EVE Search - Lightspeed?!?

All Channels

Out of Pod Experience

Lightspeed?!?

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

Monitor this thread via RSS [?]

Pages: 1 2 3 :: [one page]
Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 0 post(s)
Taviko Momentum. Dusk and Dawn	Posted - 2007.05.14 14:13:00 - [1] If you travel in space at the speed of light and then turn on your headlights, will there actually be any light coming out from the headlights????
Ealiom Infinitus Morti R0ADKILL	Posted - 2007.05.14 14:24:00 - [2] yes. Executioner Model Blackbird Model
Thuul'Khalat Gallente Phoenix Wing The Cyrene Initiative	Posted - 2007.05.14 14:27:00 - [3] The speed of light is relative to the one observing the light. So, yes. --- We are Recruiting!
Ealiom Infinitus Morti R0ADKILL	Posted - 2007.05.14 14:33:00 - [4] what you should have asked is if someone is travelling towards you from the opposite direction. Would they see the headlights? These questions and many like them have been asked and answered on these forums - lots. eve search: Headlights speed of light Executioner Model Blackbird Model
Rodj Blake Amarr PIE Inc.	Posted - 2007.05.14 15:00:00 - [5] Of course, it's the travelling at the speed of light bit which is the difficult part. Dulce et decorum est pro imperium mori.
Dark Shikari Caldari Imperium Technologies Firmus Ixion	Posted - 2007.05.14 15:07:00 - [6] You can't actually travel at the speed of light, but let's say you went at 99% the speed of light. It would appear to be coming out of your headlights, and indeed it would appear to come out at the speed of light. Special Relativity, the theory that describes how this works, is entirely based on previous physics combined with two assumptions. These assumptions can be used to derive all the math describing how time dilation and so forth work. 1. Physical laws are the same in all reference frames. 2. Light's speed appears to be constant, from all reference frames. This means regardless of your velocity or position, light always appears to be going at the speed of light. --23 Member-- Listen to EVE-Trance Radio!
Bosie	Posted - 2007.05.14 15:10:00 - [7] Originally by: Dark Shikari You can't actually travel at the speed of light No one knows if we can or can't all we have is a theory that says we can't. When I was a lad we could not travel at the speed of sound yada, yada, yada... "There is a forgotten, nay almost forbidden word, which means more to me than any other. That word is ENGLAND."
Mtthias Clemi Gallente Infinitus Odium	Posted - 2007.05.14 15:15:00 - [8] Originally by: Bosie Originally by: Dark Shikari You can't actually travel at the speed of light No one knows if we can or can't all we have is a theory that says we can't. When I was a lad we could not travel at the speed of sound yada, yada, yada... Your OLD dude! everyone knows the theorys we have at the moment are correct! EVERYONE!!! -------------------------------------------- Stay away from my signature all of ya!!! IM WARNING YOU!! PEW PEW PEW PEW!
Dark Shikari Caldari Imperium Technologies Firmus Ixion	Posted - 2007.05.14 15:20:00 - [9] Edited by: Dark Shikari on 14/05/2007 15:24:05 Originally by: Bosie Originally by: Dark Shikari You can't actually travel at the speed of light No one knows if we can or can't all we have is a theory that says we can't. When I was a lad we could not travel at the speed of sound yada, yada, yada... And the theory has been tested to be correct up to 99.9999999999999% the speed of light, easily. Let's say that the theory magically breaks down at 99.999999999999999999% the speed of light. The energy required to reach that, even for a SINGLE PARTICLE, is beyond the scope of the entire human race. Therefore, even if the theory is wrong, we still can't travel locally at the speed of light, in normal space. There are ways to bypass the limit, but they involve specific spacetime constructions. They still don't allow velocity locally to exceed the speed of light. There has to be a limit to skepticism; next thing you're going to claim that you could move a spaceship by sitting inside of it and pulling on a rope tied to the other end of it Theories rarely prove to be "wrong"; they prove to be inaccurate in special cases. Newton's laws were never proved to be wrong; they were merely proven to be in accurate at high velocities. And so forth. --23 Member-- Listen to EVE-Trance Radio!
defiler Mad Hermit	Posted - 2007.05.14 16:12:00 - [10] Originally by: Dark Shikari There has to be a limit to skepticism; next thing you're going to claim that you could move a spaceship by sitting inside of it and pulling on a rope tied to the other end of it Actually you can, but the difference in mass between you and the spaceship means that you would move far more than the ship. Also, walking inside it would be easier and have the same effect.</nitpick> *Mad Hermit - Minding our own business since 2004.*
Dark Shikari Caldari Imperium Technologies Firmus Ixion	Posted - 2007.05.14 16:23:00 - [11] Originally by: defiler Originally by: Dark Shikari There has to be a limit to skepticism; next thing you're going to claim that you could move a spaceship by sitting inside of it and pulling on a rope tied to the other end of it Actually you can, but the difference in mass between you and the spaceship means that you would move far more than the ship. Also, walking inside it would be easier and have the same effect.</nitpick> Well you're not moving the center of gravity of you and the ship. Technically if you don't count yourself as part of the ship, you're moving the ship's center of gravity slightly, of course. --23 Member-- Listen to EVE-Trance Radio!
