It ties strongly into the anti-intellectual cancer pervasive in america.
Only in America is being smart a bad thing.
All the people murdered in various intellectual purges world-wide would tend to disagree with you, if they weren't dead.
adytum on
0
Options
HonkHonk is this poster.Registered User, __BANNED USERSregular
edited January 2011
I've never met a single person who didn't know about the speed of light. It's a very common expression, "the speed of light", and the name implies that it is a specific speed (constant).
I've never met a single person who didn't know about the speed of light. It's a very common expression, "the speed of light", and the name implies that it is a specific speed (constant).
So does "the speed of sound".
People know that light moves at a speed. They just don't get that it's the limit.
Donkey Kong on
Thousands of hot, local singles are waiting to play at bubbulon.com.
0
Options
HonkHonk is this poster.Registered User, __BANNED USERSregular
As for what could falsify the scientific hypothesis of abiogenesis you have to first specify which particular hypothesis you're talking about. There are after all numerous models and hypothesis ranging from the Iron-sulfur world theory to the hypercycle theory.
Had for an example Günter Wächtershäuser experiment failed to produce dipeptides then he'd need to take the Iron-sulfur world theory back to the drawing board, change it and experiment again.
You cannot say the same for ID or the creation story in the bible.
You refer to dogmatism.
If we leave that out... and argue on a purely philosophical level...
You are NOT specific when its coming to creationism...
...so...
why should we alter the rules if discussing biogenesis?
...well, i ask you: how could you falsify the ENTIRE hypothesis of biogenesis?
I still see no difference, i am sorry.
ACSIS on
0
Options
HonkHonk is this poster.Registered User, __BANNED USERSregular
I've never met a single person who didn't know about the speed of light. It's a very common expression, "the speed of light", and the name implies that it is a specific speed (constant).
So does "the speed of sound".
People know that light moves at a speed. They just don't get that it's the limit.
That it's the ultimate limit anything can move at you mean? That might slip the mind, though I'd guess most are aware of this too.
I've never met a single person who didn't know about the speed of light. It's a very common expression, "the speed of light", and the name implies that it is a specific speed (constant).
So does "the speed of sound".
People know that light moves at a speed. They just don't get that it's the limit.
That it's the ultimate limit anything can move at you mean? That might slip the mind, though I'd guess most are aware of this too.
Special relativity is difficult.
Most people know the speed of light, but very few actually understand what special relativity means, including time dilation.
Its not an absolute limit, quite on the contrary.
YOU can move FTL. Not relative to an outside observer, but the faster you go, the more time slows down for you. So you may travel the distance crossed in a hundred years in a mere day. For YOU, if you got the energy. However if you return the next day you will find the universe aged 200 years in those two days of yours.
This universe comes with a fully integrated time accelerator. Batterys not included.
As for what could falsify the scientific hypothesis of abiogenesis you have to first specify which particular hypothesis you're talking about. There are after all numerous models and hypothesis ranging from the Iron-sulfur world theory to the hypercycle theory.
Had for an example Günter Wächtershäuser experiment failed to produce dipeptides then he'd need to take the Iron-sulfur world theory back to the drawing board, change it and experiment again.
You cannot say the same for ID or the creation story in the bible.
You refer to dogmatism.
If we leave that out... and argue on a purely philosophical level...
You are NOT specific when its coming to creationism...
...so...
why should we alter the rules if discussing biogenesis?
...well, i ask you: how could you falsify the ENTIRE hypothesis of biogenesis?
I still see no difference, i am sorry.
I'll continue this in a new thread, you can go ahead and create one or I'll do it later this week.
Shanadeus on
0
Options
Irond WillWARNING: NO HURTFUL COMMENTS, PLEASE!!!!!Cambridge. MAModeratormod
I've never met a single person who didn't know about the speed of light. It's a very common expression, "the speed of light", and the name implies that it is a specific speed (constant).
So does "the speed of sound".
People know that light moves at a speed. They just don't get that it's the limit.
That it's the ultimate limit anything can move at you mean? That might slip the mind, though I'd guess most are aware of this too.
