A light speed question...
AND princess leah is Lukes twin sister!!
Mar 24th 2010, 8:36 pm
#32
A bubbly-jock...
Joined: Mar 2005
Location: Teneriffe
Posts: 6,262
Re: A light speed question...
Answer: the shields are at 100% as in Star Trek...so things just bonk off !
Mar 24th 2010, 8:45 pm
#33
Lost in BE Cyberspace
Thread Starter
Joined: Dec 2006
Posts: 23,434
Re: A light speed question...
I also want to know, why don't put on seatbelts when in their spaceships, but in fighters they're fully strapped...
Mar 24th 2010, 8:50 pm
#34
Powered by cows
Joined: Jul 2004
Location: currently Dubai, ex UK
Posts: 4,582
Re: A light speed question...
No it's not - I don't believe Akira Kurosawa was into westerns... redemption and revenge yes, stetsons no... George Lucas may have liked such things, but Star Wars was pretty much based on The Hidden Fortress and Kurosawa's Seven Samurai (so was The Guns of Navarone, Ocean's Eleven, The Dirty Dozen, and the western remake The Magnificent Seven)...
Last edited by Autonomy; Mar 24th 2010 at 8:59 pm.
Mar 24th 2010, 9:06 pm
#35
Powered by cows
Joined: Jul 2004
Location: currently Dubai, ex UK
Posts: 4,582
Re: A light speed question...
or
engage warp drive with the dilithium crystals...
or
the Infinite Improbability Drive where anything can happen....
do you know where your towel is?
don't panic.
Mar 24th 2010, 10:07 pm
#36
Lost in BE Cyberspace
Joined: Jan 2007
Location: By the old canal...
Posts: 7,715
Re: A light speed question...
when you travel at the speed of light time stops... but to reach light speed your mass would have to approach zero otherwise the momentum / inertia would be too much
or
engage warp drive with the dilithium crystals...
or
the Infinite Improbability Drive where anything can happen....
do you know where your towel is?
don't panic.
or
engage warp drive with the dilithium crystals...
or
the Infinite Improbability Drive where anything can happen....
do you know where your towel is?
don't panic.
For a stationary observer, however, the measured time of that object will be longer by a factor proportional to the square root of 1-the ratio of the square of the object's speed over the square of the speed of light. According to the laws of mathematics, when the object's speed is equal to the speed of light, then for every tick of the object's clock an infinite amount of time will pass for the observer. Some physicists argue that this makes light speed travel for a non-zero mass particle impossible - ref the twins paradox.
There is, however, some experimental evidence to suggest that a particle called a tachyon does exist - this is a massless particle that travels above the speed of light.
That's pretty intriguing, because the math then says that the time dilation factor becomes the square root of a negative number, i.e. an imaginary number.
In math terms, that means that the time vector becomes 90 degrees out of phase with our own vector measure of time. In other words, it gets completely de-coupled from our own measure of time.
What that math translates to in terms of our human experience of time, I have no idea. Nor does anyone else, I believe.
Oh, and the same factor applies to the dimensions of the object too. As an object travels at greater speed, it's apparent euclidean dimensions also shrink.
Mind ****, eh?
Last edited by shakh your bootie; Mar 24th 2010 at 10:10 pm.
Mar 24th 2010, 10:46 pm
#37
Lost in BE Cyberspace
Joined: Jul 2007
Posts: 13,553
Re: A light speed question...
As I always say.............. if you're not sure, ask Eric Idle............
Mar 25th 2010, 4:06 am
#38
Lost in BE Cyberspace
Joined: May 2009
Location: Dubai
Posts: 5,965
Re: A light speed question...
Sci Fi geeks eh!
Mar 25th 2010, 4:41 am
#39
Lost in BE Cyberspace
Joined: Jan 2007
Location: By the old canal...
Posts: 7,715
Mar 25th 2010, 5:26 am
#40
Go on.. Pull my finger..
Joined: Jul 2008
Location: Dubai
Posts: 5,726
Re: A light speed question...
If I understand things correctly, when an object travels at the speed of light, time passes as normal in the reference frame of that object.
For a stationary observer, however, the measured time of that object will be longer by a factor proportional to the square root of 1-the ratio of the square of the object's speed over the square of the speed of light. According to the laws of mathematics, when the object's speed is equal to the speed of light, then for every tick of the object's clock an infinite amount of time will pass for the observer. Some physicists argue that this makes light speed travel for a non-zero mass particle impossible - ref the twins paradox.
There is, however, some experimental evidence to suggest that a particle called a tachyon does exist - this is a massless particle that travels above the speed of light.
That's pretty intriguing, because the math then says that the time dilation factor becomes the square root of a negative number, i.e. an imaginary number.
In math terms, that means that the time vector becomes 90 degrees out of phase with our own vector measure of time. In other words, it gets completely de-coupled from our own measure of time.
What that math translates to in terms of our human experience of time, I have no idea. Nor does anyone else, I believe.
Oh, and the same factor applies to the dimensions of the object too. As an object travels at greater speed, it's apparent euclidean dimensions also shrink.
Mind ****, eh?
For a stationary observer, however, the measured time of that object will be longer by a factor proportional to the square root of 1-the ratio of the square of the object's speed over the square of the speed of light. According to the laws of mathematics, when the object's speed is equal to the speed of light, then for every tick of the object's clock an infinite amount of time will pass for the observer. Some physicists argue that this makes light speed travel for a non-zero mass particle impossible - ref the twins paradox.