ReaperOfSly Gallente Lyrus Associates Betrayal Under Mayhem	Posted - 2007.05.14 21:14:00 - [12] Originally by: defiler Originally by: Dark Shikari There has to be a limit to skepticism; next thing you're going to claim that you could move a spaceship by sitting inside of it and pulling on a rope tied to the other end of it Actually you can, but the difference in mass between you and the spaceship means that you would move far more than the ship. Also, walking inside it would be easier and have the same effect.</nitpick> Well, the ship would start to move very slowly, but would stop again as soon as you hit the back of it. Conservation of momentum anyone? -------------------------------------------------------------------- Beer is my religion. Guinness is my God.
Bosie	Posted - 2007.05.14 21:35:00 - [13] Originally by: Dark Shikari And the theory has been tested to be correct up to 99.9999999999999% the speed of light, easily. Theories rarely prove to be "wrong"; they prove to be inaccurate in special cases. Newton's laws were never proved to be wrong; they were merely proven to be in accurate at high velocities. And so forth. So what you are saying is that 2+2=4.2 is not wrong just inaccurate... Again, you can't say it's impossible just because we lack the means and the understanding to make it so. To do so is ignorant. "There is a forgotten, nay almost forbidden word, which means more to me than any other. That word is ENGLAND."
Glassback M. Corp M. PIRE	Posted - 2007.05.14 21:40:00 - [14] Sometimes, when I'm alone, I touch myself. If Eve was just a game, it would have a pause button.
Derovius Vaden	Posted - 2007.05.14 21:44:00 - [15] 1. You cannot reach the speed of light, as your mass approaches infinite. 2. Because the speed of light is considered "constant" for all intensive purposes, if you could somehow travel at the speed of light, no light would eminate. It would be similar to zero gravity and water; you would try and pour it out, but it would be suspended. 3. The major problem is not as DS described, its more an emphasis on ever-increasing mass (and therefore an ever increasing need for energy to propel it further). DS just jumped to the reason why, and didn't explain it.
Dark Shikari Caldari Imperium Technologies Firmus Ixion	Posted - 2007.05.14 22:30:00 - [16] Originally by: Derovius Vaden 1. You cannot reach the speed of light, as your mass approaches infinite. 2. Because the speed of light is considered "constant" for all intensive purposes, if you could somehow travel at the speed of light, no light would eminate. It would be similar to zero gravity and water; you would try and pour it out, but it would be suspended. 3. The major problem is not as DS described, its more an emphasis on ever-increasing mass (and therefore an ever increasing need for energy to propel it further). DS just jumped to the reason why, and didn't explain it. Correct, good explanation. --23 Member-- Listen to EVE-Trance Radio!
Feng Schui Minmatar The Ninja Coalition Phobos Alliance	Posted - 2007.05.14 22:47:00 - [17] Originally by: Glassback Sometimes, when I'm alone, I touch myself. at the speed of light? My opinion is my own, not of my corp or my alliance. If you have problems, we can have a "who can do L4 missions faster" duel >:)
R'olyat Gallente Raging Phoenix Incorporated North Star Confederation	Posted - 2007.05.16 03:52:00 - [18] Originally by: Feng Schui Originally by: Glassback Sometimes, when I'm alone, I touch myself. at the speed of light? Win. ___________________________ Fixed sig for t3h sig ninjaz.
Shameless Avenger	Posted - 2007.05.16 04:02:00 - [19] and why the mass increases? is teh pilot eating donuts or something? PS: I'm not trolling, I really wanna know. Collegue was ages ago and I forgot.
