# Thread: Is it really impossible to travel faster than light?

1. Hey!

I'm not sure if this thread is in the right forum or what. If not, will you please move it to the right forum please?
I also want to tell you that this is only a thought. Not any scientific prove.
I am only seventeen years old, and I am going in 10th grade, so I don't have any education in science/physics. So please don't call me a crazy scientist, even though how crazy these things sound. I am only posting this to get some answers on my speculations :P

Is it really impossible to travel faster than light?

In order to make matter escape from the event horizon at a black hole, then the matter MUST have a speed faster than light.

A black hole is an area in space, so dense with matter, that the gravitational field is so intense that not even light can escape.

If all matter and energy was created at the same time as big bang. Then there MUST have been a black hole a few planck seconds after the big bang, since all the matter in our universe was so dense at that time.

Doesn't that mean that all the matter in our universe was in the event horizon, at a black hole, at that time?
Why didn't all the matter crumple into the singularity?
How did all the matter escape with a speed slower than light?

I also have an other strange thing, that I need an answer too. I'm really bad at explaining, that's why it's so long, sorry

Lets say it's possible to travel with 99,9% of the speed of light. Accordingly to Einstein's theory of relativity it isn't possible to exceed the speed of light. But it also tells us that if we move at a speed 99,9% of light, then the time almost stops.

Lets imagine that I travel with a spacecraft that could reach that high speed and flew only for a second. Wouldn't the time on earth go faster compared to the second I travelled with my spacecraft?

For me, my travel would only take one second. But if time goes slower at that speed, wouldn't the earth's time then go faster?

If the time on earth goes faster than the time in my spacecraft. Wouldn't it then look like - watching from earth - I have used more than one second to travel that distance?

Lets say we have a set a timer, that starts when I take off. One timer on earth and one timer on my spacecraft.
If I take off with the speed 99,9% of light and stop exactly when my timer says one second. What time would the timer on earth then be?
Wouldn't it be more than one second, as the time on earth goes faster?

If it is more than one second. Lets say two in this example. Then looking from earth it would have looked liked, I have travelled the same distance in two seconds. But I have really travelled the distance at the speed 99,9% of light. But according to the timer on earth it only looks like I have travelled with half the speed.
Lets say I travelled 300.000 km in this example.
According to the timer on the spacecraft it must say that I have used a speed of 300.000 km/s (lights speed) because 300.000/1 = 300.000.
But according to the timer on earth it must say that I have used a speed of 150.000 km/s (half of lights speed) because 300.000/2 = 150.000

Doesn't that mean, that I need to travel faster with my spacecraft to reach the speed of light, looking from the sight of earths time?

Is light really travelling with 300.000 km/s or is it an illusion that looks like it travels with 300.000 km/s, but actually is much more faster?

Thanks for reading and I really hope you understand and can answer my questions.

Sincerely,
Mark Railton

PS: I am only seventeen years old, and I am going in 10th grade, so I don't have any education in science/physics

Have a great day!

2.

3. very nice mate...

actually there is every possibility that a particle travelling faster than will exist and there might be particles coming out of balck holes also. no proofs though

check out my blog we both have similar thinking i guess.

4. reading the relativity primer posted by janus on this forum would help you with these questions immensely. and as far as stuff coming out of black holes. nothing actually gets past the event horizon, however at the very edge of the even horizon, some particle-antiparticle pairs are created where one falls in and the other does not. when this occurs with the antiparticle falling in, the antiparticle destroys some of the mass of the black hole and adds some energy to it, and at that point it appears as if the black hole has emited a particle(let's say a hydrogen nucleus).

this theory was described by stephen hawking some time back and has since been observed. for some reason(i'm not quite sure why) it is generally the antiparticle that falls in and takes away some mass from the black hole, as apposed to the particle falling in and adding mass.

5. is this fair to call something to be real just by assuming that it will be true.

what i feel is in most cases of physics law has been formulated and most facts are fitted into it

6. Originally Posted by saul
reading the relativity primer posted by janus on this forum would help you with these questions immensely. and as far as stuff coming out of black holes. nothing actually gets past the event horizon, however at the very edge of the even horizon, some particle-antiparticle pairs are created where one falls in and the other does not. when this occurs with the antiparticle falling in, the antiparticle destroys some of the mass of the black hole and adds some energy to it, and at that point it appears as if the black hole has emited a particle(let's say a hydrogen nucleus).

this theory was described by stephen hawking some time back and has since been observed. for some reason(i'm not quite sure why) it is generally the antiparticle that falls in and takes away some mass from the black hole, as apposed to the particle falling in and adding mass.
So far as I know Hawking radiation has not been observed. That is not unexpected as the effect is very small.

