Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 [8] 9 10 11 .. 11 :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Edian Bulator
|
Posted - 2004.12.27 09:27:00 -
[211]
I don't quite get what most people said here (I'm 14 years old, gimme a break), but lately they've been able to accelerate objects using light. They used some extremely focused lasers here, and so far they've been able to fire their little test objects quite a number of feet into the air.
Back to the topic now. Will anyone scrutinise the Scientific Articles of Eve and point out their deficiencies? Isn't electromagnetism able to accelerate objects beyond the speed of light? Or how about radioactivity firing particles beyond that speed? Ave Infardi Matari |
Edian Bulator
|
Posted - 2004.12.27 09:27:00 -
[212]
I don't quite get what most people said here (I'm 14 years old, gimme a break), but lately they've been able to accelerate objects using light. They used some extremely focused lasers here, and so far they've been able to fire their little test objects quite a number of feet into the air.
Back to the topic now. Will anyone scrutinise the Scientific Articles of Eve and point out their deficiencies? Isn't electromagnetism able to accelerate objects beyond the speed of light? Or how about radioactivity firing particles beyond that speed? Ave Infardi Matari |
Prince Yellow
|
Posted - 2004.12.27 09:35:00 -
[213]
Originally by: Scorpyn
Originally by: Tyriel Nathos What is light? We see it as a particle (I refuse to see it as a wave as well ONLY because it ACTS like one)
It's probably neither or both tbh...
Originally by: Tyriel Nathos Let's put it this way: what is time? I believe its an illusion as well. How can there by another dimension? Everything is just in motion, that's all. The concept it utterly ridiculous to me. Time is merely an illusion of the human mind, and a stock reply made by scientists to explain something that they themselves doubt.
What's time? Good question. Answer that properly and you'll probably get a Nobel price. It's not an illusion - it's a way of measuring stuff, but it seems to get distorted when things move at a high relative speed, just like some other stuff seems to get weird that way.
What if time were another dimension "running" along side ours? And at high speed (speed of light) the gap between the two becomes smaller Like a "speed of time" since this is how we measure change or well "time" something going close to the "speed of time" would not be changing or have 0 time. This would explain why the speed of light distorts time.
|
Prince Yellow
|
Posted - 2004.12.27 09:35:00 -
[214]
Originally by: Scorpyn
Originally by: Tyriel Nathos What is light? We see it as a particle (I refuse to see it as a wave as well ONLY because it ACTS like one)
It's probably neither or both tbh...
Originally by: Tyriel Nathos Let's put it this way: what is time? I believe its an illusion as well. How can there by another dimension? Everything is just in motion, that's all. The concept it utterly ridiculous to me. Time is merely an illusion of the human mind, and a stock reply made by scientists to explain something that they themselves doubt.
What's time? Good question. Answer that properly and you'll probably get a Nobel price. It's not an illusion - it's a way of measuring stuff, but it seems to get distorted when things move at a high relative speed, just like some other stuff seems to get weird that way.
What if time were another dimension "running" along side ours? And at high speed (speed of light) the gap between the two becomes smaller Like a "speed of time" since this is how we measure change or well "time" something going close to the "speed of time" would not be changing or have 0 time. This would explain why the speed of light distorts time.
|
Scorpyn
|
Posted - 2004.12.27 13:20:00 -
[215]
Edited by: Scorpyn on 27/12/2004 13:30:18
Originally by: Prince Yellow What if time were another dimension "running" along side ours? And at high speed (speed of light) the gap between the two becomes smaller Like a "speed of time" since this is how we measure change or well "time" something going close to the "speed of time" would not be changing or have 0 time. This would explain why the speed of light distorts time.
I'm trying to get something out of that other than a headache and failing, maybe you could try explaining it in some other way?
Edit : I think I got it now, and it's an interesting idea but it could be explained better. I'll let you do it since you (hopefully) don't have the "clouded" version in your head.
|
Scorpyn
|
Posted - 2004.12.27 13:20:00 -
[216]
Edited by: Scorpyn on 27/12/2004 13:30:18
Originally by: Prince Yellow What if time were another dimension "running" along side ours? And at high speed (speed of light) the gap between the two becomes smaller Like a "speed of time" since this is how we measure change or well "time" something going close to the "speed of time" would not be changing or have 0 time. This would explain why the speed of light distorts time.
I'm trying to get something out of that other than a headache and failing, maybe you could try explaining it in some other way?
