|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
BoBoZoBo
|
Posted - 2004.12.20 20:01:00 -
[1]
Edited by: BoBoZoBo on 20/12/2004 20:12:51 E=MC2
The #1 limiting factor for the speed limit is....mass
The more mass you have, the more energy you need to accelrate. This is exponential and becomes so high at speeds close to that of light, that there is not enough energy in the universe to accelerate anything with any mass to the speed of light.
Photons...and other similar particles that travel at "c" have no mass and therefor CAN travel the speed of light, eveything else in the universe has mass, and therefore cannot attain "c".
That is it in a nutshell as it pertains to physics as we kow it.
There are only 2 solutions to this,; 1) Reduce the mass of the object moving to 0 2) Increase the total energy in the universe
=========================
Operator 9 |
BoBoZoBo
|
Posted - 2004.12.20 20:01:00 -
[2]
Edited by: BoBoZoBo on 20/12/2004 20:12:51 E=MC2
The #1 limiting factor for the speed limit is....mass
The more mass you have, the more energy you need to accelrate. This is exponential and becomes so high at speeds close to that of light, that there is not enough energy in the universe to accelerate anything with any mass to the speed of light.
Photons...and other similar particles that travel at "c" have no mass and therefor CAN travel the speed of light, eveything else in the universe has mass, and therefore cannot attain "c".
That is it in a nutshell as it pertains to physics as we kow it.
There are only 2 solutions to this,; 1) Reduce the mass of the object moving to 0 2) Increase the total energy in the universe
=========================
Operator 9 |
BoBoZoBo
|
Posted - 2004.12.21 18:51:00 -
[3]
Edited by: BoBoZoBo on 21/12/2004 18:54:32 I would not call these theorists idiots.
They know that their results are based on probability and NONE of them have ever said that it is an absolute fact, that why it is called theoretical.
The fact still remains, that based on these "iditos" postulations, we CAN predict things to an amazing degree of accuracy, and say with confidence, "based on observations, this is a good explination"... Can any of your theories do that?
There are at least a dozen experiments (on earth and in space) that have proven the theory of relativity over and over. That is not to say they are 100% right all the time, but I would not classify them as useless.
My hunch is that you don't understand as much as you think you do.
Not that any of us here do.
=========================
Operator 9 |
BoBoZoBo
|
Posted - 2004.12.21 18:51:00 -
[4]
Edited by: BoBoZoBo on 21/12/2004 18:54:32 I would not call these theorists idiots.
They know that their results are based on probability and NONE of them have ever said that it is an absolute fact, that why it is called theoretical.
The fact still remains, that based on these "iditos" postulations, we CAN predict things to an amazing degree of accuracy, and say with confidence, "based on observations, this is a good explination"... Can any of your theories do that?
There are at least a dozen experiments (on earth and in space) that have proven the theory of relativity over and over. That is not to say they are 100% right all the time, but I would not classify them as useless.
My hunch is that you don't understand as much as you think you do.
Not that any of us here do.
=========================
Operator 9 |
BoBoZoBo
|
Posted - 2004.12.21 19:49:00 -
[5]
Originally by: Nelisa
Actually yes, the theory I mentioned earlier about gravity is just as plausible as the current favorite. I actually have my students each year try to disprove it. If they could they would get an automatic A for the year. So far none of them have been able to.
If anything it seems to fit better.
Oh... well then... that is proof enough for me...
=========================
Operator 9 |
BoBoZoBo
|
Posted - 2004.12.21 19:49:00 -
[6]
Originally by: Nelisa
Actually yes, the theory I mentioned earlier about gravity is just as plausible as the current favorite. I actually have my students each year try to disprove it. If they could they would get an automatic A for the year. So far none of them have been able to.
If anything it seems to fit better.
Oh... well then... that is proof enough for me...
=========================
Operator 9 |
BoBoZoBo
|
Posted - 2004.12.21 20:23:00 -
[7]
Edited by: BoBoZoBo on 21/12/2004 20:25:06 Playing too much EVE
=========================
Operator 9 |
BoBoZoBo
|
Posted - 2004.12.21 20:23:00 -
[8]
Edited by: BoBoZoBo on 21/12/2004 20:25:06 Playing too much EVE
=========================
Operator 9 |
BoBoZoBo
|
Posted - 2004.12.21 20:31:00 -
[9]
Edited by: BoBoZoBo on 21/12/2004 20:31:41 You are professor of what exactly?
Can you put your paper up here... I would very much like to read your theory.
=========================
Operator 9 |
BoBoZoBo
|
Posted - 2004.12.21 20:31:00 -
[10]
Edited by: BoBoZoBo on 21/12/2004 20:31:41 You are professor of what exactly?
Can you put your paper up here... I would very much like to read your theory.
=========================
Operator 9 |
|
BoBoZoBo
|
Posted - 2004.12.21 21:04:00 -
[11]
Originally by: Nelisa
Sorry but Ive heard that one before, then I get a call from a college somewhere asking if I gave <insert name here> a copy of it because they just turned it in as their term paper.
Ill summarize it if you like but it wont be complete and gets kinda complicated.
LOL...OK
A summary would be fine
=========================
Operator 9 |
BoBoZoBo
|
Posted - 2004.12.21 21:04:00 -
[12]
Originally by: Nelisa
Sorry but Ive heard that one before, then I get a call from a college somewhere asking if I gave <insert name here> a copy of it because they just turned it in as their term paper.
Ill summarize it if you like but it wont be complete and gets kinda complicated.
LOL...OK
A summary would be fine
=========================
Operator 9 |
|
|
|