Observation would be very important since the theory is based on quantum field theory in curved spacetime, which is not well established.

7. If space or space/time is warped by gravity (bent), yet the power of gravity does not act on energy in your estimation, how could any energy escape that massive force, rather be in some kind of close orbit. If you can answer this and energy eventually does escape a BH orbit, how would we measure any received energy (telescopes) as having come from that BH or anyplace else?

8. Originally Posted by jackson33
If space or space/time is warped by gravity (bent), yet the power of gravity does not act on energy in your estimation, how could any energy escape that massive force, rather be in some kind of close orbit. If you can answer this and energy eventually does escape a BH orbit, how would we measure any received energy (telescopes) as having come from that BH or anyplace else?
Gravity does most certainly act on energy.

The deflection of light by the sun was one of the early experimental verifications of general relativity.

9. Originally Posted by karthikovi
is this fair to call something to be real just by assuming that it will be true.

what i feel is in most cases of physics law has been formulated and most facts are fitted into it
1. You are completely wrong.

2. What you "feel" is irrelevant.

10. How did all the matter escape with a speed slower than light?
Space (or vacuum) can, theoretically, expand faster than the speed of light. Remember, the big bang theory tries to model the creation of the Universe itself - Not only the tiny amount of matter we know, sprinkled like dust, randomly (or orderly) within it.

We don't really know what space is (other than an infinite volume of the universe devoid of matter), why it is expending, how fast it expended in the past, and how fast it will expend in the future. There are several good theories though - The Big Bang being one of them...

11. Originally Posted by DrRocket
Originally Posted by karthikovi
is this fair to call something to be real just by assuming that it will be true.

what i feel is in most cases of physics law has been formulated and most facts are fitted into it
1. You are completely wrong.

2. What you "feel" is irrelevant.
is there proof that photons have no mass and photons exist in light, just because Einstein has said that light needs to have particles to obey certain laws we assume that light has particles also since photons do not fit the relative energy equation we assume that photons have no mass in order to satisfy the equation. we twist facts to fit an equation not equations to fit facts.

On what basis do you say i am wrong
everything is just assumed no concrete proofs. if your assumption is correct why cant what i feel be correct

12. in order to satisfy the equation. we twist facts to fit an equation not equations to fit facts.
The facts and the truth are in the mathematics. When we sit here and talk about particles, and atoms and waves, we are using illustrative approximations using things we are familiar with in everyday life. But they are just approximations of complicated mathematics.
Nobody is saying light is made of particles, or waves. It is both. Imagining one or the other is an approximation, and is made up of things that we are familiar with, what a photon actually "looks like" or what an electron looks like doesnt matter.

the problem you have is that you seem to think we make up a big story to fit the results, that is partly true, we make up an illustrative version loosely based on the maths because it is the easiest way for our brain to imagine the mechanisms without working in algebra and calculus. You brain says "how can something be a wave and a particle?" well, maths and the Universe dont have an issue with it, so either should we just because we cant imagine it.

everything is just assumed no concrete proofs.
The value of a theory is in its prediction of experimental results. If your looking for an absolute truth, your looking in the wrong place.

13. Originally Posted by karthikovi
Originally Posted by DrRocket
Originally Posted by karthikovi
is this fair to call something to be real just by assuming that it will be true.

what i feel is in most cases of physics law has been formulated and most facts are fitted into it
1. You are completely wrong.

2. What you "feel" is irrelevant.
is there proof that photons have no mass and photons exist in light, just because Einstein has said that light needs to have particles to obey certain laws we assume that light has particles also since photons do not fit the relative energy equation we assume that photons have no mass in order to satisfy the equation. we twist facts to fit an equation not equations to fit facts.

On what basis do you say i am wrong
everything is just assumed no concrete proofs. if your assumption is correct why cant what i feel be correct
You really need to read up on the scientific method and the history of science. Every theory is heavily tested before it is accepted. Einstein wasn't even a name in physics until after his theories were tested and were shown to fit the facts. Hell, we are still testing some aspects of Relativity. So the idea that we accept these things on Einstein's word alone is ludicrous.

There is nothing in Relativity that says light must have particles. So this shows right here that you don't even understand the theory or its basis and that you are speaking from ignorance. Just because you are unaware of the actual real life observations that support Relativity doesn't mean they don't exist.

14. Originally Posted by karthikovi
Originally Posted by DrRocket
Originally Posted by karthikovi
is this fair to call something to be real just by assuming that it will be true.

what i feel is in most cases of physics law has been formulated and most facts are fitted into it
1. You are completely wrong.