Special relativity is difficult.
Most people know the speed of light, but very few actually understand what special relativity means, including time dilation.
Its not an absolute limit, quite on the contrary.
YOU can move FTL. Not relative to an outside observer, but the faster you go, the more time slows down for you. So you may travel the distance crossed in a hundred years in a mere day. For YOU, if you got the energy. However if you return the next day you will find the universe aged 200 years in those two days of yours.
This universe comes with a fully integrated time accelerator. Batterys not included.
i'm not really sure that this is true
the extra energy turns into mass at least from the external frame, and at least some of the time paradoxes are resolved by general relativity in the acceleration/ deacceleration phases
general relativity is hard
Irond Will on
0
Options
Apothe0sisHave you ever questioned the nature of your reality?Registered Userregular
edited January 2011
Yeah, that is 100% not true. You can't travel faster than light.
Time dilation is the result of/the reason why light travelling at c regardless of the frame of reference. It doesn't opening the door to FTL travel.
The stuff about the only aging 2 days for the 200 years of the rest of the universe is true, but it's not expressed in the typical language of relativity.
YOU can move FTL. Not relative to an outside observer, but the faster you go, the more time slows down for you. So you may travel the distance crossed in a hundred years in a mere day. For YOU, if you got the energy. However if you return the next day you will find the universe aged 200 years in those two days of yours.
This universe comes with a fully integrated time accelerator. Batterys not included.
i'm not really sure that this is true
the extra energy turns into mass at least from the external frame, and at least some of the time paradoxes are resolved by general relativity in the acceleration/ deacceleration phases
general relativity is hard
Yeah, it's not really true at all.
You can never have a speed faster than light as measured in any given reference frame. So if you're traveling at 0.99c in one direction and you fire a beam of light in the opposite direction, you will measure the light as traveling at c. Someone standing still relative to you will also measure its speed as c. Someone traveling in the same direction as the light at 0.99c will also measure the speed of the light beam as c.
But if you mix up your reference frames, you can wind up with the sort of results ACSIS mentions. If you measure the distance to a star, then travel there at 0.99c with a stop watch, and after you arrive you then calculate your "speed" as the distance you measured divided by the time measured with your watch, you will come up with something faster than c.
It's a little bit like flying from New York to LA and then calculating your speed based on the distance you traveled and the time you arrived, without correcting for the time zone difference. You can make it look like you traveled a lot faster than you really did, but it's not a legitimate measurement of anything.
And yes, general relativity is hard. Special relativity is easy from a math standpoint, and it's easy to remember the main points, but it's still way counter-intuitive.
And why is a thread about idealism now discussing relativity? This thread is weird.
ElJeffe on
I submitted an entry to Lego Ideas, and if 10,000 people support me, it'll be turned into an actual Lego set!If you'd like to see and support my submission, follow this link.
Isn't the whole basis of special relativity that light moves at a finite and unsurpassable limit regardless of your frame of reference?
Pretty much what El Jeffe said.
Fun fact: The speed of light is only constant in a vacuum. It slows down when it passes through other media, such as air or water. This is the basis of Cherenkov (I think) radiation, which is the light equivalent of a sonic boom created by sending particles through water faster than light can travel through water.
(Which doesn't really pertain much to what you said, but is still cool.)
ElJeffe on
I submitted an entry to Lego Ideas, and if 10,000 people support me, it'll be turned into an actual Lego set!If you'd like to see and support my submission, follow this link.
Isn't the whole basis of special relativity that light moves at a finite and unsurpassable limit regardless of your frame of reference?
Pretty much what El Jeffe said.
Fun fact: The speed of light is only constant in a vacuum. It slows down when it passes through other media, such as air or water. This is the basis of Cherenkov (I think) radiation, which is the light equivalent of a sonic boom created by sending particles through water faster than light can travel through water.
(Which doesn't really pertain much to what you said, but is still cool.)
That's pretty cool. What kind of.. effect or discontinuity is prevalent in these "light shocks"? Or are they so minuscule that they really don't change the macroscopic properties of the medium they are passing through? I know jack shit about Quantum though, so I'm sure my answer lies there.
