8
   

A speed beyond light question ^^

 
 
ebrown p
 
  1  
Reply Mon 17 Apr, 2006 02:04 pm
I correctly said that a trajectory can not be represented by a vector-- because a trajectory can represent any path through space. The fact that there are examples of trajectories that happen to be straight lines doesn't change that.

But anyway, this is getting silly. You obviously just want an argument and don't know what you are talking about.

I would suggest that if you want to understand physics, you try taking a physics course. Learning through google search is not a good way to master the subject especially if you don't take the time to understand what you are reading except to pick out phrases you think support what you already believe.

Anyway, I am done here. I don't think anyone is reading this with any interest anyway.
USAFHokie80
 
  1  
Reply Mon 17 Apr, 2006 03:36 pm
You are right about the silliness. You said I was giving bad physics and you only managed to pick on some wording, which was correct anyway. You just wanted to argue. And actually, I have taken a few physics classes, as well as several math classes. In fact, I even have a BS in Computer Science and a minor in math. Your definition of a trajectory is incorrect. That's all.
0 Replies
 
Brandon9000
 
  1  
Reply Tue 25 Apr, 2006 09:42 am
USAFHokie80 wrote:
ebrown_p wrote:
USAHokie,

You don't have the slightest idea of what you are talking about. Almost nothing you said is correct.

The amount of energy does not increase exponentially and Einstein never said that all things are moving at the speed of light. One's speed is not the magnitude of his trajectory...

<<Sigh.... it's not even worth the effort...>>


Actually, it is you who is wrong. The magnitude of a vector <x> is in fact equal to its speed. Look it up in wikipedia... the last sentence in the first paragraph states "Speed is thus the magnitude component of velocity." Here is a small excerpt from http://www.math.com/tables/oddsends/vectordefs.htm in case you don't understand.
"Definition: The magnitude of a vector A of dimension n, denoted |A|, is defined as

|A| = sqrt(A1^2 + A2^2 + ... + An^2)

Geometrically speaking, magnitude is synonymous with "length," "distance", or "speed." In the two-dimensional case, the point represented by the vector A = (A1, A2) has a distance from the origin (0, 0) of sqrt(A1^2 + A2^2) according to the pythagorean theorem. In the three-dimension case, the point represented by the vector A = (A1, A2, A3) has a distance from the origin of sqrt(A1^2 + A2^2 + A3^2) according to the three-dimensional form of the Pythagorean theorem (A box with sides a, b, and c has a diagonal of length sqrt(a2+b2+c2) ). With vectors of dimension n greater than three, our geometric intuition fails, but the algebraic definition remains."

Einstein did in FACT, as a result of Special and General Relativities, conclude that ALL THINGS are moving at the speed of light, but that they are moving THROUGH TIME at the speed of light. He said this when he was explaining the intermingling of space-time.

This perfectly explains the differences in synched atomic clocks when they are moving at different velocities. One on the ground will show a fraction of a second faster than one in an airplane. This is because the one on the plane has increased the components of its motion vector in the x,y,z axis and since our magnitude is fixed, it must decrease the speed through the t axis (time) to maintain the conservation of energy.

Perhaps before you say someone has no idea what he's talking about... You should read up on it. I suggest you start with any high school or college mathematics text book.

I have a couple of physics degrees, and ebrown is correct, everything you're saying is wrong. The magnitude of a vector is not equal to its speed unless the vector is a velocity vector. Einstein did not conclude that all things are moving at the speed of light. The time dilation effect has nothing to do with conservation of energy. You need to take a high school physics class before you opine about these things. I don't want to be mean here, but you absolutely don't understand this subject.
0 Replies
 
USAFHokie80
 
  1  
Reply Wed 26 Apr, 2006 04:54 pm
Brandon9000 wrote:
USAFHokie80 wrote:
ebrown_p wrote:
USAHokie,

You don't have the slightest idea of what you are talking about. Almost nothing you said is correct.

The amount of energy does not increase exponentially and Einstein never said that all things are moving at the speed of light. One's speed is not the magnitude of his trajectory...

<<Sigh.... it's not even worth the effort...>>


Actually, it is you who is wrong. The magnitude of a vector <x> is in fact equal to its speed. Look it up in wikipedia... the last sentence in the first paragraph states "Speed is thus the magnitude component of velocity." Here is a small excerpt from http://www.math.com/tables/oddsends/vectordefs.htm in case you don't understand.
"Definition: The magnitude of a vector A of dimension n, denoted |A|, is defined as

|A| = sqrt(A1^2 + A2^2 + ... + An^2)

Geometrically speaking, magnitude is synonymous with "length," "distance", or "speed." In the two-dimensional case, the point represented by the vector A = (A1, A2) has a distance from the origin (0, 0) of sqrt(A1^2 + A2^2) according to the pythagorean theorem. In the three-dimension case, the point represented by the vector A = (A1, A2, A3) has a distance from the origin of sqrt(A1^2 + A2^2 + A3^2) according to the three-dimensional form of the Pythagorean theorem (A box with sides a, b, and c has a diagonal of length sqrt(a2+b2+c2) ). With vectors of dimension n greater than three, our geometric intuition fails, but the algebraic definition remains."

