German Scientists have discovered a way to travel faster than the speed of light - Page 3

AUIIForte · 19-08-2007, 09:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by irlewy86

A photon is neither energy nor particle. It is a photon. It has no mass.

Guess what. If something on this earth has no energy, or is no particle (weighs nothings) then it is not real and does not exist. It only exists in the minds of those who choose to believe in it. Just like Christianity. And oh, all VIRGIN Mary who gave birth to Jesus all VIRGIN and all.

I don't care if you show up some Wiki page about photons and having no mass... Yes maybe they do exist. But they MUST weigh something. Our earth has GRAVITY. No matter what you see you or hear, it must be drawn down with GRAVITY. If it didn't, it wouldn't be in our control. Like X-Rays. If it didn't weigh anything, it would be out of earth, floating in another dimension (space, where humans can not exist).

Light, speed, blah blah, it all has a weight. If it didn't, why is it on earth and how is it pulled by our GRAVITATIONAL PULL... Only things with a weight can be pulled.. Actually, even things without a weight can be pulled in, but then, they would be given a weight. A Certain number...

AUIIForte · 19-08-2007, 10:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by saber

Have a read of this:

Newton thought that only objects with mass could produce a gravitational force on each other. Applying Newton's theory of gravity, one would conclude that since light has no mass, the force of gravity couldn't affect it. Einstein discovered that the situation is a bit more complicated than that. First he discovered that gravity is produced by a curved space-time. Then Einstein theorized that the mass and radius of an object (its compactness) actually curves space-time. Mass is linked to space in a way that physicists today still do not completely understand. However, we know that the stronger the gravitational field of an object, the more the space around the object is curved. In other words, straight lines are no longer straight if exposed to a strong gravitational field; instead, they are curved. Since light ordinarily travels on a straight-line path, light follows a curved path if it passes through a strong gravitational field. This is what is meant by "curved space," and this is why light becomes trapped in a black hole. In the 1920's Sir Arthur Eddington proved Einstein's theory when he observed starlight curve when it traveled close to the Sun. This was the first successful prediction of Einstein's General Theory of Relativity.

One way to picture this effect of gravity is to imagine a piece of rubber sheeting stretched out. Imagine that you put a heavy ball in the center of the sheet. The weight of the ball will bend the surface of the sheet close to it. This is a two-dimensional picture of what gravity does to space in three dimensions. Now take a little marble and send it rolling from one side of the rubber sheet to the other. Instead of the marble taking a straight path to the other side of the sheet, it will follow the contour of the sheet that is curved by the weight of the ball in the center. This is similar to how the gravitation field created by an object (the ball) affects light (the marble).

Got this off: http://amazing-space.stsci.edu/resou...kground.html#3

Basically, the reason why light cannot escape a black hole is due to the gravity waves created by the black hole. Light travels in a straight line, and can be bent due to the presence of a gravitational field (like gravity we experience on earth). The point is, the gravitational field on a black hole is massive, hence photons(light) are pulled into the center of the black hole, and due to the strong gravitational field, cannot escape.

Yup. If you listened to scientists these days, or have seen any real life footage of 'space' you would understand that everything you just said is not true. Yes newton thought this, and Mr. Albert thought that.. But when, 1920's? Ohhh. That must mean they are true. That must mean what 2 human beings said just MUST be true beyond doubt.

Our space is not like a trampoline where the sun is the heaviest object in the middle, and everything else rolls in its concave.

LoL come on, wake up!

schnoods · 19-08-2007, 10:07 PM

Definition of a philosopher...

A person who finds a problem for every solution.

saber · 19-08-2007, 10:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by AUIIForte

Guess what. If something on this earth has no energy, or is no particle (weighs nothings) then it is not real and does not exist. It only exists in the minds of those who choose to believe in it. Just like Christianity. And oh, all VIRGIN Mary who gave birth to Jesus all VIRGIN and all.