Isn't the whole basis of special relativity that light moves at a finite and unsurpassable limit regardless of your frame of reference?
Pretty much what El Jeffe said.
Fun fact: The speed of light is only constant in a vacuum. It slows down when it passes through other media, such as air or water. This is the basis of Cherenkov (I think) radiation, which is the light equivalent of a sonic boom created by sending particles through water faster than light can travel through water.
(Which doesn't really pertain much to what you said, but is still cool.)
That's pretty cool. What kind of.. effect or discontinuity is prevalent in these "light shocks"? Or are they so minuscule that they really don't change the macroscopic properties of the medium they are passing through? I know jack shit about Quantum though, so I'm sure my answer lies there.
They produce radiation. This is why the water in nuclear reactors glows blue, and why astronauts sometimes see blue flashes of light. In the latter case, cosmic rays interacting with the aqueous humor in the eye produce the light.
[Edit: the eye flashes are usually perceived as white according to Wikipedia.]
You can never have a speed faster than light as measured in any given reference frame. So if you're traveling at 0.99c in one direction and you fire a beam of light in the opposite direction, you will measure the light as traveling at c. Someone standing still relative to you will also measure its speed as c. Someone traveling in the same direction as the light at 0.99c will also measure the speed of the light beam as c.
But if you mix up your reference frames, you can wind up with the sort of results ACSIS mentions. If you measure the distance to a star, then travel there at 0.99c with a stop watch, and after you arrive you then calculate your "speed" as the distance you measured divided by the time measured with your watch, you will come up with something faster than c.
It's a little bit like flying from New York to LA and then calculating your speed based on the distance you traveled and the time you arrived, without correcting for the time zone difference. You can make it look like you traveled a lot faster than you really did, but it's not a legitimate measurement of anything.
And yes, general relativity is hard. Special relativity is easy from a math standpoint, and it's easy to remember the main points, but it's still way counter-intuitive.
And why is a thread about idealism now discussing relativity? This thread is weird.
But you admit that flying from New York to LA and then calculating your speed based on the distance you traveled and the time you arrived, without correcting for the time zone difference won't delay your aging process and also won't have an impact on the time passed when you arive in LA.
The speed of light is not really a limit. Well, it IS, but time dilation takes this concept ad absurdum.
Lightspeed equals to INFINITE velocity (physically it isn't... its rather about altering the flow of time instead of moving faster). Thats why its impossible to reach it.
Its not a 300000 km/s limit. As you approach 300000 km/s something strange happens. Time is distorted. At first its barely noticeable, but its increasing exponentially (this is why it requires such obscene amounts of energy). At about 70% lightspeed it gets really noticable (and expensive energy wise).
To reach infinite speed you need infinite energy. Thats why lightspeed can't be execeeded. You can't exceed infinity.
Hower THAT means YOU can EXPERIENCE travelling faster than 300000 km/s.
Physically. That is possible. At the sacrifice of accelerating the time around you.
Think of it as a keel-wave in the space time continuum. It depends on your velocity.
And thats why we get imense problems if we think about speed as distance crossed in a time. Because time itself is not constant in all reference frames.
The only reason this works at non-relativistic speeds is because the effect is barely noticeable.
Now... if you want to syncronize sattelite time for GPS this becomes important and you need to consider this. And all of a sudden you need Einstein's fromulaes.
Light does not travel at infinite velocity. If it was, light would travel instantly from one spot to another. It doesn't.
Light travels at a constant rate, regardless of your reference frame. (we'll ignore stupid fucking general relativity and it's stupid complicated math /shakesfist)
This, btw, is FUCKED UP. If you don't think it is, you don't understand it well enough. It's why scientists spent years talking about "ether" and shit and doing experiments trying to disprove the results they kept getting. It's why Einstein was considered revolutionary just for saying it and working out the rather simple math that falls out of it.
Anway, to avoid having to type out a longer analogy, if person A is standing still and person B is moving quickly in some direction, and then person A shines a light in that same direction, you'd expect B to measure that light going slower. Like how other cars on the highway look like they are going slow when you look at them from your car on the highway, but look fast when you stand on the side of the road, not moving.
