• New Scientific Idea? (possibly not new)
    61 replies, posted
[QUOTE=ForgottenKane;35140980]According to the laws of physics, the faster you go, the more you weigh. It's said that once something with any mass (as opposed to light, which has none) reaches light speed, it's mass will become infinity; thus destroying the universe. So, to answer your question, no.[/QUOTE] Nope the energy needed to accelerate it to C is infinite. The mass of the object doesnt change with speed just its kinetic energy and time perception.
Bro, all you'd see is the earth a couple of years ago- AKA nothing new. [editline]14th March 2012[/editline] What i mean is you would NEVER be able to see specific details
[QUOTE=taipan;35143888]Nope the energy needed to accelerate it to C is infinite. The mass of the object doesnt change with speed just its kinetic energy and time perception.[/QUOTE] Mass is actually relative.
Too many.
At least he's trying to be involved with science.
dude you shouldnt have posted this here someone will steal it! go patent it hurry
I had a better scientific idea. Get a long stick (about a trillion light years long) and start poking distant planets. You will be able to transmit pokes instantly without the light barrier to stop you beating the speed of light.
[QUOTE=imasillypiggy;35156913]I had a better scientific idea. Get a long stick (about a trillion light years long) and start poking distant planets. You will be able to transmit pokes instantly without the light barrier to stop you beating the speed of light.[/QUOTE]The stick is not perfectly rigid. The motion will manifest as slow waves in the elastic material of the stick. You won't nearly reach light speed, even assuming the stick doesn't break.
The stick will break, or the tip would eventually reach light speed (which requires an extreme amount of energy) due to the Earth rotating. Hell, even slightly moving it to the side could do that. It would snap instantly.
Oh I know you can't reach the speed of light without distorting time space fabric. All I wanted is to spark a discussion of what, in theory might happen, even if it was going at 99% of c.
[QUOTE=Falubii;35140794]Can't break light speed bro.[/QUOTE] Given the current knowledge we have now bro.
I'll join in with the stupid ideas then: Could you technically hold a ship inside of a massless bubble, and then move the bubble at C since it has no mass? I remember hearing something similar, most likely rubbish though.
I honestly can't imagine what face Einstein would make if he saw this topic :D
[QUOTE=dylanstrategie;35163533]I honestly can't imagine what face Einstein would make if he saw this topic :D[/QUOTE] he'd probably find the idea interesting
[QUOTE=Rapist;35163317]I'll join in with the stupid ideas then: Could you technically hold a ship inside of a massless bubble, and then move the bubble at C since it has no mass? I remember hearing something similar, most likely rubbish though.[/QUOTE]How are you moving the ship then? If you accelerate the bubble and thus move the ship at some point you are applying force onto the ship. [editline]17th March 2012[/editline] [QUOTE=SIRIUS;35163736]he'd probably find the idea interesting[/QUOTE]Not really - to travel somewhere to build the mirror you have to travel at subluminal speeds. Then, the information you get back from the mirror is degraded by distance. You can only get back information from where you are from after the point you decide to build the mirror, even assuming that you can travel at the speed of light and construction is instant. It's something that has been considered over already.
[QUOTE=Allstone;35163773] Not really - to travel somewhere to build the mirror you have to travel at subluminal speeds. Then, the information you get back from the mirror is degraded by distance. You can only get back information from where you are from after the point you decide to build the mirror, even assuming that you can travel at the speed of light and construction is instant. It's something that has been considered over already.[/QUOTE] Given the vastness of space I'm sure there is a reflective surface somewhere in the universe we could point an incredibly powerful telescope at.
[QUOTE=dylanstrategie;35163533]I honestly can't imagine what face Einstein would make if he saw this topic :D[/QUOTE] He would laugh uncontrollably then proceed to vomit
How will you place a mirror to the light years away when we have only landed on the moon ? oh i forgot that we can hurl things to the space
One thing I've never really been able to grasp is: Why is C constant? Relatively speaking, everything in existence is "moving". It just seems like that should make for slight variations in C. To help clarify what I mean, imagine going, say, 50% of C. Why, then, if you shine a light directly in front of you, is the light not traveling at 150% of C? A similar concept to the speed of a bullet when fired from a moving vehicle versus a bullet fired while standing still.
