Admiral Odin Posted March 28, 2001 Share Posted March 28, 2001 I have been wondering who do we know that it goes against the laws of physics the things can go faster then the speed of light. I know about the experiments on who they tried to get light to move faster by going towards it a source (something like that) but if you think about it, there is a possiblity that the speed of light can only be a constant or something similar to water were the solid form is lighter the the liquid.... What are your thought. ------------------ "Dulce bellum inexpertis." (Sweet is war to those who have never experinced it.) Roman Proverb Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Admiral Zaarin Posted March 28, 2001 Share Posted March 28, 2001 *tries to think about it, brain short-circuits* Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Poor Bastard Posted March 28, 2001 Share Posted March 28, 2001 Originally posted by Admiral: What are your thought. I think that this thread is boring. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Admiral Zaarin Posted March 28, 2001 Share Posted March 28, 2001 Hmm. What do you think are the exact physical conditions necessary to fry 23 taco shells in the main reactor of the Death Star? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JR2000Z Posted March 28, 2001 Share Posted March 28, 2001 Technically, you need Taco Bell tocos to do that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Admiral Zaarin Posted March 28, 2001 Share Posted March 28, 2001 I've already tested the experiment in the backup reactors of one of my ISDs, and it worked out quite nicely. I just wanted to know, since I'm considering building a Death Star, based on the original plans, but I want a ship that can destroy planets and cook tacos. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Keyan Farlander Posted March 28, 2001 Share Posted March 28, 2001 There are some theories that the speed of light is not consant. I have no idea how much truth there is to that, though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Admiral Zaarin Posted March 28, 2001 Share Posted March 28, 2001 What I could never understand (forgive me if this sounds stupid, I know next to nothing about physics) is how the speed of light could be some kind of limit. Surely, theoretically, if a powerful enough engine/whatever was constructed, it could move an object to FTL speeds? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Rogue 9 Posted March 28, 2001 Share Posted March 28, 2001 the speed of light is a constant in real space, but whos to say there isn't another plain of space exsisting at the same time and yet invisible to us. , that is my thought ------------------ "The truest measure of a society is how it treats it's Elderly, It's Pets and It's Prisoners." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Commander 598 Posted March 28, 2001 Share Posted March 28, 2001 The hyperdrive is an engine - powered by fusion generators - which allows a spacecraft to enter hyperspace, an alternate dimension where travel at many times the speed of light ceases to be an impossibility. Journeys that would require months or years in normal or "realspace" zip by in a matter of weeks or hours, making distant star systems easily accessible. Travel through hyperspace is a serious and very delicate operation. Objects in realspace cast a hyperspace shadow, acting as obstacles in hyperspace as well. While the pilot of a starship hurtling through realspace might have enough time to react to a planet or asteroid in his craft's trajectory, the incredible speeds reached by a spacecraft in hyperspace render human reflexes absolutely useless. Hyperspace-travelling starships are thus equipped with a nav computer or an astromech droid, whose job is to calculate with the utmost precision the entry and exit coordinates, as well as the speed and duration of the trip, based on hyperspace maps. Should a previously uncharted space body show up on the ship's itinerary, mass shadow sensors would detect its hyperspace shadow and automatically shut down the hyperdrive, bringing the ship back into realspace. Entering Hyperspace Basically what a hyperdrive does is thrusts you into an alternate dimension where things mover reeeeaaaally fast. So light speed or more would require a place without physics. ------------------ Official Forum Nuclear Terrorist Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Rogue 9 Posted March 28, 2001 Share Posted March 28, 2001 actually objects can remain still in hyperspace, Items such as static probes remain in a stable postition in hyperspace, dropping out only to scan an area, transmit and enter hyperspace again. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Keyan Farlander Posted March 28, 2001 Share Posted March 28, 2001 Originally posted by Admiral Zaarin: What I could never understand (forgive me if this sounds stupid, I know next to nothing about physics) is how the speed of light could be some kind of limit. Surely, theoretically, if a powerful enough engine/whatever was constructed, it could move an object to FTL speeds? No. As you get closer the speed of light, your mass actually increases, and so it takes more and more energy to go faster and faster. In theory, if you were traveling at the speed of light, you would have infinite mass. It would take an infinite amount of energy to get you up to that speed. That's why it can't be done. Or so they say... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
edlib Posted March 28, 2001 Share Posted March 28, 2001 Back to the original intent of this post: Nothing in the macro world can ever exceed the speed of light. However, at the quantum scale all bets are off. Relativity doesn't apply to quantum events. There's a phenomina called "Quantum Tunneling" that has been tested in a lab experiment that shows how particles may "Jump" to the other side of a solid barrier and may do so faster than light can travel the same distance. I forget the exact details of the experiment, but it involved a recording of Mozart I belive. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
