Twice The Speed Of Light
Twice the speed of light?
- Thread starter Raziel McCloud
- Get-go date
Answers and Replies
The speed of light is 300.000 km/south. Or did you hateful miles?Einstein said nothing can go faster than the speed of calorie-free.If it did amid other things fourth dimension would slow yous downwardly to bring you back to 186,000 m/sec.
No. Light always travels at the speed of calorie-free, relative to the observer. If you lot are going very very close to the speed of light, you have to specify from which point of view (reference frame) that is. Say, equally seen from a person on earth you are flying very about the speed of low-cal. A light beam would pass yous at 300.000 km/s, but as seen from the earth the lite beam would simply surpass you very slowly, since yous are moving with such keen speed.Alright if y'all were going the speed of light and there is a beam of calorie-free right beside you,it would appear as if it wasn't moving right?
In that location is no contradiction here, since observers moving relative to 1 another experience time and infinite differently.
[/QUOTE]
Alright if yous were going the speed of calorie-free and at that place is a axle of light right beside yous,it would appear every bit if information technology wasn't moving right?Well if yous had a flashlight with you in your ship,and y'all shined it would information technology exit the flashlight at 2X the speed of calorie-free or would information technology but never leave the flashlight?
Information technology's not possible for a massive object like a ship to travel at the speed of light according to relativity (it would take an infinite amount of energy to accelerate information technology to this speed). But we can take a variation on your question--let's pretend for the sake of the argument that light moves at exactly 186,000 miles/second, and suppose on earth I observe a light beam flying by and and then yous in your ship chasing afterward it at 185,000 miles/second. Does this hateful that from your own point of view, the light volition only be moving at 1,000 miles/2nd away from you? The reply is no, because you use unlike rulers and clocks to measure speed, and from the earth's point of view your rulers appear shrunk and your clocks announced slowed-downwardly and out-of-sync. In fact, using your ain rulers and clocks, you will still measure out this same light axle to be moving at 186,000 miles/second abroad from y'all. In general, velocities don't translate between different observer's reference frames in relativity in the same way they do in Newtonian physics--if yous observe an object moving at velocity v relative to yourself, and I observe your ship moving at velocity u in the same direction relative to me, and so instead of me observing the object moving at velocity w = u+v relative to me every bit you lot'd expect in Newtonian physics, I would instead observe it moving at [tex]w = (u+5)/(1 + uv/c^2)[/tex]. You can see with a footling algebra that if v=c (yous discover a light axle moving at c relative to yourself), then w=c likewise (I will likewise notice that same lite beam to be moving at c relative to myself).Einstein said nothing can go faster than the speed of low-cal.If it did among other things fourth dimension would dull you lot downwardly to bring yous dorsum to 186,000 m/sec. Alright if you were going the speed of light and in that location is a axle of light right beside you lot,it would appear every bit if it wasn't moving right?Well if you had a flashlight with you in your send,and you shined it would it leave the flashlight at 2X the speed of light or would it simply never leave the flashlight?
Hi Raziel. Your questions are skilful questions, and they're the first questions nosotros all inquire at the threshold of studying the Special Theory of Relativity, or Special Relativity (SR). At this juncture in your career as a educatee you must keep some things in mind:...Then would information technology not be going 2X the speed of light and what most the flashlight?
1) Nosotros (humans) have the luxury of using the earth as a "rest frame" for much of what we see. The earth doesn't move relative to usa. Proceed in mind that the globe is the "neutral observer" in your race car instance. Or peradventure the neutral observer is a bug who's continuing still on the track, or the start/finish line. Neither of your race cars are "neutral observers" of each other considering they are both in movement. Now ask yourself this question...who's the neutral observer for the universe? Whose point of view to yous utilise when you inquire the question, "Would the flashlight beam of light not appear to be moving 2X the speed of light?"
2) Newtonian physics are a subset of physics as defined past General Relativity. Newtonian physics explain many phenomena, Full general Relativity explains everything that Newtonian physics explicate and more[b/]. To exist more than specific, Newtonian physics are okay every bit long as you are moving nowhere near the speed of light, like your race cars. Equally your subjects of study kickoff to movement faster and faster, your Newtonian calculations volition commencement showing signs of inconsistency with your observed results. As yous arroyo the speed of light Newtonian physics don't hold up any more than. You demand GR math to explicate your observations.
