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.

 

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

page: 4
2
<< 1  2  3   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 11 2011 @ 11:14 AM
link   
It would actually have to be a velocity of 13 billion times c per second.

This is incomprehensible.. So how does it happen? Our galaxy must be littered with light from our past reflections.




posted on Sep, 11 2011 @ 11:20 AM
link   

Originally posted by libertytoall
It would actually have to be a velocity of 13 billion times c per second.

This is incomprehensible..
What is incomprehensible is where you are getting the velocity of 13 billion times c per second from.

You're not explaining yourself.



posted on Sep, 11 2011 @ 11:38 AM
link   
reply to post by Arbitrageur
 


How else could we not see reflections, in the form of trails as we move, if not for extreme velocity? I guess I'm saying, in order for light reflections from our past to be out of visibility in the universe, wouldn't the reflections have to exit the universe at a rate at the very least farther then we can see in an instant?

If we can see light 13 billion+ light years into the past and our past light reflections are invisible, then they must have traveled farther then 13 billion light years in an instant. Otherwise, if our reflections are not leaving the universe at this velocity, we should be able to observe earth at different stages of it's past with a telescope (theoretically of course, overcoming optical technology).


edit on 11-9-2011 by libertytoall because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 11 2011 @ 11:47 AM
link   

Originally posted by libertytoall
How else could we not see reflections, in the form of trails as we move, if not for extreme velocity? I guess I'm saying, in order for light reflections from our past to be out of visibility in the universe, wouldn't the reflections have to exit the universe at a rate at the very least farther then we can see in an instant?
We do see reflections. You want to see one? Look up at the moon at night. That's a reflection of the sun's light.

It's traveling at precisely the speed of light most of the way from the moon to the earth, then it slows down just a hair when it enters the atmosphere.

We see reflections from all the other planets in our solar system the same way, and they travel to us at the speed of light also.

Once we get to distances outside our own solar system, there are reflections, but the reason we can't see them is because they are too dim for our tiny telescopes to gather enough light to see them. The reflections are there, they are just too dim to see. They haven't left the universe.



posted on Sep, 11 2011 @ 11:56 AM
link   
So out there in the vastness of space theoretically should be reflections of our past visible to us?

If I look at you, I see light reflect off your body giving you the look you have. I see light reflect just that much quicker on your nose then your face which is why I see your nose stick out. I understand all that but how come a second into the past is no longer visible? It was there, it happened, it was at a specific time and a specific place. Where did that place go? How did it vanish from existence if not for extreme velocity?
edit on 11-9-2011 by libertytoall because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 11 2011 @ 12:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by libertytoall
I understand all that but how come a second into the past is no longer visible? It was there, it happened, it was at a specific time and a specific place. Where did that place go? How did it vanish from existence if not for extreme velocity?
That's a good question actually.

The example I just gave you of the moon answers that question. When you look at the moon, you're not seeing it as it is now, you're seeing it in the past, just as you formulated your question, a second into the past is visible. The moon is about a second in the past (1.3 seconds on average but it varies with the moon's orbit).

So look at the moon. You are seeing about 1.3 seconds into the past when you do that. There's no extreme velocity required because it didn't vanish.
edit on 11-9-2011 by Arbitrageur because: clarification



posted on Sep, 11 2011 @ 12:04 PM
link   
So how come we dont see a second earth out there in space, one second into the past? Why is it invisible, or gone from reality? I can only think that we must be moving at high velocity.



posted on Sep, 11 2011 @ 12:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by KINGKONG

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....


You are MISSING the core rule of relativity, this is that "speed" is always seen in relation to something (not absolute) PLUS that lightspeed does not "stack". It's a universal CONSTANT, regardless whether the system itself is in motion already.

Short: If you measure light speed in a space ship which is already traveling at, say, 50% light speed, it will still be the same value and not stack with the 50% of light speed of the space ship - it's a FIX, constant value according to Eini.

***
You can also see that the theoretical idea of a Hadron collider in motion is "off" since *everything* is already in motion, our planet, our whole planet system, our galaxy, our galaxy cluster etc....so you would have to actually add up all those speeds - but it actually doesn't matter



posted on Sep, 11 2011 @ 12:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by libertytoall
So how come we dont see a second earth out there in space, one second into the past? Why is it invisible, or gone from reality? I can only think that we must be moving at high velocity.
If there was a giant mirror in space, half a light second from Earth, you would see a reflection of Earth 1 second into the past in the mirror.

If there's no mirror, how are you supposed to see the reflection?

And actually we do this experiment with the moon using lasers. We put reflectors on the moon, and bounce a laser off them. when the laser bounces back off the reflector, we are seeing the earth (specifically a laser that left Earth) about 2.6 seconds ago. So we DO see a reflection of Earth, when we look in a reflector. It takes 1.3 seconds to go to the moon and another 1.3 seconds to bounce back. Lasers are so cheap now you could almost do this experiment yourself.



posted on Sep, 11 2011 @ 01:07 PM
link   
I just had another interesting thought, if we have a star near the outer region of the Universe. The light particles shinning or going towards the Nothing, would this not cause the rate of the expansion of the Nothing to be the Speed of Light.
This would also infer something else, or possibly and that would be the Dark Energy, is not pulling the photons to go faster than speed of light.
Well if there were Dark Energy in the Nothing then it would not be the Nothing.

Which I didn't believe in Dark Energy myself, now Dark Matter, I thing Dark Matter is just the Gravity matrix.
I also don't believe in Hawking Radiation, he just made it up like Einstein made up the Cosmic Constant, so his Equations would work.
Hawking's, Closed Universe Theory needs His Hawking Radiation to work.
The way I see it, the Closed Universe Theory does not work, as it would cause loss of information, which would be a contradiction to Law's of Physic's.

We are still in a Infant Univrse,we have not a ideal what a Mature Universe would be.
edit on 11-9-2011 by googolplex because: (no reason given)



new topics




 
2
<< 1  2  3   >>

log in

join