Edit : I think I got it now, and it's an interesting idea but it could be explained better. I'll let you do it since you (hopefully) don't have the "clouded" version in your head.
|
Aelius
|
Posted - 2004.12.27 14:06:00 -
[217]
Only diarea can beat the speed of sound and light.
When i'm with diarea i don't have time to say a word or even to turn on the light before i crap myself in the pants. Selling Raven BPC ME20 3M at Yulai 1st Station |
Aelius
|
Posted - 2004.12.27 14:06:00 -
[218]
Only diarea can beat the speed of sound and light.
When i'm with diarea i don't have time to say a word or even to turn on the light before i crap myself in the pants. Selling Raven BPC ME20 3M at Yulai 1st Station |
Jiin
|
Posted - 2004.12.27 17:51:00 -
[219]
Originally by: Aelius When i'm with diarea i don't have time to say a word or even to turn on the light before i crap myself in the pants.
Thanks for the info!
---
Jiin Proud member of the Neohazard Freelancers |
Jiin
|
Posted - 2004.12.27 17:51:00 -
[220]
Originally by: Aelius When i'm with diarea i don't have time to say a word or even to turn on the light before i crap myself in the pants.
Thanks for the info!
---
Jiin Proud member of the Neohazard Freelancers |
|
Prince Yellow
|
Posted - 2004.12.27 22:13:00 -
[221]
Originally by: Scorpyn Edited by: Scorpyn on 27/12/2004 13:30:18
Originally by: Prince Yellow What if time were another dimension "running" along side ours? And at high speed (speed of light) the gap between the two becomes smaller Like a "speed of time" since this is how we measure change or well "time" something going close to the "speed of time" would not be changing or have 0 time. This would explain why the speed of light distorts time.
I'm trying to get something out of that other than a headache and failing, maybe you could try explaining it in some other way?
Edit : I think I got it now, and it's an interesting idea but it could be explained better. I'll let you do it since you (hopefully) don't have the "clouded" version in your head.
Alright say there is a "velocity" to time or better put a speed of time (much like the speed of light) anything going close to this speed of time would age less compared to objects going slower. This would explain the time distortions when going the speed of light (because the speed of light is such a HUGE speed). I don't know if I can explain it any better...
|
Prince Yellow
|
Posted - 2004.12.27 22:13:00 -
[222]
Originally by: Scorpyn Edited by: Scorpyn on 27/12/2004 13:30:18
Originally by: Prince Yellow What if time were another dimension "running" along side ours? And at high speed (speed of light) the gap between the two becomes smaller Like a "speed of time" since this is how we measure change or well "time" something going close to the "speed of time" would not be changing or have 0 time. This would explain why the speed of light distorts time.
I'm trying to get something out of that other than a headache and failing, maybe you could try explaining it in some other way?
Edit : I think I got it now, and it's an interesting idea but it could be explained better. I'll let you do it since you (hopefully) don't have the "clouded" version in your head.
Alright say there is a "velocity" to time or better put a speed of time (much like the speed of light) anything going close to this speed of time would age less compared to objects going slower. This would explain the time distortions when going the speed of light (because the speed of light is such a HUGE speed). I don't know if I can explain it any better...
|
0seeker0
|
Posted - 2004.12.27 23:41:00 -
[223]
Originally by: Prince Yellow
What if time were another dimension "running" along side ours? And at high speed (speed of light) the gap between the two becomes smaller Like a "speed of time" since this is how we measure change or well "time" something going close to the "speed of time" would not be changing or have 0 time. This would explain why the speed of light distorts time.
Ok, i think this is interesting... and i can see reflections of this in more contempory theories. Try to think about 2 seperate measurements.. when you say distance and speed, try to factor in the viewpoints from which you are measuring it. namely a "stationary" point and the "moving" point (bad english i know)
Im not sure what difference that will make and my head is to christmassy to think deeply but i wager that would yeild interesting thinking.
all the best and a happy chistmas and a merry new year,
san.
Character "Widescreen" is a scammer; beware.
Check my bio for a list of known scammers.
|
0seeker0
|
Posted - 2004.12.27 23:41:00 -
[224]
Originally by: Prince Yellow
What if time were another dimension "running" along side ours? And at high speed (speed of light) the gap between the two becomes smaller Like a "speed of time" since this is how we measure change or well "time" something going close to the "speed of time" would not be changing or have 0 time. This would explain why the speed of light distorts time.
