If this is true then am I proving Einstein wrong?

" The light that we see coming off of an object does not determine whats going on in the present time, but actually an instant later (a very very very short instant)"

not really, it takes hours for us to see the light from the sun and thats way closer than some of the stars out there
 
oh yeah I didn't really read over it but I agree with what you're saying. I've never read what einstein wrote about the speed of light so I don't know what you're proving wrong. If an object is moving faster than the speed of light than it theoretically is moving in the future compared to other objects ecspecially humans. Because objects like the sun are so far away things that happen we dont see for a few hours so doesn't that mean its happening in the future at least how we see it
 
i was talking about this in the post about the time machine.

it is impossible for matter to travel at the speed of light, it is a speed at which only light can travel at because light has no mass. anything with mass is matter, and matter could never go that fast unless their was no drag on it. even in space drag occurs due to gravitational forces from all matter, inluding planets and stars. light is unaffected by these forces due to the fact that it has no mass. even if anything could ever come close to reaching the speed of light, which it couldnt due to the facts i stated, it would not break that barrier due to the law of conservation of energy and the law of the conservation of mass, and the only thing that can travel at that speed is light energy, and mass cannot be converted to energy, that would break both of the conservation laws which state that matter/energy is neither created nor deystroyed, it changes form. This, if you are able to follow, makes you wonder, where did matter and energy come from
 
isnt the mass of an electron something like 1.4x10^-32 kg which is an incredibly small number. the speed of light squared in e=mc^2. How much energy does that require? Like an atomic blast? temperature of the sun? or less? what's the problem. Why has no one tried it?
 
they dont know if its even possible to convert energy to mass, that formula just show the amount of energy contained in a given amount of mass. it is just a formula, it doesnt explain how to turn something that is mass to energy. also, nowhere in that epuation is time except in the speed of light which makes it hard to make a correlation between all of this and time travel
 
what the fuck are you talking about? have you ever heard of the atomic bomb, or the nuclear bomb, or even the sun? all of these processes turn mass into energy by nuclear fusion type reactions, and they release huge amount of energy because of it.
 
umm, things other than light can travel at the speed of light. like gravitational waves, electric field waves, magnetic field waves.

light is not affected by these things because it has no mass. it is not affected by these things because it has no electric charge, friction due to drag is because of electric interactions. and gravity affects light even though it has no mass.

there is no law of conservation of mass

mass can be converted into energy
 
so basicly what hes trying to say that a human can observe light/time faster than a human can observe light/time? IT always ends up as a paradox, doesn't it?
 
Theres a difference between fusion and fission. And besides that, mass cannot be turned into 'energy'. Mass is conserved in all reactions or systems. All that is being done in a nuclear explosion is basically breaking apart a atom and releasing all the energy that keeps he nucleus together (and then yes, the following chain reaction that occurs from the radicals the disintegrated nucleus spews out when it breaks apart that destabilize other heavy atoms). Mass cannot be converted to light. The light you see from an nuclear explosion isn't mass being converted to energy, its simply the release of energy caused by mass reorganizing itself.

Einstein's laws never predicted what would happen if an object exceeded the speed of light. An object exceeding the speed of light currently defies a lot of theories of modern physics, but who knows, we might be wrong. Who knows if you would even see the object or if it would reflect light in the classic sense? Maybe the wave form of light would be so disturbed by the speed of the FTL object that light itself would be destroyed.
 
wow you guys need to stop making shit up and crack a book.

Anything by Michio Kaku. Hyperspace is a good one.

Anything by Steven Hawkins.

Those are the two authors that I can understand the best. But seriously stop making shit up.
 
no, it doesnt always end up a paradox. and im not sure what you meant by what you first said. but lets say you are going really fast, i will see that time is going slowly for you, so you will get really far due to time dilation, and you see me moving really fast, so you will see me get shorter, so you will go by me really quickly. there are effects that make it work on both sides.
 
Mass is not conserved in all reactions and systems. In a nuclear fission reaction, 1/1000th of the mass gets converted into energy.

have you ever studied collisions with relativistic momentum? because you can easily see that mass is lost.

From Nonclassical Physics, by Randy Harris, page 36.

"In an exothermic reaction, energy is lost to the surroundings, and mass correspondingly decreases."

"When a proton and neutron unite to form deuterium nucleus, the lowering of the energy associated with the strong force results in approximately 4x10^-13J being given off. The corresponding mass decrease is 4x10^-30, about one onethousandth of the nuclear mass."

If you choose not to believe that, then listen to this. Have you ever heard of PAIR PRODUCTION?? where a photon (very energetic, at least in gamma range), turns into a positron and an electron? the photon is massless, but mass results from that. also, when the two annihilate each other, they turn back into a photon, thus their mass is lost!! booyah, you just got proved wrong.

that also shows that mass can be converted into light.
 
