It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Thank you.

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

# Light speed is not what we think.

page: 1
1
share:

posted on Jan, 10 2006 @ 08:35 AM
I have been searching about light speed and all believe that in you travial that fast that time will stop. Which thats a crock of crap. Time is a force that nothing and no one can control and going the speed of light is just speed no time changing powers at all.

Hard to believe i know but think with me for a sec if some one said that they travialed light speed you wouldnt believe it because they would older then you due to what we believe what light speed does to you. but lets say another person said that they travialed abut 198,000,000,000 miles per hour. now that your brain could comperhend due to the miles per hour. because taht what our brains are used to. When in fact 55,000,000mps and light speed is acutly about the same speed. Know your brain is doing some thinking isnt and it is hard to believe.

I know that 55,000,000mph you may not think is is correct. light can travil around earth 7 times in 1 sec. the circonference of the earth is about 24,000miles. take the circonference x 7 x 365 and it will equal some where close to 55,000,000 mps x 3600=198,000,000,000mph

I believe that speed is just speed it doesnt matter how fast you go it is all the same. Speed is speed no mater what the numbers and speed can be broken. just think traviling that fast but 10x faster.

In my next tread it will be about how to travil in those kinds of speed.

Look for "Light is just speed"

posted on Jan, 10 2006 @ 08:52 AM
Actually, the problem with your thinking is that you're thinking on the basic levels. You're thinking the way people USED to think about light. It wasn't until Einstein's General Theory that he talked about the problems with trying to achieve light speed and the warping effect it has.

But, just to point out to you, they've done experiments on time dialation. They've created INCREDIBLY precise clocks that can measure millionths of seconds of time. They put two of these clocks in sinc, and then placed one of them in orbit (either on a satellite or on the Space Station - I believe the latter).

When they brought the one that was in orbit back and compared it to the one that stayed on earth, they discovered that the two clocks were ACTUALLY off-sinc, something that would have been considered impossible before Einstein (had such clocks existed back then). This is because the Space Station / satellites orbit the earth at pretty high speeds. Even though they're minute compared to the speed of light, any movement will experience these kinds of time dialations.

Since it worked and is observable at the small scale, we must assume the same is true of the large scale, and that approaching the speed of light becomes more and more difficult the closer you get there.

So 55 000 000mps is the universal speed limit for objects with mass. Of course, objects without mass don't necessarily follow this quite the same. Such as gravity. What's the "speed of gravity"? If a planet moves through a solar system, at what speed does it's change in position change the gravitational affects on other planets? Is it instantaneous? Or is there a graviton that carries it? or perhaps a "gravity wave"? If these things exist, is there then a way to control it?

posted on Jan, 10 2006 @ 10:03 AM

Originally posted by the news paper man
I have been searching about light speed and all believe that in you travial that fast that time will stop. Which thats a crock of crap. Time is a force that nothing and no one can control and going the speed of light is just speed no time changing powers at all.

Before you go around calling things a crop of crap, you should try researching the subject. It is quite apparent in your post, quoted above, that you have no idea where the ideas, formulas, and concepts of relative time dilation came from. That is why you have no idea as to what you are talking about.

Simple triangulation equasions like the pythagorean theorem are at the heart of this subject. Simple algebra. Combining this with experimental data, such as an observed and predicted constant speed of light (refer to some of maxwells equasions) leads to a logical breakdown.

This logical breakdown is where the ideas of Einstien and others were used to ACCURATELY remedy the contradictory data. Time dilation, length contraction ect. Just because you cannot see it, does not mean it is impossible. Just because your not even educated, or intelligent enough to realise why these theories exist, does not mean they are wrong.

Seriously, there is room for debate on this subject. You unfortuneatly are not at a level yet to do so. You clearly don't see the contradictions between reality and math when taken into context with a constant speed of light.

Suggestions:

Brush up on your basic algebra.
Learn basic newtonian physics.
Learn some of Maxwells equasions on light, particularly his Electrodynamic Theories.
Learn about particle accelerators, E=MC^2, and the fact that light is bent by gravity.

If you take the time to do this, you will see the contradictions, and you will understand where the base of this argument lies.