I don't care if you show up some Wiki page about photons and having no mass... Yes maybe they do exist. But they MUST weigh something. Our earth has GRAVITY. No matter what you see you or hear, it must be drawn down with GRAVITY. If it didn't, it wouldn't be in our control. Like X-Rays. If it didn't weigh anything, it would be out of earth, floating in another dimension (space, where humans can not exist).

Light, speed, blah blah, it all has a weight. If it didn't, why is it on earth and how is it pulled by our GRAVITATIONAL PULL... Only things with a weight can be pulled.. Actually, even things without a weight can be pulled in, but then, they would be given a weight. A Certain number...

Who said a photon has no energy???

The light are we know it is apart of the electromagnetic spectrum. This spectrum defines the frequency and wavelength of all the electromagnetic radiation. From gamma rays (which are high energy, high freq particles) down to infra red. Light we see it is apart of the visible spectrum, and has a wavelength of 300-800nM. Hence knowing this wavelength, we can calculate the energy of the light using:

E=hc/wavelength.

Doing the maths, visible light has a energy range from 6.62-2.43*10^-19j (or 4.13- 1.55eV).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electromagnetic_spectrum

It seems to me AUIIForte that you need to wake up, this stuff is taught to 1st year physics students all over the world at every uni. Seems to me you are living in the stone age. Its quite laughable you dismiss all of this so easily.

FlipXW · 19-08-2007, 10:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by saber

Who said a photon has no energy???

The light are we know it is apart of the electromagnetic spectrum. This spectrum defines the frequency and wavelength of all the electromagnetic radiation. From gamma rays (which are high energy, high freq particles) down to infra red. Light we see it is apart of the visible spectrum, and has a wavelength of 300-800nM. Hence knowing this wavelength, we can calculate the energy of the light using:

E=hc/wavelength.

Doing the maths, visible light has a energy range from 6.62-2.43*10^-19j (or 4.13- 1.55eV).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electromagnetic_spectrum

It seems to me AUIIForte that you need to wake up, this stuff is taught to 1st year physics students all over the world at every uni. Seems to me you are living in the stone age. Its quite laughable you dismiss all of this so easily.

Also taught in year 11/12 highschool physics. Its pretty basic stuff when your actually studing it, although it does take a little while to get your head around it.

Mental · 20-08-2007, 07:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by AUIIForte

Would you like to prove that to me?

Wouldn't that be all over media and such? It hasn't. Which means its only in the minds of those who STILL believe in Albert Einsteins "SPECIAL" theory of relativity, which is not so much special anymore, for the fact that more smarter people (not him from 1905 but from now 2007) have PROVEN his theories wrong.

OK, which part of time=distance/speed are you having trouble with?

How about I give YOU some numbers, and then you tell ME how long it takes for your reflection to travel the distance of the earth to sun and back.

Speed of Light: 299,792,458 meters per second.
Distance of Sun from Earth: 149,597,870.691 kilometers

And why would it be all over the media?? its simple high school math

:

Nostalgia · 20-08-2007, 07:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by monkeydog

At least when kids need to go to the toilet on trips and parents go 'you should have gone before you left', it's not too late.

Classic thought !!! Dosent matter if you going on a 20 minute drive to the city or a 6 hour drive interstate, the kids need a pee as soon as you back out of the driveway.

GTWHOA · 20-08-2007, 08:10 PM

So in theory if you or a camera travelled at two times speed of light you would be catching up to the past and be able to see the past like rewind haha and things would be flipped backwards like looking in a mirror.

Nostalgia · 20-08-2007, 08:13 PM

Why am i having flash backs to the Back To The Future movies ?

troppo · 20-08-2007, 08:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by AUIIForte

Yup. If you listened to scientists these days, or have seen any real life footage of 'space' you would understand that everything you just said is not true. Yes newton thought this, and Mr. Albert thought that.. But when, 1920's? Ohhh. That must mean they are true. That must mean what 2 human beings said just MUST be true beyond doubt.