defiler Mad Hermit	Posted - 2007.05.16 05:20:00 - [20] Originally by: ReaperOfSly Originally by: defiler Originally by: Dark Shikari There has to be a limit to skepticism; next thing you're going to claim that you could move a spaceship by sitting inside of it and pulling on a rope tied to the other end of it Actually you can, but the difference in mass between you and the spaceship means that you would move far more than the ship. Also, walking inside it would be easier and have the same effect.</nitpick> Well, the ship would start to move very slowly, but would stop again as soon as you hit the back of it. Conservation of momentum anyone? Indeed, but that's beside the point - the ship moves if you move. And you could just make sure you don't hit anything, by going out the drone bay for instance. What happens to you after that is yet again beside the point. *Mad Hermit - Minding our own business since 2004.*
mamolian M. Corp M. PIRE	Posted - 2007.05.16 07:11:00 - [21] Originally by: Glassback Sometimes, when I'm alone, I touch myself. I had the post read and thought for a second.. hmm whats this got to do with the speed of light.. then almost spat my coffee on the screen. -------------------------------
Sokratesz Paradox v2.0 1 Shot 1 Kill	Posted - 2007.05.16 10:48:00 - [22] Edited by: Sokratesz on 16/05/2007 10:46:48 Read up on Einstein en Richard Hawkings. Higher velocity = increase in mass = more energy needed to accelerate further. At 10% of the speed of light, the mass of an object is increased by 1%. At 90%, its close to double. At Lightspeed, its infinite. Hence, not possible. And as DS said, light always travels at the speed of light regardless of the observer. sig down temporarily Originally by: welsh wizard You might not be able to kill anything but you can sure as hell ignore it and go about your business
Ealiom Infinitus Morti R0ADKILL	Posted - 2007.05.16 10:52:00 - [23] Edited by: Ealiom on 16/05/2007 10:52:49 Originally by: Sokratesz Read up on Einstein en Richard Hawkins. Higher velocity = increase in mass = more energy needed to accelerate further. At 10% of the speed of light, the mass of an object is increased by 1%. At 90%, its close to double. At Lightspeed, its infinite. Hence, not possible. Surely that can't be accurate. As a general principle i have a problem with infinites. I understand that you can't make a mass travel at the speed of light however when they say that at the speed of light mass=infinite hmmmmm. at 99.999% your mass = what? Regardless if it is a huge number or not adding an extra 0.001% should not make any number however huge into an infinite. Just seems completely wrong to me. Executioner Model Blackbird Model
Jernau Gurgeh Gallente	Posted - 2007.05.16 11:08:00 - [24] Originally by: Sokratesz Edited by: Sokratesz on 16/05/2007 10:46:48 Read up on Einstein en Richard Hawkings. Higher velocity = increase in mass = more energy needed to accelerate further. At 10% of the speed of light, the mass of an object is increased by 1%. At 90%, its close to double. At Lightspeed, its infinite. Hence, not possible. And as DS said, light always travels at the speed of light regardless of the observer. Richard Hawkings - is he some sort of Stephen Hawking/Richard Dawkins hybrid? There are 10 sorts of people in the world - those who understand binary, and those who do not.
Rodj Blake Amarr PIE Inc.	Posted - 2007.05.16 11:09:00 - [25] Edited by: Rodj Blake on 16/05/2007 11:08:31 Originally by: Ealiom Edited by: Ealiom on 16/05/2007 10:52:49 Originally by: Sokratesz Read up on Einstein en Richard Hawkins. Higher velocity = increase in mass = more energy needed to accelerate further. At 10% of the speed of light, the mass of an object is increased by 1%. At 90%, its close to double. At Lightspeed, its infinite. Hence, not possible. Surely that can't be accurate. As a general principle i have a problem with infinites. I understand that you can't make a mass travel at the speed of light however when they say that at the speed of light mass=infinite hmmmmm. at 99.999% your mass = what? Regardless if it is a huge number or not adding an extra 0.001% should not make any number however huge into an infinite. Just seems completely wrong to me. The mass increases exponentially rather than linearly. Additionally, subjective time also slows down as v increases, meaning that it would take a very long time to accelerate. Dulce et decorum est pro imperium mori.
Dark Shikari Caldari Imperium Technologies Firmus Ixion	Posted - 2007.05.16 11:10:00 - [26] Originally by: Ealiom Edited by: Ealiom on 16/05/2007 10:52:49 Originally by: Sokratesz Read up on Einstein en Richard Hawkins. Higher velocity = increase in mass = more energy needed to accelerate further. At 10% of the speed of light, the mass of an object is increased by 1%. At 90%, its close to double. At Lightspeed, its infinite. Hence, not possible. Surely that can't be accurate. As a general principle i have a problem with infinites. I understand that you can't make a mass travel at the speed of light however when they say that at the speed of light mass=infinite hmmmmm. at 99.999% your mass = what? Regardless if it is a huge number or not adding an extra 0.001% should not make any number however huge into an infinite. Just seems completely wrong to me. It isn't that simple. You're not "adding an extra 0.001%"--as you approach the speed of light, more and more of your energy goes into raising your Lorentz factor (raising effective mass, etc), and so it becomes harder and harder to go that "extra 0.001%". The math is surprisingly simple and can be derived, as I previously said, from basic assumptions. And its proven to be unbelievably accurate up through speeds like 99.99999999999999999999% the speed of light, by analyzing cosmic rays and using particle accelerators. It is, next to Quantum Electrodynamics, probably one of the most accurate scientific theories ever made. --23 Member-- Listen to EVE-Trance Radio!
Angor The JORG Corporation FATAL Alliance	Posted - 2007.05.16 11:59:00 - [27] Originally by: Taviko If you travel in space at the speed of light and then turn on your headlights, will there actually be any light coming out from the headlights???? Build the enterprise and find out :P _______________________________ Who the f*k stole my sig...
Xtreem Gallente Pulsar Wind Labs	Posted - 2007.05.16 12:08:00 - [28] does this mean if in theory we got to the speed of light, or at near as it can be possible.. the light comming out of the said headlights would be traveling at 2x the speed of light if measured from a point stationary? as if light emitter was already going at the speed of light, then emitted light that traveled the speed of light from that emitter then must it not being going 2x the speed of light from a stationary perspective?