Its not time dilation, but rather a constant speed of light. Something you failed to do so in the first place.

mod edit: shortened quote

[edit on 10-1-2006 by sanctum]

posted on Jan, 10 2006 @ 10:08 AM
interesting

do you know why that the the clock in orbet was differ then the clock on earth. if that stallite were to go about 100mph plus that to how fast earth is spinning this is helpful. that satlaite is moving 100mph faster then earth. you see when you are driving in a car going 100mph then you fire a bullet that travils 50mph but you are going 100mph that bullet will actuly be traviling 150mph. fasinating. though that how we can travil far distances in space.

posted on Jan, 10 2006 @ 10:14 AM

Originally posted by the news paper man
interesting

do you know why that the the clock in orbet was differ then the clock on earth. if that stallite were to go about 100mph plus that to how fast earth is spinning this is helpful. that satlaite is moving 100mph faster then earth. you see when you are driving in a car going 100mph then you fire a bullet that travils 50mph but you are going 100mph that bullet will actuly be traviling 150mph. fasinating. though that how we can travil far distances in space.

Actually I do know why the clock in orbit was different than the one on earth. And, the fact that you bring that example up actually supports relative time dilation! Why in the world would you use A SUCCESSFUL EXPERIMENT USED TO SUPPORT TIME DILATION as an example??????

Now, you are hitting on the heart of this issue without even knowing it. Here is your quiz ok?

1) If a platform on wheels is traveling at 100 mph, and there is a man on it, how fast will an observer see the man moving provided he is stationary on the platform?

2) If that man on the platform, then throws a ball at 50 mph, how fast will an observer see that ball moving?

3) How fast will the man on the cart see that ball moving?

posted on Jan, 10 2006 @ 10:21 AM
I wish you people would try to get the venacular right.
It's not "Crock of Crap it's "a Load of Crap" [snip]
which is what I think we have here!

*[mod edit] Please don't use profanity or use asterisks to block out portions of profane words.
*

[edit on 10-1-2006 by dbates]

posted on Jan, 10 2006 @ 10:34 AM
1 the man observer will be thinking he is going 90 since he is higher to the gound then the platform

2 the ball will be traviling 150mph off the cart because it is keeping his volosity from the cart

3 the ball to the man on cart will be looking like it is going slow but still faster then him at the same time.

i do know what im talking about and i have done study on this but since none of us have traviled that fast we cant say that it will and we cant say that it wont im just suggesting that 65% will not change time.

i also thought what else could have done it to that clock. the one in the satlite to move those speed had to hit a prety desent Gforce and that what could hav corupped the clock or by the means of Gforces stoping could have done it also. Gforece is something that is very compilacated. like you are going 100mph then you sudenly stop to 0mph you will feel those G's but in your going 100mph and slow down till 90mph you dont feel much do you.

hear are some questions for you.

1 if that man on the cart throw the ball behind him how fast will the ball looking like it is going to the man.

2 which hall was looks longer if you were looking strait though each one

| A | | B |
| | | |
| | | |

posted on Jan, 10 2006 @ 10:35 AM
never mind with the 2nd question it didnt work out

posted on Jan, 10 2006 @ 10:42 AM
Ok, I don't know what you are talking about in regards to the hall, so for now I will disregard it.

Lesson 1:

If a man is on a cart travelling at 100 mph, an observer would see the man travelling at 100mph.

If a man is travelling on a cart moving 100 mph, and throws a ball forward at 50 mph, an observer would see the ball moving at 150 mph in the direction the cart is moving. However, the man on the cart will see the ball travel away from him at 50 mph.

In the same scenerio, if the man throws a ball BACKWARDS as you asked (opposite direction of the cart) at 50 mph, an observer would see the ball moving IN THE DIRECTION OF THE CART at 50 mph. However, the travellor on the cart would still see the ball moving at 50 mph away from him, in the opposite direction of the cart.

posted on Jan, 10 2006 @ 10:56 AM
Unfortunately, you're consfusing some things about relative speeds.