There is, however, some experimental evidence to suggest that a particle called a tachyon does exist - this is a massless particle that travels above the speed of light.
That's pretty intriguing, because the math then says that the time dilation factor becomes the square root of a negative number, i.e. an imaginary number.
In math terms, that means that the time vector becomes 90 degrees out of phase with our own vector measure of time. In other words, it gets completely de-coupled from our own measure of time.
What that math translates to in terms of our human experience of time, I have no idea. Nor does anyone else, I believe.
Oh, and the same factor applies to the dimensions of the object too. As an object travels at greater speed, it's apparent euclidean dimensions also shrink.
Mind ****, eh?
Mar 25th 2010, 5:42 am
#41
Mostly Harmless
Joined: Jan 2010
Location: Semi-rural wonderworld, Brisbane
Posts: 15,109
Re: A light speed question...
when you travel at the speed of light time stops... but to reach light speed your mass would have to approach zero otherwise the momentum / inertia would be too much
or
engage warp drive with the dilithium crystals...
or
the Infinite Improbability Drive where anything can happen....
do you know where your towel is?
don't panic.
or
engage warp drive with the dilithium crystals...
or
the Infinite Improbability Drive where anything can happen....
do you know where your towel is?
don't panic.
BUT ... If a car is closing in fast behind you at lightspeed and flashes his lights to pass ... what happens?
Mar 25th 2010, 7:04 am
#42
BE Enthusiast
Joined: May 2009
Location: Back in the best hemisphere...
Posts: 474
Mar 25th 2010, 7:09 am
#43
BE Enthusiast
Joined: May 2009
Location: Back in the best hemisphere...
Posts: 474
Re: A light speed question...
Mar 25th 2010, 8:18 am
#44
Hit 16's
Joined: Mar 2010
Location: Of all the gin joints, in all the towns, in all the world, she walks into mine
Posts: 13,112
Re: A light speed question...
Mar 25th 2010, 11:38 am
#45
Banned
Joined: Jan 2007
Location: Holland, luckily!
Posts: 223
Re: A light speed question...
If I understand things correctly, when an object travels at the speed of light, time passes as normal in the reference frame of that object.
For a stationary observer, however, the measured time of that object will be longer by a factor proportional to the square root of 1-the ratio of the square of the object's speed over the square of the speed of light. According to the laws of mathematics, when the object's speed is equal to the speed of light, then for every tick of the object's clock an infinite amount of time will pass for the observer. Some physicists argue that this makes light speed travel for a non-zero mass particle impossible - ref the twins paradox.
There is, however, some experimental evidence to suggest that a particle called a tachyon does exist - this is a massless particle that travels above the speed of light.
That's pretty intriguing, because the math then says that the time dilation factor becomes the square root of a negative number, i.e. an imaginary number.
In math terms, that means that the time vector becomes 90 degrees out of phase with our own vector measure of time. In other words, it gets completely de-coupled from our own measure of time.
What that math translates to in terms of our human experience of time, I have no idea. Nor does anyone else, I believe.
Oh, and the same factor applies to the dimensions of the object too. As an object travels at greater speed, it's apparent euclidean dimensions also shrink.
Mind ****, eh?
For a stationary observer, however, the measured time of that object will be longer by a factor proportional to the square root of 1-the ratio of the square of the object's speed over the square of the speed of light. According to the laws of mathematics, when the object's speed is equal to the speed of light, then for every tick of the object's clock an infinite amount of time will pass for the observer. Some physicists argue that this makes light speed travel for a non-zero mass particle impossible - ref the twins paradox.
There is, however, some experimental evidence to suggest that a particle called a tachyon does exist - this is a massless particle that travels above the speed of light.
That's pretty intriguing, because the math then says that the time dilation factor becomes the square root of a negative number, i.e. an imaginary number.
In math terms, that means that the time vector becomes 90 degrees out of phase with our own vector measure of time. In other words, it gets completely de-coupled from our own measure of time.
What that math translates to in terms of our human experience of time, I have no idea. Nor does anyone else, I believe.
Oh, and the same factor applies to the dimensions of the object too. As an object travels at greater speed, it's apparent euclidean dimensions also shrink.
Mind ****, eh?
"There is, however, some experimental evidence to suggest that a particle called a tachyon does exist - this is a massless particle that travels above the speed of light."
Not one, not a SINGLE one, there are THEORETICAL formulations of the same particle (which is supposed to exist ONLY traveling above the speed of light, by the way) . And it has been clear that they belong to a realm of physics which we, and most of the law of physics we use and know, don't belong to.
Wikipedia, anyone? Should you really fancy to leave aside bullshyts and dig a little deeper, I truly recommend this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/EPR_paradox. "Non-locality" is something existing (perhaps) only in the quantum mechanic universe, everything in a relativistic one has still to pay attention to asteroids, traffic lights, etc.
And though entertaining, and wildly so, the "Star wars" saga has indeed quite a simple plot: a captive princess? White knight(s) saving her from an "impenetrable" castle? "Magic" swords? Nasty monsters here and there?The forces of light vs. the forces of darkness? An old, old sage? Mmmm, I could swear I've seen all that before!
Yes, "2001, a space odissey" and even its completely different sequel are way, way beyond that. And there's a simple reason for it: Arthur C. Clarke.
SF is still in the books, what we see on the screen is so puny in comparison, funny to look (Matrix, etc) even moving sometime (Blade Runner!) but if you want to be blast away, you have to READ. Title of the day: "The Peace War", by Vernor Vinge.