Let'southward clean up the space, no stars, calorie-free other thing, and then we have no reference points but two bodies A and B. A and B wing away from each other with speeds close to c each, and then they recede at shut to 2c.
Now, looking from reference frame of body A; I could say that A is stationary and B is flying away faster than low-cal. Only I'm not sure that I could see B (flashlight from B), because information technology is flying faster than low-cal. :surprised
No calorie-free from B, no information, no violation of laws of physics? :grumpy:
Also from your discussion here information technology looks like the light is "escaping" relativity. No mater what reference frame c is e'er going constant speed. If I understood right, the clocks are ticking differently in different frames so that's why this is happening. Information technology'south like a grand illusion, lol.
Or maybe there is an universal reference frame based in quantum of space-time, cloth of space. The speed of light could be express past a maximum speed that data tin travel from ane quantum to the other.
I appreciate whatsoever help in understanding this, thanks. 
Run into pervect's post and my before note. You mistakenly utilize Newtonian physics'southward velocity addition to a state of affairs that requires Full general Relativity (because you deal with speeds well-nigh c).A and B fly abroad from each other with speeds close to c each, and then they recede at close to 2c.
A<-----10 light seconds----->ME<-----x light seconds----->B
Nonetheless, if yous sit down on one such infinite transport, you might recall you would see a seperation of almost 20 light seconds, increasing at a speed of near 2c. You won't! Now is the correct time to apply your relativistic formula for adding velocities.
You lot tin can only get a sub-light velocity past adding ii sub-light velocities. Two objects moving at nearly c relative to you in opposite directions can appear to be seperating at nigh 2c (but they won't come across this from their own perspectives). It is a common misunderstanding that this would lead to relative speeds of up to 2c, and a lot of the general public seem to get stuck hither. Use the relativistic formula to find out what y'all would see from the spaceships.
Thanx guys, it sounds very intriguing and a new challenge in understanding the world, information technology should be a slap-up reeding. As soon equally I detect some quiet moment or ii, as information technology will crave analyzing of those equations, and retraining my brain for relativistic thinking.
From the first glance at relativistic velocity equation information technology looks like the traveler on body A is seeing the flashlight from B, just in different frequencies like microwaves, caused past red shift due to B speed.
On the other manus the time on A traveling at speed almost c is slowed down. In this case the homo on trunk A might run across aforementioned frequencies light as is made by flashlight if they are traveling with same speed but in reverse directions. The slowed fourth dimension could recoup fully for the red shift and allow to see flashlight with naked center……hmmm, very interesting. Incorrect or correct it is a very adept brain exercise, hehe!
Talk to you later.
Remember that this is only truthful for observers who exercise not travel with A. B will report that A'due south fourth dimension is slowed by a sure factor (oftentimes referred to every bit [itex]\gamma\hspace{one}'[/itex]), and A volition report that B's time is slowed by that same cistron [itex]\gamma\:'[/itex].On the other manus the time on A traveling at speed almost c is slowed down...
But neither A nor B says to themselves, "Hey, things are happening more slowly on my ship." They encounter fourth dimension for themselves pass usually. Only other observers (who reside in a unlike rest frame or frame of motility) report that time passes more slowly for A and B.
Keep reading! It's interesting stuff.
The slightly tricky flake to understand is that if I am in the centre of A and B, infinite ships travelling in reverse directions at about c, appear to me, later x seconds, to be seperated by virtually 20 lite seconds (10s 10 2 ten c)
A<-----10 light seconds----->ME<-----10 calorie-free seconds----->B
Yet, if you sit on i such space ship, you might remember you lot would see a seperation of almost xx low-cal seconds, increasing at a speed of nearly 2c. You won't! Now is the correct time to use your relativistic formula for adding velocities.
You can only get a sub-light velocity by adding two sub-low-cal velocities. Two objects moving at nigh c relative to y'all in opposite directions can appear to be seperating at nearly 2c (but they won't see this from their own perspectives). Information technology is a common misunderstanding that this would pb to relative speeds of up to 2c, and a lot of the general public seem to get stuck here. Apply the relativistic formula to find out what you lot would see from the spaceships.
And then well put. Agreed.
A<-----10 light seconds----->ME<-----x light seconds----->B
EDIT: Forget what nosotros run across for a moment. Permit's presume the ten second .99c journey is over. And now A,B and the ME in the middle communicate with each other. (fourth dimension dialation and length wrinkle are at present pretty much nil. We've stopped)
Two farther questions.