Dark Shikari Caldari Imperium Technologies Firmus Ixion	Posted - 2007.05.16 12:21:00 - [29] Originally by: Xtreem does this mean if in theory we got to the speed of light, or at near as it can be possible.. the light comming out of the said headlights would be traveling at 2x the speed of light if measured from a point stationary? as if light emitter was already going at the speed of light, then emitted light that traveled the speed of light from that emitter then must it not being going 2x the speed of light from a stationary perspective? No. The best way to imagine this is to imagine that you're another massless particle that can go at the speed of light, and you're emitting light for one reason or another. Since you're going at the speed of light also (and therefore in the same reference frame as the light), you'd find yourself flying next to it; you'd never get ahead of it or behind it. --23 Member-- Listen to EVE-Trance Radio!
Ealiom Infinitus Morti R0ADKILL	Posted - 2007.05.16 12:37:00 - [30] I know that the mass increase and energy required would not be linear. The problem i have is that you can never simple add a number and recieve an infinite. At a mere fraction away from the speed of light we have a fixed number for the mass and energy required. Yet pushing it that tiny fraction more results in an infinite. Even if the rise in mass and energy required is hugely exponential I dont understand how a clearly defined number can flip to an infinite simply by giving it 'more' Executioner Model Blackbird Model
Anna Sofia	Posted - 2007.05.16 14:12:00 - [31] Edited by: Anna Sofia on 16/05/2007 14:12:45 Originally by: Ealiom I know that the mass increase and energy required would not be linear. The problem i have is that you can never simple add a number and recieve an infinite. At a mere fraction away from the speed of light we have a fixed number for the mass and energy required. Yet pushing it that tiny fraction more results in an infinite. Even if the rise in mass and energy required is hugely exponential I dont understand how a clearly defined number can flip to an infinite simply by giving it 'more' simple example : y=1/x^2 , Y will grow exponentially (and approach, but never reach, infinity) the closer x gets to zero. Pretty much the same as E=mc^2, but far easier to understand logically. At the point where x reaches 0, our comprehension of math breaks down. This is coincedentially why we don't really know exactly how the big-bang started out, and why we don't really understand all the physics behind black holes.
Miss Anthropy School of Applied Knowledge	Posted - 2007.05.16 14:15:00 - [32] Originally by: mamolian Originally by: Glassback Sometimes, when I'm alone, I touch myself. I had the post read and thought for a second.. hmm whats this got to do with the speed of light.. then almost spat my coffee on the screen. I don't get it. Please explain. --------- Dude, where's my face ?
Kazuo Ishiguro	Posted - 2007.05.16 15:31:00 - [33] Originally by: Ealiom Even if the rise in mass and energy required is hugely exponential I dont understand how a clearly defined number can flip to an infinite simply by giving it 'more' It's fairly simple - the factor by which mass increases turns out to be (1-(v/c)^2)^(-1/2). If you set v = c, you end up trying to divide by zero and the result of the formula is not defined, but for any v less than c the factor is finite. Strictly speaking, this is an asymptotic increase, not an exponential one. Of course, a moving particle's mass is only increasing from the point of view of a stationary observer. In the particle's rest frame, its mass is constant (and everything in the observer's frame appears to be increasing in mass). ------ Spreadsheets: Top speed calculation - Halo Implant tanking
Ealiom Infinitus Morti R0ADKILL	Posted - 2007.05.16 15:47:00 - [34] Ive taken everything you kind folks have said on board, I don't know i just get the impression that something fundemental is missing. Infinites are bad bad things currently with my limited knowledge i'd tend to believe that we don't actual have the full answer/equation. imagine plotting the mass increase on a graph as it increases speed.up and up it goes the number to the left of the graph indicatng its rapidly increasing mass. Higher and higher it gets until suddenly it reaches c and we have OO sign just above the last recorded mass. I dont care how much mass that last recording had before finally reaching c it can't just hop over into an infinity. Is it just me?!?! Executioner Model Blackbird Model
Dark Shikari Caldari Imperium Technologies Firmus Ixion	Posted - 2007.05.16 16:41:00 - [35] Originally by: Ealiom Ive taken everything you kind folks have said on board, I don't know i just get the impression that something fundemental is missing. Infinites are bad bad things currently with my limited knowledge i'd tend to believe that we don't actual have the full answer/equation. imagine plotting the mass increase on a graph as it increases speed.up and up it goes the number to the left of the graph indicatng its rapidly increasing mass. Higher and higher it gets until suddenly it reaches c and we have OO sign just above the last recorded mass. I dont care how much mass that last recording had before finally reaching c it can't just hop over into an infinity. Is it just me?!?! There are thousands of formulas in physics that yield infinite answers at certain input points. This, of course, means the input isn't valid. Your mass approaches infinity. It does not reach infinity. Basic tenant of calculus. --23 Member-- Listen to EVE-Trance Radio!
