weekend_warrior
Banned
Zzoram said:
that has nothing to do with light speed. We don't need to travel faster then light to expand across the universe.
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
Why nothing can travel faster than light: An easy-to-understand explanation
- Thread starter DogWelder
- Start date
- Status
that has nothing to do with light speed. We don't need to travel faster then light to expand across the universe.
weekend_warrior said:
We probably do.
Everything is so far apart, it's highly unlikely that a massive colony ship could travel for a 100,000 years and arrive intact if we were to find a suitable planet to colonize some number of light years away.
Also, the further away habitable planets or planets suitable for terraforming may be, the further any exploratory probe would have to travel to verify it, and the longer it would take for us to commit to sending a colony ship.
makingmusic476
Member
Yeah, I do think it's a great way to describe special relativity.Halycon said:
Dechaios said:
And if you take it a step further, all matter will eventually decay into the smallest possible subatomic particles possible, with each of those particles accelerating away from each other faster than the speed of light. Or, so I've read somewhere on the internet.
I am probably side stepping here but I would like some knowledgeable dodging for this statement for me:
I understand nothing goes faster than light from the standpoint we have ('cause we cannot understand something from another standpoint afterall) but what I think is that light is just the faster thing we know of right now, not that it's "the fastest thing".
I understand nothing goes faster than light from the standpoint we have ('cause we cannot understand something from another standpoint afterall) but what I think is that light is just the faster thing we know of right now, not that it's "the fastest thing".
I read that speeds under but very close to FTL are possible. The ship departs and the speed builds up over time somehow and takes like 50 years to go to point B.Zzoram said:
But if you were to come back to earth it'd be a 1,000 or so years in the future?
I don't know if I understand it correctly but it sounds bleak. Each 50 year trip to spread the human race could leave the planet you just left being destroyed and the planet your approaching being destroyed since you're having a lot of time passing off the ship?
Always-honest
Banned
Yeah.. i'm still thinking about that one too. But to be fair, i'm pissed. So i'll just read this stuff again tomorrow.Draft said:
weekend_warrior
Banned
Ranger X said:
Considering that we thought the would was flat a mere 500 years ago, you're probably right.
Obviously, the assertion that "nothing can go faster than light" is based upon our current model of the universe. If we did find something that traveled faster than light, we'd have to start all over again from square one.
This is usually implicit, since it'd be tiresome to constantly restate "okay we think this thing works like this, based on what we already know".
This is usually implicit, since it'd be tiresome to constantly restate "okay we think this thing works like this, based on what we already know".
Jack Scofield
Member
weekend_warrior said:
Exactly.
Fifteen hundred years ago everybody knew the Earth was the center of the universe. Five hundred years ago, everybody knew the Earth was flat, and fifteen minutes ago, you knew that humans couldn't move faster than light. Imagine what you'll know tomorrow.
Massless particles travel the speed of light. Photons, which make up light, are one of those particles, but there are others. These massless particles are the fastest "things" in the universe because they move through spacetime with a velocity that is as fast as the universe will allow; they go the speed limit of the universe. There is nothing that can travel faster in a universe in which relativity applies. The universe itself has set the limits.Ranger X said:
weekend_warrior
Banned
Jack Scofield said:
thats some deep shit son.
MiB was a great movie. 
I read the whole thing, and it just gives you an easy way to visualize the state of not being able to travel faster than light. It doesn't actually explain WHY. The moment you accepted time as the fourth dimension, you've unknowingly overlooked the original question as to WHY you can't go faster than light. You've accepted the condition as reality and learned another way of visualizing it. That's all that was accomplished.
Hey guys, hey.
Myth of the Flat Earth.
Also, saying "well you don't know what tomorrow will bring" is completely pointless. Might as well stop all avenues of inquiry because how can we like, know for sure, maaaan?
The point is to discover something then subject it to scrutiny until it breaks, all credible scientists know this. They don't really need you guys to point it out.
Myth of the Flat Earth.
Also, saying "well you don't know what tomorrow will bring" is completely pointless. Might as well stop all avenues of inquiry because how can we like, know for sure, maaaan?
The point is to discover something then subject it to scrutiny until it breaks, all credible scientists know this. They don't really need you guys to point it out.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QT6A85km9qw&feature=player_detailpage#t=40s
Do I understand this Stephen Hawinking video correctly?
It would take a large ship with a lot of fuel 6 years at full power to reach 99% of the speed of light. He says a single day on the ship at 99% is a year on Earth. ~3 years at 99% the speed of light is ~1,000 years On Earth? He says it'd take 80 total years including the 6 year build up to reach the edge of the galaxy?
If we don't achieve FTL humans could go extinct while the ship barely reaches the edge of the galaxy? That's bleak as fuck.
