31 Oct 06
Originally posted by danandi1well yeah ur right there. if i human, animal (i.e. living orgasim) were to travel the speed of light, they would have 2 b a photon. otherwise u become a puddle like that other guy said.
YOU cannot go at the speed of light
LIGHT (photons) can go at the speed of light
31 Oct 06
Originally posted by mtthwOf course there is no theory what happens with a mass when having a speed of light. Turning into ice-cream is as good as any. Because in order to think about what happens to a mass in speed of light you do a faulty assumption: A mass traveling at the speed of light which is impossible.
Do you have a theory of how you turn into ice-cream, that can produce testable results that have been confirmed by experiment? If you do, then the extreme theoretical case of travelling at light speed would be relevant, even if it's not possible.
The point of the problem is not what happens when a body is accelerated to light speed. The point is wh ...[text shortened]... f you don't get hung up too much about needing an infinite amount of energy to make it happen.
Now, is this a discussion of semantics? When I say speed of light I mean exactly v=c, not only near enough speed of light. When we say accelerate to speed of light, do we really mean that or rather toward the speed of light? In these cases I rest my case.
But I say that every discussion emanating from the assumption that something with mass traveling with the speed of light can only lead nowhere or everywhere.
As is trying to divide by zero...
31 Oct 06
Originally posted by FabianFnasAnd I would say that mass distortion effects aren't the point of the question (which is why I reposed it in a form that maybe isn't impossible), and so the objection, while fair, is irrelevant. But we're going round in circles, so I'll leave it at that.
Of course there is no theory what happens with a mass when having a speed of light. Turning into ice-cream is as good as any. Because in order to think about what happens to a mass in speed of light you do a faulty assumption: A mass traveling at the speed of light which is impossible.
Now, is this a discussion of semantics? When I say speed of light I ...[text shortened]... ith the speed of light can only lead nowhere or everywhere.
As is trying to divide by zero...
31 Oct 06
Originally posted by mtthwSometimes I get questions like "Let's say we travel back in time 50 billion years, wouldn't then..." and "Suppose the solar system is a giant atom with electrons instead of planets, wouldn't then..." and "If you put a quark under a microscope, does then..." and so forth.
And I would say that mass distortion effects aren't the point of the question (which is why I reposed it in a form that maybe isn't impossible), and so the objection, while fair, is irrelevant. But we're going round in circles, so I'll leave it at that.
In these cases the questionee assumes things that is impossible and then the answer is impossible.
Universe didn't exist 50 billions of years ago.
Solar system governs by gravitation, atoms by electrostatics.
Quarks cannot be seen though an microscope.
And there is no such thing as in light velocities for particles with mass.
And one cannot ever divide by zero.
If you make an assumption violating fundamental laws of nature, then everything rely on this assumption cannot be trusted.
And, if no one will challenge my view, then I leave it with this.
Thank you, mtthw, for an interesting debate!
07 Nov 06
1 edit
Interesting questions, however...is light not matter? If so then I would hypothesize that it is physically possible to travel at light speed. But what's faster than light? Perhaps thought?...or my checkmate in one!!! ha! Cheers'
Check out the link... and post what you think'
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/matter
07 Nov 06
2 edits
Originally posted by FabianFnasHi Fabian,
Sometimes I get questions like "Let's say we travel back in time 50 billion years, wouldn't then..." and "Suppose the solar system is a giant atom with electrons instead of planets, wouldn't then..." and "If you put a quark under a microscope, does then..." and so forth.
In these cases the questionee assumes things that is impossible and then the answe enge my view, then I leave it with this.
Thank you, mtthw, for an interesting debate!
...I guess it's merely a point of exercising possibilities?!?... Like a mental gym lets say. It seems that as individuals there is some innate desire to be right, well I guess we believe that we are all right in our own minds or at least have the best point, or have a good point and at the very least just want to be heard or be part of the conversation. It’s funny cause we all just don’t have enough information to say more one way or another, to ballance the scales or reason. Your reply however, does have my vote in the sense that when all else fails then let us at least come to some common ground and get back to what we were born to do and that is live in reality…oh but what is reality? …What is real for you may not be real for him/her etc…See that is why I agree with your settlement, unless I am presented by some well thought out and compelling hypothesis…Like when you watch ….PBS of course!
- Joined
- 29 Aug 06
- Moves
- 6848
27 Jan 07
Originally posted by danandi1Dude, it was a joke.
That's rubbish, you could use the same argument for a car travelling at non relativistic speeds.
When you are in a normal car you see the light reflected off things on the side of the road and the road itself, this case would be no different.
NEVER SAY SOMEONE IS COMPLETELY WRONG UNLESS YOU KNOW THAT IT IS TRUE!
30 Jan 07
sorry i dindnt read the answers before.. if u go with the speed of the light and u turn on the lights of the car then yes u could see them because the lights will be in front of u and travel with the speed of light like u so they will always be in front of u and u will always see them , and second u can hear the radio because the radio signals travel faster than the sound (not sure about that) so will always here something but u wouldnt know wut is that something (it maybe heared something like ZGGASGGD😛 (ask a fighter pilot for the second question ))
30 Jan 07
Originally posted by i2eAPei2Sometimes people say I spell like a horse...
sorry i dindnt read the answers before.. if u go with the speed of the light and u turn on the lights of the car then yes u could see them because the lights will be in front of u and travel with the speed of light like u so they will always be in front of u and u will always see them , and second u can hear the radio because the radio signals travel faster ...[text shortened]... thing (it maybe heared something like ZGGASGGD😛 (ask a fighter pilot for the second question ))