Thread: Space travel.

If the earth travels 366 million miles around the sun in 365 days thats a million miles a day. Then why cant we even travel near the speed of light? I know the answer is in gravitational pull.

Everything moves at the speed of light.

he is right. but the question is then, in waht dimension

you may only respond with that answer if you have an adequit definition of a dimension

Originally Posted by Hermes

Everything moves at the speed of light.

Nonsense! complete nonsense statement.

Freedom, Hermes, Zelos & Vroomfondel seem all to be right. Their statements inadvertantly or deliberately compliment and reinforce one another. Electrons orbit nuclei. Atoms and molecules oscillate. Asteroids and the moon orbit earth, earth orbits sun, sun is traveling toward the distant light source, Vega, Vega is traveling to and/or moving around FILL IN HERE. Fill In Here is traveling to and/or orbiting, etceteras... Andromeda is moving with the accelerating expansion of the Universe... The speed of light yesterday was not as fast as it is today, and, is slower today than it will be tomorrow... (Refer, the 4-D space-time continuum)

In all cases the speed of light - Celeritas Constant, is traveling at the same rate, relative to the system from which it originates. There is no infringement here on the law of the constancy - C - of light.
The speed of light varies with the size of the coordinate system from which it originates, relative to the coordinate system from which it is observed. Squared.

P.S. The answer is in gravitational push and pull.

(Everyone - certainly including Imaplanck - only humanly being entitled to their own opinion?)


Everything is impossible, but some things are more impossible than others.

Everything in the universe has a negative, positive, and a neutral charge. I believe that the answer may lay here.

the thing taht we travel with the speed C is nott nonesense. its true. in the dimension of time we travel with the speed C

Nothing with mass can travel speed -C-

Originally Posted by Zelos

the thing taht we travel with the speed C is nott nonesense. its true. in the dimension of time we travel with the speed C

Bullcrap!

You say in "The Dimension of Time" time as we truly know it is just a form of measurement to measure the lengths of our life seconds, minutes, hours, etc.

To say we move though a singled out dimension at the speed of light is tripe. Time and space are inseparable you cant move through one without another. Velocity requires two or more dimensions - time and one or more spartial.

This whole 'everything travels the speed of light' is just an out there postulate and is not a part of any accepted theory of modern physics.

C = 299,792,458 m/s
1/C = 1/299,792,458 s/m
how many seconds is then 1 meter? simply take that times 1 m
1 m = 1/299,792,458 seconds
so then in one second we travel 299,792,458 meters of space in the time dimension.
dear folks, remembre that transformation from time to space allways involve s the constant C

but in normal space its impossible to go at speed C. only time dimension allows C speed. read relativity.

Originally Posted by Imaplanck.

Nonsense! complete nonsense statement.

I think that your statement speaks volumes about you.

Originally Posted by That Rascal Puff

The speed of light yesterday was not as fast as it is today, and, is slower today than it will be tomorrow...

Why do you think that the speed of light is increasing?

Originally Posted by Zelos

in the dimension of time we travel with the speed C

I think that nothing in space moves at C and nothing in time moves at C, but that everything in space-time moves at C.

things in time moves at speed C, if space exists. so ure right, but still a bit wrong. but mostly right

he thinks that because some new ideas claim C cahnges. and they are correct when it comes to casmir effect. else it would require magnetic parmeability and electric permativity of free space to change, maybe i took wrong thing with magnetic, if so just flip the word after magnetic and electric

The speed of light is slowing down CDK Not speeding up

thats in medium.
the casmir effect isa vaccum with a less zero-point energy and then when its more energy on the outside it creates prssure forcing the sides toghater when there shouldnt be a force or pressure. the idea is that this less energy density acctualy makes the constants even smaller, and then speed of light increase, but this havent been proven yet

Originally Posted by freedom21

The speed of light is slowing down CDK Not speeding up

I agree that this seems the most likely scenario.

Hermes, I am deluding myself to think I am qualified to say "everything travels at c" is nonesense, I apolgize for being so brash(in retrospect I would say it is a somewhat valid interpretation), but having said that I would say I was justified to meet like with like.
I would say that at the end of the day I am more than qualified to say that using the afore mentioned statement to imply that modern physics only recognizes one speed and that the doctrine of 'nothing with rest mass can reach c' is irrelevent to modern physics is indeed erroneous though, and I would ask you to be so kind as not meet every relativistic type question with the blanket assertion that 'everything travels at c' - 'nuff said!' Frankly thats not accepted as modern physics.

Originally Posted by Imaplanck.

Hermes, I am deluding myself to think I am qualified to say "everything travels at c" is nonesense, I apolgize for being so brash(in retrospect I would say it is a somewhat valid interpretation), but having said that I would say I was justified to meet like with like.

OK

I would say that at the end of the day I am more than qualified to say that using the afore mentioned statement to imply that modern physics only recognizes one speed and that the doctrine of 'nothing with rest mass can reach c' is irrelevent to modern physics is indeed erroneous though, and I would ask you to be so kind as not meet every relativistic type question with the blanket assertion that 'everything travels at c' - 'nuff said!' Frankly thats not accepted as modern physics.

