EVE Search - Is light really the fastest?

All Channels

Out of Pod Experience

Is light really the fastest?

» Click here to find additional results for this topic using Google

Monitor this thread via RSS [?]

Pages: 1 2 3 4 [5] 6 7 8 9 10 11 .. 11 :: one page
Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 0 post(s)
Scorpyn	Posted - 2004.12.21 18:22:00 - [121] Originally by: Nelisa Anyways in response to someones earlier question regarding Van De Whals Forces its the name of the phenomenon that causes the electron clouds of two or more atomic particles to synchronize into opposing polarity cycles, causing the atoms to attract and adhere to each other. Its the fundamental force that makes molecules possible. Got it thx Originally by: Frank Horrigan so... if some dude in another galixy pointed a laser pointer at us... and he was going almost the speed of light, away from the earth... could we see the laser going like 1 foot per second? Nope, the laser beam would travel away from the dude at light speed, at the same time as it would travel towards us at light speed. This is what makes light something I usually refer to as "weird". Originally by: Frank Horrigan and what if 2 galixys are going in oppsite direction each at 3/4 the speed of light... then they would never see eachother? Same thing again : They would see each other, because the speed of light would be the same to both - no relative change. Both would appear to be more red to each other though.
Scorpyn	Posted - 2004.12.21 18:22:00 - [122] Originally by: Nelisa Anyways in response to someones earlier question regarding Van De Whals Forces its the name of the phenomenon that causes the electron clouds of two or more atomic particles to synchronize into opposing polarity cycles, causing the atoms to attract and adhere to each other. Its the fundamental force that makes molecules possible. Got it thx Originally by: Frank Horrigan so... if some dude in another galixy pointed a laser pointer at us... and he was going almost the speed of light, away from the earth... could we see the laser going like 1 foot per second? Nope, the laser beam would travel away from the dude at light speed, at the same time as it would travel towards us at light speed. This is what makes light something I usually refer to as "weird". Originally by: Frank Horrigan and what if 2 galixys are going in oppsite direction each at 3/4 the speed of light... then they would never see eachother? Same thing again : They would see each other, because the speed of light would be the same to both - no relative change. Both would appear to be more red to each other though.
Nelisa	Posted - 2004.12.21 18:23:00 - [123] Originally by: Frank Horrigan so... if some dude in another galixy pointed a laser pointer at us... and he was going almost the speed of light, away from the earth... could we see the laser going like 1 foot per second? and what if 2 galixys are going in oppsite direction each at 3/4 the speed of light... then they would never see eachother? Question #1: No it would still appear to be going the speed of light. Question #2: No they would never see each other. I know it defies reason but apparrently they are convinced that if your moving faster than the speed of light then the light wont ever reach you from behind you and the light ahead of you slows itself down to the speed of light instead of 2x because it "knows" the rules and slows down just for you apparrently. Yeah I agree they're flippin idiots ;) Wouldnt it make more sense that once a photon moves faster than C its no longer a photon? And that if your moving at C then a stationary partical is percieved by you as a photon?
Nelisa	Posted - 2004.12.21 18:23:00 - [124] Originally by: Frank Horrigan so... if some dude in another galixy pointed a laser pointer at us... and he was going almost the speed of light, away from the earth... could we see the laser going like 1 foot per second? and what if 2 galixys are going in oppsite direction each at 3/4 the speed of light... then they would never see eachother? Question #1: No it would still appear to be going the speed of light. Question #2: No they would never see each other. I know it defies reason but apparrently they are convinced that if your moving faster than the speed of light then the light wont ever reach you from behind you and the light ahead of you slows itself down to the speed of light instead of 2x because it "knows" the rules and slows down just for you apparrently. Yeah I agree they're flippin idiots ;) Wouldnt it make more sense that once a photon moves faster than C its no longer a photon? And that if your moving at C then a stationary partical is percieved by you as a photon?
Scorpyn	Posted - 2004.12.21 18:28:00 - [125] Edited by: Scorpyn on 21/12/2004 18:51:40 Originally by: Nelisa I know it defies reason but apparrently they are convinced that if your moving faster than the speed of light then the light wont ever reach you from behind you and the light ahead of you slows itself down to the speed of light instead of 2x because it "knows" the rules and slows down just for you apparrently. I know too little about this to make a comment really, but it's an interesting theory nonetheless - stupid or not. Tbh it doesn't make much sense though - if the speed of light is always the same related to you, then how can you travel faster than light? I can agree that it might be possible to travel faster than light as it seems to a 3rd party observer, but if you use some light source as a reference point it shouldn't be possible... like trying to catch up with a beam of light when it keeps up the same speed all the time... Well, according to this it might at least be possible to travel faster than light as it seems to someone else, but being able to catch up to a