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.

# Someone please tell me why traveling faster then the speed of light isnt possible in this scenerio..

page: 1
2
share:

posted on Sep, 7 2011 @ 09:28 PM
Well not claiming to be making some new theory or anything, just kinda got to thinking about it....But say nothing can travel faster then the speed of light....as velocity increases so does mass right?

The Hadron collider propells protons to 99.99% the speed of light....Well what would happen if the collider itself could rotate....so the protons inside the collider went 99.99% of the speed of light and the entire collider itself rotate at say 0.02% the speed of light....Would the protons inside the collider be traveling faster then the speed of light relative to us?

And at that rate I dont see how the rotation of the collider would even have an effect on the protons inside...bypassing the whole "as velocity increase so does mass" Law.

I mean say the collider was built in space and rotated in orbit like the space station from 2001...LOL...Seems it could be possible in theory at least????

posted on Sep, 7 2011 @ 09:31 PM
They can't travel faster than light through science, this was done by giving us science and this material world.

Their game is over,

www.abovetopsecret.com...

posted on Sep, 7 2011 @ 09:45 PM

Originally posted by KINGKONG

Well not claiming to be making some new theory or anything, just kinda got to thinking about it....But say nothing can travel faster then the speed of light....as velocity increases so does mass right?

The Hadron collider propells protons to 99.99% the speed of light....Well what would happen if the collider itself could rotate....so the protons inside the collider went 99.99% of the speed of light and the entire collider itself rotate at say 0.02% the speed of light....Would the protons inside the collider be traveling faster then the speed of light relative to us?

And at that rate I dont see how the rotation of the collider would even have an effect on the protons inside...bypassing the whole "as velocity increase so does mass" Law.

I mean say the collider was built in space and rotated in orbit like the space station from 2001...LOL...Seems it could be possible in theory at least????

Imagine that you are standing in the bow of a spaceship that it traveling at 99% of the speed of light, and you are holding a flashlight. Now when you switch on the flashlight it would seem to me that the light from the flashlight would be traveling at 199% light speed, being that it is already moving when it is switched on (of course this speed would be clocked by a stationary observer.)

But it doesn't.

I'm glad the right side of my brain functions adequately enough to make a living, cause this left-side stuff makes my head hurt.

posted on Sep, 7 2011 @ 09:49 PM

Im not sure but I'm pretty sure it's like driving 100mph in a bus. I then throw a baseball 50 mph from the back of the bus to the front. It would read 150mph from outside of the bus, but relative to the bus, is only going 50mph.
edit on 7-9-2011 by drfresh because: ^^^^^^ my bad.

posted on Sep, 7 2011 @ 09:52 PM

Originally posted by KINGKONG

Well not claiming to be making some new theory or anything, just kinda got to thinking about it....But say nothing can travel faster then the speed of light....as velocity increases so does mass right?

The Hadron collider propells protons to 99.99% the speed of light....Well what would happen if the collider itself could rotate....so the protons inside the collider went 99.99% of the speed of light and the entire collider itself rotate at say 0.02% the speed of light....Would the protons inside the collider be traveling faster then the speed of light relative to us?

And at that rate I dont see how the rotation of the collider would even have an effect on the protons inside...bypassing the whole "as velocity increase so does mass" Law.

I mean say the collider was built in space and rotated in orbit like the space station from 2001...LOL...Seems it could be possible in theory at least????

from my physics 101 understanding

well, adding two velocities together like above is newtonian. At high speed near the speed of light , you have to use add using relativistic velocity..

(v+v)/1+vv/c^2

ohhhh i am so smart i remmeber!!!!!

anyhow, i think one of the rule is when you are light speed, where you observe at rest or observe on a spaceship going 90 percent at speed of light, light will still be observed traveling at c.

I bet there are something that can go faster than the speed of light. we prolly just can't find it

posted on Sep, 7 2011 @ 10:07 PM
PEOPLE.

We don't have 1% of the answers to how this reality works.

We know very little about the world around us, how can we make definite statements like this when we don't know the whole ?

It'd be like saying, its a FACT the Earth is flat, when you haven't even seen the earth from space.

