Thank you Aniett =)

I /think/ that if you are travelling at .99 the speed of light, and shine a flashlight in front of you, the flashlight's light would also go .99 the speed of light - in front of you, so you might conceptualize it as going nearly 2x the speed of light, however it's relative so it's only going .99 the speed of light. If you managed to stop and go in "reverse" at .99 the speed of light, you wouldn't see yourself because your image travels at the speed of light.

That is my barely grasped understanding of the topic. We should probably wait for a professional to respond :P If someone corrects me I'll be tempted to remove this post, hehe.

Ding! Ding! Ding! We finally have a winner! They're not taking into account the Theory of Relativity.

Now, can you point out the glaring flaw in the other incorrect statement in this thread?

The universe is 13.6 billion or so years old yet it is 93 billion light years in diameter.

P.S. - I am not a physicist.

Ding! Ding! Ding! We finally have a winner! They're not taking into account the Theory of Relativity.

Now, can you point out the glaring flaw in the other incorrect statement in this thread?

The universe is 13.6 billion or so years old yet it is 93 billion light years in diameter.

P.S. - I am not a physicist.

Oh OzzFan... we were trying to ignore the theory of relativity :)

(Caleb - lovely Carl Sagan clip thanks :) there's a thread going in the cafe about him - you may already know that though - bit like we KNOW we can't travel at the speed of light :( ...yet :) ...or faster... yet :)))))

like an SR-71 or a have blue if it have guns it would out run the bullets. it would make a very nasty day at work.

The fastest jet is much slower than the speed of light. Take a jet that is as fast as a speeding bullet. A bullet on the jet will be traveling at the same speed as the jet and when fired would leave the jet at the speed of a bullet. Fired forward it would hit at twice the speed. If it was fired backwards it would drop straight to the ground. If the jet was faster than a bullet firing one backward it would still leave the gun but would hit the ground going backward. I assume.

Carl Sagan's Segment

What's wrong with that kid traveling near the speed of light without a helmet?

---

The Universe is constantly expanding! Let's say you have a balloon, and you blow it up just a little bit to get it in a nice plump form. On the balloon there is a ring of tiny, slow ants facing outward. The ants start walking away from eachother in an outward direction. As the ants start moving away from eachother, you also inflate the balloon during that time. Inflating the balloon will make them actually move away from eachother faster, but the ants are moving their tiny legs at the same rate as they always have been.

^ That's my best way to explain it...

Ding! Ding! Ding! We finally have a winner! They're not taking into account the Theory of Relativity.

Now, can you point out the glaring flaw in the other incorrect statement in this thread?

The universe is 13.6 billion or so years old yet it is 93 billion light years in diameter.

P.S. - I am not a physicist.

we are throwing around ideas, none of us proven to be right or wrong, no one has an iron clad solution so lets leave it like that

---

Cheers everybody
Life is short so don't sip
Beer speaks, people mumble

Welcome Caleb to the SETI Forums!

P.S. - I am not a physicist.

Throwing around ideas, is how we learn :)

---

Ding! Ding! Ding! We finally have a winner! They're not taking into account the Theory of Relativity.

Now, can you point out the glaring flaw in the other incorrect statement in this thread?

The universe is 13.6 billion or so years old yet it is 93 billion light years in diameter.

P.S. - I am not a physicist.

we are throwing around ideas, none of us proven to be right or wrong, no one has an iron clad solution so lets leave it like that

Yes every one had their opinions unless they can showw 1 + 1 = 2 it's all in the up in the air. Welcome view your self and let it all hang out. (no insults)

---

Cheers everybody
Life is short so don't sip
Beer speaks, people mumble

Thank you Aniett =)

I /think/ that if you are travelling at .99 the speed of light, and shine a flashlight in front of you, the flashlight's light would also go .99 the speed of light - in front of you, so you might conceptualize it as going nearly 2x the speed of light, however it's relative so it's only going .99 the speed of light. If you managed to stop and go in "reverse" at .99 the speed of light, you wouldn't see yourself because your image travels at the speed of light.

That is my barely grasped understanding of the topic. We should probably wait for a professional to respond :P If someone corrects me I'll be tempted to remove this post, hehe.

I think the point you are trying to explain is that if you were travelling at the speed of light and and your reflection disappeared then you would be able to tell you were travelling at the speed of light. This would violate the law of inertial reference frames (frames that are not accelerating) which requires that the laws of physics are the same for all inertial reference frames.

