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: 3
2
share:

posted on Sep, 10 2011 @ 10:22 AM
Testing One, two, three
Testing one three

posted on Sep, 10 2011 @ 10:30 AM

Originally posted by john_bmth

Time is not a force. You need to brush up on your physics.

There has to be two dimensions of time. Don't partronize me for having an opinion. Time is the least understood aspect of physics. I see two dimensions of time. One which is bound to space and is clearly calculable, and another dimension of time that is infinite and invisible.
edit on 10-9-2011 by libertytoall because: (no reason given)

posted on Sep, 10 2011 @ 10:30 AM
Perhaps the speed of light could mean different things at different times and in different spaces?

posted on Sep, 10 2011 @ 10:31 AM

Originally posted by libertytoall

Originally posted by john_bmth

Time is not a force. You need to brush up on your physics.

There has to be two dimensions of time. You need to brush up on understanding reality. One bound to space and can be physically calculated, and one that is infinite, measuring past present and future from every point of existence.
edit on 10-9-2011 by libertytoall because: (no reason given)

Time is not a force. Present some evidence that shows time being a force. Describing a force doesn't make any sense.
edit on 10-9-2011 by john_bmth because: (no reason given)

posted on Sep, 10 2011 @ 10:47 AM

Originally posted by john_bmth

Originally posted by libertytoall

Originally posted by john_bmth

Time is not a force. You need to brush up on your physics.

There has to be two dimensions of time. You need to brush up on understanding reality. One bound to space and can be physically calculated, and one that is infinite, measuring past present and future from every point of existence.
edit on 10-9-2011 by libertytoall because: (no reason given)

Time is not a force. Present some evidence that shows time being a force. Describing a force doesn't make any sense.
edit on 10-9-2011 by john_bmth because: (no reason given)

What would you describe it as? Space-Time is a fabric but when considering time as an arrow which is not physical or bound to space, it can only be a force.. Haven't you ever heard of the arrow of time? Time FLOWS in one direction and you can't do anything about it. I'd call that a force.

For example I can stir my milk into my coffee but I can't unstir it. This is because time flows in one direction. If that's not a force then what would you call it?
edit on 10-9-2011 by libertytoall because: (no reason given)

posted on Sep, 10 2011 @ 03:48 PM

Originally posted by libertytoall
time flows in one direction. If that's not a force then what would you call it?
If a basketball is not a type of power drill, what would you call it?

I'd call it a basketball. By inference you should be able to guess what I'd call time.

What you need to do is look up the definitions of force and time and see there's no match. But since you apparently lack the resources to do so, I did it:

en.wikipedia.org...

In physics, a force is any influence that causes a object to undergo a change in speed, a change in direction, or a change in shape.
Time alone doesn't do any of that.

en.wikipedia.org...

Time in physics is defined by its measurement: time is what a clock reads.
Nothing about any force in that definition.

posted on Sep, 10 2011 @ 04:18 PM
You are already moving 1,000,000 miles per hour.

posted on Sep, 10 2011 @ 04:51 PM

Originally posted by Arbitrageur

Originally posted by libertytoall
time flows in one direction. If that's not a force then what would you call it?
If a basketball is not a type of power drill, what would you call it?

I'd call it a basketball. By inference you should be able to guess what I'd call time.

What you need to do is look up the definitions of force and time and see there's no match. But since you apparently lack the resources to do so, I did it:

en.wikipedia.org...

In physics, a force is any influence that causes a object to undergo a change in speed, a change in direction, or a change in shape.
Time alone doesn't do any of that.

Yes it does, we can only move forward in time not backwards in our day to day lives. We age because our clocks actually change. It effects how we look. I can scramble eggs but I can't unscramble them. This is because time has a flow in one direction, from order to chaos.

en.wikipedia.org...

Time in physics is defined by its measurement: time is what a clock reads.
Nothing about any force in that definition.

Time is intimately linked to the fabric of space in relativity. But another dimensions of time is flowing from the future through the present and into the past. That's why I can't do something, and decide to take back what I just did. Because the arrow of time MOVES in one direction.

I guess wiki has all the supreme knowledge already and we should never learn another thing for wiki is GOD

Honestly, don't preach what you don't understand. What I gather is our universe is moving at near the speed of light and this is why we have two dimensions of time, one which is bound to space, and one which is bound to our velocity.
edit on 10-9-2011 by libertytoall because: (no reason given)

posted on Sep, 10 2011 @ 07:34 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????