2. What you "feel" is irrelevant.
is there proof that photons have no mass and photons exist in light, just because Einstein has said that light needs to have particles to obey certain laws we assume that light has particles also since photons do not fit the relative energy equation we assume that photons have no mass in order to satisfy the equation. we twist facts to fit an equation not equations to fit facts.

On what basis do you say i am wrong
everything is just assumed no concrete proofs. if your assumption is correct why cant what i feel be correct
again, if you had read the sticky on this page before posting here this conversation would need not occur. but because you insist on either not reading it or disagreeing with it i'll try to explain briefly why we think light is a particle and a wave.

the properties of light include a few important things, when you shine certain kinds of light at a metal it will eject electrons and create a current. also, when you direct light at an object it will not bounce off of it in one direction, but in all directions. using these two properties alone a thought experiment can be done to conclude the nature of light.

a basic understanding of the quantum model of the atom is required for this: in an atom negatively charged electrons orbit a positively charged nucleus at different energy levels, and these electrons can only orbit in these energy levels or they will be unstable and quickly move into one. when energy is added to the nucleus the electrons will jump up an energy level or perhaps even jump all the way out of orbit. now in order for electrons to be ejected they need to gain energy. if light were merely a wave then any frequency of light would eject electrons from an atom as long as you shined it at a high enough intensity. observations show however that electrons only gain a small amount of energy when you shine a high intensity of low frequency light at them. this proves that light cannot simply be a wave.

the arguement that light is only a particle implies that it only expresses properties of a particle. when you observe something that is equivalent at the macroscopic level to what we define as a particle, you come up with something like a ball. when you throw a ball at the wall it may bounce back if it can store elastic potential energy. when the ball bounces off the wall it bounces at an angle such as in this diagram:

ignoring the text, the ball will follow the vectors of "initial velocity" and "bounce velocity". this describes how a particle acts. however when you bounce light off of the same wall something different happens. if you shine a flashlight at a wall the light doesn't bounce off in one vector, it bounces in all directions so that you can see the light on the wall from anywhere within the room. this property is a property of waves that particles simply don't exhibit (the ball doesn't split into a bunch of identical balls when you bounce it). these two thought experiments should lead you to the conclusion that light cannot be only a particle, or only a wave but a combination of both.

15. Maybe light doesn't behave like a billiard ball?

16. Thanks alot for all the answers

Are there any more thought's from you all?

Sincerely,
Mark Railton

17. Originally Posted by Janus
Originally Posted by karthikovi
Originally Posted by DrRocket
Originally Posted by karthikovi
is this fair to call something to be real just by assuming that it will be true.

what i feel is in most cases of physics law has been formulated and most facts are fitted into it
1. You are completely wrong.

2. What you "feel" is irrelevant.
is there proof that photons have no mass and photons exist in light, just because Einstein has said that light needs to have particles to obey certain laws we assume that light has particles also since photons do not fit the relative energy equation we assume that photons have no mass in order to satisfy the equation. we twist facts to fit an equation not equations to fit facts.

On what basis do you say i am wrong
everything is just assumed no concrete proofs. if your assumption is correct why cant what i feel be correct
You really need to read up on the scientific method and the history of science. Every theory is heavily tested before it is accepted. Einstein wasn't even a name in physics until after his theories were tested and were shown to fit the facts. Hell, we are still testing some aspects of Relativity. So the idea that we accept these things on Einstein's word alone is ludicrous.

There is nothing in Relativity that says light must have particles. So this shows right here that you don't even understand the theory or its basis and that you are speaking from ignorance. Just because you are unaware of the actual real life observations that support Relativity doesn't mean they don't exist.
I never said relativity holds that light has particles. Einstein was sure that light has particles. he was the one who proposed relativity, if relative mass equation is true light should not have particles with rest mass, so we assume that photons do not have rest mass. i guess i am clear, and i am very much aware of the real life observations, i guess you should try to understand what i am trying to tell before commenting like this. what i ask is why do you want to have this contradiction between theories.

If it has been proved that photon do not have rest mass please give me the link where i can study it, and if such an experiment has occurred i am unaware of it. i am sorry, if at all it has not occurred on what basis you want me to accept that photons do not have rest mass. please do not give any theoritical proofs. i want practical proofs. if you cant prove it dont call my knowledge to be poor.

18. Any time the speed of a beam of light is measured, it's confirming that light has no rest mass.

Maxwell's equations predict how fast a beam of pure electromagnetic energy should travel. Relativity states that this is a universal speed limit and that anything approaching this limit increases in relativistic mass. Light is measured as moving at that speed (to well within our ability to measure it) and therefore couldn't have any rest mass to begin with. (Nothing with rest mass can reach that speed.)