photon should be impossible if the theories are correct... I wonder what that would look like... you travelling faster than light, as it seems to a 3rd party observer, but still you have problems catching up with that photon that keeps increasing the distance... I suppose this is why it's impossible to travel faster than light - the speed of light increases as you accellerate... If you use planets and stuff as reference points, you should be able to calculate how fast you're travelling related to them, but when comparing to the light it should still be impossible... The answer is probably that it's possible to travel faster than light, but you'll still not be able to catch a photon trying to escape from you. Originally by: Nelisa Wouldnt it make more sense that once a photon moves faster than C its no longer a photon? And that if your moving at C then a stationary partical is percieved by you as a photon? I can agree with the 1st, but I'm having trouble convincing myself about the 2nd even though it does make some sense...
Scorpyn	Posted - 2004.12.21 18:28:00 - [126] Edited by: Scorpyn on 21/12/2004 18:51:40 Originally by: Nelisa I know it defies reason but apparrently they are convinced that if your moving faster than the speed of light then the light wont ever reach you from behind you and the light ahead of you slows itself down to the speed of light instead of 2x because it "knows" the rules and slows down just for you apparrently. I know too little about this to make a comment really, but it's an interesting theory nonetheless - stupid or not. Tbh it doesn't make much sense though - if the speed of light is always the same related to you, then how can you travel faster than light? I can agree that it might be possible to travel faster than light as it seems to a 3rd party observer, but if you use some light source as a reference point it shouldn't be possible... like trying to catch up with a beam of light when it keeps up the same speed all the time... Well, according to this it might at least be possible to travel faster than light as it seems to someone else, but being able to catch up to a photon should be impossible if the theories are correct... I wonder what that would look like... you travelling faster than light, as it seems to a 3rd party observer, but still you have problems catching up with that photon that keeps increasing the distance... I suppose this is why it's impossible to travel faster than light - the speed of light increases as you accellerate... If you use planets and stuff as reference points, you should be able to calculate how fast you're travelling related to them, but when comparing to the light it should still be impossible... The answer is probably that it's possible to travel faster than light, but you'll still not be able to catch a photon trying to escape from you. Originally by: Nelisa Wouldnt it make more sense that once a photon moves faster than C its no longer a photon? And that if your moving at C then a stationary partical is percieved by you as a photon? I can agree with the 1st, but I'm having trouble convincing myself about the 2nd even though it does make some sense...
Nelisa	Posted - 2004.12.21 18:43:00 - [127] Edited by: Nelisa on 21/12/2004 18:43:42 Originally by: Scorpyn 3/4 the speed of light... how can that be faster than light? I know too little about this to make a comment really, but it's an interesting theory nonetheless - stupid or not. Tbh it doesn't make much sense though - if the speed of light is always the same related to you, then how can you travel faster than light? I can agree with the 1st, but I'm having trouble convincing myself about the 2nd even though it does make some sense... Ok the question was that they were both moving at 3/4 the speed of light away from each other.. combined velocity 1 1/2 times the speed of light, so the light wouldnt make it because it cant go faster than C. I was speaking of the speed of light relative to your starting point. Its not so far fetched considering its quite possible the primary characteristic that determines a particles properties is its velocity. Considering the awesome speed of photons its quite possible that what causes photons to red or blue shift isnt a change in wavelength but rather its velocity. Simply because our instruments are not sensitive enough to detect the variation doesnt mean its not there.
Nelisa	Posted - 2004.12.21 18:43:00 - [128] Edited by: Nelisa on 21/12/2004 18:43:42 Originally by: Scorpyn 3/4 the speed of light... how can that be faster than light? I know too little about this to make a comment really, but it's an interesting theory nonetheless - stupid or not. Tbh it doesn't make much sense though - if the speed of light is always the same related to you, then how can you travel faster than light? I can agree with the 1st, but I'm having trouble convincing myself about the 2nd even though it does make some sense... Ok the question was that they were both moving at 3/4 the speed of light away from each other.. combined velocity 1 1/2 times the speed of light, so the light wouldnt make it because it cant go faster than C. I was speaking of the speed of light relative to your starting point. Its not so far fetched considering its quite possible the primary characteristic that determines a particles properties is its velocity. Considering the awesome speed of photons its quite possible that what causes photons to red or blue shift isnt a change in wavelength but rather its velocity. Simply because our instruments are not sensitive enough to detect the variation doesnt mean its not there.
