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.

# Is Light faster in Light?

page: 1
0
share:

posted on Jul, 25 2006 @ 10:38 AM
A theory I have never heard before but would like to have more information on it. If someone ws traveling at the speed of light, and as of now it would not be possible but just saying, and was to turn on a flash light, wouldl that be faster the himself, or would both both himself and the light beam hit an object at the same time.

This is a question that bogles my mind to even think about, I know outside the box it might be posible, I do not just want a complete shoot down by a genious, but for someone to really think about the possibilities of this.

erratum

posted on Jul, 25 2006 @ 10:51 AM
This should help visualise it
imagine.gsfc.nasa.gov...

Essentially time will dilate to comepnsate for the light speed, to ensure that the speed of light measurements aren't broken

posted on Jul, 25 2006 @ 10:52 AM
Negative.

The speed of light is a universal constant, regardless of one's 'relative' velocity.

p.s. no replies about the speed of light in mediums other than a vacuum please--we all took 6th grade science.

posted on Jul, 25 2006 @ 12:26 PM
Actually yes. Light travels 299,792,458 metres per second (186,282.397 miles of the same time) in a vacuum. This means in water, air, or and other substance, it travels slower. So, in that case the light in the vacuum travels faster than that in anything but a vaccum. The reason for is resistance. Just as ohms resists the flow of electricity, there is such things for light. (i am pretty sure that this resistance is caused by friction)

[edit on 25/7/2006 by Firehawk]

posted on Jul, 25 2006 @ 02:28 PM
lol.

I digress....

(anyone else feel my pain?)

posted on Jul, 27 2006 @ 11:37 PM
Well, first off. If somebody were going the speed of light, they would die. There is no way that a human could even begin to take on the stress of that speed. We have trouble just dealing with 8G, which speed wise would be around 25K miles per hour. Think if you were to multiply that stress by almost 8x more. We train people years and years to be able to cope with 8G. Now, on the other hand, if someway we made it possibly, if we were going exactly the speed of light (sol), then according to Einstein, light would be static to us. We would be able to see behind us, and directly beside us, but not infront. It would look void to us. In some theories, there are particles that are fast than the sol called Tachyons. Here's a link to it.

en.wikipedia.org...

There are also some who believe that you could come very close to the sol if one were to hover right above the event horizon of a black hole, but that's an entire different topic.

posted on Jul, 28 2006 @ 08:48 AM

Originally posted by CalmStateOfMind
Well, first off. If somebody were going the speed of light, they would die. There is no way that a human could even begin to take on the stress of that speed. We have trouble just dealing with 8G, which speed wise would be around 25K miles per hour. Think if you were to multiply that stress by almost 8x more.

You have velocity and acceleration mixed up. Acceleration is the rate of change of velocity and 8G = 78.4 m per second per second.

If a body is travelling at a constant velocity the acceleration is 0G which is comfortable for most humans.

Also, light speed (c), in a vacuum, is approx. 3 x 10^8 metres per second or 186K miles per second not 200K mph, assuming that is why you mention the stress being 8x more.

posted on Jul, 28 2006 @ 11:04 AM

Originally posted by CalmStateOfMind
Well, first off. If somebody were going the speed of light, they would die. There is no way that a human could even begin to take on the stress of that speed. We have trouble just dealing with 8G, which speed wise would be around 25K miles per hour. Think if you were to multiply that stress by almost 8x more. We train people years and years to be able to cope with 8G. Now, on the other hand, if someway we made it possibly, if we were going exactly the speed of light (sol), then according to Einstein, light would be static to us. We would be able to see behind us, and directly beside us, but not infront. It would look void to us. In some theories, there are particles that are fast than the sol called Tachyons. Here's a link to it.

en.wikipedia.org...

There are also some who believe that you could come very close to the sol if one were to hover right above the event horizon of a black hole, but that's an entire different topic.

The original poster was aware that humans cannot attain the speed of light, it was merely a thought experiment. But yes, you are correct--for the wrong reason however.

