It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by ALOSTSOUL
Wow very intresting. They say the objects moving four times the speed of light..............I thought nothing could travel faster than the speed of light
How many light years away is galaxy M82?
And in which direction is the object moving?
Peace.
Originally posted by ALOSTSOUL
Wow very intresting. They say the objects moving four times the speed of light..............I thought nothing could travel faster than the speed of light
How many light years away is galaxy M82?
And in which direction is the object moving?
Peace.
Originally posted by pondrthis
2) As for the timeline, assuming this object is actually superluminal (which is doubtful), 12 million years ago, an object was traveling faster than the speed of light. For all we know, it arrived at Earth nine million years ago then went on its merry way. Of course, the more likely scenario is that it fluttered out into space emitting radio waves all the while and eventually slowed down or went silent.
[edit on 14-4-2010 by pondrthis]
Originally posted by wonderinghows
I thought I remembered that Hawking radiation could escape blackhole, if that is true then they go faster then the speed of light, right?
Originally posted by whatsup
I think that both the poster who said something can travel faster than light due to relative speeds, and the one who said that something can travel faster that light, but just not "accelerate" faster are both incorrect. In the first case, C is constant regardless of relative motion, and in the second case, C is the speed limit (not the accelaration limit). No?
[edit on 14-4-2010 by whatsup]
Originally posted by pondrthis
1) Someone just made an argument that "to speed up mass to the speed of light requires an infinite amount of energy". That supports c being a limit of accelerating mass, not speed. If something is going at 4c, it doesn't take ANY energy to keep going at 4c, assuming it's traveling in a drag-less environment... but something going at 0.9c can't reach c because it would take infinite energy.
Originally posted by whatsup
I think that both the poster who said something can travel faster than light due to relative speeds, and the one who said that something can travel faster that light, but just not "accelerate" faster are both incorrect. In the first case, C is constant regardless of relative motion, and in the second case, C is the speed limit (not the accelaration limit). No?
[edit on 14-4-2010 by whatsup]