This doesn't happen though. They both measure it the same. Which means something else is changing when B is moving quickly. The answer is time. Time is slowing down for B. v = d/t and v isn't changing. Welcome to our fucked up universe. Common sense is useless.
And this is why you get crazy Planet-of-the-Apes effects. You are never traveling faster then C. You are traveling something less then C, but time is slowing down for you by ALOT. And then apes conquer the earth. Good job jackass. It's just an extension of time dialation, taken to an extreme.
You cannot actually accelerate to C. It's not possible. Getting to C takes infinite energy.
No it doesn't, but if you take into account the lorentz factor it ACTS like infinity because everything else exists in an accelerated timeframe if you reach relativistic speeds (or yours slows down, depending on perspective).
To travel at lightspeed requires infinite energy. Also travelling at lightspeed completely stops the flow of time for the traveller and thats equal to infinitely accelerating other timeframes.
Thats why its impossible to breach it. It acts like infinity, not as in velocity but in altering timeframes.
You can not accelerate beyond or even to C. But you still can travel faster (well, you sorta of can't but you wont notice it in your timeframe as traveller - however the time still has passed when you arrive - yeah... difficult).
It basically means advanced civilizations could build ships that can cross the distances of the known universe at a shortened time (shiptime) at the cost of sacrificing millions of years each trip (galactic time), the time it takes at sublight. They could also return but so much time passes that its practically usless. They can reach any (well, limited by aviable energy and how close to lightspeed you can afford to accelerate) destination without much aging themselves. So the best way to do it is take part of the civilization on a huge ship and deal with it, spawning colonies wich are left alone, never to be visited again to develope and build their own ships and thus colonizing the universe.
Like it or not that is completely practical once you can up with a way to satisfy certain energy demands - or find a way around it... by using a light sail for example.
ACSIS on
0
Options
Apothe0sisHave you ever questioned the nature of your reality?Registered Userregular
You can never have a speed faster than light as measured in any given reference frame. So if you're traveling at 0.99c in one direction and you fire a beam of light in the opposite direction, you will measure the light as traveling at c. Someone standing still relative to you will also measure its speed as c. Someone traveling in the same direction as the light at 0.99c will also measure the speed of the light beam as c.
But if you mix up your reference frames, you can wind up with the sort of results ACSIS mentions. If you measure the distance to a star, then travel there at 0.99c with a stop watch, and after you arrive you then calculate your "speed" as the distance you measured divided by the time measured with your watch, you will come up with something faster than c.
It's a little bit like flying from New York to LA and then calculating your speed based on the distance you traveled and the time you arrived, without correcting for the time zone difference. You can make it look like you traveled a lot faster than you really did, but it's not a legitimate measurement of anything.
And yes, general relativity is hard. Special relativity is easy from a math standpoint, and it's easy to remember the main points, but it's still way counter-intuitive.
And why is a thread about idealism now discussing relativity? This thread is weird.
But you admit that flying from New York to LA and then calculating your speed based on the distance you traveled and the time you arrived, without correcting for the time zone difference won't delay your aging process and also won't have an impact on the time passed when you arive in LA.
The speed of light is not really a limit. Well, it IS, but time dilation takes this concept ad absurdum.
Lightspeed equals to INFINITE velocity (physically it isn't... its rather about altering the flow of time instead of moving faster). Thats why its impossible to reach it.
Its not a 300000 km/s limit. As you approach 300000 km/s something strange happens. Time is distorted. At first its barely noticeable, but its increasing exponentially (this is why it requires such obscene amounts of energy). At about 70% lightspeed it gets really noticable (and expensive energy wise).
To reach infinite speed you need infinite energy. Thats why lightspeed can't be execeeded. You can't exceed infinity.
Hower THAT means YOU can EXPERIENCE travelling faster than 300000 km/s.
Physically. That is possible. At the sacrifice of accelerating the time around you.
Think of it as a keel-wave in the space time continuum. It depends on your velocity.
And thats why we get imense problems if we think about speed as distance crossed in a time. Because time itself is not constant in all reference frames.
The only reason this works at non-relativistic speeds is because the effect is barely noticeable.
Now... if you want to syncronize sattelite time for GPS this becomes important and you need to consider this. And all of a sudden you need Einstein's fromulaes.
Ummm the flight from NY to LA does influence the flow of time for those on the plane. It's just that the speeds are so low that the effects are tiny thanks to how the maths works.
And the bold part makes no sense and is wrong as far as our present day physics is concerned.
And the bold part makes no sense and is wrong as far as our present day physics is concerned.
Not really. Its just a matter of wich timeframe you draw your deductions from. So... yes AND no. No you can't travel faster than the speed of light for an observer outside of your timeframe. Yes, you can in yours (by doing the time distance thing, not the speed of light physically, that also remains constant in your timeframe). Its not a mathematical timezone calculation issue as with the LA flight example. It HAPPENS.
Thats why we need Einstein's formulaes to sync sattelite time for GPS. If we don't the results are not accurate.
Thats why Jeffe was so specific about "not mixing up timeframes".
But there are two at relativistic speeds: the frame of the observer and the traveller.
And as a traveller you can cross any finite distance in a few days, given you have enough energy and accelerate close enough to lightspeed.
Because one of your days equals millions of years for the rest of the universe. Because your time is slower.
Interstellar travel works. Not as portrayed in scifi, but its possible.
Imagine my confusion when I click on a thread titled "Misanthropy vs Idealism" and am greeted by a discussion on the physics of faster than light travel.
Isn't the whole basis of special relativity that light moves at a finite and unsurpassable limit regardless of your frame of reference?
Pretty much what El Jeffe said.
Fun fact: The speed of light is only constant in a vacuum. It slows down when it passes through other media, such as air or water. This is the basis of Cherenkov (I think) radiation, which is the light equivalent of a sonic boom created by sending particles through water faster than light can travel through water.
(Which doesn't really pertain much to what you said, but is still cool.)
My electromagnetism lecturer liked to say that the speed of light is always constant, it's just that electromagnetic waves only exist in vacuums and so the 'slowing down' is really photons getting absorbed and re-emitted by atoms in the medium. I'm not really sure which is truer.
ACSIS, I think you're forgetting some other relativistic effects.
You never appear to be exceeding the speed of light, even in your own reference frame (no idea what a "timeframe" is--I assume you mean reference frame).
The part you're forgetting is relativistic length contraction, which makes distances oriented parallel to your line of travel shrink. You are not going faster; from your perspective you are instead crossing a shorter distance.
This is significant because we know that there are no privileged reference frames--and if two bodies are moving relative to each other, time must be observed to slow down for the "other" body, regardless of which one is making the observation or which one is "really" moving (because again, it's equally correct to say either is moving).
If I'm in the spaceship going at 0.999c, I will observe the rest of the universe's clocks to slow down just as they observe mine to--I will not see them speeding up as your explanation would suggest.
And why is a thread about idealism now discussing relativity? This thread is weird.
It's become an ACSIS thread.
..and really the first few pages were not about idealism they were an H/A thread about some problems at someone's church. Even though the discussion of speed of light is way off topic I find it pretty damn interesting.
CommunistCow on
No, I am not really communist. Yes, it is weird that I use this name.
Yeah guys, the train is so fucking far off the tracks at this point it's plowing through pedestrians in Atlantis. Can we please try and steer this back to the nature of people?
joshofalltrades on
0
Options
HonkHonk is this poster.Registered User, __BANNED USERSregular
OKAY OKAY NO MORE DISCUSSION OF LIGHT AND TRAVEL AND WHATEVER
ElJeffe on
I submitted an entry to Lego Ideas, and if 10,000 people support me, it'll be turned into an actual Lego set!If you'd like to see and support my submission, follow this link.
0
Options
mrt144King of the NumbernamesRegistered Userregular
Eljeffe is pretty much the most correct person I have ever seen on the internet over a series of posts. He has a firm grasp over the laws of interpersonal relationship building as well a working understanding of complicated physics pertaining to relativistic speeds and the various and sundry dilations that occur.