Derovius Vaden	Posted - 2007.05.16 16:44:00 - [36] Originally by: Ealiom Edited by: Ealiom on 16/05/2007 10:52:49 Originally by: Sokratesz Read up on Einstein en Richard Hawkins. Higher velocity = increase in mass = more energy needed to accelerate further. At 10% of the speed of light, the mass of an object is increased by 1%. At 90%, its close to double. At Lightspeed, its infinite. Hence, not possible. Surely that can't be accurate. As a general principle i have a problem with infinites. I understand that you can't make a mass travel at the speed of light however when they say that at the speed of light mass=infinite hmmmmm. at 99.999% your mass = what? Regardless if it is a huge number or not adding an extra 0.001% should not make any number however huge into an infinite. Just seems completely wrong to me. For the severely dumbed down version, we will consider kinetic energy, which may or may not be valid at near the speed of light. (I can't remember to be honest). KE = 0.5 * m * v^2 where, KE = Kinetic Energy (J) m = mass (kg) v = velocity (m/s) c = speed of light = 3.0 x 10^8 m/s Because the speed of light is constant, as one approaches the speed of light on any body, we get, KE = 0.5 * m * c^2 As one continues to add energy to try and get the object to go faster, the velocity term can no longer expand, and being only a 2 term expression, the mass much now increase linearly (as per someone elses comment that its exponential) as one increases the energy. Therefore, as one ATTEMPTS to approach the speed of light, no matter how much energy you expend, you will do nothing but expand your mass towards infinite, and energy goes to infinite.
Derovius Vaden	Posted - 2007.05.16 16:46:00 - [37] Originally by: Dark Shikari Originally by: Ealiom Ive taken everything you kind folks have said on board, I don't know i just get the impression that something fundemental is missing. Infinites are bad bad things currently with my limited knowledge i'd tend to believe that we don't actual have the full answer/equation. imagine plotting the mass increase on a graph as it increases speed.up and up it goes the number to the left of the graph indicatng its rapidly increasing mass. Higher and higher it gets until suddenly it reaches c and we have OO sign just above the last recorded mass. I dont care how much mass that last recording had before finally reaching c it can't just hop over into an infinity. Is it just me?!?! There are thousands of formulas in physics that yield infinite answers at certain input points. This, of course, means the input isn't valid. Your mass approaches infinity. It does not reach infinity. Basic tenant of calculus. Infinite is not a number, therefore is not a logical statement to say that a numerical expression is equal to, or is at, infinite. I'm not sure if its calculus, but rather a matter of philosphy.
Dark Shikari Caldari Imperium Technologies Firmus Ixion	Posted - 2007.05.16 18:18:00 - [38] Originally by: Derovius Vaden Originally by: Ealiom Edited by: Ealiom on 16/05/2007 10:52:49 Originally by: Sokratesz Read up on Einstein en Richard Hawkins. Higher velocity = increase in mass = more energy needed to accelerate further. At 10% of the speed of light, the mass of an object is increased by 1%. At 90%, its close to double. At Lightspeed, its infinite. Hence, not possible. Surely that can't be accurate. As a general principle i have a problem with infinites. I understand that you can't make a mass travel at the speed of light however when they say that at the speed of light mass=infinite hmmmmm. at 99.999% your mass = what? Regardless if it is a huge number or not adding an extra 0.001% should not make any number however huge into an infinite. Just seems completely wrong to me. For the severely dumbed down version, we will consider kinetic energy, which may or may not be valid at near the speed of light. (I can't remember to be honest). KE = 0.5 * m * v^2 where, KE = Kinetic Energy (J) m = mass (kg) v = velocity (m/s) c = speed of light = 3.0 x 10^8 m/s Because the speed of light is constant, as one approaches the speed of light on any body, we get, KE = 0.5 * m * c^2 As one continues to add energy to try and get the object to go faster, the velocity term can no longer expand, and being only a 2 term expression, the mass much now increase linearly (as per someone elses comment that its exponential) as one increases the energy. Therefore, as one ATTEMPTS to approach the speed of light, no matter how much energy you expend, you will do nothing but expand your mass towards infinite, and energy goes to infinite. Your hunch is correct: Einstein's formula for Kinetic Energy is slightly different! See this formula. --23 Member-- Listen to EVE-Trance Radio!
Derovius Vaden	Posted - 2007.05.16 18:23:00 - [39] Originally by: Dark Shikari Originally by: Derovius Vaden Originally by: Ealiom Edited by: Ealiom on 16/05/2007 10:52:49 Originally by: Sokratesz Read up on Einstein en Richard Hawkins. Higher velocity = increase in mass = more energy needed to accelerate further. At 10% of the speed of light, the mass of an object is increased by 1%. At 90%, its close to double. At Lightspeed, its infinite. Hence, not possible. Surely that can't be accurate. As a general principle i have a problem with infinites. I understand that you can't make a mass travel at the speed of light however when they say that at the speed of light mass=infinite hmmmmm. at 99.999% your mass = what? Regardless if it is a huge number or not adding an extra 0.001% should not make any number however huge into an infinite. Just seems completely wrong to me. For the severely dumbed down version, we will consider kinetic energy, which may or may not be valid at near the speed of light. (I can't remember to be honest). KE = 0.5 * m * v^2 where, KE = Kinetic Energy (J) m = mass (kg) v = velocity (m/s) c = speed of light = 3.0 x 10^8 m/s Because the speed of light is constant, as one approaches the speed of light on any body, we get, KE = 0.5 * m * c^2 As one continues to add energy to try and get the object to go faster, the velocity term can no longer expand, and being only a 2 term expression, the mass much now increase linearly (as per someone elses comment that its exponential) as one increases the energy. Therefore, as one ATTEMPTS to approach the speed of light, no matter how much energy you expend, you will do nothing but expand your mass towards infinite, and energy goes to infinite. Your hunch is correct: Einstein's formula for Kinetic Energy is slightly different! See this formula. Eww... when and where is that valid? If its only valid near the speed of light, you can pretty much remove the subtraction of 1 from the inner brackets, as the first component will go to infinite and make the 1 negligible.
Dark Shikari Caldari Imperium Technologies Firmus Ixion	Posted - 2007.05.16 19:19:00 - [40] Originally by: Derovius Vaden Eww... when and where is that valid? If its only valid near the speed of light, you can pretty much remove the subtraction of 1 from the inner brackets, as the first component will go to infinite and make the 1 negligible. That's the point. At low speeds, it is almost exactly equal to the Newtonian formula. At high speeds, it diverges from it. --23 Member-- Listen to EVE-Trance Radio!
RedFall Irreligion	Posted - 2007.05.16 19:51:00 - [41] Originally by: Dark Shikari At low speeds, it is almost exactly equal to the Newtonian formula. At high speeds, it diverges from it. I guess 'almost' is good enough for Dark Shakari. Get off my lawn.
Dark Shikari Caldari Imperium Technologies Firmus Ixion	Posted - 2007.05.16 20:01:00 - [42] Originally by: RedFall Originally by: Dark Shikari At low speeds, it is almost exactly equal to the Newtonian formula. At high speeds, it diverges from it. I guess 'almost' is good enough for Dark Shakari. Get off my lawn. Well its good enough for NASA, who do not use the Einsteinian formulas because they are too computationally complex; apparently Newtonian math is good enough for traveling across the solar system --23 Member-- Listen to EVE-Trance Radio!
Joseph 9 Deep Core Mining Inc.	Posted - 2007.05.16 20:10:00 - [43] In general one needs to start worrying about relativistic corrections to mechanics at about 0.3c. Anything below that and your measurement errors and the like will probably be have more significant effects, although of course this depends on experiment, instrument accuracy etc etc.
Pwn4ge P4nts Caldari Provisions	Posted - 2007.05.16 20:28:00 - [44] SEXY TAIM!11
RedFall Irreligion	Posted - 2007.05.16 20:31:00 - [45] Originally by: Pwn4ge P4nts SEXY TAIM!11 ROFL!!! **** or gtfo!
Derovius Vaden	Posted - 2007.05.16 20:36:00 - [46] Originally by: Dark Shikari Originally by: RedFall Originally by: Dark Shikari At low speeds, it is almost exactly equal to the Newtonian formula. At high speeds, it diverges from it. I guess 'almost' is good enough for Dark Shakari. Get off my lawn. Well its good enough for NASA, who do not use the Einsteinian formulas because they are too computationally complex; apparently Newtonian math is good enough for traveling across the solar system Thats because the scientists at NASA are engineers, not physicists. As my materials professor said, "We engineers don't care about accuracy as much as other scientists; 5%? you're golden. 10%? good enough. 15%? Whatever, blame the intern. Let those physicists live in their labs, talking to themselves, we're engineers. Its not an official failure until it kills someone."
Joseph 9 Deep Core Mining Inc.	Posted - 2007.05.16 20:42:00 - [47] Which is why they got a scientist in when Challenger blew up... I'd argue 5% is a minimum, 2% is where you want to be hanging out if you can.
Mr Bigglesworth Maza Nostra RAZOR Alliance	Posted - 2007.05.16 20:44:00 - [48] Edited by: Mr Bigglesworth on 16/05/2007 20:42:35 I read somewhere that the physics of why mass is mass is still somewhat unknown. My understanding of the concept is really poor. Does anyone know what im referring to, without the use of google? IE: Explanation of existance of X, Y, Z planes and plausability of furhter planers through developing understanding of the relationship between mass and sub-atmoic particles. Simply put, why exactly are things.. well.. physical? What gives them substance on a sub-atomic level? I think the topic was related to the development of the "mini-blackwhole generator". Something along the lines of a huge tunnel filled with magents propelling particles to extremely fast speeds, then colliding said particles head on forming a miniture black whole which exists for only a fraction of a second - all deep underground of course to keep us all safe... Like i said, i cant remember much of what i read, anyone have any ideas what im trying to talk about?
Derovius Vaden	Posted - 2007.05.16 20:57:00 - [49] Originally by: Joseph 9 Which is why they got a scientist in when Challenger blew up... I'd argue 5% is a minimum, 2% is where you want to be hanging out if you can. Actually, the reason that the Challenger blew up was because some fool director decided that the cost of waiting for the next opening and fixing the problem pointed out by his engineers was too costly. Funny how $$$ outweighs the risk of death and the loss of a multi-billion dollar vehicle. I bet someones race was more than a little red after this, hmmm?
Joseph 9 Deep Core Mining Inc.	Posted - 2007.05.16 21:03:00 - [50] True, but I'd never let that get in the way of a little bit of engineer bashing . I have to work with them all day. Actually I have a lot of time and respect for engineers, the good ones at least. And I heard an interesting story regarding the solid boosters on Challenger the other day. Not sure how true it is but when management, is it at Thyocol?, where asked the failure rate on a booster they said 1e5, when the engineers where asked they quoted 1 in 3000. Turns out Nasa set a target of 1e5 as the failure rate on components and the managers just quoted it for everything regardless of the veracity.
Mtthias Clemi Gallente Infinitus Odium	Posted - 2007.05.16 21:10:00 - [51] If my maths teacher says Approaching infinity one more time, im going to scream -------------------------------------------- Stay away from my signature all of ya!!! IM WARNING YOU!! PEW PEW PEW PEW!
Dark Shikari Caldari Imperium Technologies Firmus Ixion	Posted - 2007.05.16 21:27:00 - [52] Originally by: Mr Bigglesworth Edited by: Mr Bigglesworth on 16/05/2007 20:42:35 I read somewhere that the physics of why mass is mass is still somewhat unknown. My understanding of the concept is really poor. Does anyone know what im referring to, without the use of google? IE: Explanation of existance of X, Y, Z planes and plausability of furhter planers through developing understanding of the relationship between mass and sub-atmoic particles. Simply put, why exactly are things.. well.. physical? What gives them substance on a sub-atomic level? I think the topic was related to the development of the "mini-blackwhole generator". Something along the lines of a huge tunnel filled with magents propelling particles to extremely fast speeds, then colliding said particles head on forming a miniture black whole which exists for only a fraction of a second - all deep underground of course to keep us all safe... Like i said, i cant remember much of what i read, anyone have any ideas what im trying to talk about? You're talking about the Higgs field. The hardest answers to come up with in science are "why" answers, because even after you answer the question, someone will find some deeper question on the same topic that you haven't yet answered. Often these "why" questions are impossible to answer from our place in the universe, due to our limited knowledge. The Higgs field, however, is explained--the question is whether it is a real field backed by a real particle, and the race is on as we speak to detect it. Some results have come out already that are suspected to have the Higgs in them, but nobody is entirely sure just yet. --23 Member-- Listen to EVE-Trance Radio!
Derovius Vaden	Posted - 2007.05.16 21:32:00 - [53] Originally by: Dark Shikari Originally by: Mr Bigglesworth Edited by: Mr Bigglesworth on 16/05/2007 20:42:35 I read somewhere that the physics of why mass is mass is still somewhat unknown. My understanding of the concept is really poor. Does anyone know what im referring to, without the use of google? IE: Explanation of existance of X, Y, Z planes and plausability of furhter planers through developing understanding of the relationship between mass and sub-atmoic particles. Simply put, why exactly are things.. well.. physical? What gives them substance on a sub-atomic level? I think the topic was related to the development of the "mini-blackwhole generator". Something along the lines of a huge tunnel filled with magents propelling particles to extremely fast speeds, then colliding said particles head on forming a miniture black whole which exists for only a fraction of a second - all deep underground of course to keep us all safe... Like i said, i cant remember much of what i read, anyone have any ideas what im trying to talk about? You're talking about the Higgs field. The hardest answers to come up with in science are "why" answers, because even after you answer the question, someone will find some deeper question on the same topic that you haven't yet answered. Often these "why" questions are impossible to answer from our place in the universe, due to our limited knowledge. The Higgs field, however, is explained--the question is whether it is a real field backed by a real particle, and the race is on as we speak to detect it. Some results have come out already that are suspected to have the Higgs in them, but nobody is entirely sure just yet. We cannot answer the why because we are inclusive in the system. If we were somehow able to remove ourselves from the system (ie. the universe), we would understand the why. At best, we can explain the how, and guess at the why.
Dark Shikari Caldari Imperium Technologies Firmus Ixion	Posted - 2007.05.16 22:40:00 - [54] Originally by: Derovius Vaden We cannot answer the why because we are inclusive in the system. If we were somehow able to remove ourselves from the system (ie. the universe), we would understand the why. At best, we can explain the how, and guess at the why. Yup. Godel's incompleteness ftl. --23 Member-- Listen to EVE-Trance Radio!
Deran Ta'ekk Gallente Seraph Cartel	Posted - 2007.05.17 00:02:00 - [55] Edited by: Deran Ta''ekk on 17/05/2007 00:00:48 Isn't also impossible to reach the speed of light becuase time stops for you and your length becomes zero? Aswell as approaching infinite maths. Dunno, I'm probally talking rubbish like usual .
Dark Shikari Caldari Imperium Technologies Firmus Ixion	Posted - 2007.05.17 00:08:00 - [56] Originally by: Deran Ta'ekk Isn't also impossible to reach the speed of light becuase time stops for you and your length becomes zero? Aswell as approaching infinite maths. Dunno, I'm probally talking rubbish like usual . Well as you approach lightspeed, a few things happen. From your perspective, everything else gets shorter by a factor of the Lorentz factor of your velocity, because relative to you, its moving really fast. This ties in directly with time dilation, because lets say the distance to your destination gets 5 times shorter. This means, for you, it will take 5 times less time to reach your destination than if special relativity was ignored in the calculations. Let's say you're going at 0.9c--it'll seem to you as if you're traveling at 4.5c! But time is going 5 times slower for you, so everyone else sees you going at 0.9c. It all matches up. --23 Member-- Listen to EVE-Trance Radio!