19. Originally Posted by MagiMaster
Any time the speed of a beam of light is measured, it's confirming that light has no rest mass.

Maxwell's equations predict how fast a beam of pure electromagnetic energy should travel. Relativity states that this is a universal speed limit and that anything approaching this limit increases in relativistic mass. Light is measured as moving at that speed (to well within our ability to measure it) and therefore couldn't have any rest mass to begin with. (Nothing with rest mass can reach that speed.)
The speed limit arises because it is a speed that is the same in all inertial reference frames. Light is experimentally seen to propagate at the same speed in all inertial frames. In addition this is a result of Maxwell's equations. So there are both experimental and theoretical reasons that light propagates at the same speed in all such frames.

One derives the special theory of relativity from the postulates that the laws of physics are the same in all inertial reference frames and from the postulate that something, and it does not matter what, propagates at a single speed in all inertial reference frames. That speed then is a maximum speed and cannot be reached by any massive body. One then notes that the speed of light fits the requirements.

So, it is the case that light defines the maximum speed, and measurements of the speed of light only serve to put a number to it, once the constance in inertial reference frames is established. In any case, massive bodies cannot go that fast.

20. Gravity does most certainly act on energy.
Doc; Does mass/gravity act on the energy or the space energy is passing through???

Space (or vacuum) can, theoretically, expand faster than the speed of light.
spirytus; Really, I thought it was the expansion of the limits of the contained space, that was expanding at C. Spece itself, more importantly mass is for all practical purpose motionless.

Maybe light doesn't behave like a billiard ball?
It doesn't, when energy is absorbed by mass, that photon ends and a new one carries the new energy (if applicable). If I understand correctly the energy of the sun, produced in the core, bounces around (though appears as a billiard ball) in each exchange is a new photon, taking an estimated 300k+ to a million years (some say) to finally be emitted from the star.

21. Originally Posted by jackson33
Maybe light doesn't behave like a billiard ball?
It doesn't
Sorry, shit sarcasm.

22. Originally Posted by jackson33
Doc; Does mass/gravity act on the energy or the space energy is passing through???
The effect of mass/energy is to determins the curvature of spacetime. Light follows a geodesic in spacetime and the geodesics are determined by the curvature. In fact anything follows a geodesic in spacetime unless there are other forces at work.

The way that you phrased the question is itself a bit misleading, so I tried to answer the question that I think you were really asking. Mass and energy are the same thing, which is the content of .

23. The 'rest mass' of light is a purely theoretical construct. Light cannot travel at any speed but c , it can never be at 'rest'. Light does have energy however, and in the simplest form of mass/energy equivalence, has a 'mass' associated with it. Any energy has a mass equivalence, so if it makes you sleep better at night, gravity will affect the 'mass' of the energy. The more correct interpretation, however, in Gen. Relativity is that it follows the curvature of space along the path of least action (a quantity not an expression). In Quantum Mech. hoever, it fallows ALL paths and the sum of all paths is observed (all others cancel).

24. Originally Posted by Railton2
Hey!

PS: I am only seventeen years old, and I am going in 10th grade, so I don't have any education in science/physics

Have a great day!
science and physics is not what it once was anyway , its mostly conjecture.

you seem to have a good grasp of what physics once was , you might want to avoid all
the jargon and misconceptions that is now physics and choose a business career , after all it is
business that controls physics these days.

25. Originally Posted by DrRocket
Originally Posted by karthikovi
is this fair to call something to be real just by assuming that it will be true.

what i feel is in most cases of physics law has been formulated and most facts are fitted into it
1. You are completely wrong.

2. What you "feel" is irrelevant.
That is an opinion. I don't think I have to tell you that telling people they are wrong and that their feelings are irrelevant won't get you very far in life do I doc?

Railton, it doesnt matter how old you are never apologise for stating what you believe. Never believe someone is better than someone else, we are all equal.

To answer your question, it isn't impossible to travel faster than light but it is impossible for regular matter to travel faster than light in its own relative spacetime (For instance Minkowskil space (our spacetime) sets light at 670,616, 629 mph, it is impossible for most matter to go beyond light speed).

It is observable to note particles going faster than light though in a CASIMIR VACUUM.

Different regions of spacetime can have different states of vibration at the scales that our instruments cannot measure. Black holes for instance are one of these. In these spatial reasons the speed of light increases beyond what we would call the 'speed of light'

This is why light in a black hole is not able to escape, its actually our light from our Minkowski space but isnt travelling at the speed of light in the black holes space because it wasnt created inside it. This is why you go back in time in a black hole, because relative to the black hole (with a higher light speed limit) against our light speed limit, the universe goes back in time relative from the inside of the black hole.