1) Is it right that the reason ship A tin't encounter send B moving faster than light considering positional information on the location of the other ship can't exist communicated at "faster than light" speed?
2) Regardless, will both ships A and B after stopping, then resting a moment, and then sending communications to each other and the guy in the middle find out that they (A and B) are positioned just nether twenty light seconds apart fifty-fifty though they both only saw each other travel for 10 seconds at sub calorie-free speed? (meaning they would think they were merely 10 light seconds apart.)
The guy in the middle could confirm that they are indeed 20 lite seconds apart. Is that right?
feww...hope that fabricated sense.
Eon.
PS. When I say lite speed I mean .999999999c
No, even if A takes into business relationship the light-speed delay she yet won't conclude that B was moving faster than low-cal. For example, A might come across an image of B that appears to be four.999 light-seconds away at t=nine.999 seconds, and conclude that since the light took 4.999 seconds to reach her, B was actually iv.999 light-seconds away at t=nine.999-iv.999=5 seconds in her frame. And then A might later run into an prototype of B that appears to be 9.998 calorie-free-seconds abroad at t=xix.998 seconds, and conclude that B was actually ix.998 calorie-free-seconds abroad at t=nineteen.998-9.998=10 seconds in her frame.1) Is it correct that the reason transport A can't see send B moving faster than light because positional information on the location of the other ship tin can't be communicated at "faster than light" speed?
You could too imagine that, to avoid the result of light delays, A constructs a large network of rulers at rest in her frame and synchronized clocks fixed at regular intervals along the rulers, then that to assign coordinates to an event, she looks at the marker on the ruler that was correct next to the event when it happened and the reading on the clock that was right next to the issue equally it happened. This is how Einstein originally imagined that inertial coordinate systems should exist physically constructed in his 1905 newspaper. The catchy function is that each observer must decide how to "synchronize" unlike clocks in their system-they can't only synchronize them at a single location and then move them apart, because moving them apart will introduce time dilation. Instead, Einstein suggested that each observer synchronize his clocks using the assumption that lite travels at the same speed in all directions, so that if you lot set off a flash at the midpoint of two clocks in your system, you phone call them "synchronized" if both clocks read the same fourth dimension at the moment the light from the flash hits them. Just this implies that different observers must have different definitions of simultaneity (they will disagree about whether two distant events happened 'at the same time'), since if I encounter your clocks moving in my frame, I volition see the back clock moving towards the point where the flash was emitted and the forepart clock moving away from it, so if I assume lite travels at the same speed in all directions in my frame I must conclude that the light will catch up with the back clock before information technology catches up with the front one.
Yep, in his frame, although in other frames the distance would exist different considering of Lorentz contraction.2) Regardless, volition both ships A and B later stopping, so resting a moment, then sending communications to each other and the guy in the middle find out that they (A and B) are positioned simply under xx light seconds apart fifty-fifty though they both only saw each other travel for 10 seconds at sub light speed? (meaning they would think they were only 10 light seconds apart.)The guy in the middle could ostend that they are indeed 20 light seconds autonomously. Is that right?
JesseM writes: No, even if A takes into account the low-cal-speed delay she however won't conclude that B was moving faster than calorie-free. For example, A might run across an image of B that appears to be 4.999 lite-seconds away at t=nine.999 seconds, and conclude that since the calorie-free took 4.999 seconds to reach her, B was actually 4.999 low-cal-seconds away at t=9.999-four.999=5 seconds in her frame. Then A might later on run across an image of B that appears to be ix.998 light-seconds abroad at t=19.998 seconds, and conclude that B was actually 9.998 lite-seconds away at t=19.998-ix.998=10 seconds in her frame.
You could as well imagine that, to avoid the issue of light delays, A constructs a large network of rulers at residue in her frame and synchronized clocks fixed at regular intervals along the rulers, so that to assign coordinates to an event, she looks at the mark on the ruler that was correct next to the event when it happened and the reading on the clock that was right next to the issue equally it happened. This is how Einstein originally imagined that inertial coordinate systems should be physically synthetic in his 1905 paper. The catchy part is that each observer must determine how to "synchronize" different clocks in their arrangement-they can't but synchronize them at a single location so movement them autonomously, because moving them autonomously will introduce time dilation. Instead, Einstein suggested that each observer synchronize his clocks using the supposition that calorie-free travels at the same speed in all directions, then that if you set off a flash at the midpoint of two clocks in your system, y'all phone call them "synchronized" if both clocks read the same time at the moment the light from the flash hits them. But this implies that different observers must take different definitions of simultaneity (they will disagree well-nigh whether 2 distant events happened 'at the aforementioned time'), since if I see your clocks moving in my frame, I volition see the dorsum clock moving towards the indicate where the flash was emitted and the front clock moving away from it, so if I assume light travels at the aforementioned speed in all directions in my frame I must conclude that the light will take hold of up with the back clock before it catches upwards with the forepart one.