Do I understand this Stephen Hawinking video correctly?
It would take a large ship with a lot of fuel 6 years at full power to reach 99% of the speed of light. He says a single day on the ship at 99% is a year on Earth. ~3 years at 99% the speed of light is ~1,000 years On Earth? He says it'd take 80 total years including the 6 year build up to reach the edge of the galaxy?
If we don't achieve FTL humans could go extinct while the ship barely reaches the edge of the galaxy? That's bleak as fuck.
Escape Goat
Member
DeathNote said:
Somewhat unrelated but wouldn't the stars further out be older and less likely to support life?
No, not really. The idea of a spherical Earth was accepted as early as Greek antiquity, and was pretty well established in scholarly circles by the medieval era. The Islamic world inherited a lot of their scientific knowledge directly from the Greeks, and had it figured out even earlier. But that's all beside the point.weekend_warrior said:
Every "fact" we discover with the scientific method is implicitly preceded by "to the best of our knowledge," and is subject to scrutiny. However, not all scrutiny is created equal. Quibbling over minor details of a scientific theory is one thing, but if you claim that part of our fundamental understanding of the universe is completely wrong, you need to provide an explanation that is more accurate, more predicting, and more complete than whatever you're trying to replace. If you're really onto something and you're using good methodology, the evidence will see you through. If not... Tough break. You're back to square one. That's just how science works. Science not providing complete, metaphysical certitude does not mean that its findings can ever be considered trivial.
You could twist some time dilation equations and make them say that, but yeah, not really a physical model at all. Traveling at 'c' means experiencing the absolute minimum amount of progress in the "forward in time" direction for every unit of normal "x,y,z" distance you move. As far as we know, it is a hard limit, and all kinds of very well-established theory would be broken were that not the case.itxaka said:
Whoever wrote that is terrible.
A) It's too fucking long and pointless
B) It says you can't travel faster than light because you can't. That doesn't fucking answer how we know that light speed is a limit. Just saying light speed is the limit as if it is an axiom doesn't explain anything.
A) It's too fucking long and pointless
B) It says you can't travel faster than light because you can't. That doesn't fucking answer how we know that light speed is a limit. Just saying light speed is the limit as if it is an axiom doesn't explain anything.
Orbis Tabula
Member
The way I was taught is similar, but I feel it is easier and shorter. Imagine a car that only goes 10 ft/sec. If you go straight forward, after one second, you've moved ten feet. Now if you decide to go at a 45 degree angle, you're still only going 10 ft/sec, but you cant have gone forward ten feet because you're also going to the right (or left, doesn't matter) some amount of feet. Consequently, if you're moving forward through time at 10 units/units (sec/sec? I dunno, it's weird) and decide to move in the xyz dimensions, your speed through the t dimension must decrease. Now imagine that if you were standing still, you would be going through time at the speed of light (Again, units are wonky when you do this). If you tried to move through xyz at the speed of light, you would have to stop moving through time, since the speed of light is the limit to your speed. And going faster than the speed of light in X would be impossible, because there's not enough energy. (Maybe going FTL in x would make tou go backwards in time? I'm not sure of there's a consensus on that.)
PS. Typed this on my phone in the car. Forgive stupud mistakes?
PS. Typed this on my phone in the car. Forgive stupud mistakes?
weekend_warrior
Banned
Halycon said:
gravity is a persistent effect, it does not travel at any speed.
SapientWolf
Trucker Sexologist
Seems more like the rest of the universe would appear to be frozen in time.itxaka said:
itxaka said:
No it just doesn't work that way.
In the same line of thinking you could say that if you moved faster than the speed of light in 4th dimension would would be like moving slower than stopped in the other three, but obviously you can't move slower that not moving at all. It just doesn't make any sense.
Stars in our galaxy? I'm assuming we'd want to get out of our galaxy to find other planets. From my understanding 99% the speed of light is the fastest way to do that but the planet you're leaving the the planet you're approaching is rapidly aging. 90% the speed of light is barely traveling through time apparently but I'm assuming that'd be hella slow.Teh Hamburglar said:
So, it's like a no win scenario? If we can't do FTL we eventually have to live on a ship to survive?
weekend_warrior
Banned
StuBurns said:
No because that would be implying gravity travels through space like light. It doesn't, it is a persistent effect that is woven into timespace.
Incorrect, from what I understand. Neil Degrasse Tyson, or someone, was using the fact that giant masses didn't "know" there were giant masses because they were so large as part of figuring out the type of curvature of time-space.weekend_warrior said:
It was a very interesting video. Wish I could find it.
I thought the explanation was very straight forward. Admittedly it doesn't say why our "arrow" is the length it is, but he admits as much.
Lost Fragment
Obsessed with 4chan
- Status