SO OP, i agree with you, it's foolish to think that anything we think we know is true.

posted on Sep, 7 2011 @ 10:09 PM
I'm not sure about this but what about the electron's quantum leap. It seems that I remember that the electron moves from one orbit(?) to another faster than the speed of light. I could be wrong, but that's what I remember. The way it's explained is that it simply ceases to exist at one orbit(?) and begins to exist at the other without actually moving. Because of this explanation, maybe they don't consider it traveling at all...

posted on Sep, 7 2011 @ 10:10 PM

Originally posted by OldCorp

Originally posted by KINGKONG

Well not claiming to be making some new theory or anything, just kinda got to thinking about it....But say nothing can travel faster then the speed of light....as velocity increases so does mass right?

The Hadron collider propells protons to 99.99% the speed of light....Well what would happen if the collider itself could rotate....so the protons inside the collider went 99.99% of the speed of light and the entire collider itself rotate at say 0.02% the speed of light....Would the protons inside the collider be traveling faster then the speed of light relative to us?

And at that rate I dont see how the rotation of the collider would even have an effect on the protons inside...bypassing the whole "as velocity increase so does mass" Law.

I mean say the collider was built in space and rotated in orbit like the space station from 2001...LOL...Seems it could be possible in theory at least????

Imagine that you are standing in the bow of a spaceship that it traveling at 99% of the speed of light, and you are holding a flashlight. Now when you switch on the flashlight it would seem to me that the light from the flashlight would be traveling at 199% light speed, being that it is already moving when it is switched on (of course this speed would be clocked by a stationary observer.)

But it doesn't.

I'm glad the right side of my brain functions adequately enough to make a living, cause this left-side stuff makes my head hurt.

What a thing to ponder though!

creative mind you have!

posted on Sep, 7 2011 @ 10:26 PM
i would ask the question what would happen if the orbits of planets around stars were calculated with the force of gravity at the speed of light?

because if gravity didnt work at near instant speeds the planets would not be orbiting where they are.

so if gravity is almost instant as a force why can nothing go faster than C again?

the other point is some signals in wire can under the right conditions be seen to exceed the speed of light

xploder

posted on Sep, 7 2011 @ 10:36 PM
Don't forget that the earth is already in motion, spinning at over a thousand miles per hour, while it orbits the sun at around 67,000 mph. The sun is moving in the milky way at approximately 490,000 mph, and the milky way is moving through this cluster of galaxies at approximately 2,227,000 mph.

The speed of light is is approximately 670,616,629 mph.

I am no expert but I've made the same mistake you are. Remember, velocity equals distance divided by time.

Except that time is not a constant. I know that sound's hard to accept but look into how GPS works and some other stuff we have in space. Computer programs had to be created to compensate for the time differential. Clocks deeper down in earths gravitational field move slower than the identical clocks in space. And the lower the gravitational potential the greater the differential in the speed of time.

So velocity itself is variable by that definition. It would mean that the distance traveled by light is constant but the time it takes to travel that distance can vary based upon the gravitational potential of the medium that it's traveling through.

starryskies.com...

posted on Sep, 7 2011 @ 11:25 PM

I bet there are something that can go faster than the speed of light. we prolly just can't find it

Thoughts... or rather the neural activity that produces them. That's what I think.
Oh, and reflexes. Think about your eye blinking as a reflex to protect itself. Think about how fast it blinks, then back up and consider all of the firing of neurons that had to take place in order for the blink to take place. (Sensory perception detecting something, visual cortex processing/assessing the info, then signaling the eye muscles to contract...) All of this happens so instantaneously, before we are even aware of a blinkable moment.

I also just thought that brain activity could very well speed up in times of imminent danger. (Because of the apparent time dilation, when the physical world seems to go in slow motion.) If you've ever been in a car accident, you know what I'm saying! Maybe time slows down relative to an increase in brain processing speed.

The brain is the most amazing thing I can think of. If anything can beat light, it's gotta be brain power!
Unfortunately, we are like infants in terms of our understanding of it.

posted on Sep, 8 2011 @ 12:29 AM

Originally posted by dannotz
PEOPLE.

We don't have 1% of the answers to how this reality works.

We know very little about the world around us, how can we make definite statements like this when we don't know the whole ?

It'd be like saying, its a FACT the Earth is flat, when you haven't even seen the earth from space.

SO OP, i agree with you, it's foolish to think that anything we think we know is true.

earth is definitly flat by observing sea and watching planes fly across the horizon.

posted on Sep, 8 2011 @ 02:35 AM
My understanding may be incomplete, but here is how I understand it.

The motion of all sub light particles is actually the energy of the particle being distributed between space and time as 2 dimensions instead of one linear dimension (The singular dimension of space being a compression of its total 3 in this case being compressed to 1 for simplicity.).