So if you are travelling at the speed of light you should still be able to see your reflection in the mirror and measure the speed of the light travelling from your face to mirror and back to your eye as being C (3 x 10^8 m/s).

Speed is given by distance/time. So if the speed cannot change, the other two variables have to give way, thus leading to the effects of time-dilation and length contraction. A person watching you pass by at the speed of light admiring yourself in the mirror would still measure the speed of the light travelling from your face to the mirror and back to your eye as C, they would however measure time and length differently.

---

Reality Internet Personality

Welcome Caleb to the SETI Forums!

P.S. - I am not a physicist.

Throwing around ideas, is how we learn :)

+1


Back to the Akasha Field also known as the Zero Point Field for Quantum physicists; found an interesting read on it:

ZPF is a consequence of something long known to particle physicists, called the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle. It states that if we know the position of a sub-atomic particle we cannot know its speed, and if we know its speed we cannot know its momentum. If a particle were at rest we would know both. As such particles can never be at rest, not even at absolute zero, the coldest state known to science. This is minus 273.15 degrees Celsius. This is three degrees above the temperature of the vacuum of space. Why this is of significance is that there should be no energy at absolute zero but there is. Lots of it. All space is filled with this quantum vacuum energy. It fills everything and in doing so changes what we think is a vacuum into a space absolutely full to the brim with energy, technically known as a “Plenum”.

http://www.evolvingbeings.com/essay/the-physics-of-consciousness-the-zero-point-field-pineal-gland-and-out-of-body-experience

Still have to work on that Helium 3 problem...

---

rOZZ
Music
Pictures

Thank you Aniett =)

I /think/ that if you are travelling at .99 the speed of light, and shine a flashlight in front of you, the flashlight's light would also go .99 the speed of light - in front of you, so you might conceptualize it as going nearly 2x the speed of light, however it's relative so it's only going .99 the speed of light. If you managed to stop and go in "reverse" at .99 the speed of light, you wouldn't see yourself because your image travels at the speed of light.

That is my barely grasped understanding of the topic. We should probably wait for a professional to respond :P If someone corrects me I'll be tempted to remove this post, hehe.

I think the point you are trying to explain is that if you were travelling at the speed of light and and your reflection disappeared then you would be able to tell you were travelling at the speed of light. This would violate the law of inertial reference frames (frames that are not accelerating) which requires that the laws of physics are the same for all inertial reference frames.

So if you are travelling at the speed of light you should still be able to see your reflection in the mirror and measure the speed of the light travelling from your face to mirror and back to your eye as being C (3 x 10^8 m/s).

Speed is given by distance/time. So if the speed cannot change, the other two variables have to give way, thus leading to the effects of time-dilation and length contraction. A person watching you pass by at the speed of light admiring yourself in the mirror would still measure the speed of the light travelling from your face to the mirror and back to your eye as C, they would however measure time and length differently.

wouldn't if you was going faster than light you wouldn't even be noticed? unless your leaving a trail?
besides in the universe do we know just where we are? we could be on one side or the other or even in the middle. I think that would be the one to prove.

---

Cheers everybody
Life is short so don't sip
Beer speaks, people mumble

The Universe is constantly expanding! Let's say you have a balloon, and you blow it up just a little bit to get it in a nice plump form. On the balloon there is a ring of tiny, slow ants facing outward. The ants start walking away from eachother in an outward direction. As the ants start moving away from eachother, you also inflate the balloon during that time. Inflating the balloon will make them actually move away from eachother faster, but the ants are moving their tiny legs at the same rate as they always have been.

^ That's my best way to explain it...

I'm still missing something. The ants are not necessary as we are only measuring the balloon. The balloon was not pre-inflated, it has to expand faster than the speed of light if any two points are farther than 27 light years apart.

BTW I'm not a physicists, I just play one on the Wide World of the Web.

---

Thank you Aniett =)

I /think/ that if you are travelling at .99 the speed of light, and shine a flashlight in front of you, the flashlight's light would also go .99 the speed of light - in front of you, so you might conceptualize it as going nearly 2x the speed of light, however it's relative so it's only going .99 the speed of light. If you managed to stop and go in "reverse" at .99 the speed of light, you wouldn't see yourself because your image travels at the speed of light.

That is my barely grasped understanding of the topic. We should probably wait for a professional to respond :P If someone corrects me I'll be tempted to remove this post, hehe.