I am not sure exactly what you are suggesting, but it is clear that I do not agree. When space and time are considered separately, then I will accept your statement about nothing with zero rest mass moving at C. However, if we consider the context of space-time, as I am attempting, then I consider that this is quite valid. There is only one speed in the universe, which by no accident is the speed of light. However, space-time has a spatial and a temporal component, which leaves latitude in the relative proportion of each. Furthermore, I consider that your notion of rest mass is of limited value, as nothing can ever be at rest and without motion through space. If you disagree, please provide an example of something that can be considered to be completely at rest and devoid of motion with respect to the universe.

you should read relativity. there u´ll learn that throu time dimension we are all moving at the speed of C

Originally Posted by Zelos

you should read relativity. there u´ll learn that throu time dimension we are all moving at the speed of C

No you read relativity! Instead of watching starwars. idiot!

I didn't gloat on your errors on escape velocity, neither did I make a big deal out of your obvious contradiction regarding religion being a factor of nature as well as nature, despite you making it appear that I was the one responsible of wooly thinking when it was in fact you. But my generosity towards your poor knowledge is wearing thin.

Never mind.
I misread the point made.

Originally Posted by Hermes

If you disagree, please provide an example of something that can be considered to be completely at rest and devoid of motion with respect to the universe.

Of course I dont disagree that anything can be at rest with regard to certain frames of reference i.e. the point of the bigbang, but it can indeed be at rest in regard to a frame of reference such as the room you are in right now. Therefor rest mass(please research the meaning) is indeed relevent.

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

Originally Posted by Imaplanck.

No you read relativity! Instead of watching starwars. idiot!

Wow. You think that since you have failed to convince people that your arguments are somehow superior, you are better off resorting to being extremely rude. Do you really think that anyone will give your ideas more respect than they deserve by this obviously infantiile tactic? Why not present your arguments and either convinve people or not. I think that your arguments are poor. This is no reason for you to cry and resort to insults.

Originally Posted by Hermes

Originally Posted by Imaplanck.

No you read relativity! Instead of watching starwars. idiot!

Wow. You think that since you have failed to convince people that your arguments are somehow superior, you are better off resorting to being extremely rude. Do you really think that anyone will give your ideas more respect than they deserve by this obviously infantiile tactic? Why not present your arguments and either convinve people or not. I think that your arguments are poor. This is no reason for you to cry and resort to insults.

But some people wont listen to explanation and his delusions of a superior knowledge of physics is peeing me off.
As someone said it's OK to not know but it's not OK to assert you have a superior knowledge when you dont.
Any way my response was in light of this:

you should read relativity. there u´ll learn that throu time dimension we are all moving at the speed of C

....Which apart from being patronizing to me is completely erroneous, seeing as a volicity(c in this case) is dependent on a spatial dimension as well as the time dimension. I dont care where he picked up this claptrap but the patronization hurts.

Originally Posted by Imaplanck.

Of course I dont disagree that anything can be at rest with regard to certain frames of reference i.e. the point of the bigbang, but it can indeed be at rest in regard to a frame of reference such as the room you are in right now. Therefor rest mass(please research the meaning) is indeed relevent.

I agreee that there is meaning in the concept of rest mass, however limited it is. By creating a highly limited context, it can be given meaning.

Originally Posted by Imaplanck.

But some people wont listen to explanation and his delusions of a superior knowledge of physics is peeing me off.
As someone said it's OK to not know but it's not OK to assert you have a superior knowledge when you dont.

Several of us frequently come off giving this impression.

you should read relativity. there u´ll learn that throu time dimension we are all moving at the speed of C

....Which apart from being patronizing to me is completely erroneous, seeing as a volicity(c in this case) is dependent on a spatial dimension as well as the time dimension.

I guess I just assumed that he meant space as well as time.

Originally Posted by Hermes

Originally Posted by Imaplanck.

Of course I dont disagree that anything can be at rest with regard to certain frames of reference i.e. the point of the bigbang, but it can indeed be at rest in regard to a frame of reference such as the room you are in right now. Therefor rest mass(please research the meaning) is indeed relevent.

I agreee that there is meaning in the concept of rest mass, however limited it is. By creating a highly limited context, it can be given meaning.

So you haven't understood the meaning at all then?
Never mind, try space-time:

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

Originally Posted by Imaplanck.

So you haven't understood the meaning at all then?
Never mind, try space-time:

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

I do not see how this supports your point. This site claims that space and time cannot be separated, and that their relationship is achieved by virtue of the speed of light. This is as I said, that the speed of light is constant in space-time. By this very definition, everything moves at the speed of light, with any differences being differencs in the relationship between the spatial and temporal components of this motion.

Originally Posted by Imaplanck.

Originally Posted by Zelos

you should read relativity. there u´ll learn that throu time dimension we are all moving at the speed of C

No you read relativity! Instead of watching starwars. idiot!

ure the idiot, im studiung relativity moron
its throu spatial dimension u cnt move with C
temproal dimensions is different.
there goes C meters on one second of time, C*1 second = 299,792,458 meters
so when we travel 1 second throu time we acctualy also go 299,792,458 meter of space in the temporal dimension. so that would make it so that we go 299,792,458 meters of temporal distance on one second, 299,792,458 m/s
oh my god thats C
my "lack" of knowledge in ur eyes is merlu ur lack of understanding of more advanced physics

when u read relativity u´ll also see that we allways have the same 4.momentum no matter what velocity we go at

Originally Posted by Zelos

Originally Posted by Imaplanck.