edlib Posted March 28, 2001 Share Posted March 28, 2001 I forgot to add; There's a couple of amazing books on these matters that I believe every human being should read: "The Elegant Universe" by Brian Greene and "Hyperspace" by Mihio Kaku Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Keyan Farlander Posted March 28, 2001 Share Posted March 28, 2001 That one's too much for me. I'm an engineer - that means I know physics, but I ignore it and do everything by trial and error Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Rogue 9 Posted March 28, 2001 Share Posted March 28, 2001 *Hehe*, Blind Jumps rule...remember this line, we're loosen the main deflector, strap yourselves in, I'm gonna make the jump to lightspeed... that was a trial and error jump ------------------ "With only two parents and a handful of siblings, Is it any wonder that humans are so obsessed with finding love?" -- Fragment of a Than-Thre-Kull anthropology text Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Jabba The Hunt Posted March 28, 2001 Share Posted March 28, 2001 there is a theory about using those quantum particles to teleport people, however you have to destroy the orignal and what you get out the end is just a copy which mean to teleport yourself you have to die. ------------------ iM. diSleXIc. sO. pLeaSE. tRanSlaTe. AnY oF tHe mmistypes/SpElLinGs jabbathehunt@hotmail.com Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Rogue 9 Posted March 28, 2001 Share Posted March 28, 2001 if your talking about the Australian Experiement, it was conducted on Photons not Quantum particles, unless they are the same thing that is in which case I'm a Moron , but only for a few minutes Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Fondas Posted March 28, 2001 Share Posted March 28, 2001 Is as simple as that : Unless we have someone with Phd in Physics among us, no one can really answer that. You may get some popularizing views, or copied and pasted stuff, but not a real answer. Even if someone could give a scientifically justified answer, I bet none of us could fully understand it ! So frankly, I do not know ! ------------------ "No matter how pretty the bait, a hook is still a hook !" TZG+7 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nute Gunray Posted March 28, 2001 Share Posted March 28, 2001 The answer is: * * * * * * * * * * * Does it matter? we'll all be dead by the time they COULD develop faster than light travel and make it worth using. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Rogue 9 Posted March 28, 2001 Share Posted March 28, 2001 dang, the government edited nutes post, all I see is asterisks Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Zoom Rabbit Posted March 28, 2001 Share Posted March 28, 2001 I'm not a physicist. I'm a cook. I'll try to explain it anyway. E=MC2 Now, we've all seen this equation before. It's Einstein's theory of relativity, and basically it states that each of the variables (which I'll get to) retain a constant relationship with one another in precisely the way described. Since the theory concerns those relationships, it is called 'relativity.' E= energy. M= mass. C= speed of light. 2= squared (math function.) Now, since that relationship remains constant, changing the value of one will distort the others. Basic algebra. This theory was tested by taking two perfectly coordinated atomic clocks, keeping one on the ground and flying the other around the world at supersonic speed, then checking to see if the difference in speed created a difference in time; it did. One clock had run a few fractions of a second faster than the other. So we take this relationship between speed and time, and apply it to our acceleration question. As we go faster, time will slow down...and mass will increase dramatically. In fact, before we reach the speed of light, our mass will become infinite and our time will scale down to nothing. Light is the only thing that can go that fast because it is a wave, and therefore has no mass. (Although I recall hearing that there was some reasearch that suggested light photons did have some mass, and also that tachyons were supposed to go faster than light, but I'm not up to date on any of this stuff.) So that's my answer. You want fries with that? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Zoom Rabbit Posted March 28, 2001 Share Posted March 28, 2001 I forget precisely where time factors into all that. I'm not sure, but I think that time is a function of 'C' since speed, space and time are all intertwined right there... Dammit, somebody dig up Einstein to explain this for us! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gold leader Posted March 28, 2001 Share Posted March 28, 2001 I'm afraid you've kinda missed the point, Zoom. Like Keyan said, the mass of an object is related to its velocity. This is the relation: The link ain't workin of course. I mean this formula: m = m0 / (1 - v/c)^1/2 with m0 being the mass at rest, v the velocity, c the speed of light. As you can see, and object's mass increases with its velocity. A larger mass causes a greater curvature of space/time, hence the difference in time on your two clocks. There are many sites that try to explain the theory of relativity. Just use a search engine. For those too lazy to do that: this is a nice one. [This message has been edited by Gold leader (edited March 28, 2001).] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Zoom Rabbit Posted March 28, 2001 Share Posted March 28, 2001 Time is an illusion, being a function of space itself. Simply because it can't be the same time everywhere, time becomes a means of measuring space. Yadda yadda... Actually the theory of relativity is Ernie is (=) My second Cousin (2.) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.