Scorpyn	Posted - 2004.12.21 18:47:00 - [129] Edited by: Scorpyn on 21/12/2004 18:49:44 Originally by: Nelisa Ok the question was that they were both moving at 3/4 the speed of light away from each other.. combined velocity 1 1/2 times the speed of light, so the light wouldnt make it because it cant go faster than C. Missed that Originally by: Nelisa I was speaking of the speed of light relative to your starting point. Its not so far fetched considering its quite possible the primary characteristic that determines a particles properties is its velocity. Considering the awesome speed of photons its quite possible that what causes photons to red or blue shift isnt a change in wavelength but rather its velocity. Simply because our instruments are not sensitive enough to detect the variation doesnt mean its not there. Possible... if that's true, then I suppose that the theories of relativity are wrong.
Scorpyn	Posted - 2004.12.21 18:47:00 - [130] Edited by: Scorpyn on 21/12/2004 18:49:44 Originally by: Nelisa Ok the question was that they were both moving at 3/4 the speed of light away from each other.. combined velocity 1 1/2 times the speed of light, so the light wouldnt make it because it cant go faster than C. Missed that Originally by: Nelisa I was speaking of the speed of light relative to your starting point. Its not so far fetched considering its quite possible the primary characteristic that determines a particles properties is its velocity. Considering the awesome speed of photons its quite possible that what causes photons to red or blue shift isnt a change in wavelength but rather its velocity. Simply because our instruments are not sensitive enough to detect the variation doesnt mean its not there. Possible... if that's true, then I suppose that the theories of relativity are wrong.
BoBoZoBo	Posted - 2004.12.21 18:51:00 - [131] 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 - [132] 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
Nelisa	Posted - 2004.12.21 18:57:00 - [133] Originally by: BoBoZoBo 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. 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.
Nelisa	Posted - 2004.12.21 18:57:00 - [134] Originally by: BoBoZoBo 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. 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.
Avon	Posted - 2004.12.21 19:30:00 - [135] Originally by: Nelisa Ok the question was that they were both moving at 3/4 the speed of light away from each other.. combined velocity 1 1/2 times the speed of light, so the light wouldnt make it because it cant go faster than C. The light would make it no problems at all. The frequency would be distorted, but the distance / speed is not a problem. You are still ignoring the distortion of space-time, and that is where your perception of the situation lets you down. ______________________________________________ Never argue with idiots. They will just drag it down to their level, and then beat you through experience.
Avon	Posted - 2004.12.21 19:30:00 - [136] Originally by: Nelisa Ok the question was that they were both moving at 3/4 the speed of light away from each other.. combined velocity 1 1/2 times the speed of light, so the light wouldnt make it because it cant go faster than C. The light would make it no problems at all. The frequency would be distorted, but the distance / speed is not a problem. You are still ignoring the distortion of space-time, and that is where your perception of the situation lets you down. ______________________________________________ Never argue with idiots. They will just drag it down to their level, and then beat you through experience.
Nelisa	Posted - 2004.12.21 19:34:00 - [137] Originally by: Avon Originally by: Nelisa Ok the question was that they were both moving at 3/4 the speed of light away from each other.. combined velocity 1 1/2 times the speed of light, so the light wouldnt make it because it cant go faster than C. The light would make it no problems at all. The frequency would be distorted, but the distance / speed is not a problem. You are still ignoring the distortion of space-time, and that is where your perception of the situation lets you down. Then explain the distortion of space-time and how it would cause light to go 1.5xC in this scenario please?
Nelisa	Posted - 2004.12.21 19:34:00 - [138] Originally by: Avon Originally by: Nelisa Ok the question was that they were both moving at 3/4 the speed of light away from each other.. combined velocity 1 1/2 times the speed of light, so the light wouldnt make it because it cant go faster than C. The light would make it no problems at all. The frequency would be distorted, but the distance / speed is not a problem. You are still ignoring the distortion of space-time, and that is where your perception of the situation lets you down. Then explain the distortion of space-time and how it would cause light to go 1.5xC in this scenario please?
BoBoZoBo	Posted - 2004.12.21 19:49:00 - [139] 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 - [140] 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
Scorpyn	Posted - 2004.12.21 20:01:00 - [141] Edited by: Scorpyn on 21/12/2004 20:10:28 Originally by: Nelisa Then explain the distortion of space-time and how it would cause light to go 1.5xC in this scenario please? If I understand the theory correctly, photons have a speed that is always the same no matter from what direction you see it. Galaxy 1 would have its photons move away at light speed, and Galaxy 2 would have the photons from galaxy 1 moving towards it at light speed (and vice versa of course). Note that it's kinda impossible to measure light moving away from you, so you could probably say that the light is moving towards the 1st object it hits at a speed that is the same as light speed - that way, light can actually travel faster than light. This implies that the theories are correct and that I have understood them correctly, which may or may not be the