Ok, i think this is interesting... and i can see reflections of this in more contempory theories. Try to think about 2 seperate measurements.. when you say distance and speed, try to factor in the viewpoints from which you are measuring it. namely a "stationary" point and the "moving" point (bad english i know)
Im not sure what difference that will make and my head is to christmassy to think deeply but i wager that would yeild interesting thinking.
all the best and a happy chistmas and a merry new year,
san.
Character "Widescreen" is a scammer; beware.
Check my bio for a list of known scammers.
|
0seeker0
|
Posted - 2004.12.27 23:49:00 -
[225]
Edited by: 0seeker0 on 27/12/2004 23:52:20
Originally by: Edian Bulator I don't quite get what most people said here (I'm 14 years old, gimme a break), but lately they've been able to accelerate objects using light. They used some extremely focused lasers here, and so far they've been able to fire their little test objects quite a number of feet into the air.
Back to the topic now. Will anyone scrutinise the Scientific Articles of Eve and point out their deficiencies? Isn't electromagnetism able to accelerate objects beyond the speed of light? Or how about radioactivity firing particles beyond that speed?
Hi! yes they can indeed do so. In thinking about futuristic spacecraft they have come up with some very inventive ideas, from using nuclear explosions to sucking up hydrogen and squirting it out back. the pertinant one to this is a solar sail... positioned so its large flat side is facing the sun, and the radiation (ie light and other stuff) coming from the sun "impacts" into the sail and imparts some of its "velocity" onto the sail, thus propelling the spacecraft. It has uber crappy acceleration but when the drag strip is from earth to the edge of the solarsystem (a HUUUUUUGE distance, mars is like walking to the bathroom in comparison) you end up with a handsome speed with no worries about fuel.
Another interesting idea / spin off from this is if we spot an asteroid hurtling at us from a long long way away, we dont have to fire nukes and deal with the resulting splinters; all we have to do is fire a ginormous white paintball or 3 at it... when it is all white it will reflect the light and in turn this will alter its trajectory.
However, being able to accelerate something using light in itself does not mean we are closer to going faster than light, or even at the speed of light.
Oh btw, unless there are other inteligent life forms out there, the coldest place in the univers is near a desert on earth.
All the best!
San.
Character "Widescreen" is a scammer; beware.
Check my bio for a list of known scammers.
|
0seeker0
|
Posted - 2004.12.27 23:49:00 -
[226]
Edited by: 0seeker0 on 27/12/2004 23:52:20
Originally by: Edian Bulator I don't quite get what most people said here (I'm 14 years old, gimme a break), but lately they've been able to accelerate objects using light. They used some extremely focused lasers here, and so far they've been able to fire their little test objects quite a number of feet into the air.
Back to the topic now. Will anyone scrutinise the Scientific Articles of Eve and point out their deficiencies? Isn't electromagnetism able to accelerate objects beyond the speed of light? Or how about radioactivity firing particles beyond that speed?
Hi! yes they can indeed do so. In thinking about futuristic spacecraft they have come up with some very inventive ideas, from using nuclear explosions to sucking up hydrogen and squirting it out back. the pertinant one to this is a solar sail... positioned so its large flat side is facing the sun, and the radiation (ie light and other stuff) coming from the sun "impacts" into the sail and imparts some of its "velocity" onto the sail, thus propelling the spacecraft. It has uber crappy acceleration but when the drag strip is from earth to the edge of the solarsystem (a HUUUUUUGE distance, mars is like walking to the bathroom in comparison) you end up with a handsome speed with no worries about fuel.
Another interesting idea / spin off from this is if we spot an asteroid hurtling at us from a long long way away, we dont have to fire nukes and deal with the resulting splinters; all we have to do is fire a ginormous white paintball or 3 at it... when it is all white it will reflect the light and in turn this will alter its trajectory.
However, being able to accelerate something using light in itself does not mean we are closer to going faster than light, or even at the speed of light.
Oh btw, unless there are other inteligent life forms out there, the coldest place in the univers is near a desert on earth.
All the best!
San.
Character "Widescreen" is a scammer; beware.
Check my bio for a list of known scammers.
|
Xelios
|
Posted - 2004.12.28 01:41:00 -
[227]
Without reading through all 6 pages, E=mc^2. As your velocity increases so does your energy, if your energy increases then the other side of the equation must also increase. Since the speed of light (c) is a constant in this equation it can't increase, this means your mass will increase. Mass is just a form of energy. As you add more energy to an object you also increase its mass, at low speeds this increase is not noticeable, at very high speeds approaching the speed of light this increase grows exponentially.