[QUOTE=SeventeenDicks;35163189]Given the current knowledge we have now bro.[/QUOTE] We're pretty sure of that fact. We've managed to accelerate subatomic particles to 99.9999+% the speed of light and never broken the barrier. Maybe eventually something like a warp drive could be possible that could manipulate space time around a vehicle to move us to a new location, but we wouldn't be breaking light speed technically.
[QUOTE=DestructoTron;35170052]One thing I've never really been able to grasp is: Why is C constant? Relatively speaking, everything in existence is "moving". It just seems like that should make for slight variations in C. To help clarify what I mean, imagine going, say, 50% of C. Why, then, if you shine a light directly in front of you, is the light not traveling at 150% of C? A similar concept to the speed of a bullet when fired from a moving vehicle versus a bullet fired while standing still.[/QUOTE]That's exactly what general relativity explains. Also, C is the constant that describes the speed of light in a vacuum. Between mediums, the speed varies.
[QUOTE=Allstone;35170916]That's exactly what general relativity explains. Also, C is the constant that describes the speed of light in a vacuum. Between mediums, the speed varies.[/QUOTE] special relativity*
[QUOTE=Allstone;35170916]That's exactly what general relativity explains. Also, C is the constant that describes the speed of light in a vacuum. Between mediums, the speed varies.[/QUOTE] I'll have to check it out. It's just one of those things that boggles the mind when you haven't made an effort to actually obtain a higher understanding of the topic :P
[QUOTE=DestructoTron;35171468]I'll have to check it out. It's just one of those things that boggles the mind when you haven't made an effort to actually obtain a higher understanding of the topic :P[/QUOTE]Yeah, basically physics up to Aristotlean and Newtonian models are nice and fairly intuitive, but beyond that you have to start dealing with situations that the average person never really observes all that much, so it can be pretty confusing. [editline]17th March 2012[/editline] [QUOTE=Falubii;35170959]special relativity*[/QUOTE]Right, yeah, my bad.
[QUOTE=Rapist;35163317]I'll join in with the stupid ideas then: Could you technically hold a ship inside of a massless bubble, and then move the bubble at C since it has no mass? I remember hearing something similar, most likely rubbish though.[/QUOTE] Accelerating something which has no mass requires no force and therefore requires no energy. F=m*a (Force=Mass*Acceleration) If m=0 F=0) F*s=u (Force *distance = energy) If F=0 u=0. I am pretty sure that this isnt compleetly true at relativistic speeds, but thats the formula classic mechanics. [editline]17th March 2012[/editline] Extra: F=m*a so: a=F/m If m= 0 and you would aply a force of 1 newton to the system a would be infinite. 1/0=∞ (This should be written down as a limit though)
If you're moving the ship, you are still applying force to it at some point. Also, newtonian mechanics break down at the speeds we're talking at.
How about this: We put a camera in orbit around earth, and have it transmit data back with a 1-2 year delay. It's cheaper. It's actually possible. It's not gonna take 2000 years to get into place.
[QUOTE=Dr Magnusson;35173325]How about this: We put a camera in orbit around earth, and have it transmit data back with a 1-2 year delay. It's cheaper. It's actually possible. It's not gonna take 2000 years to get into place.[/QUOTE] Lol the simpelest solutions are the best. I do think that the idea of the op was to look back in time right now, it didnt occur to him that you cannot acc it past lightspeed so you would never see the past.
[QUOTE=Dr Magnusson;35173325]How about this: We put a camera in orbit around earth, and have it transmit data back with a 1-2 year delay. It's cheaper. It's actually possible. It's not gonna take 2000 years to get into place.[/QUOTE] That delay wouldn't even be necessary. Just make it record the earth live and release the footage one year after it's recorded. You could even make it send duplicate recordings to a server in that norwegian doomsday bunker so that, in case shit hits the fan, any survivors can retrieve the footage and fill in any blanks in the history books of their civilizations.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.