Our space is not like a trampoline where the sun is the heaviest object in the middle, and everything else rolls in its concave.

LoL come on, wake up!

Mate AFAIK Newtons first 3 laws of motion are still valid to this day. Mr Einstein thought a great many things and some of his theories raised questions that even he didn't have the time or inclination to try to answer. Does the phrase "God does not play dice" ring a bell? Suffice it to say, many of Einstein's theories are being re-examined today. More accurately, many more sophisticated experiments are being conducted today (ones that were in no way posssible in his time) and provide results which can then be checked to see which of his theories holds true.

Our space is indeed curved. Not like a trampoline exactly but it's a reasonable 2-D analogy I think. Time and space are both warped in exactly the same way around any large mass and straight lines become curved. Even here on the surface of the planet, there are situations where the shortest path between 2 points is not a straight line. Check out Stephen Hawking's more recent book "A briefer history of time" for an easy(relatively speaking) read of modern theories and curved space.

The debunking posted by BadMac seems fairly likely to me. That said, there are some amazing experiments going on with CERN's new particle collider due to come online next year sometime. The old collider came up with a possible new particle towards the upper end of it's power limit before being pulled down. It was still good enough to find evidence of anti-hydrogen though. The new one is designed to operate at much higher power levels and have more sensitive detection equipment. Interesting times ahead.

lukey · 20-08-2007, 08:52 PM

If you're really interested in this stuff read 'About Time' by Paul Davies. It's awesome and explains all this stuff really well.

Bossxr8 · 25-08-2007, 08:27 PM

My brain hurts.

Fairmont I6 · 26-08-2007, 09:35 PM

For some of you that are struggling, instead of thinking about light, try thinking about sound. If someone is right next to you talking you see their mouth move at the same time you hear it. If that person shouts at you across a field, the sound comes after you see their mouth move. It is the same with light, its just so fast that there is nothing to compare it to.

ratter · 26-08-2007, 10:01 PM

the main question with this discovery is and ending back before you leave stuff ..............

How are we going to be able to time it over the 1/4 mile ?

do we start the timer when the cars cross the finish line and see who gets back to the start line the quickest ?

Josh L · 27-08-2007, 12:34 PM

I have a fairly easy way to explain this... but I have to say it right.

Firstly... we all know that light is faster than sound

Let's pretend that this new discovery is actually in practice everywhere you go.

-----
There are three athletes from the same team down at the athletics track.

Athlete No. 1: "Geoff" takes 48hr to get around the track... he's slow. = sound.

Athlete No. 2: "Justin" takes 10mins to get around the track... he's fast. = light.

Athlete No. 3: "James" take 1sec to get around the track... he's fastest. = New Discovery.

So basically put, all three athletes take off from the line at the same time. Geoff is so slow that both Justin and James get around the track in time to see Geoff taking his first step off the line.

James is so fast that he actually gets around the track so fast that he gets to the finish line in time to see Geoff and Justin just stepping of the line.

All three athletes are from the same team. But travel at different speeds.

So now, when you start walking, the sound of your feet is "Geoff" (slow) and you seeing your feet move is "Justin" (light). You're brain sending the message to your foot to move is "James" (new discovery). You think before you see and you see before you hear. Same concept.
----

I hope I haven't confused anyone further... I know what I mean, that's what's important. LOL.

Just remember... (hu)man made the wheel out rock.
Later on (hu)man made the wheel out of wood with a steel ring. Lighter and faster.
Then even later, (hu)man made the wheel out of steel and rubber and all sorts of fancy alloys. Faster, Stronger and even lighter.

Even tho the new wheel is about, the old wheel still exists and can still be made.

We're in an age where basically we are using wheels made of rock or wood and scientist are discovering the new alloy wheel with rubber and such. Don't be so quick to disbelieve.

That's my little prattle on anyways.