Einstein did in FACT, as a result of Special and General Relativities, conclude that ALL THINGS are moving at the speed of light, but that they are moving THROUGH TIME at the speed of light. He said this when he was explaining the intermingling of space-time.

This perfectly explains the differences in synched atomic clocks when they are moving at different velocities. One on the ground will show a fraction of a second faster than one in an airplane. This is because the one on the plane has increased the components of its motion vector in the x,y,z axis and since our magnitude is fixed, it must decrease the speed through the t axis (time) to maintain the conservation of energy.

Perhaps before you say someone has no idea what he's talking about... You should read up on it. I suggest you start with any high school or college mathematics text book.

I have a couple of physics degrees, and ebrown is correct, everything you're saying is wrong. The magnitude of a vector is not equal to its speed unless the vector is a velocity vector. Einstein did not conclude that all things are moving at the speed of light. The time dilation effect has nothing to do with conservation of energy. You need to take a high school physics class before you opine about these things. I don't want to be mean here, but you absolutely don't understand this subject.


If you had read my first few posts, you would have read that I was in fact talking about a velocity vector. I stated "motion." And as far as Einstein in concerned, is it possible that maybe you haven't read the books I have? And so you would not know that he talked about the 4th dimension being time? I think that is the case.
0 Replies
 
USAFHokie80
 
  1  
Reply Wed 26 Apr, 2006 05:56 pm
So, I'm trying to remember exactly where I read the part about Einstein and the "everything moves at the speed of light" thing that you guys insist is wrong. So here: http://www.argee.net/Thrawn%20Rickle/Thrawn%20Rickle%2079.htm

Seventh Paragraph.

As I said before. He did conclude that people (included in "all things") move at the speed of light through the TIME DIMENSION.

If you *still* don't believe me, then you obviously need to reevaluate the quality of schooling you've had and/or the books you've read.
0 Replies
 
Brandon9000
 
  1  
Reply Wed 26 Apr, 2006 11:56 pm
USAFHokie80 wrote:
So, I'm trying to remember exactly where I read the part about Einstein and the "everything moves at the speed of light" thing that you guys insist is wrong. So here: http://www.argee.net/Thrawn%20Rickle/Thrawn%20Rickle%2079.htm

Seventh Paragraph.

As I said before. He did conclude that people (included in "all things") move at the speed of light through the TIME DIMENSION.

If you *still* don't believe me, then you obviously need to reevaluate the quality of schooling you've had and/or the books you've read.

I guess my six years of majoring in Physics at college and my two degrees in the subject don't measure up to your popular books for the layman.

Actually an object's speed has no meaning except relative to another object. The speed of an object will have different values from the viewpoint of different obsevers. Here's a question for you. Person A on the Earth is in video contact with person B on a spacecraft moving away from the Earth at half the speed of light. Each can see a clock in the background in the other's video transmission. Assume that the communications equipment can correct for Doppler Shift, etc. What does A say about the rate at which time passes on B's clock and what does B say about the rate at which time passes on A's clock? Give numbers and also give the equation you used to obtain them. By the way, this is simple enough to be covered in High School Physics, or at least college freshman Physics.
0 Replies
 
USAFHokie80
 
  1  
Reply Thu 27 Apr, 2006 12:21 am
You obviously didn't read what I said in the posts. I know that the perception of time is relative, and so is percieved speed. I'm tired of explaining this over and over to people who just want to argue and claim they have supirior intellect and understanding of physics. So you win, I just don't care enough to continue.
0 Replies
 
Chumly
 
  1  
Reply Thu 27 Apr, 2006 12:32 am
USAFHokie80 is hot!
0 Replies
 
Ray
 
  1  
Reply Thu 27 Apr, 2006 12:38 am
Brandon9000,

If you have the time, can you give the equations to your question? Thanks.

I went through relativity in grade 11, but the most recent physics courses I took (in high school and in college) mostly focused on kinematics, dynamics, and electromagnetism. Usually people forget about the relativity part.
0 Replies
 
Brandon9000
 
  1  
Reply Thu 27 Apr, 2006 06:23 am
Ray wrote:
Brandon9000,

If you have the time, can you give the equations to your question? Thanks.

I went through relativity in grade 11, but the most recent physics courses I took (in high school and in college) mostly focused on kinematics, dynamics, and electromagnetism. Usually people forget about the relativity part.

Paradoxical though it seems, each sees the other's clock running more slowly than his own. For each second that his own clock records, he sees the other's clock advancing by only

SQRT[1-(v/c)*2]

v/c = 1/2
(v/c)*2 = 1/4
1-(v/c)*2 = 3/4
SQRT(3/4) = .866

of a second.

If anyone is going to ask how this is compatible with the well known twin paradox, the answer is that when B turns around to come home, he sees A's clock speed up.
0 Replies
 
Brandon9000
 
  1  
Reply Thu 27 Apr, 2006 06:26 am
USAFHokie80 wrote:
You obviously didn't read what I said in the posts. I know that the perception of time is relative, and so is percieved speed. I'm tired of explaining this over and over to people who just want to argue and claim they have supirior intellect and understanding of physics. So you win, I just don't care enough to continue.

You're making this too personal. I'm correcting you because you're wrong and for no other reason. Like ebrown, I value my field enough to not want incorrect Physics passed on to the readers of the board.
Ray
 
  1  
Reply Fri 28 Apr, 2006 06:37 pm
Thanks Brandon.
0 Replies
 
Mr BOB
 
  1  
Reply Fri 19 Dec, 2008 11:45 pm
@ebrown p,
What would happen if you/we were to go beyond the speed of light ?

Well what would happen is we would enter a type of a worm hole in which..
We would either transverse time and or be taken to a far off part of our own universe or be taken to a alternate universe or a connecting universe.

In entering and continuing beyond the speed of light (which is 100 percent possible and is known to have happened in the thing we call the time of big bang theory ..in where the remnants of the Big Bang traveled far faster then can the speed of light...This is still not understood as to how this was able to happen... it is known simply as fact as having happened .. and in fact still happening) but say we were able to reach and continue upon at a speed beyond the speed of light , we would enter a type of worm hole (basically a type of small black hole) and would exit out the other side (exiting a black hole is known as the white hole)

However given no one yet from our time and civilization has managed to travel at the speed remotely even approaching the speed of light (let alone having exceeded it) we can not properly answer this question.

So far we have created a few formulas that appear to be able to achieve speeds beyond the speed of light but have yet to be able to test these methods and likely will be unable to test these methods for generations to come.

However if we as a species are to survive then so too we need to conquer this oh so hard to hit speed limit.....for if we fail to do so...so too we will fail to survive our planet (as will come a time earth will lose ability to support life and require us to leave it to find other planets to live upon).

We are only now approaching a age in where we will not simply be recognized as a (the) superior life-form of our planet earth , but also a intelligent life-form of our galaxy and universe (but far from the smartest..actually among (likely) the dumbest and most likely to fail)

But in Answer to your question
What would happen if we were able to travel faster then the speed of light

Well we would finally be capable of learning the true nature of our universe as well as the true meaning of life (of our being)

So given how much we would learn
it only makes sense as to why it is so hard to learn

such information can not be allowed to be obtained easily
for look how we took the knowledge of splitting the adam and in so doing nearly destroyed ourselves
Brandon9000
 
  1  
Reply Fri 19 Dec, 2008 11:50 pm
@Mr BOB,
Mr BOB wrote:

What would happen if you/we were to go beyond the speed of light ?

Well what would happen is we would enter a type of a worm hole in which..
We would either transverse time and or be taken to a far off part of our own universe or be taken to a alternate universe or a connecting universe.

In entering and continuing beyond the speed of light (which is 100 percent possible and is known to have happened in the thing we call the time of big bang theory ..in where the remnants of the Big Bang traveled far faster then can the speed of light...This is still not understood as to how this was able to happen... it is known simply as fact as having happened .. and in fact still happening) but say we were able to reach and continue upon at a speed beyond the speed of light , we would enter a type of worm hole (basically a type of small black hole) and would exit out the other side (exiting a black hole is known as the white hole)

However given no one yet from our time and civilization has managed to travel at the speed remotely even approaching the speed of light (let alone having exceeded it) we can not properly answer this question.

So far we have created a few formulas that appear to be able to achieve speeds beyond the speed of light but have yet to be able to test these methods and likely will be unable to test these methods for generations to come.

However if we as a species are to survive then so too we need to conquer this oh so hard to hit speed limit.....for if we fail to do so...so too we will fail to survive our planet (as will come a time earth will lose ability to support life and require us to leave it to find other planets to live upon).