Yep this makes sense. Brilliantly put. Thanks. I believe I get information technology.
At present onwards below.
Quote:
eon_rider writes
ii) Regardless, will both ships A and B after stopping, then resting a moment, so sending communications to each other and the guy in the middle find out that they (A and B) are positioned simply nether 20 calorie-free seconds autonomously even though they both but saw each other travel for 10 seconds at sub calorie-free speed? (meaning they would think they were only 10 light seconds apart.)
The guy in the middle could confirm that they are indeed xx light seconds apart. Is that correct?JesseM writes: "Yes, in his frame, although in other frames the distance would be different because of Lorentz contraction."
Information technology's the bolded part just seems so strange. A paradox.
Because after the journey nosotros don't have to think of frames anymore. We can communicate over these distances usually and hands found positions. Can't we? Mars is simply 180 light seconds abroad. So what'south to disagree about when working out our true positions relative to "ME" later on a .999c 10 or xx 2d journey.
Why would A,B and the "ME" in the center not be able to concur on where they really are. (Afterwards the trip's done).
I gauge I'm just not getting this function.
I was thinking it was due to length wrinkle and time dilation that would have the "ME" in the middle measure out that because fourth dimension had slown down and distance had contracted for A and B as they travelled away from him/her that his/her final findings would agree with A and B's concluding findings.
And so... I get the first part almost zilch travelling faster than light , but I don't sympathize the second role about them all disagreeing on their concluding locations due to frame differences. (eg. Why tin can't they agree on positions Later the short and fast trip with normal communications gear?)
all-time, :)
Eon.
A, B and "Me" would hold after the trip considering they are all at rest wrt each other and are thus in the aforementioned frame. But I meant that in the frame of some other observer C who has been moving at constant velocity relative to "Me" the whole time, the terminal distance when A and B come to rest relative to "Me" would be different. And notation that A and B themselves have non stuck to a unmarried inertial frame, and in non-inertial coordinate systems it is quite possible that the distance betwixt you lot and some other object can increment faster than c.It's the bolded function just seems so strange. A paradox.
Because after the journeying we don't accept to call up of frames anymore. We can communicate over these distances normally and hands establish positions. Can't we? Mars is just 180 light seconds abroad. So what'due south to disagree well-nigh when working out our true positions relative to "ME" after a .999c 10 or twenty second journeying.Why would A,B and the "ME" in the middle not be able to agree on where they actually are. (AFTER the trip'due south washed).
This is the point where Full general Relativity steps in. Special Relativity assumes a very strict set of weather, the foremost of which is no acceleration (and therefore no gravity). If, at whatever signal in your experiment, yous interruption these rules and someone experiences an dispatch, you must use General Relativity to complete the experiment and break the paradox.And note that A and B themselves accept non stuck to a single inertial frame, and in non-inertial coordinate systems information technology is quite possible that the altitude between yous and some other object can increase faster than c.
The well-nigh classic example of breaking this paradox is the twins paradox. The twin who underwent the acceleration (from speed nada to near-c and back to zero) is the one whose time slowed downwards, and the twin who experienced no acceleration is referred to as the "rest frame". If you never broke this symmetry, neither twin would serve as a reference frame and both would written report that their brother was aging slower than they were! This would not cease until 1 of them underwent an acceleration.
I can't recollect verbal timelines, but SR took a fraction of the time that GR took to develop. Hmmm...wonder why?
Anyhow, to stress, whatsoever fourth dimension yous start a SR experiment and then you find yourself saying, "And then A slows downward...or A turns around...or A's direction changes..." these all kick the experiment out of the realm of SR and into more complicated GR.