Originally Posted by Zelos

you should read relativity. there u´ll learn that throu time dimension we are all moving at the speed of C

No you read relativity! Instead of watching starwars. idiot!

ure the idiot, im studiung relativity moron

Well I've already studied it you twat.

Originally Posted by Zelos

its throu spatial dimension u cnt move with C
temproal dimensions is different.
there goes C meters on one second of time, C*1 second = 299,792,458 meters
so when we travel 1 second throu time we acctualy also go 299,792,458 meter of space in the temporal dimension. so that would make it so that we go 299,792,458 meters of temporal distance on one second, 299,792,458 m/s
oh my god thats C
my "lack" of knowledge in ur eyes is merlu ur lack of understanding of more advanced physics

when u read relativity u´ll also see that we allways have the same 4.momentum no matter what velocity we go at

So there are other velocities then you twonk! Jesus Christ! You haven't understood a thing about relativity have you?

why r u projecting ur own missunderstanding on me?
its obvius that ure either young and naive to think u can understand it at that age. or that ure a LC and think the same. because else u wouldnt get such outbrakes

Originally Posted by Zelos

why r u projecting ur own missunderstanding on me?

My misunderstanding?

there goes C meters on one second of time, C*1 second = 299,792,458 meters
so when we travel 1 second throu time we acctualy also go 299,792,458 meter of space in the temporal dimension. so that would make it so that we go 299,792,458 meters of temporal distance on one second, 299,792,458 m/s

You cant measure metres(spatial measurement ) in the tempoural dimension! Where are you study BTW?

hahaha u just walked into a gigantic trap. now its obvius that you dont understand relativity. because in it you can measure time in spatial meters. they do that both to simplify and to make sense of their equations

so what IS relativity (i don't have a clue)

is it that everything has been build up out of energy?

no, its asying that everything is relative. there is no absolute time, no absolute motion and such. for me u can move 50m/s and for someone else 10 m/s. and thereofr do u have more mass/energy relative to me thanf or that guy, but relative to you its i who have more energy/mass. but it also says that time slows done as speed increase. for me ur clocks go slower, but for u its my clocks that go slower.
this is just very breif of special relativity, general takes in account for acceleration and gravity wich creates even more relativity

You know we can number everything and give everything a pretty equation, these are man made. When you do this though you limit your understanding to these equations and numbers. No matter how large or complex the equation or number is you have built a bigger box around you which makes it harder to look outside that box.

HU?

Then again everyone is entitled to their opinion. [/u]

Originally Posted by freedom21

If the earth travels 366 million miles around the sun in 365 days thats a million miles a day. Then why cant we even travel near the speed of light? I know the answer is in gravitational pull.

The speed of light is 15 billion miles/day. At a million miles/day the earth is going at about 0.0064% of the speed of light.

Stop using those units humans. they are to low even for your species

What's wrong with those units? The point remains the same whether you use meters, miles, or pencils.

SI units are the only accepteble units for science. those units have costed humanity billion and years. all that was wasted because of those units

Well, this thread isn't exactly a submission for Nature or anything :P

Originally Posted by Zelos

hahaha u just walked into a gigantic trap. now its obvius that you dont understand relativity. because in it you can measure time in spatial meters. they do that both to simplify and to make sense of their equations

No! You walked into it long before, when you used the measurement of time to be literally a spatial measurement, not as theoretical maths. You and Hermes have both used abstract physics to argue against rest mass being relevant in modern physics. It is you who has made it clear he doesn't understand relativity!

hahahaha youre even going deeper into this trap. you can turn temporal measurments into spatial, logicly u can do the revers. I am sitting here, right now with several books of relativity. and all of them says the same thing.
1 seconds = 299 792 458 meters
1 meter = 1/299 792 458 seconds
when u use those units C becomes one and dimensionless. wich is easier to calculate with.

but i guess youre not used to more advanced physic

Originally Posted by Zelos

hahahaha youre even going deeper into this trap. you can turn temporal measurments into spatial, logicly u can do the revers. I am sitting here, right now with several books of relativity. and all of them says the same thing.
1 seconds = 299 792 458 meters
1 meter = 1/299 792 458 seconds
when u use those units C becomes one and dimensionless. wich is easier to calculate with.

If you are learning relativity from a book it is no wonder you dont understand it enough - it is folly to learn relativity from a book, it's just too counterintuative to learn without physical demonstration.
It seems to me you have skipped on to advanced without understanding the basics.
As a matter of interest quote where in your book it says everything travels at the speed of light please.

Originally Posted by Imaplanck.

If you are learning relativity from a book it is no wonder you dont understand it enough - it is folly to learn relativity from a book, it's just too counterintuative to learn without physical demonstration.

What might you mean by this?