I think the point you are trying to explain is that if you were travelling at the speed of light and and your reflection disappeared then you would be able to tell you were travelling at the speed of light. This would violate the law of inertial reference frames (frames that are not accelerating) which requires that the laws of physics are the same for all inertial reference frames.

So if you are travelling at the speed of light you should still be able to see your reflection in the mirror and measure the speed of the light travelling from your face to mirror and back to your eye as being C (3 x 10^8 m/s).

Speed is given by distance/time. So if the speed cannot change, the other two variables have to give way, thus leading to the effects of time-dilation and length contraction. A person watching you pass by at the speed of light admiring yourself in the mirror would still measure the speed of the light travelling from your face to the mirror and back to your eye as C, they would however measure time and length differently.

wouldn't if you was going faster than light you wouldn't even be noticed? unless your leaving a trail?
besides in the universe do we know just where we are? we could be on one side or the other or even in the middle. I think that would be the one to prove.

Theoretically you cannot travel faster than light, or even at the speed of light. If I start to accelerate you to the speed of light you will gain mass. Which makes it harder to accelerate you. The faster you go the more mass you gain and all the energy I would put into to making you go faster would just go into increasing your mass.

However some things with almost next to no mass such as photons and neutrinos can travel at the speed of light. I am not sure if there are proposals for anything that can travel faster than light in current theories.

On your point about leaving a trail though, when we talk about travelling faster than light we are talking about the speed of light in a vacuum. Light in other medium such as water travels slower so high energy particles from nuclear radiation can travel faster than light in that medium. They emit light which is similar to the effect that creates a sonic boom when an object breaks the sound barrier. This is called the Cerenkov radiation and is used to detect neutrinos, which are otherwise very hard to detect because they don't interact with matter very easily.

---

Reality Internet Personality

The Universe is constantly expanding! Let's say you have a balloon, and you blow it up just a little bit to get it in a nice plump form. On the balloon there is a ring of tiny, slow ants facing outward. The ants start walking away from eachother in an outward direction. As the ants start moving away from eachother, you also inflate the balloon during that time. Inflating the balloon will make them actually move away from eachother faster, but the ants are moving their tiny legs at the same rate as they always have been.

^ That's my best way to explain it...

I'm still missing something. The ants are not necessary as we are only measuring the balloon. The balloon was not pre-inflated, it has to expand faster than the speed of light if any two points are farther than 27 light years apart.

BTW I'm not a physicists, I just play one on the Wide World of the Web.

What i was referring to was the age to the age of the universe which I think would pretty hard if you can't see both sides of it to determine the age over all. some say 13.7 billion years and others vary. are we on one side or the other or in the middle, how do we determine the age over all or is it just guess work.

---

Cheers everybody
Life is short so don't sip
Beer speaks, people mumble

Thank you Aniett =)

I /think/ that if you are travelling at .99 the speed of light, and shine a flashlight in front of you, the flashlight's light would also go .99 the speed of light - in front of you, so you might conceptualize it as going nearly 2x the speed of light, however it's relative so it's only going .99 the speed of light. If you managed to stop and go in "reverse" at .99 the speed of light, you wouldn't see yourself because your image travels at the speed of light.

That is my barely grasped understanding of the topic. We should probably wait for a professional to respond :P If someone corrects me I'll be tempted to remove this post, hehe.

I think the point you are trying to explain is that if you were travelling at the speed of light and and your reflection disappeared then you would be able to tell you were travelling at the speed of light. This would violate the law of inertial reference frames (frames that are not accelerating) which requires that the laws of physics are the same for all inertial reference frames.

So if you are travelling at the speed of light you should still be able to see your reflection in the mirror and measure the speed of the light travelling from your face to mirror and back to your eye as being C (3 x 10^8 m/s).

Speed is given by distance/time. So if the speed cannot change, the other two variables have to give way, thus leading to the effects of time-dilation and length contraction. A person watching you pass by at the speed of light admiring yourself in the mirror would still measure the speed of the light travelling from your face to the mirror and back to your eye as C, they would however measure time and length differently.

wouldn't if you was going faster than light you wouldn't even be noticed? unless your leaving a trail?
besides in the universe do we know just where we are? we could be on one side or the other or even in the middle. I think that would be the one to prove.