Only if you lot desire to analyze the experiment from the point of view of a coordinate system where the guy who accelerated (from the signal of view of inertial systems) is at rest the whole time. It is certainly possible to analyze situations involving acceleration from the point of view of inertial observers, you don't need GR for that.This is the point where General Relativity steps in. Special Relativity assumes a very strict set of weather, the foremost of which is no acceleration (and therefore no gravity). If, at any betoken in your experiment, you intermission these rules and someone experiences an acceleration, you must use General Relativity to complete the experiment and break the paradox.
http://math.ucr.edu/dwelling/baez/physics/Relativity/SR/acceleration.html
Is this view fundamentally...I don't want to say flawed, simply...is information technology less-than-perfect because you lot must pick a preferred "accelerator" and a preferred "rest frame" in order to clarify the situation? It looks similar GR never picks preferred observers and therefore reflects reality more closely...
Well, SR does require you lot to distinguish absolutely between who's accelerating and who's non, but then it is true that the i who accelerates in SR will feel 1000-forces and so that gives y'all a good way to distinguish them...in GR these G-forces could instead be explained in terms of an observer at rest feeling a gravitational field, so it is more than "full general" in this sense. You don't demand a single preferred residue frame to analyze acceleration in SR though, any inertial frame is equally good and will give the same answers to objective physical questions like what the clocks of the two twins will read when they reunite.Is this view fundamentally...I don't want to say flawed, but...is it less-than-perfect considering you must pick a preferred "accelerator" and a preferred "rest frame" in lodge to analyze the situation? It looks like GR never picks preferred observers and therefore reflects reality more closely...
JesseM and Severian596,
You guys work through this stuff really well.
Thank yous for all the helpful replies.
It'south all very very interesting.
Till later,
all-time,
Eon.
Let'due south say, in World frame the speed of calorie-free is 300,000 km/s. At present when we fly shut to speed of lite and the clock goes slow, volition the speed of light modify according to onboard clock? The speed of low-cal is same for all frames, but clocks work with different speed for all frames.
My instinct tells me that when traveling shut to speed of light I would mensurate the speed of light to be faster co-ordinate to onboard clock, lets say 300,000,000km/s (of course a wild guess example).
Nope, all observers will measure out the speed of light to exist the same, assuming each observer uses rulers and clocks which are at rest relative to himself, and with each observer synchronizing his own clocks using the procedure given by Einstein that I described in post #16.Let'southward say, in Earth frame the speed of light is 300,000 km/due south. Now when nosotros wing shut to speed of calorie-free and the clock goes deadening, volition the speed of light change according to onboard clock? The speed of light is same for all frames, but clocks work with different speed for all frames.
My instinct tells me that when traveling shut to speed of light I would measure the speed of calorie-free to be faster according to onboard clock, lets say 300,000,000km/s (of course a wild approximate example).
Careful here. This tripped me upward when I started on the topic of SR. I kept mixing upwardly exactly whose fourth dimension slows down and whose stays the aforementioned. The key is that it'south all relative, so the respond is neither. When nosotros fly close to the speed of low-cal nosotros don't perceive a change in our clocks; everyone else's clocks announced to move slowly.[...]Now when we fly close to speed of low-cal and the clock goes slow[...]
i: information technology is not possible to determine your velocity.. this is the same every bit "it is not possible to determing your velocity to a SPECIAL inertial frame". If y'all're in a plane, then you lot automatically assume your velocity is the velocity of the plane, but this is meaningless - you can simply specify relative velocities. this ways in that location is no "absolute" velocity or absolute inertial frame, only relative frames. There is no benchmark to record your velocity against.
the adjacent affair people say is that this ways "if you are in a box, without windows, y'all cannot do whatsoever experiment to determine your velocity".. I am new to this compared to some people hither but I think this is a fleck confusing and misleading. Yous may interpret this as "well, if we had windows, we would be able to determine out velocity!", but if you had windows, you'd just exist able to determine relative velocity. there is no such affair as "velocity, full end"!
But then (and Im a chip vague here) Maxwell's equations show that it is possible to determine, from your motion relative to light, (this is pre-2nd postulate light), your absolute velocity, and then you might say "hey, this photon travels a flake slower than it should! we must be moving in the aforementioned management as the medium of light!". This clearly contradicts the kickoff postulate, so we make a 2d ane,
2: the speed of light in a vacuum is the same in all inertial frames. This now resolves that. You'd say "hey, this photon moves at exactly c! we must be at residuum in the frame of the medium of light!". Then the box changes velocity, you lot experience it past being thrown to one side of the wall, and you measure it again: "hey! the photon is nevertheless moving at c, but we tin't be in the frame anymoe!". Again, you are cruelly bashed around in the box, and once again notice that the velocity of light is c! What'due south going on? What is your velocity relativ to the medium?