Its also why we can't observe anything beyond the event horizon.

Peace out

26. i'm sure there are unmeasured situations in the universe where things travel faster than light..........like the tips of an airplane propeller. If Tachyons are proven it is all the evidence we need.

in my ignorance may I raise a philosophical point:

Einstein's equation provides a means of explanation but also limits the math as it is supposed to draw boundaries with which answers are calculated - by its very nature it has limits much like the limits of the universe it is trying to explain.

so naturally using this equation things start getting a little strange as we approach light speed.

not based on any fact or education - simply an assumption. I really wish I did more math

27. I would like to state (keep in mind I diddnt actually read the whole discussion. sorry If someone mentond this) that a tachyon witch is a particle with space-like four-momentum and imaginary proper time. A tachyon is constrained to the space-like portion of the energy-momentum graph. Therefore, it cannot slow down to subluminal speeds. could move faster then light. but its just a theory so...

28. You guys are talking about Tachyons as if they actually exist. They have been postulated from a solution to Paul Dirac's equatins involving the root of a negative expression. The imaginary root is what led to the congecture of tachyons which travel at speeds greater than c , have a lower limiting velocity of c , and travel backwards through time. But this is IMAGINARY matter.

Regular stuff (mass/energy) has an upper limiting velocity of c because if it didn't all sorts of strange stuff would happen as a result and nothing would make sense anymore.

29. Originally Posted by MigL
You guys are talking about Tachyons as if they actually exist. They have been postulated from a solution to Paul Dirac's equatins involving the root of a negative expression. The imaginary root is what led to the congecture of tachyons which travel at speeds greater than c , have a lower limiting velocity of c , and travel backwards through time. But this is IMAGINARY matter.

Regular stuff (mass/energy) has an upper limiting velocity of c because if it didn't all sorts of strange stuff would happen as a result and nothing would make sense anymore.
i'll take the blame for mentioning Tachyons........my apologies........i'll still stand by my unproven theory that there are unmeasured situations in the universe where matter does move faster than light much like the tips of a plane propeller.

until man broke the sound barrier people thought the same about that, and even going into space (some people said eyeballs would pop out of their sockets!). i appreciate that light is a different matter (excuse the pun!)................

30. Originally Posted by fatman57

until man broke the sound barrier people thought the same about that, and even going into space (some people said eyeballs would pop out of their sockets!).

Man-made objects traveled faster than sound long before the sound barrier was "broken". The problem wasn't actually traveling faster than sound, it was designing an aircraft capable of maintaining controlled flight at those speeds.

And while a lot of people voiced a number of objections as to why space travel would be impossible, generally these objections were made by people who weren't experts in the area in which they were voicing their objection.

The speed of light is different as it delves deeply into the very roots of the fundamental operating parameters of reality.

31. Let's take the simplest example. We attempt to accelerate a given mass to lightspeed. We know that as we approach lightspeed the mass increases and approaches infinity. The energy needed to keep accelerating the given mass also increase and as lightspeed is approached, the energy to further accelerate also approaches infinity. So unless you have infinite energy at your disposal, you will never get there. This nearing infinite mass (mass/energy equivalence) then has other effects, such as a steep gravitational gradient next to this mass which will obviously form an event horizon long before it gets to infinite mass and so would exit our universe (a black hole). So numerous . factors will keep you from reaching lightspeed

32. Originally Posted by fatman57
Originally Posted by MigL
You guys are talking about Tachyons as if they actually exist. They have been postulated from a solution to Paul Dirac's equatins involving the root of a negative expression. The imaginary root is what led to the congecture of tachyons which travel at speeds greater than c , have a lower limiting velocity of c , and travel backwards through time. But this is IMAGINARY matter.

Regular stuff (mass/energy) has an upper limiting velocity of c because if it didn't all sorts of strange stuff would happen as a result and nothing would make sense anymore.
i'll take the blame for mentioning Tachyons........my apologies........i'll still stand by my unproven theory that there are unmeasured situations in the universe where matter does move faster than light much like the tips of a plane propeller.

until man broke the sound barrier people thought the same about that, and even going into space (some people said eyeballs would pop out of their sockets!). i appreciate that light is a different matter (excuse the pun!)................
I don't know why you think the tips of an airplane's propeller constitute an "unmeasured situation." If you bother looking things up, you can see very quickly that they don't move anywhere remotely close to the speed of light. And if you understood relativity a little better, you'd see that the blades would shatter if they did.