I didn't read all the responses so I don't know if someone has already said this but here goes:

The object of speed as referred to by Steven Hawking (a much more recent scientist) is to be considered as more of a time/space measurement (v= d/t). Your theory is nullified by his 4D rule on space, the whole faster then light theory is a good one but the object would have to move in specific increments in space and regardless of how small they are, which would be almost impossible… Time space is measured on a graph as f(x) = x2+1, In theory there is no maximum speed that can be reached because time and space are both never ending, but as we know there are restrictions (i.e. friction loss) and there for the theoretic maximum is the ‘speed of light’. Which brings me to this so-called wormhole effect that you are describing, or trying to disprove. Basically if an individual is able to move faster then the speed of light he will be reaching distance X before his perception does. Long story short this does in fact put him at place X before he arrives. All I can say is that you should check out “A Brief History of Time” by Hawking, and maybe even “God Complex” to help you figure out your theory…
 
I didn't read any of the responses here. But... I'm fairly certain that it's not possible to travel faster than the speed of light. But if you could... It's something like the twin paradox, don't feel like explaining so just look it up. If you travel faster than the speed of light or at the speed of light then you get from point A to point B very very fast. From what I remember what would maybe happen is that you would be in present time... but you'd be younger than everyone else, so almost* like time travel, but not quite, because what happens is to YOU, you have traveled in time, but to EVERYONE ELSE you haven't. None of this made sense I know, just look at the twin paradox and read up about the threories of relativity. And remember, F=ma is not true near the speed of light.
 
umm, you can move in small increments of space no matter how fast you are going.

what is hawkings 4D rule of space?? have you considered the fact that we know for nearly certain that there are more than four dimensions?

also, it doesnt matter how recent a scientist you are, because this stuff doesnt change.
 
Remember that time is a result of a progression in events.Every action taken is all at the same time.

We say that at light speed, time slows down.But, in fact, our perception of it is scewed. We can perceive change at a slower rate because of light transfer.

I have a terrible sense of abstract...

 
the whole twin paradox thing isnt really a paradox, because it involves acceleration. so, you have to use general relativity, rather than special relativity. but basically, the whole thing resolves itself, so dont worry about it.
 
time doesnt slow down in special relativity!!!

we merely perceive it to be so for someone else who is moving fast with respect to us.

i suggest you all go out and read some books by einstein and feynman, because im going to study calculus, and you guys need help
 
Cool, you learn something new every day. But I still dont agree with you. Heres why:

"Now here is an interesting additional issue. What you mean by mass

depends on whether you are looking at a system from the inside or from

the outside. Imagine that the interaction that I described above took

place inside a large black box, and you are outside that box . If could

measure the mass of that box before and after the process you would get

the same answer. That is because any way you could determine that mass

would just be measuring the total energy that box contains (divided by c2). This

energy including the mass-energy and the kinetic energy of all the

objects (including photons) in the box, as well as any interaction

energy between these objects. As long as nothing enters or leaves the

box, that does not change, no matter what changes take place inside the

box!"

Fromhttp://www2.slac.stanford.edu/vvc/faqs/faq5.html

Basically, if you weight the initial and final mass of everything involved in such a reaction as you so describe, you'll still end up with the same mass when the reaction ends.
 
but kinetic energy is not mass. i see what you are trying to say, but you are talking about conservation of energy, including energy stored in mass.

now, even from what was said there, the total mass of the box divided by c2 would not give you all of the energy of the box, because certain things inside the box may be moving. E=mc2 is only applicable to objects that are not moving (when the gamma factor is equal to 1 because v2/c2 is equal to zero) and their kinetic energies do not cancel out because energys moving in two different directions do not cancel out. that is why you need to use the gamma factor
 
ok the law is called the law of conservation of MATTER, not mass, which states Matter isnt created or destroyed. i was saying that all things that are matter have mass, and thats why they cant go at the speed of light due to forces that will cause them to decelerate. If matter, which always has mass, were to be turned into energy, it would break both the law of conservation of energy, and the law of conservation of matter. also with being at point A and immediatly reaching point B, that is wrong also, light has a speed, and it takes 8 minutes to light to get from the sun to the earth. therefore, it would not technically be time travel, you would pass through time relatively faster than others, but technically if moving through time is time travel, we are all in time travel right now, traveling at the rate we always were. and finaly, for travel at light speed, even if you were able to convert mass to energy, which you cant as stated in the conservation laws, how would that energy be converted back to matter. Einstein is still correct.
 
The fact that Einstein's theories have been experimentally verified so many times means that he was indeed right and objects can't travel faster than the speed of light.

Asking what would happen if one did is a stupid question because it just simply can't happen.
 
1165972855-467083-345x528-
 
there is no law of conservation of matter either. sorry! you have no fucking clue what you are talking about!

oh, and by the way, ive proved above that mass and matter can be converted into energy.

oh, and you dont always travel the same speed through time. how strong the gravitational field you are in changes how fast you travel through time. this has been experimentally verified by Satellites, because the clocks on the satellite travel much faster through time that we doo, about 2 seconds extra for every day
 
in the end, it isnt necessarily. like when you combine four neutrons into a helium nucleus and two protons and 4 neutrinos. overall mass is lost, and not conserved.
 
conservation of matter is freshman english stuff, and you dont have to be such a hardass about science, chill dude, and quit freaking out about something thats not even possible.
 
the only thing theoretical is the possibility of going faster than the speed of light. the other stuff has all been experimentally verified. we can accelerate stuff to within .9999999999c. and all of eintsteins stuff can be verified in a bunch of different ways.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top