Caporegime
any answer is right because you haven't specified a frame of reference
the planes speed would be the frame of reference.
Stephen Hawkins Universe - Time Travel
- Thread starter Amp34
- Start date
the planes speed would be the frame of reference.
can't go faster than light speed? does light travel at light speed? if photons have mass how can they reach 100%? some sort of mass-less something? at trillion x light speed possible?
i bet if he had alcohol free champagne ppl from the future woulda turned up cos it's all gonna be banned in the future prolly.
anyways loving the series
i bet if he had alcohol free champagne ppl from the future woulda turned up cos it's all gonna be banned in the future prolly.
anyways loving the series
Associate
- Joined
- 12 May 2005
- Posts
- 1,777
Light travels at lightspeed or c only in a vacuum.
Light travelling through most mediums such as air travels at less than c.
Light travelling in exotic mediums such as charged caesium atoms goes faster than c.
Only particles with a complex mass can travel infinitely fast.
Light travelling through most mediums such as air travels at less than c.
Light travelling in exotic mediums such as charged caesium atoms goes faster than c.
Only particles with a complex mass can travel infinitely fast.
Soldato
Why a fly? A human can move at 3mph from the back of the plane to the front. A fly would probably pull a good 7 or 8 mph.if a fly in a plane thats travelling at 500mph, moves from the back of the cabin to the front at 2mph, how fast is it going?
Anyway, that's where relativity comes in. An observer on the ground, if the plane was transparent, would see the fly moving at 502 mph. An observer on the plane, however, would see it moving at 2 mph. Unless, of course, either of those observers are moving toward or away from the fly.
We are talking mathematics, the same mathematics that physics relies upon.
Just because you do not understand it does not make it wrong.
You are wrong, I have posted the proof, understand and accept it or live in ignorance. You can lead a horse to water but you cannot make it drink.
I understand perfectly. Unfortunately you cannot grasp that I am not talking about a REAL number but a PROCESS, we add a decimal point to enable the equation to proceed, once we stop the process we reach infinity and only then 99.99r = 100, as we have reach a real value (that of c) until then we retain an infinitesimal difference between 99.99r and 100. You need to read up a little on quantum physics, a mass cannot physically attain lightspeed thus 99.99r is a valid representation, and different from 100 because the difference between 0.99r and 100 is a physical and measurable alteration in speed, not simply a mathematical construct that any pure mathematician will tell you is the basis of debate, even with the proofs, many of which Quantum Physicists ignore for this reason.
Last edited:
Soldato
Amount of energy required to accelerate anything with mass resembeling that of spaceship up to that speed would be a problem.
*Haven't watched said programme
Indeed which is why most sci-fi films dealing with the subject shrunk their ship and contents down to the size of a pinhead thus reducing the amount of energy required.
Of course it is fiction for the moment and possibly for ever.
However if in the early 80s when I watched star trek someone said in 20 years time we'd all be able to talk using the intercomm flip top device I couldn't have even imagined that it would be possible
No, you are mistaken. 100 and 99.9r are exactly the same number. And you can be sure that any competent quantum physicist would know this.You need to read up a little on quantum physics, a mass cannot physically attain lightspeed thus 99.99r is a valid representation, and different from 100 because the difference between 0.99r and 100 is a physical and measurable alteration in speed, not simply a mathematical construct that any pure mathematician will tell you is the basis of debate, even with the proofs, many of which Quantum Physicists ignore for this reason.
Associate
- Joined
- 12 May 2005
- Posts
- 1,777
I understand perfectly. Unfortunately you cannot grasp that I am not talking about a REAL number but a PROCESS, we add a decimal point to enable the equation to proceed, once we stop the process we reach infinity and only then 99.99r = 100, as we have reach a real value (that of c) until then we retain an infinitesimal difference between 99.99r and 100. You need to read up a little on quantum physics, a mass cannot physically attain lightspeed thus 99.99r is a valid representation, and different from 100
"a mass cannot physically attain lightspeed"
I doubt most mass could physically get anywhere near lightspeed, nevermind 0.9...c = 1 c
Theoretically anything is possible e.g. imaginary masses, tachyons.
I understand what you are saying, and I agree as a mathematical proof but we are talking about an infinitely increasing acceleration of an object toward light-speed without ever attaining that value. Only when that acceleration stops and the objects speed is constant do we reach the 99.99r = 100, while the object is still under acceleration we do not. If I had known that the concept was beyond so many people I would have simply chosen an arbitrary figure of 9.99999999 and explained the process of ever increasing acceleration instead. (If I hadn't been so hammered I probably would have)
Last edited:
You started off posting sense in this thread, but I'm afraid you're completely wrong on this one.
gamma for 0.9999r * c is infinite, the same way that gamma for c is infinite.
For any finite sequence of 9s gamma is not infinite, all we're arguing is that 0.9999r is not a finite sequence of 9s.
You need to articulate this concept more precisely, because at the moment you've made several patently false statements. 100=99.9r inasmuch as 3 = 9/3.
I agree with you totally. I'm trying to say that the acceleration to a constant speed (that of c) is unobtainable for an object of mass, and as we reach that constant the acceleration becomes infinite thus moving the time dilation also toward infinity. It was a representation of acceleration and not of constant velocity if you see what I am trying to say.
Exactly, well explained.
It's great that so many people are interested in physics (as shown behind the discussions whenever there is a cool physics programme on TV) but there are some fundamental mathematics behind the likes of special relativity that it's probably best to understand before going wading in.
Sorry, what exactly were you moaning about in the programme?
Do you mind listing your academic credentials and published works?
The whole concept, found the programme dull and to be frank a loads of made up tripe. Call me old fashioned but I think if the human race spent more time and effort making this planet a better place to live rather than bs then the world would be a happier place. I bet we would have found a cure for cancer by now if all those millions of man hours and money wasn't wasted on bs like this.
edit: I don't have a degree in "making stuff up", but I have degree in Computer Science which is less useful
Are you saying that physics, and theoretical physics at that is a waste of time? Is this a thinly veiled troll attempt?
Soldato
Travelling close to the speed of light will never happen (as speed increased mass increases as does energy required E=Mc^2), theoretically the only thing we can hope for re time travel are worm holes that dissect the space time continuum...
Nice that you back up your obtusiveness with ignorance. To condemn an entire field on the basis that it's no use to you, despite it being the core root of science through its nature of the study of the most fundamental of interactions, and then to validate your point with a tabloidesque example like an absurd search for some mythical sovereign specific to treat all forms of cancer, a disease by its very nature random & mutable, marks you out as a valid contributor and a welcome addition to the boards.
By the way, it's this kind of tripe that allowed you to specialise in computer science.