33. Originally Posted by MagiMaster
Originally Posted by fatman57
Originally Posted by MigL
You guys are talking about Tachyons as if they actually exist. They have been postulated from a solution to Paul Dirac's equatins involving the root of a negative expression. The imaginary root is what led to the congecture of tachyons which travel at speeds greater than c , have a lower limiting velocity of c , and travel backwards through time. But this is IMAGINARY matter.

Regular stuff (mass/energy) has an upper limiting velocity of c because if it didn't all sorts of strange stuff would happen as a result and nothing would make sense anymore.
i'll take the blame for mentioning Tachyons........my apologies........i'll still stand by my unproven theory that there are unmeasured situations in the universe where matter does move faster than light much like the tips of a plane propeller.

until man broke the sound barrier people thought the same about that, and even going into space (some people said eyeballs would pop out of their sockets!). i appreciate that light is a different matter (excuse the pun!)................
I don't know why you think the tips of an airplane's propeller constitute an "unmeasured situation." If you bother looking things up, you can see very quickly that they don't move anywhere remotely close to the speed of light. And if you understood relativity a little better, you'd see that the blades would shatter if they did.
by 'unmeasured situation' i basically meant outside of a lab controlled environment. Hawking himself said that collisions happen all the time in the atmosphere that are greater than what goes on in the LHC.

I have seen the math behind how the speed of light/infinity works in a lecture from Berkeley, and so in that respect I do understand why the blades would shatter. I just keep an open minded opinion when it comes to these things.

34. Uncontrolled and unmeasured are two different things. Cosmic particles hit the atmosphere with greater energy that the collisions of the LHC, but there's still nothing in any of those situations going faster than the speed of light.

35. Originally Posted by fatman57
i'll still stand by my unproven theory that there are unmeasured situations in the universe where matter does move faster than light much like the tips of a plane propeller.

............. I just keep an open minded opinion when it comes to these things.
Then you are revealing yourself as a fool.

Let's consider a ten foot diameter propeller. Hell, I'll make it easier for you. 20' diameter. What is the circumference of the circle marked out by its blade tips? Just over 314'. Let's call it 315'. Now suppose the prop is turning at 2500rpm. No - again I'll make it better for you - 10,000 rpm.
How far do the tips travel in one minute? 10000 x 315' = 315,000'
And in one second it travels 315,000/6 ' = 52,500'.
That's just under one mile in one second.
The speed of light is 186,284 ,miles per second, IIRC.

Can you explain to me why you think a propeller blade travelling at 0.00054% of the speed of light may, in your open minded opinion, be travelling faster than the speed of light.?

36. Originally Posted by Ophiolite
Can you explain to me why you think a propeller blade travelling at 0.00054% of the speed of light may, in your open minded opinion, be travelling faster than the speed of light.?
Literally speaking impossible, I'm sure the universe is much more complex, to which we have to discover still.

Why tell somoene they are being foolish Ophiolite? That won't turn him around to understanding, like most people he will probably resent you for it in some way.

I am curious as to see your answer fatman, how does a propellor travelling much slower than c be travelling faster than c?

37. Originally Posted by Ophiolite
Originally Posted by fatman57
i'll still stand by my unproven theory that there are unmeasured situations in the universe where matter does move faster than light much like the tips of a plane propeller.

............. I just keep an open minded opinion when it comes to these things.
Then you are revealing yourself as a fool.

Let's consider a ten foot diameter propeller. Hell, I'll make it easier for you. 20' diameter. What is the circumference of the circle marked out by its blade tips? Just over 314'. Let's call it 315'. Now suppose the prop is turning at 2500rpm. No - again I'll make it better for you - 10,000 rpm.
How far do the tips travel in one minute? 10000 x 315' = 315,000'
And in one second it travels 315,000/6 ' = 52,500'.
That's just under one mile in one second.
The speed of light is 186,284 ,miles per second, IIRC.

Can you explain to me why you think a propeller blade travelling at 0.00054% of the speed of light may, in your open minded opinion, be travelling faster than the speed of light.?
I like to hope he's talking about a theoretical propeller the size of a galaxy or something, .... but there are good reasons that no such object could ever be built. If nothing else, a solid object of that size would collapse under the weight of its own gravity.

38. Originally Posted by kojax
Originally Posted by Ophiolite
Originally Posted by fatman57
i'll still stand by my unproven theory that there are unmeasured situations in the universe where matter does move faster than light much like the tips of a plane propeller.

............. I just keep an open minded opinion when it comes to these things.
Then you are revealing yourself as a fool.

