the time. I've read a little about physics during the last couple of years. It is one of the most interesting subjects to study- along with maths, biology, evolution, astronomy, geology, politics, religion (or the lack thereof), global finance..... I wish often that I was capable of the understanding, study and pursuit of physics. There are several limits to my problem: time and money would be the first problems to overcome, but I am realistic and know that it is a field that few of us will really be able to contribute positively to. |
||
|
Blackle.com |
||
|
Blackle.com |
||
|
LED / LCD However, LCD rely on a backlit screen which then used LCD filters to block the light as necessary. The backlight is constantly on. |
||
|
Until |
||
|
Impossible question So much reference is made to the speed of light. But how are we quantifying it? We speak of speed as something that takes us from here to another place. Currently we use the Earth as a reference because we are able to measure it and chart our progress as we travel. In space there are no reference points. At least none we can categorise as "Stationery". If we shine a light toward the sky we claim the beam is travelling away at light speed. But if we were to travel beside it at the same speed, quite apart from not being able to see it any more, it would no longer be travelling away from us. Also on our journey, far away from anything else and assuming no external or internal influences, our journey will have a constant vector and velocity. In fact with no tangible or measurable inertia we might just as well be motionless. In fact, relative to the light beam beside us we are! The bottom line here rests heavily on the word "relative" and will always require some kind reference to make any measurements. We know from astronomical measurements that there are galaxies travelling away from us at tremendous speed. Or is it US travelling away from them? Or are they travelling at light speed and us at half light speed? Of course there is another, perhaps worrying, thought. If we do achieve high velocity, even if its just a small percentage, then all our navigation could be thrown into disarray. As velocity increases there would be noticeable red and blue shifts in the visible spectrum. At really high velocities this could cause current known and charted constellations and references to disappear from visibility. Likewise, new stars may become visible. To go into an new adventure without a map would be perilous to say the least. |
||
|
for me it is a bit of exploration principles and just because a charismatic guy called Einstein says that is the way it is I do not believe it. en.wikipedia.org I like a man or woman that goes on a journey |
||
|
to clarify |
||
|
We have |
Log in 