To the OP. I am about the same age as you and can honestly say I have never been bodily threatened by someone other than a family member. In reading through your various experiences with people that have compromised your faith in humanity, there has been a common denominator. The way in which you have handled each situation has been less than ideal and has likely served to escalate each situation. I know that this isn't what you want to hear, you likely want to be reaffirmed and told that people are just small and petty and will always disappoint if given the chance. This just really isn't true. There is definitely some work that you can do on your end to better you interactions with your fellow man. The internet is not the place to seek advice about that, however. I think you should talk to a therapist. Best of luck to you.
1. Relativity is awesome and Einstein kicks ass.
2. People are simply people, and categorizing them will lead to problems.
3. Josh, all of your problems are caused by living in a small town where you will always be labeled an outsider. Trust me when I say, GET OUT, GET OUT WHILE YOU CAN.
On-Topic, I've always adhered to the general philosophy that individuals are smart, but people are dumb. Additionally, the typical path one takes is young idealist, to jaded misanthrope when the ideals are shattered, eventually settling in to a general apathy when you find your misanthropy shattered as well, and decide that people are complex individuals with varying motivations and behavioral factors and keeping track of it all is a pain in the fucking ass so why fucking bother?
Posts
Only in America is being smart a bad thing.
All the people murdered in various intellectual purges world-wide would tend to disagree with you, if they weren't dead.
Probably fair, though I wouldn't compare middle ages China with modern America for instance.
So does "the speed of sound".
People know that light moves at a speed. They just don't get that it's the limit.
If we leave that out... and argue on a purely philosophical level...
You are NOT specific when its coming to creationism...
...so...
why should we alter the rules if discussing biogenesis?
...well, i ask you: how could you falsify the ENTIRE hypothesis of biogenesis?
I still see no difference, i am sorry.
That it's the ultimate limit anything can move at you mean? That might slip the mind, though I'd guess most are aware of this too.
It's happened much more recently than that in China, Cambodia, etc. All in the last 50 years, actually.
But I get the gist of what you're saying.
Special relativity is difficult.
Most people know the speed of light, but very few actually understand what special relativity means, including time dilation.
Its not an absolute limit, quite on the contrary.
YOU can move FTL. Not relative to an outside observer, but the faster you go, the more time slows down for you. So you may travel the distance crossed in a hundred years in a mere day. For YOU, if you got the energy. However if you return the next day you will find the universe aged 200 years in those two days of yours.
This universe comes with a fully integrated time accelerator. Batterys not included.
Pretty sure everything comes included.
Its the universe, its universal.
I'll continue this in a new thread, you can go ahead and create one or I'll do it later this week.
i'm not really sure that this is true
the extra energy turns into mass at least from the external frame, and at least some of the time paradoxes are resolved by general relativity in the acceleration/ deacceleration phases
general relativity is hard
Time dilation is the result of/the reason why light travelling at c regardless of the frame of reference. It doesn't opening the door to FTL travel.
The stuff about the only aging 2 days for the 200 years of the rest of the universe is true, but it's not expressed in the typical language of relativity.
Yeah, it's not really true at all.
You can never have a speed faster than light as measured in any given reference frame. So if you're traveling at 0.99c in one direction and you fire a beam of light in the opposite direction, you will measure the light as traveling at c. Someone standing still relative to you will also measure its speed as c. Someone traveling in the same direction as the light at 0.99c will also measure the speed of the light beam as c.
But if you mix up your reference frames, you can wind up with the sort of results ACSIS mentions. If you measure the distance to a star, then travel there at 0.99c with a stop watch, and after you arrive you then calculate your "speed" as the distance you measured divided by the time measured with your watch, you will come up with something faster than c.
It's a little bit like flying from New York to LA and then calculating your speed based on the distance you traveled and the time you arrived, without correcting for the time zone difference. You can make it look like you traveled a lot faster than you really did, but it's not a legitimate measurement of anything.
And yes, general relativity is hard. Special relativity is easy from a math standpoint, and it's easy to remember the main points, but it's still way counter-intuitive.