Let's consider a ten foot diameter propeller. Hell, I'll make it easier for you. 20' diameter. What is the circumference of the circle marked out by its blade tips? Just over 314'. Let's call it 315'. Now suppose the prop is turning at 2500rpm. No - again I'll make it better for you - 10,000 rpm.
How far do the tips travel in one minute? 10000 x 315' = 315,000'
And in one second it travels 315,000/6 ' = 52,500'.
That's just under one mile in one second.
The speed of light is 186,284 ,miles per second, IIRC.

Can you explain to me why you think a propeller blade travelling at 0.00054% of the speed of light may, in your open minded opinion, be travelling faster than the speed of light.?
I like to hope he's talking about a theoretical propeller the size of a galaxy or something, .... but there are good reasons that no such object could ever be built. If nothing else, a solid object of that size would collapse under the weight of its own gravity.
the circumference marked by a 20' diameter circle is 63' ophi... You were thinking of a 100' diameter prop, or you were thinking of the area of the circle marked by the turning prop.

39. Originally Posted by Quantime
Why tell somoene they are being foolish Ophiolite?
Good science begins with accurate descriptions that are publicly available. Fatman57 is being foolish. I have accurately described this condition and made it publicly available. He has the option to heed this objective description, do something about it and enhance his knowledge, or he can stop behaving foolishly and become a fool. The choice is his.
Originally Posted by Quantime
That won't turn him around to understanding, like most people he will probably resent you for it in some way.
I have no regard whatsoever for the opinions of fools.
As noted, he has a choice that can truly change his life. He can begin to act in a rational, logical manner, or he can continue to indulge in ignorance, bias and fanciful notions. That choice faces him regardless of whether or not I call him a fool, or merely say he is behaving foolishly. All I have done is draw his attention to it in a forthright manner.

Originally Posted by Arcane Mathematician
the circumference marked by a 20' diameter circle is 63' ophi... You were thinking of a 100' diameter prop, or you were thinking of the area of the circle marked by the turning prop.
Mea culpa. I had popped the equation down in Excel in order to try out a variety of prop sizes and rpm's. I kept increasing the values to demonstrate that even with extreme values we came nowhere near the speed of light. Somewhere along the line I didn't up date all the numbers in my post. Thanks for pointing out the error.

40. Fatman57 is being foolish.
or

Then you are revealing yourself as a fool.
Notice the difference ?

Someone being foolish on something and holding one for a fool because of some disagreement making it personal makes a huge difference. Calling someone a fool is stupid (foolish) in a discussion, But it doesn,t make someone doing so stupid. so why the need to refer to persons as fools or stupid ? What do you think you gain with that.

41. Originally Posted by kojax
I like to hope he's talking about a theoretical propeller the size of a galaxy or something, .... but there are good reasons that no such object could ever be built. If nothing else, a solid object of that size would collapse under the weight of its own gravity.
The problem with obtaining a speed exceeding "C" by rotating some object of sufficiently large radius does not lie the impossibility of existence of an object of such size. It lies in the assumption of a rigid body.

Were there such a thing as a rigid body then the tip of sufficiently large propellar would indeed travel at superluminal speed. But special relativity precludes the existence of rigid bodies, so the kinematic analysis of the propelleer is invalid.

If you take a light beam, say a laser pointer, and swing it then it is quite possible for the illuminate spot on a screen sufficiently far away to move at a speed faster than "c". This does not contradict special relativity because there is really nothing physics that is moving and because there is no means whereby information can transmitted faster than "c".

42. Originally Posted by Ophiolite
Originally Posted by Quantime
Why tell somoene they are being foolish Ophiolite?
Good science begins with accurate descriptions that are publicly available. Fatman57 is being foolish. I have accurately described this condition and made it publicly available.
While your statement is justified, probably a better justification lies in the service that you provide to innocent lurkers. By clearly labeling Fatman57's approach as foolish you provide those lurkers with a clear "road sign" that they should be skeptical in reading his posts -- a potentially valuable warning.

Fatman57 himself is unlikely to benefit, but that is of little consequence in the larger picture.

43. Originally Posted by Ghrasp
so why the need to refer to persons as fools or stupid ? .
I don't need to, I want to.

Originally Posted by Ghrasp
What do you think you gain with that.
I don't think I gain anything. I hope that a proportion of individuals I call fools, or accuse of acting foolishly will reexamine their thinking and cease the foolish thinking or behaviour. I also hope - as Dr. Rocket has suggested - that other readers will approach the posts of such an individual with caution.

Other's in this thread have point out gently and diplomatically that fatman57 is mistaken. He has disregarded these pieces of advice and reaffirmed his position. Do you really think such intransigent stupidity and commitment to ignorance should be ignored?