The higher the object's mass the more energy is required to accelerate it further. Eventually your object has so much energy (and therefor so much mass), that you can no longer accelerate it any further because the energy required to do so is astronomical.
Photons can travel the speed of light because they have no 'rest mass', all of their mass comes from their velocity (since velocity is energy which is mass). If you stop a photon completely it will cease to exist, because at that point it will have zero mass.
|
Xelios
|
Posted - 2004.12.28 01:41:00 -
[228]
Without reading through all 6 pages, E=mc^2. As your velocity increases so does your energy, if your energy increases then the other side of the equation must also increase. Since the speed of light (c) is a constant in this equation it can't increase, this means your mass will increase. Mass is just a form of energy. As you add more energy to an object you also increase its mass, at low speeds this increase is not noticeable, at very high speeds approaching the speed of light this increase grows exponentially.
The higher the object's mass the more energy is required to accelerate it further. Eventually your object has so much energy (and therefor so much mass), that you can no longer accelerate it any further because the energy required to do so is astronomical.
Photons can travel the speed of light because they have no 'rest mass', all of their mass comes from their velocity (since velocity is energy which is mass). If you stop a photon completely it will cease to exist, because at that point it will have zero mass.
|
Sphalerite
|
Posted - 2004.12.28 02:16:00 -
[229]
Edited by: Sphalerite on 28/12/2004 04:58:13
Originally by: Nelisa
If you want to explain special relativity to them be my guest it was an oversimplified answer to an oversimplified question.
If *I* were a college professor with a phd in physics and an interest in quantum mechanics, I would have no trouble explaining special relativity to someone curious about it. If I were feeling lazy, I would say something like "it's difficult to explain, but under special relativity, velocities don't add as simply as you would expect when velocities near the speed of light are involved." I am sure I wouldn't make us something completely false and say it was only a simplification when someone called me on it.
For anyone who is actually curious about physics and doesn't want to deal with everyone here's BS theories, here is a link to a pretty decent physics FAQ
|
Sphalerite
|
Posted - 2004.12.28 02:16:00 -
[230]
Edited by: Sphalerite on 28/12/2004 04:58:13
Originally by: Nelisa
If you want to explain special relativity to them be my guest it was an oversimplified answer to an oversimplified question.
If *I* were a college professor with a phd in physics and an interest in quantum mechanics, I would have no trouble explaining special relativity to someone curious about it. If I were feeling lazy, I would say something like "it's difficult to explain, but under special relativity, velocities don't add as simply as you would expect when velocities near the speed of light are involved." I am sure I wouldn't make us something completely false and say it was only a simplification when someone called me on it.
For anyone who is actually curious about physics and doesn't want to deal with everyone here's BS theories, here is a link to a pretty decent physics FAQ
|
|
Dau Imperius
|
Posted - 2004.12.28 03:32:00 -
[231]
Lucikly, should the Human species survive another thousand years and actually propser, we'll be laughing at how ignorant we were today believing in 'laws' of physics and the like. Laws can be changed, rules can be found and re-broken. Science is always expanding and changing, unlike other things.
If you beleive light is the fastest and can never be passed, then I have an F-22 that can never pass the speed of sound for you to buy, and an old sailing ship that will fall off the world if you travel to far.
Have a nice day, and keep dreaming becuase those who can't will be doomed to beleive things can never change.
|
Dau Imperius
|
Posted - 2004.12.28 03:32:00 -
[232]
Lucikly, should the Human species survive another thousand years and actually propser, we'll be laughing at how ignorant we were today believing in 'laws' of physics and the like. Laws can be changed, rules can be found and re-broken. Science is always expanding and changing, unlike other things.
If you beleive light is the fastest and can never be passed, then I have an F-22 that can never pass the speed of sound for you to buy, and an old sailing ship that will fall off the world if you travel to far.
Have a nice day, and keep dreaming becuase those who can't will be doomed to beleive things can never change.
|
Eneroth
|
Posted - 2004.12.28 05:00:00 -
[233]
There is a theory that a tachyon is faster than the light. But sofar the have to prove it first.
-Any fool can pull a trigger.- |
Eneroth
|
Posted - 2004.12.28 05:00:00 -
[234]
There is a theory that a tachyon is faster than the light. But sofar the have to prove it first.