It seems to me you have skipped on to advanced without understanding the basics.
As a matter of interest quote where in your book it says everything travels at the speed of light please.

Have you read any books? If so, how is it that you have never read this? Would you like others to do your homework for you? No, of course not, as you do not believe in books, but only in your own practical experiments. Please tell us about your trips at the speed of light, whatever that means to you, and tell us what you discovered.

Originally Posted by Hermes

Please tell us about your trips at the speed of light, whatever that means to you, and tell us what you discovered.

Duh, I cant take a trip at the speed of light because I have rest mass. You've been debunked so you are resorting to putting words in my mouth huh?

Have you read any books? If so, how is it that you have never read this? Would you like others to do your homework for you? No, of course not, as you do not believe in books, but only in your own practical experiments. Please tell us about your trips at the speed of light, whatever that means to you, and tell us what you discovered.

What are you dribbling about now, I merely asked him to cite a relativity publication which say "everything travels at the speed of light" not do my homework, I have already done my homework, thats how I know he wont find such a nonsense conclusion.

FFS EITHER OF YOU TWO CITE EITHER: 'EVERYTHING TRAVELS AT THE SPEED OF LIGHT' OR ' YOU CAN TRAVEL SPATIAL DISTANCE IN THE TEMPOURAL DIMENSION'
.......or STFU and go and learn relativity properly from the ground up.

Originally Posted by Imaplanck.

Duh, I cant take a trip at the speed of light because I have rest mass. You've been debunked so you are resorting to putting words in my mouth huh?

You seem not to understand what you are saying. Now you are attributing your words to me. How cute of you.

What are you dribbling about now, I merely asked him to cite a relativity publication which say "everything travels at the speed of light" not do my homework, I have already done my homework, thats how I know he wont find such a nonsense conclusion.

You are clearly wrong, as I know for a fact. I have indeed read this. The fact that you have not shows your lack of education. You think that this makes your knowledge somehow superior. You are being quite funny here.

FFS EITHER OF YOU TWO CITE EITHER: 'EVERYTHING TRAVELS AT THE SPEED OF LIGHT' OR ' YOU CAN TRAVEL SPATIAL DISTANCE IN THE TEMPOURAL DIMENSION'
.......or STFU and go and learn relativity properly from the ground up.

It seems to me that you are not able to understand relativity. That is why you pout on like this. Now you ask us to do your homework. And if we cite such a book, you will insult it as well. Look at the vulgarity you are trying to use without actually using it. You seem to be throwing a tantrum. To me, it is quite clear that you are wrong, on the basis of current theory. Of course, there are competing theories. Unlike you, I will not ramble on and insult you for your paricular claim to truth.

LOOK YOU CRETIN, DONT YOU EVEN UNDERSTAND WHAT CITE MEANS?
I DONT WANT YOU TO DO ANY HOMEWORK FOR ME! IM JUST ASKED YOU TO BACK UP YOU STATEMENT WITH ACCEPTED PHYSICS LITERATURE, YOU OBVIOUSLY CANT DO THIS.

Originally Posted by Imaplanck.

LOOK YOU CRETIN, DONT YOU EVEN UNDERSTAND WHAT CITE MEANS?
I DONT WANT YOU TO DO ANY HOMEWORK FOR ME! IM JUST ASKED YOU TO BACK UP YOU STATEMENT WITH ACCEPTED PHYSICS LITERATURE, YOU OBVIOUSLY CANT DO THIS.

Wow, you are crying. I am sorry to make you cry like that. You don't want me to do your homework for you, you only want me to do it because you are too lazy. I understand. Jesus, please stop him from whining all over this thread. You can't have looked very hard, if at all. Have you?

Originally Posted by Hermes

Originally Posted by Imaplanck.

LOOK YOU CRETIN, DONT YOU EVEN UNDERSTAND WHAT CITE MEANS?
I DONT WANT YOU TO DO ANY HOMEWORK FOR ME! IM JUST ASKED YOU TO BACK UP YOU STATEMENT WITH ACCEPTED PHYSICS LITERATURE, YOU OBVIOUSLY CANT DO THIS.

Wow, you are crying. I am sorry to make you cry like that. You don't want me to do your homework for you, you only want me to do it because you are too lazy. I understand. Jesus, please stop him from whining all over this thread. You can't have looked very hard, if at all. Have you?

HOW CAN I FIND SOMETHING THAT DOESN'T EXIST IN ANYTHING BUT YOUR HEAD OR THE HEAD OF SOME FRINGE LOONIES?

Originally Posted by Imaplanck.

HOW CAN I FIND SOMETHING THAT DOESN'T EXIST IN ANYTHING BUT YOUR HEAD OR THE HEAD OF SOME FRINGE LOONIES?

Just what I thought. If I make citations, you will dismiss the authors as fringe loonies. So, what is the point. Answer that if you will. Your mind is made up. I disagree with your point of view, but who cares. You certainly seem to, I guess. You get quite insulting when I do not agree with you. I am still waiting on hearing the results of your practical experience that makes your opinion so superior to everyone else's, which you think comes only from books.

Originally Posted by Imaplanck.

