I have been told that nothing surpasses the speed of light, but I believe it's possible. If light DOES have a speed, even though it's not matter, why can't we exeed it?

What is light anyway? Energy, or a by-product of it, (Like when we see flames in a fire, which is heat energy) Or something totally different. :confused:

"I have been told that nothing surpasses the speed of light, but I believe it's possible."

What makes you think it is possible?

"If light DOES have a speed, even though it's not matter, why can't we exeed it? "

For precisely the reason you stated. We can't exceed it with anything consisting of rest mass. Light doesn't have rest mass, and nothing with mass can travel at the speed of light. This is a well established law of SR.

"What is light anyway?"

Basically, it is the visible portion of the electromagnetic spectrum.

your body is light , light travels at 836,000 miles per second
meditate use your merkaba then you can shift into other dimensions PEACE ONE

Not possible.

I think the reason is becase as something aproaches the speed of light its mass increases. At the speed of light its mass reaches infinity. It takes more than an infinite amout of energy to cause an object with infinite mass to accelerate.

Im pretty sure thats the reason but im not an expert and could easily be wrong.

Hi Popcorn et.al.,

Some interesting recent work done in this area. Perhaps nothing may travel at the speed of light, but there is a hypothesis that it is slowing down. See:

www.cbsnews.com/stories/2002/08/07/tech/main517850.shtml
and/or
www.aca.mq.edu.au/lightspeed.html
and/or
http://www.msnbc.com/news/791205.asp?cp1=1
(extract below)
SYDNEY, Aug. 8 — Australian scientists have proposed that the speed of light may not be a constant, a revolutionary idea that could unseat one of the most cherished laws of modern physics — Einstein’s theory of relativity.

Hope this may shed some light :D

It's not true that nothing can go faster than the speed of light. The rule is that no matter or information can go faster than the speed of light.

For example, point a pocket laser at one side of the moon. Then, turn your hand so that the beam sweeps across the moon's surface to the other side. If you calculate the rate at which the spot moved across the moon's surface you'll find out that it is faster than the speed of light. But notice that no material object moved across the moon when you did this.

During the inflationary period of the universe space traveled MUCH faster then the speed of light.

A physist who's name escapse me theorised a 'warp drive' that in effect bent space into a bubble which would incase a craft, then by manipulating the geometry of the bubble it would propagte that space bubble at what ever speed you want. Because the craft is incased in a space bublle and inside that bubble it is not moving at all, laws of physics are not broken and it would certainly do the job... all we need now is a wa y to bend space to our needs :)

Hawking's Black Holes and Baby Universes discusses the possibility of particles moving at faster-than-light velocities and escaping the event horizons of singularities. He has some pretty neat ideas, most of which are summarized in this book.

Thanks for the links, ann. As for both Rambler and Walker, I'm almost sure that what you said were theories, but they could be very well possible.

I think I heard somewhere that due to extreme cold light would actually slow down, but only slightly. At the moment you really have to have faith in the fact that matter can go faster than light, because there's no evidence to back this claim up. Me, personally, I hope that objects can move significantly faster than light, hundreds or even thousands of times faster, otherwise space travel on a massive scale is really inconcievable.

As for both Rambler and Walker, I'm almost sure that what you said were theories, but they could be very well possible.

Oh, yeah. Theories for sure. Maybe even just conjecture...but still fairly interesting.

Originally posted by Rambler
During the inflationary period of the universe space traveled MUCH faster then the speed of light.


Does that mean that (some of) the stars that the Hubble Space Telescope is seeing in its deep field view are actually us before we got here? :bugeye:

How come they aren't all streaky and blurry like on Star Trek when the Enterprise is at warp speed? :bugeye:

I actually think to remember that universe stopped expanding faster than the speed of light long before even the first stars were formed.

How long exactly this expansion could have been- I hope some of our sciforums physicists will tell:)

I estimate it for some 20min maybe :D - just my oppinion based on ZERO observation

If light has mass (it's not 100% clear now) then in theory it should require it infinite ammount of energy to travel at the speed of light- but we clearly see that it has not infinite mass. Then why do some say that light HAS mass?


also:

If at the begining of our universe it expaded FTL , then it must be that the laws of physics and mathematics were established before the big bang (it is said they can't, if it was singularity from which our universe began*) or in the very first nano seconds of it, because laws of physics are information and if information can not go faster than the speed of light then they must vary in different portions of our universe, but it seems that they don't / or do?:bugeye:


*I know that our universe is expanding and think that maybe also deexpanding (sp lol) and that , when it comes to its smallest size it is small, but not singularity, thus the laws of physics etc have existed always - I'd still like to know what resulted in the big splash of energy that made our universe at it's beggining go FTL.