Shameless Avenger	Posted - 2007.05.17 00:24:00 - [57] ok ok.. question... So, when speed aproaches speed of light, mass aproaches infinite..ok And changes in velocity cause changes in mass, exponentially.. cool So when we go from 0 mph to 100 mph there is a minuscule change in mass, correct?
Dark Shikari Caldari Imperium Technologies Firmus Ixion	Posted - 2007.05.17 00:44:00 - [58] Originally by: Shameless Avenger ok ok.. question... So, when speed aproaches speed of light, mass aproaches infinite..ok And changes in velocity cause changes in mass, exponentially.. cool So when we go from 0 mph to 100 mph there is a minuscule change in mass, correct? Yes, as determined by the formula mass at a velocity = rest mass * 1/sqrt(1 − v^2/c^2) However, you, relative to yourself, are at rest: so if you measure your own mass while you're moving, it won't change. Its only if someone who is at rest measures your mass when you are in motion measures your mass that the discrepancy will show. That's why its called "relativity"--the effects only show up when there is a differential in velocity between the observer and the object being observed. In your case, to a rest observer, your mass would change by such a small amount that the google calculator just rounds it to nothing --23 Member-- Listen to EVE-Trance Radio!
DaHeaVYFo DEATH'S LEGION Chaos Incarnate.	Posted - 2007.05.17 00:46:00 - [59] Edited by: DaHeaVYFo on 17/05/2007 00:53:43 Originally by: Pwn4ge P4nts SEXY TAIM!11 That's a different kind of lightspeed you /s/ tard.
Blind Man Kemono.	Posted - 2007.05.17 00:59:00 - [60] Originally by: R'olyat Originally by: Feng Schui Originally by: Glassback Sometimes, when I'm alone, I touch myself. at the speed of light? Win. i completely LOL'd
Phoenix Britannian Gallente Virtue Corporation	Posted - 2007.05.17 01:43:00 - [61] Originally by: Dark Shikari Originally by: RedFall Originally by: Dark Shikari At low speeds, it is almost exactly equal to the Newtonian formula. At high speeds, it diverges from it. I guess 'almost' is good enough for Dark Shakari. Get off my lawn. Well its good enough for NASA, who do not use the Einsteinian formulas because they are too computationally complex; apparently Newtonian math is good enough for traveling across the solar system Of course, the only reason to use Einstein is when you are dealing with large distances and extreme speeds. Newton got it right from what he could observe, which were small distances, such as the size of a solar system, and relatively slow speeds compared to light. NASA operates completely within small distances and slow speeds, therefore, there is little reason to go beyond Newtonian physics. - Phoenix Britannian
RedFall Irreligion	Posted - 2007.05.17 02:05:00 - [62] Originally by: Phoenix Britannian Originally by: Dark Shikari Originally by: RedFall Originally by: Dark Shikari At low speeds, it is almost exactly equal to the Newtonian formula. At high speeds, it diverges from it. I guess 'almost' is good enough for Dark Shakari. Get off my lawn. Well its good enough for NASA, who do not use the Einsteinian formulas because they are too computationally complex; apparently Newtonian math is good enough for traveling across the solar system Of course, the only reason to use Einstein is when you are dealing with large distances and extreme speeds. Newton got it right from what he could observe, which were small distances, such as the size of a solar system, and relatively slow speeds compared to light. NASA operates completely within small distances and slow speeds, therefore, there is little reason to go beyond Newtonian physics. Both of you kids get off my lawn!
Dark Shikari Caldari Imperium Technologies Firmus Ixion	Posted - 2007.05.17 02:09:00 - [63] Originally by: Phoenix Britannian Originally by: Dark Shikari Originally by: RedFall Originally by: Dark Shikari At low speeds, it is almost exactly equal to the Newtonian formula. At high speeds, it diverges from it. I guess 'almost' is good enough for Dark Shakari. Get off my lawn. Well its good enough for NASA, who do not use the Einsteinian formulas because they are too computationally complex; apparently Newtonian math is good enough for traveling across the solar system Of course, the only reason to use Einstein is when you are dealing with large distances and extreme speeds. Newton got it right from what he could observe, which were small distances, such as the size of a solar system, and relatively slow speeds compared to light. NASA operates completely within small distances and slow speeds, therefore, there is little reason to go beyond Newtonian physics. Exactly my point --23 Member-- Listen to EVE-Trance Radio!
Terraform Gallente Black Screen of Death HUZZAH FEDERATION	Posted - 2007.05.17 10:15:00 - [64] So.... what all of you guys are saying is... that light uses cheat-codes to achieve a velocity which isn't possible to anyone else?... installs GameGuard on his desk-lamp

Pages: 1 2 3 :: [one 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.