Speed of light beaten - time travel possible!

It's proved to be the weakest of the forces, but unexplainable as to why.

Precisely what forces are we talking about, Mickey? It's stronger than the force I can exert on 200kgs of ballast. Is it considered to be one of the forces of nature, in which case, we might as wll give up trying to beat it.
It's stronger than all the Air Forces of all the nations on earth, because they all have to succumb to it.

I'm not making the science up, ask the scientists! I'm reporting it..And asking questions regarding it. Gravity is clearly known to science, as the weakest force. The force you are talking about is the unproved e-mc2, what a bizarre post! What a strange reference! I presume you worked for the air force?
 
Sponsored Links
....
I'm not making the science up, ask the scientists! I'm reporting it..And asking questions regarding it. Gravity is clearly known to science, as the weakest force. The force you are talking about is the unproved e-mc2, what a bizarre post! What a strange reference! I presume you worked for the air force?

So, you think e-mc² is a force? No wonder you're confused.

I know you really meant e=mc². So what does this force act upon?
 
Mickymoody said:
It's proved to be the weakest of the forces, but unexplainable as to why.

That is correct. On a small scale it's so weak that meaningful experiments are difficult to do. :( :( :(

Example 1:

If you allow a hollow sphere to collapse under its own gravity, energy is released. Current thinking says that this energy comes from the extra gravitational field which has just appeared and so that field must consist of negative energy. :eek: :eek: :eek: The alternative explanation is that the mass goes down. Which is it? :?: :?: :?:

Example 2:

It's been accepted for some time that gravity deflects light. It would be nice to set this up in the lab and then check that the light also pulls back on the mass that deflects it. :cool: :cool: :cool:

Example 3: Move some mass and see how long it takes for the effect to be detected at a distance. That is to say, let's just measure the speed of gravity. :idea: :idea: :idea:

Unfortunately gravity is so weak that we can't make the measurements, though the third one might just be possible.

RedHerring2 said:
It's stronger than the force I can exert on 200kgs of ballast.

Although it's weak on a small scale, gravity differs from the other known forces in having only one polarity. Moreover, it's the only known force for which like attracts like. While the electromagnetic and nuclear forces cancel out, gravity just keeps on adding up. Incidentally, if you apply Newton's law of gravitation to (hypothetical) negative masses you'll get some interesting results:

1) Negative masses repel each other. They can't coalesce into larger masses.
2) A negative mass is attracted towards a positive one but the positive mass is repelled.
3) If they are equal in magnitude, the negative one will chase the positive but never catch up.
4) If the positive mass is bigger, the negative one will catch up and annihilate, leaving a smaller positive mass.
5) If the negative mass is bigger, the positive one will outrun it.

The upshot of this is that, if negative mass particles had existed in the early universe, you wouldn't expect to find many of them now. :) :) :)
 
I beleive that proper scientists, famous people post on these threads, and that is a proper scientific description, using false names, as I do.

That is a pretty comprehensive description.

Will anyone out?
 
Sponsored Links
I beleive that proper scientists, famous people post on these threads, and that is a proper scientific description, using false names, as I do.

That is a pretty comprehensive description.

Will anyone out?
And fairies at the bottom of your garden too.
 
My understanding was, and i am quite happy to be shown to be wrong, was that particles could not accelerate beyond the speed of light. Particles can however exist at speeds beyond the speed of light.

Anyhow, if physicists wanted to study greater than speed of light situations, they need look no further than my ex, who can go from something approaching normal, to volcanic much quicker than the speed of light.

actually i think they tried, but got a bit scared.
 
My understanding was, and i am quite happy to be shown to be wrong, was that particles could not accelerate beyond the speed of light. Particles can however exist at speeds beyond the speed of light.

Anyhow, if physicists wanted to study greater than speed of light situations, they need look no further than my ex, who can go from something approaching normal, to volcanic much quicker than the speed of light.

actually i think they tried, but got a bit scared.

Bit strange really, If two observers were approaching each other on parallel paths at something approaching the speed of light, they'd see each other for a millisecond before they both would disappear (relative to each other) Whereas, a static observer would see them approach and then recede from each other (or him)
Hmm anyway, it's late and I'm just about to open a can (probably faster than the speed of light between here and the fridge) :LOL: :LOL: :LOL: :LOL: :LOL: :LOL:

PS, sympathise with you Eddie, My missus is going through the change and she can go from placid to steaming mad at warp factor 10
 
Obviously this doesnnt involve particles, but things happpening faster than the speed of light? What about quantum entanglement, is there any explanation forr this instantaneous phenomenon ?
 
joinerjohn said:
Whereas, a static observer would see them approach and then recede from each other (or him)

How do you know that the observer is static? Maybe one of the other two is the static one - or maybe they're all moving. :confused: :confused: :confused:
 
joinerjohn said:
Whereas, a static observer would see them approach and then recede from each other (or him)

How do you know that the observer is static? Maybe one of the other two is the static one - or maybe they're all moving. :confused: :confused: :confused:

Well' I'm assuming,, that the scientist chappies conducting such an experiment (if they ever could) would ensure that at least one of them was static. But being as we're hurtling through space at thousands of miles an hour, and even the stars are moving at similar speeds, we'd never know who was the static one, relatively speaking. ;) ;) ;)
 
joinerjohn said:
we'd never know who was the static one

And therein lies the problem; each observer thinks the other two are moving. If they all now try to measure the speed of the same light, common sense dictates that a moving observer will get the wrong answer. But all the observers believe themselves to be static and so all measurements are equally valid. :confused: :confused: :confused:

Einstein found one way out of this by throwing away the idea of universal time. All observers can agree on the measurement if a moving clock runs slow. :idea: :idea: :idea: So, if I see your clock moving past mine, it appears to run slow, yes. :) :) :) No, it doesn't appear to run slow; it really does run slow - and, from your point of view, so does mine.
confused.gif
confused.gif
confused.gif


Simples! :cool: :cool: :cool:
 
Even Einstein couldn't make a necessary conceptual leap which Bohr did for him.
 
Sponsored Links
Back
Top