Josh.

photn · 27-08-2007, 01:58 PM

My dogs name is Jimmy, and he is a white jack russel cross Fox terrier!

i read the title and knew exactly what you where all talking ABOUT....

but considering that this post is as usefull as tits on a bull im just lost.

why you guys have to get all technical and into the lingo, i was enjoying my monday morning till i saw this thread and got confused as all hell.

Josh L · 27-08-2007, 02:21 PM

How's this then.

Let's make it real non-technical sounding.

"Krauts discover way to go faster than volkswagen!"

photn · 27-08-2007, 03:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Xamph

How's this then.

Let's make it real non-technical sounding.

"Krauts discover way to go faster than volkswagen!"

ZOMG!!! lolz...

i get the basic jist of it. but its just the technical lingo i dont get,

i understand that by going faster thant the speed of light, you are passing the image of yourself which is carried by the light bouncing off your body, and when you reach your destination and look back you see the light catch up to you, and you see what you believe to be yourself begining to depart on your journey. but it is infact the light catching up, also, you would see the light of you travelling through space, so basically you would see a very muffled image of yourself, and im pretty sure actually, youd see yourself arriving before you left.

Due to the fact that as you travel through the light, you are reflecting/bouncing light off yourself. and that light is in fact infront of the light where you started at. that or it would either leave a void of darkness as you are pushing the light out of the way!.. but youd only notice it as you are traveling at the speed of light, because as soon as you slowed down, the light would fill the gap..

just my 2 non cents worth.

Josh L · 27-08-2007, 04:50 PM

Yeh... that's it... faster than a volkswagen! hehehe.

gtfpv · 27-08-2007, 04:57 PM

from my humble thinking . you can travel faster than light . theoretically, once you were ,a person looking at you from a fixed point, assuming the brain could see you from a fixed point ,you would dissapear. 2 cars going faster than the speeed of light side by side, would be able to see each other only. i dont thinkyou would age any quicker at all. but they have proven you will , f^*% it , it's too complicated, my GT'S FASTER THAN YOUR , NO IT'S NOT, yes it is , no its not, mine has more power , but is slower, yes it is , no its not, those 2 dynoes read differantely , no they dont, yes they do, jenell can you bring me one of those blue pills please sweetheart, " get them yourself, your always on the forum," well how about a quickie then ???? umm its all relative. i'm going to lye down now.

King Nothing · 27-08-2007, 05:37 PM

Just to spin you out even more, dont forget that the speed of light isnt an absolute as such. There is no absolute frame of reference. In your example, both the GTs going side by side would see each other in the same time frame as they are moving at the same speed relative to each other!

Ok, to explain it a bit better (or maybe confuse you more

) imagine a person at the side of the road, an SS and an XR6T.

The person is stationary, the SS is doing 100 and the XR6T is doing 110km/h (on a freeway, keep it legal!)

Now the person on the side of the road sees the SS doing 100 and the XR6T doing 110. But the SS sees the XR6T doing 10km/hr, relative to its own car (as in the T is doing 10 km/hr faster than the SS). You with me so far?

Here is where things get tricky, light does funny things

The pedestrian observes the speed of light at C (I think it was 3*10^8m/s, If i remember back that far). Keep in mind he still sees the SS at 100 and the T at 110.

Now the SS sees the T doing 10 km/hr, but he still sees light at C (i.e 3*10^8 m/s). And the T driver also sees light doing C!

Confusing, hey?

Josh L · 27-08-2007, 06:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by King Nothing

Just to spin you out even more, dont forget that the speed of light isnt an absolute as such. There is no absolute frame of reference. In your example, both the GTs going side by side would see each other in the same time frame as they are moving at the same speed relative to each other!

Ok, to explain it a bit better (or maybe confuse you more

) imagine a person at the side of the road, an SS and an XR6T.

The person is stationary, the SS is doing 100 and the XR6T is doing 110km/h (on a freeway, keep it legal!)

