Faster than light radio waves

Discussion in 'Soap Box' started by Mikeintx, Jul 1, 2009.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Mikeintx

    Mikeintx Well-Known Member

  2. aoeu

    aoeu Well-Known Member

    I'm going to be holding off believing that at least for the time being.
     
  3. Lovecraft

    Lovecraft Well-Known Member

    Whoever wrote that lacks any credibility and doesn't understand E=mc2.

    To move faster than the speed of light - at least to _appear_ as though you are - requires you to travel in a straight line through a higher dimensional plane. This is because as you get faster, you get heavier. Energy = speed of light squared. As you approach the speed of light, your mass gets greater and greater. For something with actual mass to be able to reach the speed of light, it requires infinite energy because as you reach the speed of light your mass becomes infinite. Only light - and radio waves are light, remember - can reach the full speed because they have no mass, they are energy fields/particles.

    I really don't understand why it's called the speed of light and not the cosmological speed limit, though. Gravity is also known to move at the exact same speed.

    To say something can move faster than the speed of light - even if it has no mass - is to say that the majority of modern physics has it all wrong.

    The only theoretical way to move information instantly is quantum entanglement.
     
  4. just.me

    just.me Account Closed

    light, or ions, have no mass
    so they can move with the so called speed of light
    there is a problem with this theory though... which is yet to be solved.
    protons and neutrons which are the bases of the atom are actually
    made of ions, therefore they are made of energy, the "mass" they have
    is not actually a matter mass, its the magnetic interaction straight.
    this magnetic interaction straight gain power when there are more protons
    or neutrons, so more energy = higher mass.

    its not really a topic for this forum as people here don't quiet understand
    the very basics of mass or matter principles.
    but overall, theoretically it is possible to reduce our mass without
    effecting our structure, we only have to learn how to control the way magnetic energy interacts
    (anti matters, singularity points, anti gravity, those are all still undeveloped)
     
  5. protonaut

    protonaut Well-Known Member

    Chad Orzel commented on this article here.
     
  6. scorpio63

    scorpio63 New Member & Antiquities Friend

    Actually E=mc2 says you can't accelerate to the speed of light if you have mass. Now the speed of light is variable, light passing through water is slower than light passing through vacuum. Look it up. The universe is about 13.7 billion years old yet it is 156 billion light years wide.
    See :http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/mystery_monday_040524.html
     
  7. scorpio63

    scorpio63 New Member & Antiquities Friend

    OK we be dum, ignert fuks and no understand big werdz like cosmological principle or the difference of general relativity and special relativity or up, down, strange, charm, top and bottom quarks.

    Don't be so condescending, we may be a little smarter than you think.:poo:
     
  8. aoeu

    aoeu Well-Known Member

    Yeah, quantum mechanics can be suicidal too!

    Scorpio, "the speed of light" almost always refers to "the speed of light in empty space", which IS a universal limit (and actually not achievable due to lack of truly empty space) according to general relativity. Space itself is expanding, which is why the universe is wider than 2c(age)

    I agree that general relativity forbids the opening post - but there's no such thing as a correct scientific theory. So I'll wait and see if it turns up from a source I've heard of.

    Edit: In case it's not clear, I'm almost 100% certain the article is misrepresenting something, NOT disproving Einstein

    Ohhh, and there's the fun point that the speed of light is only a limit to an EXTERNAL observer. You can not measure any object going faster than c - but locally you can travel as fast as you wish (true warping occurs when you reach c) due to time dilation!
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Jul 2, 2009
  9. scorpio63

    scorpio63 New Member & Antiquities Friend

    The statement I made about the speed of light is to show it is variable and not constant.

    Remember we are talking about theories not laws.
     
  10. aoeu

    aoeu Well-Known Member

    Light travels at different speeds depending on the material. But "speed of light" almost exclusively refers to the speed of electromagnetic radiation in empty space. The speed of electromagnetic radiation in empty space is a universal limit for velocity.

    Yes, theories - but an extremely well-grounded theory.
     