As the above poster mentioned, it's not the speed that kills, it's the acceleration. So let us do another thought experiment: Say you leave earth on a spaceship accelerating at exactly 1G. Inside the ship, you would be very comfortable and wouldn't notice any difference from standing on the earth (and yes, G varies on earth slightly i'm well aware). After only a few years you would reach the speed of light (i.e. .99999999C)--and not even notice any difference from standing on earth.

So you see, the problem is not the acceleration, it is the energy. Same principle with riding your bike. It's very easy to get the thing going, but get up to top speed and it requires lots more energy to just keep the thing going than it did to build up that speed. You would have to have, quite literally, and infinite amount of energy in order to attain the speed of light--at any acceleration rate.

Though it is off course, there is no "above" or "below" an event horizon, and it is certainly not possible to "hover", not to mention the side effects the shreading of your body long before you reached that stage.

posted on Aug, 1 2006 @ 08:24 PM
I know this is probly going to sound stupid, becase im just a kid and all but, Say we were in the vast expanses of space, just floating there. The closest massial(i dont know if thats a word, meaning closest thing with mass) object is 100,000,000 light years away in any direction. Now if you had the ability to go from stand still, to light speed wouldnt you not feel any g force because there would be no (or at least bery minimal) gravity, am i right? so why wouldnt we be able to travel at the speed of light? Also, about using an infinite amount of energy to stay at the speed of light, again, there is no gravity, air resistance, or friction to deal with (again, maybee minute amounts but it still wouldnt effect it that much) If your in space, and throw a ball with a velocity of 10 M/s the ball remains at 10M/s until another force acts uppon it to slow/speed it up/down. now saying your far enough away where the forces are at levels so small (.00000000000000000001 % of normal just for example) and you threw the ball 10M/s it would continue going 10M/s for a long time, and slowing only slightly because the forces on it are so small. all im trying to say is that to have a G Force, you have to have a G to begin with.

any feedback would be greatly apreciated. This is just my highschool grad .02 cents worth.

-Binder

[edit on 1-8-2006 by caspiantiger]

posted on Aug, 4 2006 @ 03:31 AM
Don't worry caspiantiger - your post is not stupid. Everyone is allowed to ask questions.

The problem with such velocities is as previously pointed out, the energy required to accelerate to massive speeds. The human mind struggles to imagine just how fast 299,792,458 m/s is. Even travelling at that velocity, light takes 8 minutes to get from the sun to earth.

Even with the low 'resistance' of space, relativistic speeds are phenomenal. NASA's Pioneer space probes are now travelling equal to or less than about 1% of the speed of light - look how long it has taken them to reach the boundaries of our solar system.

The sound barrier (almost infinitely slower at around 340m/s) was breakable because its represents a velocity at which transmission of an impulse between particles occurs in the atmosphere (or underwater).

The light speed 'barrier' represents a fundamental constant of nature, (as we were taught in school, matter is related to energy by Einstein's famous equation E=mc^2). Therefore to actually go faster than light (conventionally speaking here, warp theorists take a powder) you need to break through a barrier which holds matter in the universe together.

To go from zero to c instantaneously (hypothetically) would render your mass infinite, your length zero and yeah.. apart from having a dope cruiser with the best acceleration on the market, you'd be a dead man

You also have a problem when travelling at relativistic speeds in space (< c) when encountering the myriad of dust particles out there (or anything bigger). Every impact at a massive velocity would be potentially lethal to any crew, or at least not too good for the hull integrity.

To use an analogy, Aussies don't hoon it down country roads at dusk. The reason? Hitting a big male kangaroo at 110km/h is not a good career move. Better to hit one at 80km/h, and just bend a fender.

posted on Aug, 4 2006 @ 06:00 AM
So if your traveling the same speed of light and turn on this flashlight, will the lightbeam just continue to grow brighter and brighter as the flashlight will generate more light ?

posted on Aug, 4 2006 @ 10:01 AM

Originally posted by SilverSurfer
So if your traveling the same speed of light and turn on this flashlight, will the lightbeam just continue to grow brighter and brighter as the flashlight will generate more light ?