In relativity, velocities do not simply add in the way you describe.
en.wikipedia.org...

posted on Sep, 10 2011 @ 08:35 PM

Originally posted by libertytoall
I guess wiki has all the supreme knowledge already and we should never learn another thing for wiki is GOD
There are plenty of things scientists don't understand and maybe a few more things that wiki gets wrong.

But you're talking about definitions of words used in physics. Wikipedia tends to get those pretty much right, in the field of physics.

Honestly, don't preach what you don't understand. What I gather is our universe is moving at near the speed of light and this is why we have two dimensions of time, one which is bound to space, and one which is bound to our velocity.
Where did you gather that?

You would be well advised to follow your own advice regarding talking about things you don't understand. Where did you hear the universe is moving at the speed of light?

There are some energetic particles moving very close to the speed of light in the universe, like protons ejected from cosmic events, but the objects in the universe as a whole are moving in different directions at different velocities. We think we've measured our own velocity relative to the cosmic microwave background. The speed of the Sun relative to the CMB is thought to be 369 km/s or 1,328,000 km/h according to this: articles.adsabs.harvard.edu... (is that better than Wiki? Like the previous poster said without a source, it's roughly a million miles an hour). That's fast by human standards, but it's nowhere near the speed of light which is roughly 30,000 km/s.

The most distant galaxies we can see appear to have recessional velocities from us near the speed of light, but that's because space is expanding, not because they are moving through space that fast. This is not an indication of the universe moving at the speed of light but rather is a result of the expansion of the universe.

posted on Sep, 10 2011 @ 09:50 PM
This Thread has gotten me to think, like the arrow of time only move forward they say.
Then time seems to be a evolution of complexity in relation to the Universe.

For the time to go backward then the Universe would be devolving.

At some point the Universe should become Perfected, how long this could take who knows.

With something that has always been and will always be, over that time period, at some point the Universe is Perfected, you can only make some thing so good, all things have already been done.

Help Mr .Wizzaaaaarrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrdddddddddddddddddddddddddddddd!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

posted on Sep, 10 2011 @ 09:50 PM

Originally posted by Arbitrageur

Originally posted by libertytoall
I guess wiki has all the supreme knowledge already and we should never learn another thing for wiki is GOD
There are plenty of things scientists don't understand and maybe a few more things that wiki gets wrong.

But you're talking about definitions of words used in physics. Wikipedia tends to get those pretty much right, in the field of physics.

And Einstein seems to have gotten the grasp of physics as well wouldn't you say? He said time and space were like a fabric. Do YOU understand what he meant? He was talking about looking out to the stars and realizing LIGHT took a specific time to reach him. This allowed him to conjure the distance of objects in the solar system. For exmaple when we look out to the edge of the universe 13 billion light years away, we say that term because it would take 13 billion years traveling at the speed of light to get there. If Orion for example was 5 light years it would take 5 years at the speed of light to get there. So the deduction is space itself is a fabric of time.

This however, is very different from the "arrow of time" whici effects every instant. In fact one of the things that boggled Einstein is the way we all were "locked in a present state" within the universe. But we aren't locked in a present state with regard to things on earth. So there must be two different time clocks at work, meaning two dimensions of time.

Honestly, don't preach what you don't understand. What I gather is our universe is moving at near the speed of light and this is why we have two dimensions of time, one which is bound to space, and one which is bound to our velocity.

Where did you gather that?

You would be well advised to follow your own advice regarding talking about things you don't understand. Where did you hear the universe is moving at the speed of light?

If you have time this video will support what I'm discussing. The speaker attributes the arrow of time in the end to entropy. 2 dimensions of time exist and wiki is not going to teach you this..
youtu.be...

edit on 10-9-2011 by libertytoall because: (no reason given)

posted on Sep, 10 2011 @ 11:07 PM
Time doesn't exist at c. Once c is achieved no time elapse takes place. To baryonic matter, time slows as c is approached, if a photon was matter with senses, it would not experience time, it gets there without any time elapse, in it's hypothetical existence.

This is why if you are traveling very fast, a good percentage of light speed, the light you see is approaching you AT c, light that passes you passes you AT c, it's the universal speed, it doesn't change.