For example, on earth we have particle accelerators that smash particles together. They send one particle going one way at nearly the speed of light, and another particle the other way at nearly the speed of light. When the two hit each other, it's at a speed of nearly TWICE the speed of light. This is a combination of forces.

However, we say nearly twice as in, if we were standing on one particle, and it appeared to be still, then the other particle would appear to be travelling twice the speed of light. However, it is not. That is only in relation to where we are standing.

Now, if you can throw a punch at 50mph, and you're standing on a bus going 50mph, then your punch is going 100mph. However, as you start to approach the universal speed limit of 55 million mph, you will find that you can't punch your way past the universal speed limit. More or less, I'm saying 1+1 on this scale does NOT equal 2.

Let's slow down the speed of light. Let's say that light only travelled 2 metres per second in our universe. If you walk a 1m/s, that's all fine and dandy. Let's also say that you were on a conveyor belt that moved 1m/s. If you were on a conveyor belt and were walking in the direction it's moving, you wouldn't quite be walking at 2m/s. Instead, as you began to walk, the universe around you would seem to slow down. You would feel like you are still walking at 1m/s, but since time for everyone but you is slowed down, your second goes by nearly, but not quite, twice as fast as everyone else's. Other people watching you will see you going nearly 2m/s, but not quite.

Now, as for G-forces on the clocks. Since they were made to go into orbit and perform this test, I can only assume that they specifically built it to withstand those G-forces, or based it on a type of clock (not a normal mechanical clock obviously) that wouldn't be affected by such things. Besides, the G-forces would only matter while it's accelerating into orbit. Once in orbit, without things like air resistance to worry about, the clock would feel like it is stationary.

As for the questions from Sight2Reality, here's the answers you should be looking for:

1. If a man on a cart is moving at 100mph, an outside observer will see him moving at 100mph. A man on the cart would see the other man on the cart not moving at all.

2. If the outside observer throws a ball at 50mph in the same direction, the men on the cart will see the ball moving 50mph in the opposite direction of them (and would see the man moving away from them at 100mph, coincidentally).

3. If the men on the cart then throw a ball ahead of them at 50mph, they will see it moving at 50mph, but the outside observer will see it moving at 150mph.

posted on Jan, 10 2006 @ 02:52 PM
What if this guy on the cart carried a small burlap sack of dark matter with him,
what would his speed be then?
If the ball was made of Tachyons, who would be able to catch said ball?

Einstien never owned a cart.

posted on Jan, 10 2006 @ 02:56 PM

Originally posted by IronMan
What if this guy on the cart carried a small burlap sack of dark matter with him,
what would his speed be then?
If the ball was made of Tachyons, who would be able to catch said ball?

Einstien never owned a cart.

Tachyons are a completely speculative and hypothetical partical. A partical that by its very nature could NEVER be observed! (It never travels slower than light) So who cares.

Dark matter....we have no idea of what it could be, nor do we know what effects it could have. To be totally honest, it is not a 100% certainty that it exists! So, who cares.

And, Ill change the cart to a locomotive.....

[edit on 10-1-2006 by Sight2reality]

posted on Jan, 10 2006 @ 03:12 PM

Originally posted by Sight2reality

Originally posted by IronMan
What if this guy on the cart carried a small burlap sack of dark matter with him,
what would his speed be then?
If the ball was made of Tachyons, who would be able to catch said ball?

Einstien never owned a cart.

Tachyons are a completely speculative and hypothetical partical. A partical that by its very nature could NEVER be observed! (It never travels slower than light) So who cares.

Dark matter....we have no idea of what it could be, nor do we know what effects it could have. To be totally honest, it is not a 100% certainty that it exists! So, who cares.

And, Ill change the cart to a locomotive.....

[edit on 10-1-2006 by Sight2reality]

Aaahh.... I see, or maybe I wouldn't see if I travelled at the speed of light.
I thought tachyons can actually travel slower than normal time (as we know it)?
I also heard that scientists 'catch' a particle of dark matter when it strikes an hyrdogen
particle in a mine in England somewhere. Apparently this happens once a week.

Einstien never held a train pass or a 'Casey Jones' hat.

posted on Jan, 10 2006 @ 04:43 PM
My lord, more people that seem to think Dark Matter is some hyper-cool ultra-strange substance.