Well like y'all'd look from the first postulate, at that place is no medium (this was chosen the ether and at that place is experimental prove against information technology), and again the two postulates are consistent with experimental data.
...
then this leads to loads of funny things! if some friends are watching boob tube and y'all run beyond the TV, you accept to discover the photons travelling at a speed c. But to yous, the photons travel further! They travel to your friends, but according to you lot this is not a directly line but a diagonal line backwards (due to your movement), then you conclude that more than fourth dimension must accept elapsed in order that the photon makes the longer length journeying at the same speed!
at that place are loads more things.. length wrinkle, velocity transformations (which limit the relative speeds of all inertial frames at v<c, eg. yous see 2 cars moving towards each other at 0.6c.. perfectly consistent. but what does ane auto encounter? non some other automobile moving towards it at 1.2c, simply really a bit less than c (in fact aout 0.88c), kinetic energy is not but 0.v*mv^ii, and a particle can take energy when at balance...)
sorry. that went on for ages! But I just idea I'd summarise what I know for a express mirth. If its not accurate please tell me or modify it considering its the worst thing when you're learning something confusing to have alien things told to you.
Hello Everyone
This is my first post here. I am definitely an apprentice where Physics are concerned; nonetheless, this does not hateful I cannot be really interested in such things; or that I cannot ask a lot of sometimes foolish questions. Most of the math I see hither is similar some other language to me; I don't get a lot of it, only I am really interested in the basic principles and philosophies of physics.
In a newer "theory of everything" beingness adult; (sometimes coined as "Standard Theory); there is a challenge to the Theory Of Relativity, which basically claims that gravity is faster than lightspeed. It is being said by proponents of Standard Theory that "gravity is instant;" while lightspeed takes fourth dimension. Does this make sense? And if so; what does it mean regarding our employ of lightspeed in measuring spacetime? And, I am wondering: Is electromagnetism related to gravity?
I guess I am but wondering how spacetime is related to lightspeed, equally opposed to gravity. Please forgive me if these questions seem elementary; and let me know if I posted this in the right forum. 
I appreciate anything you can offering to help me learn more!
Hello Everyone
This is my first mail service hither. I am definitely an amateur where Physics are concerned; however, this does not mean I cannot be actually interested in such things; or that I cannot ask a lot of sometimes foolish questions. Most of the math I see here is like another language to me; I don't get a lot of it,
In a newer "theory of everything" being adult; (sometimes coined as "Standard Theory); there is a challenge to the Theory Of Relativity, which basically claims that gravity is faster than lightspeed.
The proponents of this theory may phone call it "Standard theory", only take no dobut - information technology is in no manner, shape, or form "standard". It's basically yet another crank theory.
It is being said by proponents of Standard Theory that "gravity is instant;" while lightspeed takes time. Does this brand sense? And if so; what does it mean regarding our utilize of lightspeed in measuring spacetime? And, I am wondering: Is electromagnetism related to gravity?
I estimate I am just wondering how spacetime is related to lightspeed, every bit opposed to gravity. Please forgive me if these questions seem elementary; and let me know if I posted this in the right forum.
I would suggest that yous read http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/GR/grav_speed.html" [Broken]
for what relativity has to say nearly the speed of gravity. To put it in a nutshell, we measure the speed of light by timing how far it takes a calorie-free wave to travel a certain distance. We would therfore measure out the speed of gravity in the same way. Unfortunately, to date nosotros have not been able to observe gravitational waves, and then nosotros don't have any direct experimental evidence of the speed of gravity.
The decay of the orbit of a pair of pulsars does requite us some indirect information, that suggests that relativity is probably correct.
The FAQ in a higher place likewise gives several incorrect means to measure the speed of gravity that take received a lot of publicity recently - means that requite wrong values for the speed of light, merely as they requite wrong values for the speed of gravity.
Correct notions of speed are based on the generation and detection of some sort of signal (equally with a lightbeam) - incorrect notions of speed don't involve any actual propagation of a betoken or of information.
Thankyou pervect; I am already learning much only past reading this article and your answer. In the article you referred me to, it says:The proponents of this theory may call it "Standard theory", but have no dobut - it is in no way, shape, or form "standard". Information technology's basically yet another crank theory.