If you want to site gravitational lensing as changing c it doesn't, the distance the light traveled has changed instead, and the perception of elapsed time, but c didn't change, just the values of measuring it did, space and time are not constants, c is.

posted on Sep, 10 2011 @ 11:18 PM
This is where I have a problem with sci fi depictions of 'warp speed', If communications are limited to traveling c, once the starship enterprise goes into warp speed how then could it communicate with star fleet command? It's supposedly going beyond c and no matter where star fleet command is the communications couldn't ever catch up with them going warp, or even plaid speed.

So 2 things about trying to go or trying to prove you can theoretically travel c, if you ever do, you can't get back. If going c time stops, you don't need warp speed, (my understanding of warp speed is times c, hence warp 3 is c cubed), because once you go c time stops and you can get anywhere you want to in no time from your perspective, but star fleet command would be thousands of years ago, so you could never communicate with them once you left, you would be in different times, instantly, upon achieving c.
edit on 10-9-2011 by Illustronic because: (no reason given)

posted on Sep, 11 2011 @ 12:52 AM

Originally posted by libertytoall
If you have time this video will support what I'm discussing. The speaker attributes the arrow of time in the end to entropy. 2 dimensions of time exist and wiki is not going to teach you this..
I watched the video of the brilliant PhD from Harvard and you're wrong about that video, the first 55 of the 60 minutes of his presentation is very mainstream, and most if not all of it is covered in wiki. The only part that may not be in wiki is the last 5 minutes from around 55-60 minutes, which doesn't support anything you say because even Dr Carroll admits it's highly speculative and completely unproven. I have no problem with proposing it, but you certainly can't claim there's any validity to it since he doesn't even make that claim, he just says it's an idea that may be a possibility and he'd like to come back in a few years to share more research to see if it's ever confirmed, but he's not even sure it can be tested.

And it says absolutely nothing about your outrageous claims for which you still fail to provide a source, like the claim we are traveling near the speed of light. I've never seen any reliable source that makes that claim so I can only presume you're confused or mistaken. The video doesn't say that and you've provided no source to support your seriously mistaken idea.
edit on 11-9-2011 by Arbitrageur because: clarification

posted on Sep, 11 2011 @ 06:59 AM
Do you think entropy could be happening at the speed of light?
edit on 11-9-2011 by libertytoall because: (no reason given)

posted on Sep, 11 2011 @ 10:47 AM

Originally posted by libertytoall
Do you think entropy could be happening at the speed of light?
Did you watch the video you asked me to watch? He shows an example of entropy. It's a glass with some coffee in the bottom and about an inch of milk at the top in a separate layer. Gradually, over a period of time (maybe half an hour to an hour?), the milk and the coffee mix together, and the glass is seen as a uniform cream-colored coffee rather than 2 separate layers. In that example, it's obviously not happening at the speed of light.

Immediately after the big bang it might have been happening near the speed of light (I'm not sure about that), but not AT the speed of light, or at least not once inflation was over.

posted on Sep, 11 2011 @ 10:49 AM
I believe our universe must be traveling at an extreme velocity.
Thought experiment
For example:
the present is represented by *
the universe is represented by ()
time is represented by -

TIME(past)--------------------------------(----------*----------)------------------------------TIME(future)
TIME(past)--------------------*-----------(---------------------)-------------------------------TIME(future)
(present exiting the universe each instant with high velocity)

If we do something in the present, and we are moving at a velocity 13 billion times greater then c, the visible action would become out of perspective instantly? Our velocity would have to more then 2548200000000000 miles per second to vanish outside the universe.

So how does it work? How come we don't see our reflections into the past? How can we be locked in this state of the present yet look out at light in the past through space? Where is our pasts light reflections?

Could it not be that some other galaxies or even other solar systems are a reflection of past present times? Wouldn't that make more sense then a universe traveling at 13 billion times the speed of light? How else could this happen?

Am I making sense? I'd love to hear opinions on this one.
edit on 11-9-2011 by libertytoall because: (no reason given)

posted on Sep, 11 2011 @ 10:54 AM

Originally posted by libertytoall
If we do something in the present, and we are moving at a velocity 13 billion times greater then c,
I'm not seeing how you are getting a velocity 13 billion times greater than c.

How did you come up with that?

posted on Sep, 11 2011 @ 10:58 AM

I'm just saying in order for our light reflections to be invisible in the universe, if the universe is 13 billion light years to the edge, our velocity would have to be greater then 13 billion light years per second, that correct? Maybe I did the math wrong.
edit on 11-9-2011 by libertytoall because: (no reason given)

top topics

2