<i>why do some say that light HAS mass?</i>

Because they don't understand the relevant physics.

*Avatar looks into a mirror and tries to find out, if he knows smthing about relevant physics

I don't think anything with mass has exceeded the speed of light.
It is not a barrier in the same sense as the sound barrier is. The sound barrier was known to be breakable. We are all travelling much faster at this moment round the sun.
I may be wrong but iv'e read it's like this.
The speed of light and time/ distance are all connected.
It could be said that we experience time because we are not travelling at the speed of light.
The amount of energy required to exceed this speed is infinate so I believe nothing will go faster. Don't lose faith though.
Interstellar travel will happen one day, it will happen much slower though, groups of people may set out to find better shores as we have in the past. But communication between earth and these groups will, over time be impossible due to the time it takes for messages to arrive.
There is a good side to this. The Evil galactic empires of fiction will be impossible, you could not control a space that information takes lifetimes to cross.
You could travel to any where in the universe without freezing or hibernation.
Picture this you are on a mission to the andromeda galaxy, about 250 million light years away.
An observer on earth will guess that if you reached the speed of light it will take you 250 million years to cover this distance and you will arrive on time in 250 million years.
But the time elapsed for you will be only a few years, at the speed of light there is no such thing as time the closer you get to it the slower time goes until it stops.
Photons created at the beginning of the universe are now no older than when they were created but they have travelled across the universe.
Interstellar travel will be possible but the price (in a sense you will live forever) is that there is no going back. All your loved ones will have to come along if you are going to have any thing like a normal life.

or if we find out how to bend space ie hyperdrives:)

It may be possible to bend space I'd imagine that the energy required is collossal, like big bang types of energy. We cant rule it out though, there is a school of though that believes the giant gamma bursts may be the exhaust trails left by the warping of space caused by some long dead intersteller race.
I look at it from the other way if a warp drive were possible some other alien race would have found it and we would have been born into to vast interstellar empire ruled from lightyears away.
Unless of course we are the first, scary as it sounds but someone has to be.

we may be the first and may also be the only remaining after a collosal galactic war

I remember reading in one of the books by E. Hamilton (Star Kings or smthing simmilar) about a super weapon held by the Empire (largest "country" in the galaxy) that was able to destroy time and space.

it got sucked away somewhere else, maybe into another universe

I don't know avatar, until we go and have a look anything is possible.
I just have this gut feeling we are alone and the first, i hope i'm wrong.

I hope you are right
That means we have a possibility to potentially rule the galaxy

No Avatar just one measily galaxy is not enough!
We should have one each. (tongue in cheek)!
It reminds me of the cartoon in which a fly declares himself the king of the earth only to be stamped on.
I think humanity will fragment into space. That will make our species eternal in a sense, no one tragedy or war could ever wipe us out.
So if we can stop putting money into killing each other and start exploring the next frontier. It will be better for everyone.

insert voice from independence day
amen, father

Originally posted by Avatar
If light has mass (it's not 100% clear now) then in theory it should require it infinite ammount of energy to travel at the speed of light- but we clearly see that it has not infinite mass. Then why do some say that light HAS mass?


Because light exists in that "in-between" state of both energy and matter and, thus, is part of "E=mc^2"?


If at the begining of our universe it expaded FTL , then it must be that the laws of physics and mathematics were established before the big bang (it is said they can't, if it was singularity from which our universe began*) or in the very first nano seconds of it, because laws of physics are information and if information can not go faster than the speed of light then they must vary in different portions of our universe, but it seems that they don't / or do?:bugeye:


*I know that our universe is expanding and think that maybe also deexpanding (sp lol) and that , when it comes to its smallest size it is small, but not singularity, thus the laws of physics etc have existed always - I'd still like to know what resulted in the big splash of energy that made our universe at it's beggining go FTL.

