How is it Possible NOT to be able to go Faster than the Speed of Light?

If you say that nothing can go faster than the speed of light, then you imply that the speed of light is always the same, no matter what.

Now if this is true, then that means if we were able to measure the time it takes light to reach a certain object,the time it takes to reach the object will change depending on the speed of the origin of the light and the object that it is intended to reach if you assume the two entities always remain in the same relative location in relation to each other.

So that means that we can measure our precise velocity not in relation to the sun, not in relation to other planets, but in relation to light? How is it NOT possible to go faster than the speed of light?

If you say that nothing can go faster than the speed of light, then you imply that the speed of light is always the same, no matter what.

Now if this is true, then that means if we were able to measure the time it takes light to reach a certain object,the time it takes to reach the object will change depending on the speed of the origin of the light and the object that it is intended to reach if you assume the two entities always remain in the same relative location in relation to each other.

So that means that we can measure our precise velocity not in relation to the sun, not in relation to other planets, but in relation to light? How is it NOT possible to go faster than the speed of light?

brandontwb

Spin up the FTL drives, we're leaving!

When has anyone said it isn't possible to go faster?v13_KiiLtz

What?

I don't understand the question...

When has anyone said it isn't possible to go faster?v13_KiiLtz

[QUOTE="v13_KiiLtz"]When has anyone said it isn't possible to go faster?mfp16

[QUOTE="v13_KiiLtz"]When has anyone said it isn't possible to go faster?mfp16

[QUOTE="rawsavon"][QUOTE="mfp16"] It's a law of physics... everyone says it...magicalclick

What?

I don't understand the question...

GabuEx

[QUOTE="GabuEx"]

What?

I don't understand the question...

brandontwb

Wow that sounds trippy! Haven't thought of that kind of thing before. Do you mean a scenario where... say:

The observer is travelling at twice the speed of light through space with a torch/flashlight in his hand. He faces the torch to him and turns it on - would he see the light because he's going twice the speed that light can travel, or will the light travel with him at twice the speed of light? Is that what you mean? I don't know :S

Pretend there is nothing in space. You have a static observer that is not moving (although you can't say he's not moving because you have nothing to compare it to) and a flashlight. The observer shoots the flashlight away at half the speed of light, and the flashlight is pointed towards the observer. If the flashlight turned on, would the light shining out of the flashlight be half the speed of light, or the speed of light? What if the observer went in the direction of the light 3/4 the speed of light? Would they exceed the speed of light? That's the best way I can describe it.brandontwb

Well now you're getting into the realm of special relativity, which is where things start to get rather strange. The answer to your question is that in every case the observer would see the light traveling at the speed of light. There are all kinds of oddities that come from traveling at relativistic speeds, such as time dilation and length contraction. You might want to pose your question to xaos. He's the most knowledgeable on the forum on physics topics like this. I'm not confident I would give you the completely correct answer.

[QUOTE="GabuEx"]

What?

I don't understand the question...

brandontwb

i thought i remember hearing somewhere that that didn;t matter.

According to special relativity, the speed of light would be the same in any inertial frame of reference.

That said, there are a few people to claim faster than light travel. I haven't read or thought much about that, so I can't really comment about it. I do know that the claims of such speed are often discussed along with something called "evanescent waves."

Wait... how fast are Cheetahs? Cos those things are pretty fast.xTheExploited

[QUOTE="xTheExploited"]Wait... how fast are Cheetahs? Cos those things are pretty fast.megagene

[QUOTE="megagene"][QUOTE="xTheExploited"]Wait... how fast are Cheetahs? Cos those things are pretty fast.entropyecho

I think I understand what you are saying, like if there was a vehicle with passengers traveling almost at the speed of light, all the passangers would be traveling at the same speed of the vehicle, so if one of them gets up and starts running at the same direction the vehicle is going it would be running faster than light, but like GabuEX said, at that speed the time flows slower inside the vehicle than outside of it, that prevents the passangers to surpass lightspeed.

[QUOTE="entropyecho"]

[QUOTE="megagene"] They're faster than the speed of sound but not as fast as light. megagene

No no, that's a common mistake - they just time-travelled.

I think I understand what you are saying, like if there was a vehicle ith passengers traveling almost at the speed of light, all the passangers would be traveling at the same speed of the vehicle, so if one of them gets up and starts running at the same direction the vehicle is going it would be running faster than light, but like GabuEX said, at that speed the time flows slower inside the train that in their surroundings, that prevents the passangers to surpas lightspeed.dragon7x2k

[QUOTE="megagene"][QUOTE="entropyecho"]You've never seen that documentary on time-travelling cheetahs?

entropyecho

No no, that's a common mistake - they just time-travelled.

to a time when they weren't extinct?