case. If we have an imaginary observer in the middle of this, he would notice that the photons are approaching him at the speed of light and leaving him at the speed of light. The distortion is caused by : 1. Galaxy 1 sees the photons go away at the speed of light 2. Galaxy 2 sees the photons from galaxy 1 approach at the speed of light 3. The 3rd party observer will agree and disagree - he's in the middle, and although the photons indeed travel towards him and from him at the speed of light, he'd see it as taking longer time to get to the destination. If this was "regular" matter, then that wouldn't be the case - the photons wouldn't reach the destination, the photons would move towards galaxy 2 but the distance would increase all the time so you could in fact say that it was moving away, and to the 3rd party observer it'd be a lot slower than light. It would only still be light speed to galaxy 1. That's what the theory of relativity is based on afaik.
Scorpyn	Posted - 2004.12.21 20:01:00 - [142] Edited by: Scorpyn on 21/12/2004 20:10:28 Originally by: Nelisa Then explain the distortion of space-time and how it would cause light to go 1.5xC in this scenario please? If I understand the theory correctly, photons have a speed that is always the same no matter from what direction you see it. Galaxy 1 would have its photons move away at light speed, and Galaxy 2 would have the photons from galaxy 1 moving towards it at light speed (and vice versa of course). Note that it's kinda impossible to measure light moving away from you, so you could probably say that the light is moving towards the 1st object it hits at a speed that is the same as light speed - that way, light can actually travel faster than light. This implies that the theories are correct and that I have understood them correctly, which may or may not be the case. If we have an imaginary observer in the middle of this, he would notice that the photons are approaching him at the speed of light and leaving him at the speed of light. The distortion is caused by : 1. Galaxy 1 sees the photons go away at the speed of light 2. Galaxy 2 sees the photons from galaxy 1 approach at the speed of light 3. The 3rd party observer will agree and disagree - he's in the middle, and although the photons indeed travel towards him and from him at the speed of light, he'd see it as taking longer time to get to the destination. If this was "regular" matter, then that wouldn't be the case - the photons wouldn't reach the destination, the photons would move towards galaxy 2 but the distance would increase all the time so you could in fact say that it was moving away, and to the 3rd party observer it'd be a lot slower than light. It would only still be light speed to galaxy 1. That's what the theory of relativity is based on afaik.
Nelisa	Posted - 2004.12.21 20:16:00 - [143] Then what causes the subatomic particles to change velocity to be constant to the observer?
Nelisa	Posted - 2004.12.21 20:16:00 - [144] Then what causes the subatomic particles to change velocity to be constant to the observer?
BoBoZoBo	Posted - 2004.12.21 20:23:00 - [145] Edited by: BoBoZoBo on 21/12/2004 20:25:06 Playing too much EVE ========================= Operator 9
BoBoZoBo	Posted - 2004.12.21 20:23:00 - [146] Edited by: BoBoZoBo on 21/12/2004 20:25:06 Playing too much EVE ========================= Operator 9
Nelisa	Posted - 2004.12.21 20:25:00 - [147] I just have a hard time believing the whole "photons always go this fast" theory. Lets look at this by the numbers: a photon leaves a star at 186,000 miles a second but if your moving away from that star at 185,000 miles per second instead of the photon travelling 1000 miles per second faster than you, it has now almost doubled its speed, meaning its moving 371,000 miles per second. But thats twice the speed of light and impossible. It cant both be moving (your velocity + C) and <C at the same time no matter what its made of. Otherwise your saying its in two different places at once.
Nelisa	Posted - 2004.12.21 20:25:00 - [148] I just have a hard time believing the whole "photons always go this fast" theory. Lets look at this by the numbers: a photon leaves a star at 186,000 miles a second but if your moving away from that star at 185,000 miles per second instead of the photon travelling 1000 miles per second faster than you, it has now almost doubled its speed, meaning its moving 371,000 miles per second. But thats twice the speed of light and impossible. It cant both be moving (your velocity + C) and <C at the same time no matter what its made of. Otherwise your saying its in two different places at once.
BoBoZoBo	Posted - 2004.12.21 20:31:00 - [149] 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 - [150] 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

Pages: 1 2 3 4 [5] 6 7 8 9 10 11 .. 11 :: one page
First page \| Previous page \| Next page \| Last page

COPYRIGHT NOTICE
EVE Online, the EVE logo, EVE and all associated logos and designs are the intellectual property of CCP hf. All artwork, screenshots, characters, vehicles, storylines, world facts or other recognizable features of the intellectual property relating to these trademarks are likewise the intellectual property of CCP hf. EVE Online and the EVE logo are the registered trademarks of CCP hf. All rights are reserved worldwide. All other trademarks are the property of their respective owners. CCP hf. has granted permission to EVE-Search.com to use EVE Online and all associated logos and designs for promotional and information purposes on its website but does not endorse, and is not in any way affiliated with, EVE-Search.com. CCP is in no way responsible for the content on or functioning of this website, nor can it be liable for any damage arising from the use of this website.