It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Speed is controlled by resistance. Be that friction (physical resistance) or whatever. Without friction, travel would be instantaneous. We are only just beginning to understand smaller and smaller elements. If memory serves me correct, have we not found that there are particles smaller than protons and neutrons? I'm sure there must be something smaller than that.
The speed of light is measurable, hence we have a speed given. Therefore, there must be some kind of resistance holding it back. As show in earlier posts by the fact that light travels faster in a vacuum. There must be things that we cannot yet detect that are providing resistance to the light. There's all kinds of interesting and wonderful things that we have not yet discovered.
But take throwing a ball off the front of a train for an example. Throw the ball as hard as you can. If the resistance caused by the wind is large enough, then that ball may move forward momentarily before being thrown back. If your hand didn't move (and presuming you were strong enough), then it would be like the ball didn't even move. For it to have moved away from your hand, you must have provided a force stronger than the resistance (the wind), which was worn down and then reversed by the opposite force (the wind).
At the present moment, using current technologies, we have no way to control the speed of light. Hence if you were travelling at light speed, your flashlight would produce only enough power to travel at the speed of light, and be unable to overcome the resistance. It would stay in the flashlight, much like the ball stays in the hand.
Now, if you were travelling at the speed of light in an enclosed ship... the flashlight WOULD shine, as the speed of light would be relevant to the speed of the interior, which is stationary (as a whole). But the light would not be able to escape the 'ship'.
On another note. Travelling at the speed of light must create some kind of truer vacuum through those resisting unknown particles (just like the vacuum created behind a car travelling at high speed)... so with that gap, it may be theoretically possible for the light to travel faster than the known speed of light if shining backwards, or if you had a ship following that ship, drafting in that (what I will call for namessake only) true-vacuum. Much like an F1 car will draft behing the other car to get an advantage.
Originally posted by x08
I didn't say that light is necessarily resisted by friction, as I said... there's many unknowns still in the universe.. but the fact that the speed is limited shows that there is some kind of resistance. Aircraft can travel at constant speeds, despite the resistance offered by wind.
As for your counter argument. That's the observation of speed, not the actuality of speed. What you're talking about is the perception offered by distance. Your actual speed is still the same, regardless of distance.
Another example. Take two cars... Have the first car travel at 200kph, pushing the 2nd. Then the front car adds power. If that car adds the power to run at 200, then it will still remain stationary in relation to the pushing car, as until it passes 200 it will not be travelling any faster. It's kinda like pedalling on your bicycle while you're being pulled along by a car you hitched a ride on.. useless
Are you telling me that he wouldn't know he was travelling at light speed? Sure. If he was completely unable to see outside his cocoon... Travelling in a car, with windows, when you're travelling at 200kph... you know it. Sure, you won't know your exact speed without a speedo, but you can see from the environment around you that you are moving very fast.
Speed is NOT relative. I believe that's a misconception. Sure, travelling here will be 100kph, but to the sun - it will seem like we're going at 1kph... If you truly want to measure speed, you need to know how far from you the object being measured is.
Get someone to walk 1km distance parallel to you. Time them. Measure them. Now send them 2km away from you and tell them to walk 1km at the same speed. They will actually seem to be going slower.
From close up, 1km will be like:
While far away, 1km will look like:
So, in observation, they are taking the same amount of time to pass a shorter distance.
You're speed is not relative to the sun in a way that makes it faster. That is just the angle of viewing. The only way that it would seem faster is if the observer on the sun thought you were some kind of ant-man hybrid that was right next to him.
Originally posted by x08
... I understand the whole Andromeda thing... but by your words, the Andromeda Galaxy is moving towards us at 300kps... did you stop to think the opposite? perhaps it is US moving toward the Andromeda Galaxy, and that the AG is, in fact, inert? The theory seems fine on the outside, but it shows that you are being biased and using the Milky Way as your point of reference.f
The only way that it could be truly right is if we were travelling ona tangent. Andromeda heading towards us at 300kps, and us moving slightly away. Presuming this, is the 300kps taking into account our own movement (ie. It's actually 400kps, but we're moving away from Andromeda at 100kps)?
What is speed? Look at it mathematically... Speed = Distance / Time.
Whether you're on Earth, Andromeda or wherever - 1 light year is still 1 light year. The distance doesn't change, regardless of your point of view.. it's only your perception of the distance. Nor will the time change. A year is a year (using the Earth as a timeframe - if aliens we're observing us, then sure.. they would measure time differently)
At the moment, without knowledge (public) of alien races, and the whole human race accepting our time measurements... then it's acceptable to say that 1 year is 1 year.
So, when travelling at light speed, 1 light year and then back, I will officially have travelled 2 light years, and hence 2 years of Earth time.
The link you gave me has nothing to do with the argument of how to get to light speed. You have changed the basis of resistance to that of time dilation. Time dilation is an effect of time on the travelling object. Nothing to do with GETTING to light speed. Though admittedly you have me thinking further about the light inside a light topic and in what way would exiting the contained environment (which is travelling at c) be affected by time dilation. Would it's velocity adapt to the new (faster) time frame, and slow down the light? Or would it continue at the original velocity (self + environment) on your basis of relativity. If it continued, then it would shine. If it returned back to the 'normal' time frame, then no it would not.
Back to the OT.. can you explain to me then why light is not faster than it is? With no kind of resistance, it would continue accelerating, right? As I said before, a car can keep producing a constant amount of energy and run at a constant speed. So why not light? You say light does not lose any energy, so there must be no resistance. But what if light IS losing energy, but also creating it at the same time?
Light is electromagnetic radiation, correct? ER is self-propogating. Propogation is affected by the density of the material through which it is propogating. Sound waves are a great example here. The denser the object, the faster the propogation. Light is not the same, through a denser material such as glass, the speed of light is less than that of in a vacuum. This shows that light is affect by density. So if there were less density than the vacuum, then it should travel faster. If a tachyon is able to travel faster than this, it must be able to displace some of the density limiting the speed of light. Also, self-propogation creates (or moves?) energy, and hence why light has energy to travel at a consistent speed.
On another note, I thought tachyon's were real... a little homework has shown me now that they are only hypothetical that kind of throws my whole theory off
Originally posted by x08
Yes, I've read through all those wiki articles.... some of it I can understand, but when it starts going into formulas, it starts confusing me~
My personal belief:
A quick bit of research about geosynchronus (sp) orbit made me come across this Sidereal Day thing. It's the length of time the earth takes to spin on it's axis. 23h 56m 4s. This is slightly less than the standard day, as our rotation around the sun offests the location of the sun in relation to the spin.
That would still indicate a need in time adjustment to accord with the solar time Vs. the sidereal time.
Time itself though, has not moved any differently.
In this case, I do wish to ask a question. When we say a planet's day is x number of Earth days. Are we using sidereal or solar as a reference? And are we referring to the other planets sidereal or solar?
Time dilation occurs to an object travelling at the speed of light. But this occurs inside the object. From the outside, it is still travelling at the speed of light.
The ultimate question that I am trying to solve is WHY can't light go faster? If it's taking a better path through a vacuum than through glass.. WHY can't it take an even better one if a Tachyon can?
Originally posted by cdrn
No matter how much energy you put in, it's impossible to go faster than the speed of light. Merely reaching the speed of light would require an infinite amount of energy and is thus impossible too.