I think it's called special reletivity, as long as an object has mass it can't go faster than the speed of light because light does not have mass

It's due to the laws of physics.

If for example you have a flashlight traveling at 1/4 the speed of light, then turn it on, the resulting light being emitted from the flashlight would not be traveling at 1 1/4 the speed of light. It would be traveling at light speed.

[QUOTE="v13_KiiLtz"]When has anyone said it isn't possible to go faster?brandontwb

Obviously, that's why scientists increased the speed of light

What makes time flow slower? Isn't it just the world around that is perceived to move slower perhaps? If there was nothing else in the universe except the vehicle, who's to tell if you're moving at all, and what force is making 'time' go slower and actually preventing you from launching a rocket forward at almost the speed of light?brandontwb

From what I understand time doesn't exists, only movement, if everything in the universe stopped moving, including electrons, the time would stop. When an object starts approaching lightspeed it's particles start moving slower. Time can also be altered by gravity, the time flows slower in places with more gravity.

It's due to the laws of physics.

If for example you have a flashlight traveling at 1/4 the speed of light, then turn it on, the resulting light being emitted from the flashlight would not be traveling at 1 1/4 the speed of light. It would be traveling at light speed.

HoolaHoopMan

[QUOTE="HoolaHoopMan"]

It's due to the laws of physics.

If for example you have a flashlight traveling at 1/4 the speed of light, then turn it on, the resulting light being emitted from the flashlight would not be traveling at 1 1/4 the speed of light. It would be traveling at light speed.

brandontwb

If you say that nothing can go faster than the speed of light, then you imply that the speed of light is always the same, no matter what.

Now if this is true, then that means if we were able to measure the time it takes light to reach a certain object,the time it takes to reach the object will change depending on the speed of the origin of the light and the object that it is intended to reach if you assume the two entities always remain in the same relative location in relation to each other.

So that means that we can measure our precise velocity not in relation to the sun, not in relation to other planets, but in relation to light? How is it NOT possible to go faster than the speed of light?

brandontwb

i think ur in the wrong forum lol. in offtopic u'll get a bunch of useless posts (kinda like this one) when asking a question that requires some knowledge.

What?

I don't understand the question...

GabuEx

This. Please make it clear TC.

It shows how large the universe is when scientists insist there is something faster than the speed of light when they say the universe is too big for the speed of light being the limit. :o

If you say that nothing can go faster than the speed of light, then you imply that the speed of light is always the same, no matter what.

Now if this is true, then that means if we were able to measure the time it takes light to reach a certain object,the time it takes to reach the object will change depending on the speed of the origin of the light and the object that it is intended to reach if you assume the two entities always remain in the same relative location in relation to each other.

So that means that we can measure our precise velocity not in relation to the sun, not in relation to other planets, but in relation to light? How is it NOT possible to go faster than the speed of light?

brandontwb

The speed of light is constant at about 300,000 m/s.

The speed of the object that is emitting light is NOT added to the speed of light. You're confusing Newtonian Physics with Relativity.

It's not possible to go faster than the speed of light due to mass. I'm sure you know of E = mc^2

E is energy, m is mass and c is the speed of light.

Now, remember that the speed of light is about 300,000 m/s. So, in order for a, say a 100 kg object to be at the speed of light, it needs how much energy?

E = (100)(300,000)^2

E = 9 *10^12 J or 9,000,000,000,000 J.

In order for a 100 kg object to reach the speed of light, it needs 9 TRILLION joules of energy. With current technology, it is impossible to hit even 1% of that energy requirement (90,000,000,000 J) at an instant.

That's also not including the fact that as an object gets closer to the speed of light, it increases in mass, requiring more energy. This calculation assumes the mass stays constant when it obviously does not, as it gets more massive the faster it gets. When it hits the speed of light, it has infinite mass, which is impossible.

However, take the word "impossible" with a grain of salt in Physics. Electromagnetism and tons of other things were deemed impossible by head scientists of their day, yet due to electromagnetism, I am capable of giving you this information.

Something slower than light would need infinite energy just to reach light speed.