And why is a thread about idealism now discussing relativity? This thread is weird.
Pretty much what El Jeffe said.
Fun fact: The speed of light is only constant in a vacuum. It slows down when it passes through other media, such as air or water. This is the basis of Cherenkov (I think) radiation, which is the light equivalent of a sonic boom created by sending particles through water faster than light can travel through water.
(Which doesn't really pertain much to what you said, but is still cool.)
That's pretty cool. What kind of.. effect or discontinuity is prevalent in these "light shocks"? Or are they so minuscule that they really don't change the macroscopic properties of the medium they are passing through? I know jack shit about Quantum though, so I'm sure my answer lies there.
[Edit: the eye flashes are usually perceived as white according to Wikipedia.]
But you admit that flying from New York to LA and then calculating your speed based on the distance you traveled and the time you arrived, without correcting for the time zone difference won't delay your aging process and also won't have an impact on the time passed when you arive in LA.
The speed of light is not really a limit. Well, it IS, but time dilation takes this concept ad absurdum.
Lightspeed equals to INFINITE velocity (physically it isn't... its rather about altering the flow of time instead of moving faster). Thats why its impossible to reach it.
Its not a 300000 km/s limit. As you approach 300000 km/s something strange happens. Time is distorted. At first its barely noticeable, but its increasing exponentially (this is why it requires such obscene amounts of energy). At about 70% lightspeed it gets really noticable (and expensive energy wise).
To reach infinite speed you need infinite energy. Thats why lightspeed can't be execeeded. You can't exceed infinity.
Hower THAT means YOU can EXPERIENCE travelling faster than 300000 km/s.
Physically. That is possible. At the sacrifice of accelerating the time around you.
Think of it as a keel-wave in the space time continuum. It depends on your velocity.
And thats why we get imense problems if we think about speed as distance crossed in a time. Because time itself is not constant in all reference frames.
The only reason this works at non-relativistic speeds is because the effect is barely noticeable.
Now... if you want to syncronize sattelite time for GPS this becomes important and you need to consider this. And all of a sudden you need Einstein's fromulaes.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SIfRZhztNos
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yak-KFI-jKA
There is absolutely no need to go on 2000 word digresses.
/off topic
Word
Light travels at a constant rate, regardless of your reference frame. (we'll ignore stupid fucking general relativity and it's stupid complicated math /shakesfist)
This, btw, is FUCKED UP. If you don't think it is, you don't understand it well enough. It's why scientists spent years talking about "ether" and shit and doing experiments trying to disprove the results they kept getting. It's why Einstein was considered revolutionary just for saying it and working out the rather simple math that falls out of it.
Anway, to avoid having to type out a longer analogy, if person A is standing still and person B is moving quickly in some direction, and then person A shines a light in that same direction, you'd expect B to measure that light going slower. Like how other cars on the highway look like they are going slow when you look at them from your car on the highway, but look fast when you stand on the side of the road, not moving.
This doesn't happen though. They both measure it the same. Which means something else is changing when B is moving quickly. The answer is time. Time is slowing down for B. v = d/t and v isn't changing. Welcome to our fucked up universe. Common sense is useless.
And this is why you get crazy Planet-of-the-Apes effects. You are never traveling faster then C. You are traveling something less then C, but time is slowing down for you by ALOT. And then apes conquer the earth. Good job jackass. It's just an extension of time dialation, taken to an extreme.
You cannot actually accelerate to C. It's not possible. Getting to C takes infinite energy.
To travel at lightspeed requires infinite energy. Also travelling at lightspeed completely stops the flow of time for the traveller and thats equal to infinitely accelerating other timeframes.
Thats why its impossible to breach it. It acts like infinity, not as in velocity but in altering timeframes.
You can not accelerate beyond or even to C. But you still can travel faster (well, you sorta of can't but you wont notice it in your timeframe as traveller - however the time still has passed when you arrive - yeah... difficult).