LOOK YOU FUCKING RETARD JUST PRODUCE A SINGLE PIECE OF ACCEPTED LITERATURE THAT SAYS 'EVERYTHING TRAVELS AT THE SPEED OF LIGHT'. I DONT KNOW WHAT I DID TO DESERVE SUCH A MORON ON MY BACK, BUT FUCK OFF YOU TWAT NOW!

I see that you are truly pathetic. You are not only quite stupid, but you are a cry baby who loves to whine. It is difficult to believe that you have stooped to being such a vulgar juvenile, and all because you believe that you are so brilliant and yet you refuse to read books, as you have claimed and as you demonstrate here. What a loser you are.

Originally Posted by Hermes

Originally Posted by Imaplanck.

HOW CAN I FIND SOMETHING THAT DOESN'T EXIST IN ANYTHING BUT YOUR HEAD OR THE HEAD OF SOME FRINGE LOONIES?

Just what I thought. If I make citations, you will dismiss the authors as fringe loonies. So, what is the point. Answer that if you will. Your mind is made up. I disagree with your point of view, but who cares. You certainly seem to, I guess. You get quite insulting when I do not agree with you. I am still waiting on hearing the results of your practical experience that makes your opinion so superior to everyone else's, which you think comes only from books.

No I promise if you make a citation from an establishment physicist(not a theoretical physicist mind). I will retract everything I have said and agree that according to modern physics: "everything travels the speed of light and only light travels at c is indeed classic physics". But until then I will maintain that: "everything travels the speed of light and only light travels at c is indeed classic physics" is nonsense.
I make that promise to you!

Originally Posted by Hermes

Originally Posted by Imaplanck.

LOOK YOU FUCKING RETARD JUST PRODUCE A SINGLE PIECE OF ACCEPTED LITERATURE THAT SAYS 'EVERYTHING TRAVELS AT THE SPEED OF LIGHT'. I DONT KNOW WHAT I DID TO DESERVE SUCH A MORON ON MY BACK, BUT FUCK OFF YOU TWAT NOW!

I see that you are truly pathetic. You are not only quite stupid, but you are a cry baby who loves to whine. It is difficult to believe that you have stooped to being such a vulgar juvenile, and all because you believe that you are so brilliant and yet you refuse to read books, as you have claimed and as you demonstrate here. What a loser you are.

This was a PM and your stooping to publicly displaying anger that was deliberately kept away from the forum, for the good of the forum proves what a pathetic loser you indeed are.

Originally Posted by Imaplanck.

This was a PM and your stooping to publicly displaying anger that was deliberately kept away from the forum, for the good of the forum proves what a pathetic loser you indeed are.

Quit crying for a moment. You are the one who posted that juvenile display. What do I want to read private messages from a cry baby? You call me a loser, it is obvious that you are unable to come up with your own words so you parrot mine, for posting your crap for all to see, yet you see no problem with you being the source of such childishness.

Originally Posted by Hermes

Originally Posted by Imaplanck.

This was a PM and your stooping to publicly displaying anger that was deliberately kept away from the forum, for the good of the forum proves what a pathetic loser you indeed are.

Quit crying for a moment. You are the one who posted that juvenile display. What do I want to read private messages from a cry baby? You call me a loser, it is obvious that you are unable to come up with your own words so you parrot mine, for posting your crap for all to see, yet you see no problem with you being the source of such childishness.

LOOK GET BACK TO THE POINT AND CITE YOUR ASSERTION!
STOP DIGRESSING INTO ACTING LIKE A KID IN A PLAY GROUND!

Originally Posted by Imaplanck.

No I promise if you make a citation from an establishment physicist(not a theoretical physicist mind).

This is funny. How can you rule out theoretical physicists? As I suspected, and suggested, you will not like any of my sources. Your source is so vastly superior. Now you claim that all theoretical physicists write only bunk. Sure.

I will retract everything I have said and agree that according to modern physics: "everything travels the speed of light and only light travels at c is indeed classic physics". But until then I will maintain that: "everything travels the speed of light and only light travels at c is indeed classic physics" is nonsense.
I make that promise to you!

Now I surely will not post any citations, so quit asking. You claim that if I make a single citation you will then drop everything from your current ridiculous bandwagon and jump over this new bandwagon. That is dangerous, and I will not be responsible for it. The fact that you consider it nonsense is irrelevant. Who cares what you think. What I care about is that you are taking your rejection so personally that you have to throw a temper tantrum. Do you really think that all physicists agree? Do you really? Yet, if you were to read one dissenter, you promise to drop everything and switch sides. Why not get a life instead. Some people will agree with you and some will not. You should not get so upset and lose all self-control and self-respect when some people disagree with you.

Originally Posted by Hermes

Originally Posted by Imaplanck.

No I promise if you make a citation from an establishment physicist(not a theoretical physicist mind).

This is funny. How can you rule out theoretical physicists? As I suspected, and suggested, you will not like any of my sources. Your source is so vastly superior. Now you claim that all theoretical physicists write only bunk. Sure.

I will retract everything I have said and agree that according to modern physics: "everything travels the speed of light and only light travels at c is indeed classic physics". But until then I will maintain that: "everything travels the speed of light and only light travels at c is indeed classic physics" is nonsense.
I make that promise to you!