I think I understand what you are saying, like if there was a vehicle with passengers traveling almost at the speed of light, all the passangers would be traveling at the same speed of the vehicle, so if one of them gets up and starts running at the same direction the vehicle is going it would be running faster than light, but like GabuEX said, at that speed the time flows slower inside the vehicle than outside of it, that prevents the passangers to surpass lightspeed.

dragon7x2k

Thank God you came along otherwise I would not understand what the topic creator was talking about. The wording was just not there for me anyway. Anyway if his scenario is like what you are saying than no you aren't traveling faster than the speed of light. Just becuase you walk at maybe 2 mph doesn't mean you can really count for how fast the Earth is moving as well. The Earth moves at around 67,000 mph and you walk at 2 mph. You can't say your faster than the Earth becuase you are still on it.

The speed of light is constant at about 300,000 m/s.

The speed of the object that is emitting light is NOT added to the speed of light. You're confusing Newtonian Physics with Relativity.

It's not possible to go faster than the speed of light due to mass. I'm sure you know of E = mc^2

E is energy, m is mass and c is the speed of light.

Now, remember that the speed of light is about 300,000 m/s. So, in order for a, say a 100 kg object to be at the speed of light, it needs how much energy?

E = (100)(300,000)^2

E = 9 *10^12 J or 9,000,000,000,000 J.

In order for a 100 kg object to reach the speed of light, it needs 9 TRILLION joules of energy. With current technology, it is impossible to hit even 1% of that energy requirement (90,000,000,000 J) at an instant.

That's also not including the fact that as an object gets closer to the speed of light, it increases in mass, requiring more energy. This calculation assumes the mass stays constant when it obviously does not, as it gets more massive the faster it gets. When it hits the speed of light, it has infinite mass, which is impossible.

However, take the word "impossible" with a grain of salt in Physics. Electromagnetism and tons of other things were deemed impossible by head scientists of their day, yet due to electromagnetism, I am capable of giving you this information.

PunishedOne

Er, no offense, but that's... kind of an abuse of the equation in question. E = mc^2 describes the energy E produced when a mass m is lost through a nuclear reaction. It shows that energy and mass are interchangeable and that mass can be turned into energy. It has nothing to do with the energy of a mass at the speed of light.

[QUOTE="brandontwb"][QUOTE="HoolaHoopMan"]

It's due to the laws of physics.

If for example you have a flashlight traveling at 1/4 the speed of light, then turn it on, the resulting light being emitted from the flashlight would not be traveling at 1 1/4 the speed of light. It would be traveling at light speed.

HoolaHoopMan

[QUOTE="HoolaHoopMan"][QUOTE="brandontwb"]You didn't define what else was in the universe and what the flashlight is traveling in relation to. If you're using my example, then is the light going the speed of light for the flashlight, the observer or both?brandontwb

Yes, given an frame of reference and an object in motion relative to an observer, you can detect the ratio between the observed speed of that object and the speed of light... but I don't see why that enables us to travel faster than the speed of light.

[QUOTE="brandontwb"]

If you say that nothing can go faster than the speed of light, then you imply that the speed of light is always the same, no matter what.

Now if this is true, then that means if we were able to measure the time it takes light to reach a certain object,the time it takes to reach the object will change depending on the speed of the origin of the light and the object that it is intended to reach if you assume the two entities always remain in the same relative location in relation to each other.

So that means that we can measure our precise velocity not in relation to the sun, not in relation to other planets, but in relation to light? How is it NOT possible to go faster than the speed of light?

gogly

i think ur in the wrong forum lol. in offtopic u'll get a bunch of useless posts (kinda like this one) when asking a question that requires some knowledge.

Gamespot needs a science forum!!!

[QUOTE="brandontwb"][QUOTE="HoolaHoopMan"] the simple answer is that you don't add 1/4 light speed and 1 light speed together like you would in classical physics when dealing with objects with mass. It will always be "light speed". A stationary observer will still see the light traveling at light speed. GabuEx

Yes, given an frame of reference and an object in motion relative to an observer, you can detect the ratio between the observed speed of that object and the speed of light... but I don't see why that enables us to travel faster than the speed of light.

Ill ask my physics teacher tomorrow :P

Ill ask my physics teacher tomorrow :P

XxWOND3RB3ADxX

*ahem* that rule states that the speed of light is in a vaccum at absolute zero. As far as we know nothing can go faster than the speed of light in that specific scenario. Yes light bends and changes speed when it hits atmospheres water(pretty much anything light can travel through) but that is not stated under the rule. If we could move faster than the speed of light we could essentially move back in time (possibly forward but we would have to move beyond the outer limits of the universe where light hasn't reached)