  11. just.me

    just.me Account Closed

    Ah... it appears that i made an error...
    which is weird, ill have to make some more research on it
    the very base of an atom is in fact EMR and not Ions as i though
    and EMR is based on photos... (or better said, photos are based on EMR)
    tiny mistake for the readers, huge mistake for me =\
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Jul 4, 2009
  12. Bambi

    Bambi Well-Known Member

    Funny you say that as you yourself seem to have gotten a basic of physics wrong. Maybe you didn't mean what you said and it is a typo of sorts but you are wrong when you claim protons and neutrons are made of ions. I suggest you do a bit more research what is an ion and whether or not protons are really made of ions. Like I said maybe you made a typo.
    And did you mean photos or photons? Photons are not the basis of atoms either, I am not sure where your getting your information on what atoms are consist of , what an ion is and what at photon is in relation to atoms but the more you write the more I wonder what prompted you to make the comment that you did about the knowledge of member here as you have demonstrated to me that you do not grasp even the basic fundamentals of quantum, classical or modern physics let alone what an atom is.
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Jul 6, 2009
  13. just.me

    just.me Account Closed

    I never claimed that photons are made of ions...
    but i see how you are trying to be so cool and smart and to show off
    so let me say this, unless you know what ions, photons, EMR and particles
    are, and unless you know what mass is and how it is massured,
    you better just sit and read or ignore my words
    dont try to outsmart me, you will loose XD

    the reason for my confusion was not a tipo or whatever
    it was a bit more complicated then this
    i was looking for the right base for protons and neutrons and forgot what it was
    so i guessed it was ions, then i though maybe its photons
    but its not even photons, its EME or EMR (that is the only thing i have to check)
    I noticed my mistake when someone mantioned EMR, that is all
     
  14. Bambi

    Bambi Well-Known Member

    Well that is two guesses now, ions then photons. Are you confident about EMR? Just curious. And by the way I know quite a bit about "what ions, photons, EMR and particles are, and unless you know what mass is and how it is massured" I assume you meant to say "measured" and you are a fool to assume that I don't. Good luck with your research I guess I take it for granted that I don't have to guess or go research the meaning of these as you have admitted.
     
  15. reefer madness

    reefer madness Account Closed

    My money is on B.
     
  16. just.me

    just.me Account Closed

    kkkkk...
    yo brainz big
    me brainz litle

    go away...
     
  17. Bambi

    Bambi Well-Known Member

    I doubt that there is any significant difference between the sizes of each others brains but maybe you are right.

    I will take your lack of response as to the "right base of protons and neutrons" as an indication that your research on this matter is still ongoing and you lack an answer as to the "base" being "not even photons, its EME or EMR (that is the only thing i have to check)". Or perhaps the fact that you have chosen instead to tell me to "go away..." is an indication that you have found your third guess to be false as well and are too embarrassed to admit this to me as you so readily admitted your mistake to scorpio63.

    I hope you stop and think before you insult the members of this forum next time by assuming what we may or may not know.

    And before you attempt to insult me again make sure you know the very basics, such as what an atom is, what protons and neutrons are and have an understanding of mass, ions and EMR as well too because your guesses just make intelligent discussion impossible and well you could end up looking like a fool. Shall I take your comment about our brain sizes as an admission that I have outsmarted you which you said I would not be able to do?

    Thanks junkiereturns for the vote of confidence! I think that maybe more insults are to follow rather than actual facts but lets see as he seemed very confident in his statement that he would outsmart me. Frankly I am curious as to what his real argument is against the original post? Protons? Mass?
     
  18. just.me

    just.me Account Closed

    Right... nwm
    im tired of playing with you on who got a bigger one
    ill win anyways
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Jul 7, 2009
  19. Bambi

    Bambi Well-Known Member

    Your forfeit is accepted. I hate winning by default but hey a win is a win.
     
  20. just.me

    just.me Account Closed

    dude you are a troll
    unless you can proove that i was wrong, your words are just as empty as your head

    so i win
    http://img18.imageshack.us/img18/4922/98623503.jpg
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.