Dark Matter is normal matter. Planets are considered Dark Matter. They are considered such because they do not give off light, and hence are "dark". Stars are not Dark Matter because they can be observed. The only way to tell if there's a planet in a solar system that we can only see the star of is to measure the gravitational influence of said planet on the star. The planet is still dark, but we can have hints that it's there and what it's like. These things, like Nebulae, Black Holes, Space Dust, etc, are known as MACHOs (Massive Astrophysical Compact Halo Objects).

Dark Matter can also be anything else that does not give off light. Neutrinos are WIMPs (Weakly Interacting Massive Particles), since they have mass, but do not normally interact with matter, and so are also very hard to detect and study.

So, before you start slinging mud-balls of Dark Matter, remember that Dark Matter is simply a catch-all phrase, not a specifc.

posted on Jan, 10 2006 @ 06:54 PM
Oh well, sorry about the dark matter 'thing'.
So all matter can be termed dark matter... I didn't know that.
Can dark matter be said to be anything that doesn't give off or reflect light?

posted on Jan, 10 2006 @ 07:01 PM
You're quite right there IronMan. If it doesn't give off any light of its own, it is considered "dark". Something which also does not reflect light would equally be considered dark.

Now, apply this to the idea of Dark Energy which has been thrown around the scientific community at large. It would be a type of energy that is not easily observable. In all truth, I think Dark Energy is a load of crock, but it has a number of devote believers, and so needs to be investigated.

posted on Jan, 10 2006 @ 07:12 PM

Originally posted by Yarium
In all truth, I think Dark Energy is a load of crock...

I just have a simple question... Why?

posted on Jan, 10 2006 @ 07:36 PM
Well, it really has to do with the idea of Vacuum Energy. Dark Energy may indeed exist - but the current theory of Vacuum Energy (which would be a type of Dark Energy) sounds like a rather slap-shod theory for something which could be explained in other ways.

Basically, it says that empty space has an overall repulsive force that increases the further away two objects are. For normal areas it doesn't matter, since gravity overcomes the force. However, it's being used to explain the acceleration of universe's expansion. I think it's for other purposes (having to do with general relativity), and that the theory was just pulled out to try to explain some rather random things.

Zero-point energy has been used to try to explain it, but zero-point energy applies to the atomic realm, and likely has no affect on the macroscopic world.

posted on Jan, 11 2006 @ 01:28 PM
I know that this may not any connection to light speed, but I heard that
90% of the universe may be made of dark matter, so would this have any
connection in the dark/light queries?

posted on Jan, 11 2006 @ 02:39 PM
That number is pretty large, probably more like 85% of the universe is likely some kind of dark matter. Like I said though, there's a LOT of things that could be classified as Dark Matter. This is why it likely holds true.

For example, Super-Massive Black Holes. They often have masses in the millions of solar masses (about a million of our suns would be needed to make a Black Hole of their size). That's a lot of Dark Matter right there.

Then there's the space dust, hydrogen, helium, and nebulae that are the birthing places of stars. Considering that stars are still being born all the time, it's safe to assume that there's still a LOT of this material floating around.

And then you have planets, and solar "left-overs" which, while not as masive, do contribute. The amount of left-overs around a star is probably only 1 hundredth of the material inside a star. I mean, look at our sun. We have 8 planets (I'm not counting Pluto as a planet, nor Sedna), asteroids, the Kupier Belt, and the Oort cloud. The amount of matter just floating around is pretty big.

Finally, we have the WIMPs - which could actually be considered a big deal - considering that all stars (and perhaps Black Holes in the form of Hawking Radiation) throw them off, and they have mass - abliet only the tiniest amount imaginable.

So, that's probably why 85-90% of the universe is Dark Matter. Now, if Dark Energy existed, well then part of that would go towards counting towards "missing mass". You see, we measure an area's energy - which we use to get it's mass. If Dark Energy indeed exists (which, as stated, I don't believe so) it would account for an amount of missing energy, which would account for missing Dark Matter, which accounts for missing mass.

Neat, huh?

new topics

top topics

1