I would suggest that you lot read http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/GR/grav_speed.html" [Broken]
for what relativity has to say well-nigh the speed of gravity.
Now, in my simple understandings; I thought that if something were to travel at the speed of light, it would require an infinite amount of energy? Where would this free energy come from, in the example of gravity? And does lite require energy to travel? Where does that free energy come up from? To me, if information technology would require this much energy to travel at lightspeed; then relativity must be correct in saying that lightspeed is the fastest matter going. How could anything acquire that much energy on a constant, sustained basis, such as gravity would accept to do if it is faster than lite? Would we non accept to say that it is only possible for something to travel at close to the speed of light? What do yous call up?In general relativity, on the other hand, gravity propagates at the speed of light; that is, the motility of a massive object creates a distortion in the curvature of spacetime that moves outward at low-cal speed.
That's only truthful of objects with mass. Light doesn't crave an infinite amount of free energy to propogate either.At present, in my elementary understandings; I thought that if something were to travel at the speed of light, it would require an infinite amount of energy?
I don't think it's useful to think of light every bit requiring energy to travel, so much as just conveying energy with information technology.And does light require free energy to travel? Where does that energy come up from?
The Time BulwarkDuring our history there have been many impossibilities and along with those impossibilities came cleaved records and new limits. Starting time it was to go around the world and prove it wasn't flat, then it was to wing, so it was to drive a vehicle, control water, brand calorie-free, control electricity, to communicate with someone on the other side of the globe, then to interruption the sound barrier, then to become into outer space, then to land a man on the moon, and at present…now nosotros break the time barrier.
Many scientists accept contributed to all of the above accomplishments, each giving a little along the way. But…for each man to contribute his work and become recognized for it, he had to retrieve of the word differently from everyone else. Einstein once said, "The speed of low-cal tin can never be reached, or fifty-fifty surpassed." Oh how wrong Einstein was. The entire phrase is a contradiction in itself. If light can reach lite speed, then it is a highly possible accomplishment!
Einstein used this formula to base his findings: Time equals time divided by the square root of i minus the velocity squared divided by the speed of lite squared, or T=T'/sqrt 1-(V Sq./C Sq). When T=the alter in time for the stationary mover, T'=the change in time for the motionary mover, 5=velocity, and C=speed of light (186,000 mi./sec.). Now, as long every bit your velocity never reaches your speed of light, yous're absolutely fine; even so, if your velocity reaches or surpasses that speed, well, the speed of light will have to be changed, but since it'due south an impossible accomplishment, we won't go any further…or so said Einstein. You lot meet, 186,000-mi./sec. Divided by 186,000 mi./sec. Equals 1, and 1-ane=0. The square root of 0 is a "syntax error" (says my computer). Information technology cannot be done. Therefore, the speed of light can never be reached.
Information technology is believed (and even proven through mathematical reasoning) that this formula doesn't piece of work for speeds faster than that of the speed of light or equal to information technology. Accept you ever wondered how fast yous'd go in space if you first went fifty% the speed of light, then stopped the engines (not the ship, only engines) in mid space and then restarted them at 49% the speed of light? You'd be going ninety% the speed of low-cal, right? Wrong, you lot'd merely be going 49% of C (C=the speed of light) because your reference frame had stopped and then continued on 49% of C. In someone else's reference frame, yous are going 99% of C, only in yours you're only going 49% of C. But if y'all continually went upwardly to 99% of C in your reference frame, you'd exist going precisely that. If you go 100% or above of C, time will no longer exist for you and the formula would no longer work, because you can't dilate time that doesn't exist! So in that location you have it, the fourth dimension barrier.
i don't know what yous guys would think most information technology, i remember it relates to this thread. then once more, some may accept a completely different view, or may know something i do not, please share it with me if you do.
cd
"well now we can break the time barrier... blah blah blah some special relativity... blah blah... so in that location yous have it, the time barrier"
He seems to have proven himself wrong...?
Suggested for: Twice the speed of light?
- Last Mail
- Last Post
- Last Post
- Last Post
- Last Post
- Last Mail service
- Concluding Post
- Last Postal service
- Last Post
Twice The Speed Of Light,
Source: https://www.physicsforums.com/threads/twice-the-speed-of-light.96758/
Posted by: mccollisteraloortat.blogspot.com
0 Response to "Twice The Speed Of Light"
Post a Comment