Now I surely will not post any citations, so quit asking. You claim that if I make a single citation you will then drop everything from your current ridiculous bandwagon and jump over this new bandwagon. That is dangerous, and I will not be responsible for it. The fact that you consider it nonsense is irrelevant. Who cares what you think. What I care about is that you are taking your rejection so personally that you have to throw a temper tantrum. Do you really think that all physicists agree? Do you really? Yet, if you were to read one dissenter, you promise to drop everything and switch sides. Why not get a life instead. Some people will agree with you and some will not. You should not get so upset and lose all self-control and self-respect when some people disagree with you.

NO! 99.9% OF REAL PHYSICIST WILL AGREE THAT ANYTHING WITH A REST MASS NEEDS INFINATE ENERGY TO TRAVEL AT C, I ASSURE YOU THAT!

JUST BECAUSE YOU AND YOUR LOONS DISAGREE DOESN'T MEAN THERE IS CONTENTION IN THE SCIENTIFIC COMMUNITY, AND IN FACT THERE IS MOST DEFINATELY NOT.

Originally Posted by Imaplanck.

NO! 99.9% OF REAL PHYSICIST WILL AGREE THAT ANYTHING WITH A REST MASS NEEDS INFINATE ENERGY TO TRAVEL AT C, I ASSURE YOU THAT!

Your statement is as irrelevant as it is ridiculous. You establish a context and then claim that all who speak within your context agree with your context-dependent statement. So what.

JUST BECAUSE YOU AND YOUR LOONS DISAGREE

It is obvious who the loon is here, as you are the one who is freaking out and resorting to vulgarisms. Why not take your time out as usual, then go take your meds like a good little boy, and return when your meds kick in and you calm down again.

Originally Posted by Hermes

Originally Posted by Imaplanck.

NO! 99.9% OF REAL PHYSICIST WILL AGREE THAT ANYTHING WITH A REST MASS NEEDS INFINATE ENERGY TO TRAVEL AT C, I ASSURE YOU THAT!

Your statement is as irrelevant as it is ridiculous. You establish a context and then claim that all who speak within your context agree with your context-dependent statement. So what.

JUST BECAUSE YOU AND YOUR LOONS DISAGREE

It is obvious who the loon is here, as you are the one who is freaking out and resorting to vulgarisms. Why not take your time out as usual, then go take your meds like a good little boy, and return when your meds kick in and you calm down again.

I THINK IT IS CLEAR WHO IS THE LOONIE AND WHO UNDERSTANDS
ACCEPTED PHYSICS......
YOUR CHOICE TO DEFER YOUR EMBARRESSMENT BY CONTINUING TO AVOID A CITATION IS ALSO CLEAR.

Originally Posted by Hermes

It is obvious who the loon is here, as you are the one who is freaking out

Why not take your time out as usual, then go take your meds like a good little boy, and return when your meds kick in and you calm down again.

OH YES, A VERY MATURE STANCE! YOU SURELY DO HAVE A SUPERIORITY WHEN IT COMES TO MATURITY!

Originally Posted by Imaplanck.

OH YES, A VERY MATURE STANCE! YOU SURELY DO HAVE A SUPERIORITY WHEN IT COMES TO MATURITY!

Thank you.

Originally Posted by Hermes

Originally Posted by Imaplanck.

OH YES, A VERY MATURE STANCE! YOU SURELY DO HAVE A SUPERIORITY WHEN IT COMES TO MATURITY!

Thank you.

THAT'S WHAT IS KNOWN AS SARCASM, I DIDN'T THINK I WOULD HAVE TO EDUCATE YOU IN THAT TOO.

Originally Posted by Imaplanck.

THAT'S WHAT IS KNOWN AS SARCASM, I DIDN'T THINK I WOULD HAVE TO EDUCATE YOU IN THAT TOO.

Now you think that I do not recognize sarcasm. It is so wonderful to have such a brilliant educator and communicator as you on this forum.

"In his novel, THE SEARCH, C.P. Snow describes the reaction of a student in class on hearing the physics professor say he is not sure whether some of of the subject matter in the course is right. This indication of disagreement of those inside physics comes as a surprise to the student; he has heard of past scientific controversies, but the current science which he is studying seemed to lack them altogether, as if scientist-authorities backed it up by unanimous vote.

'Science', writes Snow, 'had seemed to be without people or contradictions.'
"The knowledge that physics is not as unanimous or bloodless as it may appear from the outside came as a surprise to me also. I wanted to know more..."
- Barbara Lovett Cline, THE MEN WHO MADE A NEW PHYSICS, Preface

Originally Posted by That Rascal Puff

"In his novel, THE SEARCH, C.P. Snow describes the reaction of a student in class on hearing the physics professor say he is not sure whether some of of the subject matter in the course is right. This indication of disagreement of those inside physics comes as a surprise to the student; he has heard of past scientific controversies, but the current science which he is studying seemed to lack them altogether, as if scientist-authorities backed it up by unanimous vote.