-Any fool can pull a trigger.- |
Bosie
|
Posted - 2004.12.28 07:29:00 -
[235]
Originally by: Eneroth There is a theory that a tachyon is faster than the light. But sofar the have to prove it first.
I heard there was a theory that nothing was faster than light! Ohh and that atoms are the smallest object ohh and you can't go faster than sound and ohh the sun orbits the earth...
/emote yawns
Bosie.
http://bosie.proboards40.com/ http://zeroimpact.co.uk/evemap
|
Bosie
|
Posted - 2004.12.28 07:29:00 -
[236]
Originally by: Eneroth There is a theory that a tachyon is faster than the light. But sofar the have to prove it first.
I heard there was a theory that nothing was faster than light! Ohh and that atoms are the smallest object ohh and you can't go faster than sound and ohh the sun orbits the earth...
/emote yawns
Bosie.
http://bosie.proboards40.com/ http://zeroimpact.co.uk/evemap
|
Rod Blaine
|
Posted - 2004.12.28 10:23:00 -
[237]
Edited by: Rod Blaine on 28/12/2004 10:24:46 Actually, faster then light movement does exist and can be proven to. It can however not be directly measured.
But a second question is wether the movement faster then light can even be compared to movement as we know it. Since essentialy time gets a big hand in things when one arives at a speed faster then light. This adds a whole new meaning to the pretty insignificant dimesion of time in our usual way of thinking about speed and movement.
If anyone is looking for a book concerning time and the mathematics of it I can recommend one that is a good overvieuw for all non-professionals. It is written so that the whole subject gets to be both understandable (tho still hard to come to terms with) and fun to read.
Go to your library or whatever you call it and look for: "About Time" by Paul Davies. _______________________________________________
Yes yes, blogging is passÚ I know. Rod's Ramblingz on Eve-Online Solutions to your issues. |
Rod Blaine
|
Posted - 2004.12.28 10:23:00 -
[238]
Edited by: Rod Blaine on 28/12/2004 10:24:46 Actually, faster then light movement does exist and can be proven to. It can however not be directly measured.
But a second question is wether the movement faster then light can even be compared to movement as we know it. Since essentialy time gets a big hand in things when one arives at a speed faster then light. This adds a whole new meaning to the pretty insignificant dimesion of time in our usual way of thinking about speed and movement.
If anyone is looking for a book concerning time and the mathematics of it I can recommend one that is a good overvieuw for all non-professionals. It is written so that the whole subject gets to be both understandable (tho still hard to come to terms with) and fun to read.
Go to your library or whatever you call it and look for: "About Time" by Paul Davies. _______________________________________________
Yes yes, blogging is passÚ I know. Rod's Ramblingz on Eve-Online Solutions to your issues. |
Prince Yellow
|
Posted - 2004.12.28 10:58:00 -
[239]
Originally by: 0seeker0
Originally by: Prince Yellow
What if time were another dimension "running" along side ours? And at high speed (speed of light) the gap between the two becomes smaller Like a "speed of time" since this is how we measure change or well "time" something going close to the "speed of time" would not be changing or have 0 time. This would explain why the speed of light distorts time.
Ok, i think this is interesting... and i can see reflections of this in more contempory theories. Try to think about 2 seperate measurements.. when you say distance and speed, try to factor in the viewpoints from which you are measuring it. namely a "stationary" point and the "moving" point (bad english i know)
Im not sure what difference that will make and my head is to christmassy to think deeply but i wager that would yeild interesting thinking.
all the best and a happy chistmas and a merry new year,
san.
What do you mean? I don't follow what your trying to say.
|
Prince Yellow
|
Posted - 2004.12.28 10:58:00 -
[240]
Originally by: 0seeker0
Originally by: Prince Yellow
What if time were another dimension "running" along side ours? And at high speed (speed of light) the gap between the two becomes smaller Like a "speed of time" since this is how we measure change or well "time" something going close to the "speed of time" would not be changing or have 0 time. This would explain why the speed of light distorts time.
Ok, i think this is interesting... and i can see reflections of this in more contempory theories. Try to think about 2 seperate measurements.. when you say distance and speed, try to factor in the viewpoints from which you are measuring it. namely a "stationary" point and the "moving" point (bad english i know)
Im not sure what difference that will make and my head is to christmassy to think deeply but i wager that would yeild interesting thinking.
all the best and a happy chistmas and a merry new year,
san.
What do you mean? I don't follow what your trying to say.
|
|
|
|
|
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 [8] 9 10 11 .. 11 :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |