|
Re: A light speed question...
Originally Posted by Arcadia
(Post 8445175)
I only found out yesterday that Darthvader is Luke's Dad:ohmy: AND princess leah is Lukes twin sister!!
|
Re: A light speed question...
Originally Posted by Confucius
(Post 8444449)
When a spaceship travels in light speed, there is no danger of collision...As soon as the spaceship goes to normal speed it finds itself in an asteroid field and collision is imminent...
Your thoughts... Answer: the shields are at 100% as in Star Trek...so things just bonk off ! |
Re: A light speed question...
Originally Posted by MacScot
(Post 8445605)
What's this got to do with sex...your'e off at a tangent ! :unsure:
Answer: the shields are at 100% as in Star Trek...so things just bonk off ! I also want to know, why don't put on seatbelts when in their spaceships, but in fighters they're fully strapped... |
Re: A light speed question...
Originally Posted by Bonny Boy
(Post 8444616)
I can honestly say I have never seen it, nor have I any desire to do so. Isn't it just a 'cowboys and native americans' transferred to space type film?
Now '2001: A Space Odyssey' .....that's a film. |
Re: A light speed question...
Originally Posted by Confucius
(Post 8444449)
When a spaceship travels in light speed, there is no danger of collision...As soon as the spaceship goes to normal speed it finds itself in an asteroid field and collision is imminent...
Your thoughts... 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. |
Re: A light speed question...
Originally Posted by Autonomy
(Post 8445713)
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. 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? |
Re: A light speed question...
As I always say.............. if you're not sure, ask Eric Idle............
|
Re: A light speed question...
Sci Fi geeks eh!
|
Re: A light speed question...
Originally Posted by kittycat1
(Post 8446775)
Sci Fi geeks eh!
|
Re: A light speed question...
Originally Posted by shakh your bootie
(Post 8445981)
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? |
Re: A light speed question...
Originally Posted by Autonomy
(Post 8445713)
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. BUT ... If a car is closing in fast behind you at lightspeed and flashes his lights to pass ... what happens? |
Re: A light speed question...
Originally Posted by Confucius
(Post 8444652)
That's Alice in Wonderland...You're talkin' hyperspace shit now...
The pieces kill each other when they take the square. |
Re: A light speed question...
Originally Posted by Bonny Boy
(Post 8444661)
The 'good' guys dressed in white fighting the 'bad' guys dressed in black....?
|
Re: A light speed question...
Originally Posted by shakh your bootie
(Post 8445981)
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.
|
Re: A light speed question...
Originally Posted by shakh your bootie
(Post 8445981)
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? "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. |
| All times are GMT -12. The time now is 9:07 pm. |
Powered by vBulletin: ©2000 - 2026, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright © 2026 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.