It basically means advanced civilizations could build ships that can cross the distances of the known universe at a shortened time (shiptime) at the cost of sacrificing millions of years each trip (galactic time), the time it takes at sublight. They could also return but so much time passes that its practically usless. They can reach any (well, limited by aviable energy and how close to lightspeed you can afford to accelerate) destination without much aging themselves. So the best way to do it is take part of the civilization on a huge ship and deal with it, spawning colonies wich are left alone, never to be visited again to develope and build their own ships and thus colonizing the universe.
Like it or not that is completely practical once you can up with a way to satisfy certain energy demands - or find a way around it... by using a light sail for example.
Ummm the flight from NY to LA does influence the flow of time for those on the plane. It's just that the speeds are so low that the effects are tiny thanks to how the maths works.
And the bold part makes no sense and is wrong as far as our present day physics is concerned.
Not really. Its just a matter of wich timeframe you draw your deductions from. So... yes AND no. No you can't travel faster than the speed of light for an observer outside of your timeframe. Yes, you can in yours (by doing the time distance thing, not the speed of light physically, that also remains constant in your timeframe). Its not a mathematical timezone calculation issue as with the LA flight example. It HAPPENS.
Thats why we need Einstein's formulaes to sync sattelite time for GPS. If we don't the results are not accurate.
Thats why Jeffe was so specific about "not mixing up timeframes".
But there are two at relativistic speeds: the frame of the observer and the traveller.
And as a traveller you can cross any finite distance in a few days, given you have enough energy and accelerate close enough to lightspeed.
Because one of your days equals millions of years for the rest of the universe. Because your time is slower.
Interstellar travel works. Not as portrayed in scifi, but its possible.
My electromagnetism lecturer liked to say that the speed of light is always constant, it's just that electromagnetic waves only exist in vacuums and so the 'slowing down' is really photons getting absorbed and re-emitted by atoms in the medium. I'm not really sure which is truer.
kpop appreciation station i also like to tweet some
You never appear to be exceeding the speed of light, even in your own reference frame (no idea what a "timeframe" is--I assume you mean reference frame).
The part you're forgetting is relativistic length contraction, which makes distances oriented parallel to your line of travel shrink. You are not going faster; from your perspective you are instead crossing a shorter distance.
This is significant because we know that there are no privileged reference frames--and if two bodies are moving relative to each other, time must be observed to slow down for the "other" body, regardless of which one is making the observation or which one is "really" moving (because again, it's equally correct to say either is moving).
If I'm in the spaceship going at 0.999c, I will observe the rest of the universe's clocks to slow down just as they observe mine to--I will not see them speeding up as your explanation would suggest.
Nonsense.
Sometimes it makes an "s" sound. Combine it with an "h" and it gets a 3rd sound, hardly constant I think.
..and really the first few pages were not about idealism they were an H/A thread about some problems at someone's church. Even though the discussion of speed of light is way off topic I find it pretty damn interesting.
SCIENCE DISAGREES
GOOD SIR!
TOUCHÉ
To the OP. I am about the same age as you and can honestly say I have never been bodily threatened by someone other than a family member. In reading through your various experiences with people that have compromised your faith in humanity, there has been a common denominator. The way in which you have handled each situation has been less than ideal and has likely served to escalate each situation. I know that this isn't what you want to hear, you likely want to be reaffirmed and told that people are just small and petty and will always disappoint if given the chance. This just really isn't true. There is definitely some work that you can do on your end to better you interactions with your fellow man. The internet is not the place to seek advice about that, however. I think you should talk to a therapist. Best of luck to you.
1. Relativity is awesome and Einstein kicks ass.
2. People are simply people, and categorizing them will lead to problems.
3. Josh, all of your problems are caused by living in a small town where you will always be labeled an outsider. Trust me when I say, GET OUT, GET OUT WHILE YOU CAN.
On-Topic, I've always adhered to the general philosophy that individuals are smart, but people are dumb. Additionally, the typical path one takes is young idealist, to jaded misanthrope when the ideals are shattered, eventually settling in to a general apathy when you find your misanthropy shattered as well, and decide that people are complex individuals with varying motivations and behavioral factors and keeping track of it all is a pain in the fucking ass so why fucking bother?
(Guess which stage I'm in.)