I would call that the paradox of the 11 dimensions in Space:)

---

rOZZ
Music
Pictures

Thank you Aniett =)

I /think/ that if you are travelling at .99 the speed of light, and shine a flashlight in front of you, the flashlight's light would also go .99 the speed of light - in front of you, so you might conceptualize it as going nearly 2x the speed of light, however it's relative so it's only going .99 the speed of light. If you managed to stop and go in "reverse" at .99 the speed of light, you wouldn't see yourself because your image travels at the speed of light.

That is my barely grasped understanding of the topic. We should probably wait for a professional to respond :P If someone corrects me I'll be tempted to remove this post, hehe.

I think the point you are trying to explain is that if you were travelling at the speed of light and and your reflection disappeared then you would be able to tell you were travelling at the speed of light. This would violate the law of inertial reference frames (frames that are not accelerating) which requires that the laws of physics are the same for all inertial reference frames.

So if you are travelling at the speed of light you should still be able to see your reflection in the mirror and measure the speed of the light travelling from your face to mirror and back to your eye as being C (3 x 10^8 m/s).

Speed is given by distance/time. So if the speed cannot change, the other two variables have to give way, thus leading to the effects of time-dilation and length contraction. A person watching you pass by at the speed of light admiring yourself in the mirror would still measure the speed of the light travelling from your face to the mirror and back to your eye as C, they would however measure time and length differently.

wouldn't if you was going faster than light you wouldn't even be noticed? unless your leaving a trail?
besides in the universe do we know just where we are? we could be on one side or the other or even in the middle. I think that would be the one to prove.

Theoretically you cannot travel faster than light, or even at the speed of light. If I start to accelerate you to the speed of light you will gain mass. Which makes it harder to accelerate you. The faster you go the more mass you gain and all the energy I would put into to making you go faster would just go into increasing your mass.

However some things with almost next to no mass such as photons and neutrinos can travel at the speed of light. I am not sure if there are proposals for anything that can travel faster than light in current theories.

On your point about leaving a trail though, when we talk about travelling faster than light we are talking about the speed of light in a vacuum. Light in other medium such as water travels slower so high energy particles from nuclear radiation can travel faster than light in that medium. They emit light which is similar to the effect that creates a sonic boom when an object breaks the sound barrier. This is called the Cerenkov radiation and is used to detect neutrinos, which are otherwise very hard to detect because they don't interact with matter very easily.

The all elusive WIMP's... (Weakly Interacting Massive Particles)

They try to detect the neutrino's way underground, where the possibility is bigger to find them.

---

rOZZ
Music
Pictures

Oh No Julie keep it up, your perfectly great.

---

Cheers everybody
Life is short so don't sip
Beer speaks, people mumble

I think would pretty hard if you can't see both sides of it to determine the age over all. some say 13.7 billion years and others vary

True some say the universe was created 8,000 years ago in the forum we see today. I don't know when or how it came about. The accepted popular theory is the Universe is 13.7 billion years old and was created from a minute singularity. The same popular theory also says some objects in the Universe are farther than 27.4 billion light years apart. Ergo at some point in "time" they had to travel faster than the speed of light.

Let me do the math; 13.7 + 13.7 = 27.4.

Oh No Julie keep it up, your perfectly great.

R U hitting on Julie?

---

I think would pretty hard if you can't see both sides of it to determine the age over all. some say 13.7 billion years and others vary

True some say the universe was created 8,000 years ago in the forum we see today. I don't know when or how it came about. The accepted popular theory is the Universe is 13.7 billion years old and was created from a minute singularity. The same popular theory also says some objects in the Universe are farther than 27.4 billion light years apart. Ergo at some point in "time" they had to travel faster than the speed of light.

Let me do the math; 13.7 + 13.7 = 27.4.

Oh No Julie keep it up, your perfectly great.

R U hitting on Julie?

No, he's just responding to me, as friends do response:)

---

rOZZ
Music
Pictures

I think would pretty hard if you can't see both sides of it to determine the age over all. some say 13.7 billion years and others vary

True some say the universe was created 8,000 years ago in the forum we see today. I don't know when or how it came about. The accepted popular theory is the Universe is 13.7 billion years old and was created from a minute singularity. The same popular theory also says some objects in the Universe are farther than 27.4 billion light years apart. Ergo at some point in "time" they had to travel faster than the speed of light.

Let me do the math; 13.7 + 13.7 = 27.4.

Oh No Julie keep it up, your perfectly great.

R U hitting on Julie?

On the contrary she is way above my league and she is way smarter than I am.

---

Cheers everybody
Life is short so don't sip
Beer speaks, people mumble