No.

In this mind experiment, the light from the flashlight would travel at the speed of light--despite the fact that the person holding the flashlight is traveling at the speed of light.

example:
My Speed Flashlight light speed

standing C (3.0x10^8m/s; 286,282 miles/sec)
.5C C
.999999999C C

*The speed of light is completely independent of the relative speed of the person holding the flashlight.

Note: redshift and blueshift are relative to the far away observer

posted on Aug, 4 2006 @ 11:07 PM
My theory:

I think this is like "the fly in the car" but on a different level.

You are driving at 60mph, there is a fly flying around in your car, the fly is not flying 60mph, he is flying reletive to the entity which is in a different form of 'dimensions" as the local physics relates to the local reality.

If you shine a flashlight inside an entity flying at light speed, the entity is in an entirely different dimesion as far as it's reality of local phyisics is concerend, so, the light would act within this "dimension" perhaps with similar 3D physics - inside the entity which is traveling at light speed- as it would in a stand still dimension.

these principals and properties are reletive to frequency, and are subject to change if local realities are distorted by velocity or other forces.

posted on Aug, 9 2006 @ 11:30 AM
That is a good explanation, but I think for everyone to fully appreciate relativity and special relativity you must read about it yourself by someone much more quailified to explain the details than ATS members. There are numerous books out there on the topic of relativity that are geared toward people with little/no scientific training. If you think you have a lot of questions now, just wait until you start to understand it. I promise you will begin to feel the potential of your brain in trying to understand these counter-intuitive concepts.

...i'm not even going to mention quantum mechanics.

posted on Aug, 9 2006 @ 12:13 PM
Backtoreality:

You are absolutely right, the more you know - the more you realize you don't know! This is very intriguing topic matter. Feel free to delve into quantum mechanics, I have been researching the philosopy behind some of these concepts for sometime - I try to stay away from the math equations... but the philosophical concepts I seem to grasp quickly, and I frequently see them in my head better than these phd's who describe them in books and documentaries.

Thanks

posted on Aug, 9 2006 @ 12:38 PM
No object with mass can get to the speed of light, as mass increases as you approach it. The mass is given as being equal to the rest mass divided by the square root of 1 minus your velocity squared divided by the velocity of light squared. if your velocity was equal to that of light your mass would be infinite. I assume this would mean as you approached the speed of light you would collapse into a black hole as you become heavy enough.

Just to point out that it's impossible to reach the speed of light (if you have mass).

posted on Aug, 9 2006 @ 01:16 PM

Originally posted by apex
No object with mass can get to the speed of light, as mass increases as you approach it. The mass is given as being equal to the rest mass divided by the square root of 1 minus your velocity squared divided by the velocity of light squared. if your velocity was equal to that of light your mass would be infinite. I assume this would mean as you approached the speed of light you would collapse into a black hole as you become heavy enough.

Just to point out that it's impossible to reach the speed of light (if you have mass).

Thank you apex, but if you had read from the top of the page you would see that this point has already been addressed. We are simply using mind experiments to illustrate a point.

posted on Aug, 9 2006 @ 01:31 PM
In theory nothing travels faster than light, but does light travel faster than thought.

posted on Aug, 9 2006 @ 01:35 PM

Originally posted by skitzo
In theory nothing travels faster than light, but does light travel faster than thought.

Thought travels at the speed a light.
Thought--in it's simplest terms--is simply electronic impulses.

What is more interesting, is how that information travels within your brain. Try to remember this the next time something startles you. If you are observant, you will notice that your reaction preceeds actually hearing the sound.

posted on Aug, 9 2006 @ 02:25 PM
So if im setting here at this god awful thing i call a computer, and suddenly think of riding the great red spot on Jupiter, would i not be traveling back in time actually getting there before the light of Jupiter gets to me?

new topics

top topics

0