All particles with mass have the same energy in total, but a different balance between the two dimensions. The more you add in one the less you get in the other, so say you push the "speed" past the speed of light in space, as a cost you decrease the speed in time, so in total you never break the balance.

So, say 100 is the speed of light, but between both dimensions you have 100 space/ 100 time for the speed of light. So an object at 99% the speed of light so at speed 99, is 99 space / 101 time, so say you push it past 99 to 101, you then get 101 space / 99 time. "/" is not division I am just using it as a balance marker.

Basically at 99 speed you are going 99 units of space per 1 divided by 101 units of time, so at 101 units of speed you are going 101 units of space per 1 divided by 99 units of time; basically the more you have in distance covered in space, it costs more units in time.

This is a ridiculously simplified way of looking at it and is not mathematically factual/accurate, but hopefully it gets the idea, if you want to look at the real math look at this link math.ucr.edu...

posted on Sep, 8 2011 @ 02:40 AM

Originally posted by dannotz
PEOPLE.

We don't have 1% of the answers to how this reality works.

We know very little about the world around us, how can we make definite statements like this when we don't know the whole ?

It'd be like saying, its a FACT the Earth is flat, when you haven't even seen the earth from space.

SO OP, i agree with you, it's foolish to think that anything we think we know is true.

The OP's question is straight forward. The answers given in this thread are backed up by TONS of observational evidence and applied technologies. If these answers were wrong, then GPS wouldn't work, computers wouldn't work, etc.

In-other-words, this isn't imaginary fantasies, this is scientific fact.

posted on Sep, 8 2011 @ 03:05 AM
Urg.......

This is a reply to my own post... I am way to tired to do this properly....

To note the super simplified math used in my last post end up giving a weird relation when considering it does not count in the exponential effect in this... but if you really want to look at the math look at the link I posted. It was only intended to present the idea that the the more you put into one the less you get in the other.

But, some notes on this effect:

1. It seems to only effect things with mass.

2. Some possibly even Einstein at one point (I forget), considered this effect to also apply to information, but from what I understand this isn't the view anymore.

3. I believe certain mass less particles can go faster.

4. I also read an article on slashdot.org years ago about a guy who did supposedly manage to send information faster then light by doing some weird cheat with radio waves.

5. Note that this is from "special" relativity and not "general" relativity. As far as I understand special relativity was just math for considering "what if?" scenarios that may not be real. General relativity was the equations for the applications of real world observed phenomena particularly to do with gravity and space-time.

I am hardly an expert on this stuff and have been out of the game for too long... I plan on going to engineering physics in a year or two, and I will be taking all the quantum mechanics and general relativity courses I can. If I still am a member of ATS in about 4 - 5 years from now when I am done those courses I plan to write out a full layman guide to this stuff.

Also, as far as I know the theory of general relativity is actually incomplete. Einstein's equations explain the effect or mathematically isolate the effect, and the solutions made by others later vary and are still under debate in the field. One of the most important solutions sets were by Swartschild, but they were approximations and since he was writing them on the battle field in war, he actually died before making the full/complete set. I forget whose they use now, but I read that the problem with later solutions is that they don't account for gravities torque forces. Swartchild's did, but they predicted things like black holes and what not which were not observed at the time and thought impossible so they were disregarded.

I tried googling adding velocities in general relativity, I only the the special relativity ones. So, I am wondering if there is a set for general relativity or not, it seems they only cover gravity and not kinetics.

I have a book laying around on general relativity I took one look at the math and my brain died (I am usually pretty solid with math, but this stuff is on a league or two hire then what I know.). This also might be a reason why we can't find layman write ups on general relativity is that there is no way to simplify that math.

I know some one actually more knowledgeable in physics my come on here and point out how broken and off my explanations may be, but please don't hurt me, I just tried and like I said I have been out of the game too long.
edit on 8-9-2011 by halfmask because: (no reason given)

posted on Sep, 8 2011 @ 03:36 AM

Originally posted by OldCorp
Imagine that you are standing in the bow of a spaceship that it traveling at 99% of the speed of light, and you are holding a flashlight. Now when you switch on the flashlight it would seem to me that the light from the flashlight would be traveling at 199% light speed, being that it is already moving when it is switched on (of course this speed would be clocked by a stationary observer.)

Relativity doesn't allow adding velocities like the OP is trying to do. 98% of the speed of light plus 98% of the speed of light does not equal 196% of the speed of light, it doesn't work that way.