That's a mouthful, but...

Did the universe really expand at FTL speeds? If the universe expanded at nearly light speed and the universe was 15+ billion years old, then the universe would be less than 15 billion light years across. That would mean that the Hubble Telescope might be able to see completely around the universe in its deep field view (remember there is no edge to the universe). Also, due to universe expansion, it might also mean that the speed of light was different in the early universe (relatively speaking). Finally, isn't the energy of the Big Bang still "visible" in the universal background radiation (it's actually shifted too far into the red to be visible anymore)?

Originally posted by essexman

So if we can stop putting money into killing each other and start exploring the next frontier. It will be better for everyone.

At least until we can find someone else out there to try to kill... ;)

That's a mouthful, but...

Did the universe really expand at FTL speeds? If the universe expanded at nearly light speed and the universe was 15+ billion years old, then the universe would be less than 15 billion light years across. That would mean that the Hubble Telescope might be able to see completely around the universe in its deep field view (remember there is no edge to the universe). Also, due to universe expansion, it might also mean that the speed of light was different in the early universe (relatively speaking). Finally, isn't the energy of the Big Bang still "visible" in the universal background radiation (it's actually shifted too far into the red to be visible anymore)?

Avatar hits his head on keyboard nujh jhh
of course- I forgot about the Red Shift- smone hit me

and you are of course right- the speed of light could have been different then.
Thanx:) you put me back into place- my imagination ran wild for a moment

dangers of theoretical physics- 98% that you are wrong

Originally posted by BatM

How come they aren't all streaky and blurry like on Star Trek when the Enterprise is at warp speed?

I don't exactly know why they did this, but as you know, space is very vast. It takes years for light to reach one star from another, so if you're travelling at the speed of light you may not even see a minor change in the stars' appearance.

Originally posted by Popcorn8636
It takes years for light to reach one star from another, so if you're travelling at the speed of light you may not even see a minor change in the stars' appearance.

This depends upon the direction that you are "looking" with respect to the direction you're moving. If you're sitting on a train and look out the front, it may be a while before you notice the telephone pole down the track getting closer. However, once it reaches the train, it appears to "streak" by the side of the train. The same should be true with FTL travel when looking at a light source (like a star).

can anyone tell me exactly WHY the speed of light has an effect on time? It may be just my pitiful background in physics speaking, but we always talked about time as an entirely independent variable.

Welcome to sciforums Lilicia. :D

A physist who's name escapse me theorised a 'warp drive' that in effect bent space into a bubble which would incase a craft, then by manipulating the geometry of the bubble it would propagte that space bubble at what ever speed you want. Because the craft is incased in a space bublle and inside that bubble it is not moving at all, laws of physics are not broken and it would certainly do the job... all we need now is a wa y to bend space to our needs.The name is Miguel Alcubierre.
Thanks for the links, ann. As for both Rambler and Walker, I'm almost sure that what you said were theories, but they could be very well possible.The warp bubble theory works within the rules of relativity, which is the same theory that says you can't normally move faster than light. This is because relativity applies locally, and in a warp bubble, you essentially separate local space from the rest, and you move slower than the speed of light within the bubble, but the bubble itself can move faster.
If light has mass (it's not 100% clear now) then in theory it should require it infinite ammount of energy to travel at the speed of light- but we clearly see that it has not infinite mass. Then why do some say that light HAS mass?


also:

If at the begining of our universe it expaded FTL , then it must be that the laws of physics and mathematics were established before the big bang (it is said they can't, if it was singularity from which our universe began*) or in the very first nano seconds of it, because laws of physics are information and if information can not go faster than the speed of light then they must vary in different portions of our universe, but it seems that they don't / or do?


*I know that our universe is expanding and think that maybe also deexpanding (sp lol) and that , when it comes to its smallest size it is small, but not singularity, thus the laws of physics etc have existed always - I'd still like to know what resulted in the big splash of energy that made our universe at it's beggining go FTL.Light does not have mass, it is entirely energy.
And the universe is not only expanding, but the rate of expansion is increasing. The acceleration is probably due to zero point/vacuum energy.

I think humanity will fragment into space. That will make our species eternal in a sense, no one tragedy or war could ever wipe us out.