44. [quote="Ophiolite"]
Originally Posted by Ghrasp
so why the need to refer to persons as fools or stupid ? .
I don't need to, I want to.

Originally Posted by Ghrasp
What do you think you gain with that.
I don't think I gain anything. I hope that a proportion of individuals I call fools, or accuse of acting foolishly will reexamine their thinking and cease the foolish thinking or behaviour. I also hope - as Dr. Rocket has suggested - that other readers will approach the posts of such an individual with caution.

Other's in this thread have point out gently and diplomatically that fatman57 is mistaken. He has disregarded these pieces of advice and reaffirmed his position. Do you really think such intransigent stupidity and commitment to ignorance should be ignored?[/quote]
Ophiolite,
Even I, as a layman/lurker can see that your maths is way off course. Leave the fatman alone.

45. Originally Posted by Dave Wilson
Ophiolite,
Even I, as a layman/lurker can see that your maths is way off course. Leave the fatman alone.
What maths?

Fatman57 chooses to come on a public discussion forum.
Fatman57 chooses to make statements that reveal a lack of education in a particular area, or a lack of careful thought on that topic.
Fatman57 chooses to ignore well meaning attempts to educate him or to guide his thinking.
Fatman 57 must accept the consequences of his choices.

Do you think it is moral and right to allow Fatman57 to wallow in his ignorance? Apparently so. I choose not to and I accept the consequences of that choice.

46. No its possible to travel at a speed of light if we go by the theory of relativity which states that we cannot go at the of speed light but can go faster or slower

47. Originally Posted by Kalpit Darbhe
No its possible to travel at a speed of light if we go by the theory of relativity which states that we cannot go at the of speed light but can go faster or slower
If you go by relativity it would take an infinite amount of energy to accelerate a particle (particle, not even at a person yet person) to the speed of light, because in all reference frames, the speed of light is constant. even at 99.999999999999999999999999999999999999999999% the speed of light, the particle would observe light to be traveling away from it at c...

You are full of shit, my friend...

48. [quote="saul"]
Originally Posted by karthikovi
Originally Posted by DrRocket
Originally Posted by karthikovi
is this fair to call something to be real just by assuming that it will be true.

what i feel is in most cases of physics law has been formulated and most facts are fitted into it
1. You are completely wrong.

2. What you "feel" is irrelevant.
is there proof that photons have no mass and photons exist in light, just because Einstein has said that light needs to have particles to obey certain laws we assume that light has particles also since photons do not fit the relative energy equation we assume that photons have no mass in order to satisfy the equation. we twist facts to fit an equation not equations to fit facts.
On what basis do you say i am wrong
everything is just assumed no concrete proofs. if your assumption is correct why cant what i feel be correct

It's because Einstein's equations were very complicated, to such a degree that the random probability of such a complicated equation "just so happening" to give the correct result every time an experiment is run against them would be like the random odds of winning the lottery every time you buy a ticket.

In science, we never know anything for sure, but the odds of us being wrong go down more and more the greater the precision of our tests. At it's core, that's all the scientific process is. It's just betting with the odds rather than against them when forming a belief. If you want people to be friendly on this forum, you must concede to that expectation.

Originally Posted by karthikovi

If it has been proved that photon do not have rest mass please give me the link where i can study it, and if such an experiment has occurred i am unaware of it. i am sorry, if at all it has not occurred on what basis you want me to accept that photons do not have rest mass. please do not give any theoritical proofs. i want practical proofs. if you cant prove it dont call my knowledge to be poor.
Well, the concept of a "rest mass" is completely meaningless when discussing a photon anyway, .... because a photon cannot ever be at rest. It is always moving at C, never slower, and never faster.

49. Originally Posted by kojax

Well, the concept of a "rest mass" is completely meaningless when discussing a photon anyway, .... because a photon cannot ever be at rest. It is always moving at C, never slower, and never faster.
Which is reflected in the fact that the rest mass is zero. So zero rest mass really does have meaning. It is both necessary and sufficient for travel at c. This is important because there are a few other particles that also have zero rest mass. Gluons for instance. And, it is expected that the graviton, if such exists, will also have zero rest mass, which implies that gravitational waves will also travel at the speed of light.

 Bookmarks
##### Bookmarks
 Posting Permissions
 You may not post new threads You may not post replies You may not post attachments You may not edit your posts   BB code is On Smilies are On [IMG] code is On [VIDEO] code is On HTML code is Off Trackbacks are Off Pingbacks are Off Refbacks are On Terms of Use Agreement