Some people seem to think that science is about truth. It is not. It is about a search for truth, where the search does not yield truth itself, but, hopefully, every closer and more useful approximations of it.

Originally Posted by That Rascal Puff

"In his novel, THE SEARCH, C.P. Snow describes the reaction of a student in class on hearing the physics professor say he is not sure whether some of of the subject matter in the course is right.

Yes some, SOME! To normal people that does not read as 'ALL'.

Originally Posted by That Rascal Puff

physics professor say he is not sure whether some of of the subject matter in the course is right.

Yes some, SOME! to normal people that doesnt read as ALL!

Originally Posted by Imaplanck.

NO! 99.9% OF REAL PHYSICIST WILL AGREE THAT ANYTHING WITH A REST MASS NEEDS INFINATE ENERGY TO TRAVEL AT C, I ASSURE YOU THAT!

I'm not sure exactly what you are arguing about, but if it's that, then Imaplanck is certainly right. Nothing but massless particles can reach the speed of light. As massive particles move faster and faster, more energy is required to accelerate them further; the amount required would be infinite to accelerate a massive particle to the speed of light.
This is also why theoretical questions like "what happens if i shoot a laser from my light-speed traveling car" don't really make sense. It's not just beyond current technology, it's impossible.

hmm, i still believe in something to contain that effect..

like multi layer space shielding.. with every layer it takes less energy to accelerate. but to really achieve light speed you indeed need a lot of energy...

still sounds possible thought, because without friction all the energy we put in the craft will accelerate it..

well, something "sounding possible" has never been a good reason to think that it is. In this case it's certainly wrong.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geometrized_units
this pages shows that time can be expressed as a spatial unit of meter.

In geometric units, every time interval is interpreted as the distance travelled by light during that given time interval. That is, one second is interpreted as one light second, so time has the geometric units of length. This is dimensionally consistent with the notion that, according to the kinematical laws of special relativity, time and distance are on an equal footing.

i hope this makes u understand you have been wrong all the time, Imaplanck.

time can be expressed with spatial units, even weight can be expressed as meters. it simplefies alot of the equations.
as you can see, if you are not blind, you have been insulting people for bieng stupid when it in reality were you who was wrong all the time.

mass of sun: 1,5km

Originally Posted by Zelos

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geometrized_units
this pages shows that time can be expressed as a spatial unit of meter.

In geometric units, every time interval is interpreted as the distance travelled by light during that given time interval. That is, one second is interpreted as one light second, so time has the geometric units of length. This is dimensionally consistent with the notion that, according to the kinematical laws of special relativity, time and distance are on an equal footing.

i hope this makes u understand you have been wrong all the time, Imaplanck.

time can be expressed with spatial units, even weight can be expressed as meters. it simplefies alot of the equations.
as you can see, if you are not blind, you have been insulting people for bieng stupid when it in reality were you who was wrong all the time.

mass of sun: 1,5km

Yes indeed you can use these units to express these to simplify equations, but that is known as ABSTRACTION and is not in anyway meant to mean that you can actually move spatial distance in the time dimension or that a bag of sugar weighs so and so metres.
Why are you being so stupid as to equate time being expressed as spatial units meaning that time actually physically moves in metres?
I really recommend you put your book down and take a class.

Originally Posted by Neutrino

Originally Posted by Imaplanck.

NO! 99.9% OF REAL PHYSICIST WILL AGREE THAT ANYTHING WITH A REST MASS NEEDS INFINATE ENERGY TO TRAVEL AT C, I ASSURE YOU THAT!

I'm not sure exactly what you are arguing about, but if it's that, then Imaplanck is certainly right. Nothing but massless particles can reach the speed of light. As massive particles move faster and faster, more energy is required to accelerate them further; the amount required would be infinite to accelerate a massive particle to the speed of light.
This is also why theoretical questions like "what happens if i shoot a laser from my light-speed traveling car" don't really make sense. It's not just beyond current technology, it's impossible.

Finally some words of sense!

E=yMoc2

energy(E) = gamma(y) x restmass(Mo) x c2

If you have a mass at rest E needs to be infinate.........
If you have 0 rest mass gamma has to be infinate for E to have a value.

wow, seems like someone have agression problems and is projecting his own stupidity on other ppl. hey cant someone put this dude in a cage and study him? he is a extrodinary subject

Originally Posted by Zelos

wow, seems like someone have agression problems and is projecting his own stupidity on other ppl. hey cant someone put this dude in a cage and study him? he is a extrodinary subject

Yes mirrors are amazing things, I wonder what will happen if we perform the red dot test?

i guess ure going to hunt it.
realise it. ure wrong. ure just ignorant and dont want to realise it because then ure wrong and u got a image of urself as never bieng wrong

Originally Posted by Zelos

i guess ure going to hunt it.
realise it. ure wrong. ure just ignorant and dont want to realise it because then ure wrong and u got a image of urself as never bieng wrong

What ever.

being wrong is not a bad thing.. there's always someone smarter or better looking than anyone, but who cares?

Just accelerate with energy that surpass the speed of light to gain lightspeed and beyond.. That seems the only solution..