To non-physicists, relativity is not intuitive, so you can't use your intuition or simple math, you must use relativistic math and throw your intuition out the window.

Part of the answer lies in the fact that motion is measured relative to different reference frames, so rotating the accelerator DOES have an effect on the protons (relative to Earth), contrary to the OP assumption it doesn't. Velocity is distance per unit time, and time is not the same in different reference frames traveling at different velocities. By rotating the accelerator, you have slowed down time inside the accelerator, which affects your velocity measurements. The protons which travel even faster have a much greater time dilation.
edit on 8-9-2011 by Arbitrageur because: clarification

posted on Sep, 8 2011 @ 03:41 AM
My last posts don't really explain what is observed by the stationary observer; So, here this goes. So, you are going on a space ship at 99% the speed of light and you turn on the flash-light, from what I understand the light from the flash-light would go 100% not 199%, anything with mass, the faster you go the cost to make it go faster exponentially increases, to get anything with mass (Note that photons as in light do have mass, a very very very small amount.) to go faster then 100% the speed of light takes infinite energy, so when you turn your flash-light on while in the space ship, simply the flash light battery does not have enough energy to make the photons emitted by it to go faster then light.

To the observer on the ground from what I understand the light from the flash-light is at 100% and the space ship is squished and going 99% and the space ship they see is not the current space ship, but is the past space ship, and the light is current; So, the light seems to be gaining the speed of 1% the speed of light to the past space ship which is going 99% the speed of light.

To the space ship and the guy on the space ship, they are going 0% the speed of light and the light is gaining the speed of 100% of the speed of light on them, basically they to the light are in slow motion because they are going very slow in time, and the light to them is going in fast motion because it is traveling through time faster.

So, at first you go WTF? But what most people don't get and over look is this is happening always though more then one dimension its 3 - 1, not 1, our natural instinct is to just consider 1, but 1 is not reality, its at least 4 to Newtonian and special relativity, and to general I think its 8... not sure.

Basically you are looking at 2 dimensions that seem to look like 1; So, if you can picture the 2nd one on top of what you are looking at and use a line for one, a line for that other, and a third for the difference to make a triangle and you view these events in your mind from the space ships and space ships occupants point of view, to the lights point of view, and to the stationary observers point of view; it actually makes sense and is really apparent.

One assumption people also over look is that the space ship the stationary observer sees is the past back in time, not the current space ship on the space time slab/fold.

If you grab some graph paper and have one axis time and the other space, and you put 10 units in each, and draw a triangle, then over top in another color do one triangle with 8 in time and 12 in space, and then a third color 12 in time and 10 in space, and look at all these triangles and you look straight down the space axis and treat the time axis as the one you don't apparently see when looking at reality, and you look at the 3 different triangles, this effect is really clear and understandable.

edit on 8-9-2011 by halfmask because: (no reason given)

edit on 8-9-2011 by halfmask because: (no reason given)

edit on 8-9-2011 by halfmask because: (no reason given)

posted on Sep, 8 2011 @ 05:00 AM
The reason the particle in the LHC or the light beam in the space ship can't go faster than the speed of light is time dilation. The passage of time changes depending on velocity, and from being near large gravitational fields. The speed of the particle in the LHC equals the distance it travels divided by the time it took. But a second for you is not the same as a second for the particle. I don't really think I'm explaining it well, but it's confusing stuff and it's getting pretty late lol.

posted on Sep, 8 2011 @ 09:51 AM
I understand it like this:

The faster an object goes, the slower time passes for the object in motion.

Speed is distance traveled divided by time passed.

When the object gets to the speed of light, it's own time passing compared to the space surrounding it gets to zero.

But you cannot divide any higher distance traveled by zero so nothing can go faster than the speed of light.

Anything which did go faster than light would have to travel time in the negative/opposite direction and would not be detectable to us at all.

It is not space or propulsion power that limits speed, it is time.

posted on Sep, 8 2011 @ 10:46 AM
Light could never travel faster then the speed of time itself.

The reason light contains a speed limit is because the dimension of time has bound it to this speed. Therefore it's no matter if you are moving the collider along with the particles, because the limit will still be in effect. Nothing can travel faster then time. If you were to reach close to the speed of time, your internal clock would slow down, and so would light in proportion to your present velocity.

edit on 8-9-2011 by libertytoall because: (no reason given)

2