We are only now approaching a age in where we will not simply be recognized as a (the) superior life-form of our planet earth , but also a intelligent life-form of our galaxy and universe (but far from the smartest..actually among (likely) the dumbest and most likely to fail)

But in Answer to your question
What would happen if we were able to travel faster then the speed of light

Well we would finally be capable of learning the true nature of our universe as well as the true meaning of life (of our being)

So given how much we would learn
it only makes sense as to why it is so hard to learn

such information can not be allowed to be obtained easily
for look how we took the knowledge of splitting the adam and in so doing nearly destroyed ourselves

This is completely incorrect. According to the theory of relativity, you simply cannot accelerate to the speed of light or beyond compared to your planet of origin, so the whole question of what would happen if you did is completely meaningless. You can never observe any matter to be travelling at or above the speed of light.
0 Replies
 
Mr BOB
 
  1  
Reply Fri 19 Dec, 2008 11:53 pm
@ebrown p,
It is Mad easy to tell how fast the train is moving

just give me those lead balls and the ability to measure their movement

Then to conduct the experiment and find how fast we are moving
all i need do is pull the emergency stop cord and then measure the speed of the balls that will continue to move upon the abrupt stopping of the train

HeHe
0 Replies
 
Mr BOB
 
  1  
Reply Sat 20 Dec, 2008 12:00 am
@ebrown p,
You ask
Here are two interesting questions to ponder. If you can answer these questions in a way that doesn't contradict, you probably understand what I am trying to explain.

1) What keeps the Moon Orbitting around the Earth (instead of drifting out into space)?
the moon in FACT is drifting out in space more and more as time goes on
this has been happening ever since the moon has been with us

2) Why are the people in the Space Shuttle orbitting around the Earth (much closer than the Moon) weightless (i.e. they float around with no effect of gravity)?
gravity is still there and the earth is trying to pull them back
but given their distance and how small they are they are effectively floating out of immediate danger of being pulled back into the earth
but
in a matter of weeks months or yrs they would be reclaimed by the earths gravity
0 Replies
 
Mr BOB
 
  1  
Reply Sat 20 Dec, 2008 12:03 am
@Steve 41oo,
you goofed

I know exactly why they appear to be weightless. But if it takes an answer to get an answer...the shuttle and all on board are following parallel trajectories as they fall through the vacuum of space. My question had nothing to do with orbiting masses but with spinning or rotating masses, specifically the rotation of the earth with respect to the sun. How else do you account for tidal forces?

tidal forces are the result of the moon
0 Replies
 
Mr BOB
 
  1  
Reply Sat 20 Dec, 2008 12:08 am
@Steve 41oo,
hingehead wrote:
... I can answer it myself: you do weigh more during the day....
My question was whether you weigh more at night. Still if you are in Australia...

no you weigh less in puerto rico maybe due to unique changing in gravity being off by about 3 percent
0 Replies
 
Mr BOB
 
  1  
Reply Sat 20 Dec, 2008 12:15 am
@Brandon9000,
According to the theory of relativity (if that was all that science could offer then your statement would be right)
it is not complete and in fact as we speak there are galaxies moving away from us ( in the great distance) moving faster then the speed of light

just because you do not understand why this is so
does not make it something not happening
(mind you i also do not know why this is...i know simply that it is)
Brandon9000
 
  1  
Reply Sat 20 Dec, 2008 01:54 am
@Mr BOB,
Mr BOB wrote:

According to the theory of relativity (if that was all that science could offer then your statement would be right)
it is not complete and in fact as we speak there are galaxies moving away from us ( in the great distance) moving faster then the speed of light

just because you do not understand why this is so
does not make it something not happening
(mind you i also do not know why this is...i know simply that it is)

The Special Theory of Relativity, published in 1905, states explicitly that no material object can observe another to be travelling at or above the speed of light - period. Any object attempting to accelerate to the speed of light relative to another visible object, such as its planet of origin, would find that it required an infinite amount of energy to do so, and, therefore, would fail. The speed of distant galaxies is inferred from the Doppler shift of the light they emit. In the expansion of the universe, the space itself is expanding - it's not a matter of objects themselves travelling through space. So, if any red shift indicates a speed of recession like that exceeds the speed of light, it will be because space is expanding, not because an object is travelling through space at that speed relative to you.

You clearly have never even taken a high school Physics class, so don't opine about subjects of which you are totally ignorant.
 

Related Topics

Evolution 101 - Discussion by gungasnake
Typing Equations on a PC - Discussion by Brandon9000
The Future of Artificial Intelligence - Discussion by Brandon9000
The well known Mind vs Brain. - Discussion by crayon851
Scientists Offer Proof of 'Dark Matter' - Discussion by oralloy
Blue Saturn - Discussion by oralloy
Bald Eagle-DDT Myth Still Flying High - Discussion by gungasnake
DDT: A Weapon of Mass Survival - Discussion by gungasnake
 
Copyright © 2021 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.04 seconds on 07/27/2021 at 12:59:02