Now the person on the side of the road sees the SS doing 100 and the XR6T doing 110. But the SS sees the XR6T doing 10km/hr, relative to its own car (as in the T is doing 10 km/hr faster than the SS). You with me so far?

Here is where things get tricky, light does funny things

The pedestrian observes the speed of light at C (I think it was 3*10^8m/s, If i remember back that far). Keep in mind he still sees the SS at 100 and the T at 110.

Now the SS sees the T doing 10 km/hr, but he still sees light at C (i.e 3*10^8 m/s). And the T driver also sees light doing C!

Confusing, hey?

Is that still faster than a volkswagen?

troppo · 27-08-2007, 06:44 PM

The speed of light is still accepted as an absolute upper speed limit at this stage, it's time that's the variable. The faster one travels, the slower time passes and it's relative depending whether you are the one moving or a fixed observer. The fixed observer won't notice any time dilation. This part is widely accepted as proven.

But it leads to the concept that if time slows as one goes faster and stops (more accurately, time stretches out to a never-ending micro-second) at the speed of light, does time go backwards if you exceed the light barrier?

King Nothing · 27-08-2007, 07:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Xamph

Is that still faster than a volkswagen?

Yes, but only *just* faster.

photn · 27-08-2007, 07:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by King Nothing

Just to spin you out even more, dont forget that the speed of light isnt an absolute as such. There is no absolute frame of reference. In your example, both the GTs going side by side would see each other in the same time frame as they are moving at the same speed relative to each other!

Ok, to explain it a bit better (or maybe confuse you more

) imagine a person at the side of the road, an SS and an XR6T.

The person is stationary, the SS is doing 100 and the XR6T is doing 110km/h (on a freeway, keep it legal!)

Now the person on the side of the road sees the SS doing 100 and the XR6T doing 110. But the SS sees the XR6T doing 10km/hr, relative to its own car (as in the T is doing 10 km/hr faster than the SS). You with me so far?

Here is where things get tricky, light does funny things

The pedestrian observes the speed of light at C (I think it was 3*10^8m/s, If i remember back that far). Keep in mind he still sees the SS at 100 and the T at 110.

Now the SS sees the T doing 10 km/hr, but he still sees light at C (i.e 3*10^8 m/s). And the T driver also sees light doing C!

Confusing, hey?

i get what your saying,
if one car is doing the speed of light, then the other car next to it has to be doing 2x the speed of light for the first car to notice its doing the speed of light?

i loved scrience in School. i just didnt want to do physics or chemistry cause i hated the teachers

whats with the Volkswagon Beetle Turbo anywho... faster than the speed of light... just!

troppo · 27-08-2007, 08:36 PM

That's why it's the difference in observation points thats relative.
Here's another one: A man on a train travelling at 50 m/s bounces a ball on a spot marked x on the floor of the train. The ball bounces a second time on the x 5 seconds later. How far did the ball travel between bounces?

Well, it depends on where the observer was...an observer on the train with the ball would say it travelled nowhere and had a speed of 0 m/s. An observer at the side of the tracks watching as the train went past would be able to measure a distance of 250m travelled between the two points in the air where the ball bounced and give a speed of 50 m/s. Both are right.

gtfpv · 29-08-2007, 07:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by photn

i get what your saying,
if one car is doing the speed of light, then the other car next to it has to be doing 2x the speed of light for the first car to notice its doing the speed of light?

i loved scrience in School. i just didnt want to do physics or chemistry cause i hated the teachers

whats with the Volkswagon Beetle Turbo anywho... faster than the speed of light... just!

i took HISTORY in year 9 and 10 because of MRS BENSONS great knockers, plenty of cleavage . that is about all the history i can remember . there a lesson there , images are seen and logged with light , time and gravity also affect the outcome, but what's the relativity ??

NA XR6 · 29-08-2007, 08:10 PM

I have a headache