And there are energies that travel faster than lightspeed so it just might be possible

Originally Posted by Zwolver

And there are energies that travel faster than lightspeed so it just might be possible

Such as?
As I know it only hypothetical tachyons would do so.

tachyon is it spelled
and it have imaginary mass and for it u need to add energyn to slow it down.

Originally Posted by Zwolver

Just accelerate with energy that surpass the speed of light to gain lightspeed and beyond.. That seems the only solution..

Cetainly the only easy solution. Would you please demonstrate for the naysayers here?

And there are energies that travel faster than lightspeed so it just might be possible

For those of us who missed this gem, would you please elaborate on these energies?

Originally Posted by Zelos

tachyon is it spelled.

Yes.

Originally Posted by Zelos

and it have imaginary mass and for it u need to add energyn to slow it down.

Yes so a tachyon cannot slow to c. it would need infinate energy to travel at c and zero energy to travel at an infinate velocity.

yepp. but thats just ridiculus. it simply cant be possible

:? why is it impossible?

wasn't it impossible to fly?
wasn't it impossible to get faster than sound?

etc

Originally Posted by Zwolver

:? why is it impossible?

wasn't it impossible to fly?
wasn't it impossible to get faster than sound?

etc

No not by anyone who knew what they were talking about.
Birds flew......bullets travelled faster than the speed of sound..........There was no physical laws broken.

Originally Posted by Zwolver

:? why is it impossible?

wasn't it impossible to fly?
wasn't it impossible to get faster than sound?

etc

I agree that it is possible, and I have already asked you to demonstrate. Please don't tell us that you cannot do it.

I have no desire to get into this arguement, but i would like to provide some math for you guys and see hwo you take it. Ill analyse it and see whos ideals it points to For this discussion, c will equal 1 (m=1/c seconds.)

The 4-vector of an objects velocity is defined as the vector whos spatial dimensions are 0 and its temporal dimension is 1 in its MCRF (Momentarily Comoving Reference Frame.) For a body moving at a uniform velocity, the MCRF is simply its inertial reference frame. Since this is a vector and it reperesents a the 4-velocity of the body, one could say that the body is moving in the temporal at a speed of 1, which is the speed of light. This means that everything moves at the speed of light in the temporal direction if it is looked at from its own reference frame. But the lorentz transforms tell us that the temporal dimension of an object will increase if it is observed from an inertial reference frame that is moving relative to the object. this means that as an object's velocity increases, its velocity will increase in the temporal direction also. The tranforms also tell us that as the spatial velocity approaches c, the temporal dimension will approach infinity. So as you approach the speed of light, one could say you are actually approaching "infinite velocity." Finaly, if you want to know how the temporal dimension matters, then you have to know that an object's velocity in the temporal multiplied by its rest mass is its energy.

Does this help?

(p.s.- I can cite references )

Originally Posted by Vroomfondel

Does this help?

Not particularly, I think we've already established the use of the 4 vector maths, The question is 'can you physically move spatially in the time dimension'? and/or is the statement 'everything travels at c true'? or a naive interpretation.

it is impossible becuase if u begin going faster than the speed of light in normal space u´ll travel back nin time and end up at the big bang with alot of paradoxes as result. or u simply just die then.
y=1/sqr(1-v²/c²)
when v > c y is imaginary. things cant have imaginary energy

Originally Posted by Imaplanck.

Not particularly, I think we've already established the use of the 4 vector maths, The question is 'can you physically move spatially in the time dimension'?

No. Units of measurement of distance, such as the meter or the second, can be used to measure distance/ velocity in the time dimension.

An easy way to think about this is to think of X and Y. No matter how far you move in the X direction, you will never make it anywhere in the Y direction. But you can use the same units of measurement for both of them.

Originally Posted by Imaplanck.

and/or is the statement 'everything travels at c true'? or a naive interpretation.

This was answered by my description. Everything at rest moves at c in the temporal dimension, but as its velocity increases, its velocity in the temporal dimension will increase. As an object's spatial velocity approaches c, its velocity in the temporal dimension approaches infinity. This is explained by the fact that the velocity in the temporal dimension is proportional to its energy.

Originally Posted by Vroomfondel

Everything at rest moves at c in the temporal dimension, but as its velocity increases, its velocity in the temporal dimension will increase. As an object's spatial velocity approaches c, its velocity in the temporal dimension approaches infinity. This is explained by the fact that the velocity in the temporal dimension is proportional to its energy.

Does this actually mean something to you?

Originally Posted by Vroomfondel

Originally Posted by Imaplanck.

Not particularly, I think we've already established the use of the 4 vector maths, The question is 'can you physically move spatially in the time dimension'?

No..

Thank you.

Originally Posted by Vroomfondel

Originally Posted by Imaplanck.

and/or is the statement 'everything travels at c true'? or a naive interpretation.

This was answered by my description. Everything at rest moves at c in the temporal dimension, but as its velocity increases, its velocity in the temporal dimension will increase. As an object's spatial velocity approaches c, its velocity in the temporal dimension approaches infinity. This is explained by the fact that the velocity in the temporal dimension is proportional to its energy.

Yes, yes we all know this, but a yes or no was asked for.
Which are you a yes? or a no?