No, our species will not be eternal. We will evolve

No, our species will not be eternal. We will evolve


Or de-evolve which could happen.

Evolve into hamsters

can anyone tell me exactly WHY the speed of light has an effect on time? It may be just my pitiful background in physics speaking, but we always talked about time as an entirely independent variable.

Hi Lilicia
Here's a simple way of looking at this issue.
Consider that light is the fastest speed possible for us or any other mass.
We cannot move any faster than light speed- the forces that hold us together (electromagnetic) are not capable of allowing movements that are faster than this speed.
As the speed increases, there is a limit on the amount of change in speed (acceleration) that we could make, as we are getting nearer to the maximum speed. If someone were observing us moving at near light speed, they would notice that as we got very close to this speed, we seem to be slowing down, because we can only move a small distance for the same effort (we cannot be seen to go faster than light by them). So they would see us as slowing down, or our 'clock' is at a slower rate.
Hope that helps :)

Or de-evolve which could happen.

This implies that evolution has a purpose. The only way to measure evolution is by time. We might evolve into simpler forms or lower intelligence, but cannot de-evolve unless times flow were reversed.

Beta, Lilicia was most likely gone a long time ago. Eight posts in 1 1/2 years is not much.

Because light exists in that "in-between" state of both energy and matter and, thus, is part of "E=mc^2"?



That's a mouthful, but...

Did the universe really expand at FTL speeds? If the universe expanded at nearly light speed and the universe was 15+ billion years old, then the universe would be less than 15 billion light years across. That would mean that the Hubble Telescope might be able to see completely around the universe in its deep field view (remember there is no edge to the universe). Also, due to universe expansion, it might also mean that the speed of light was different in the early universe (relatively speaking). Finally, isn't the energy of the Big Bang still "visible" in the universal background radiation (it's actually shifted too far into the red to be visible anymore)?

The scenario you point out above (the Hubble telescope seeing to the "Big Bang") was a key thorn in the side of classical expansion theory. See, if the universe had never exceeded the speed of light, then it must be less than fifteen billion light years across. And if the oldest visible emissions in Hubble images are fifteen billion years old, travelling at light speed, then we would be able to see the Big Bang. But we can't.

The reason the universe can expand faster than c is because velocity is relative. We know that no object of any mass can exceed the light speed barrier (questions of "hyperspace" or "wormholes" are irrelevant; these imagineings are quaint but without substance and all agree that you must cheat). However, this is only true if some local observer (an object at rest state with easy access to a clock and ruler) is nearby to witness the FTL travel.

In the case of universal expansion rates, remember that it is space itself which is being created. The galaxies are not physically moving to accomodate universal expansion. So, from our position within our galaxy, the effects of universal expansion appear slow and minute. Nearby galaxies are not expanding at FTL speeds relative to us, because within our region we are all expanding more or less at the same rate and in (approximately) the same direction, so there is no point from which to perform a relative measurement of velocity. Again, galaxies arent moving, space is being created.

However, if we COULD measure beyond our region of space (fifteen billion light years), the effects of expansion on the other end of the universe, measured relative to our expansion in the complete opposite direction, we might see what appeared to be a galaxy moving FTL (from the combined totals).

But this cannot happen, fortunately, because we can't see farther than our region. So no physical rules are broken, and it is Ok for the universe, at opposite ends, to have grown at a rate faster than the speed of light. Because it is impossible for this expansion to be percieved.

What species are u anyway Rawthinktank?! I don't think u ever answered that :)

That's not difficult, RawThinkTank. The answer is 96% the speed of light. To get the answer, just use the relativistic velocity addition formula.

No, our species will not be eternal. We will evolve

Yes,but even evolution is not eternal,we will eventually DEVOLVE.

Yes,but even evolution is not eternal,we will eventually DEVOLVE.

Oh,sorry John I didn't see you last reply about devolving,my sorry.

<i>why do some say that light HAS mass?</i>

Because they don't understand the relevant physics.

Would it be possible travel faster than light if you're capable of bending space-time(as well as its bended laws of physics) with magnetic/electrical/electromagnetic field?Or using the subspace like in Star Trek?

Oh,sorry John I didn't see you last reply about devolving,my sorry.

No I never mentioned it. I would imagine u mean evoving back into humans when the environment changes do u? I would doubt that that could happen! Even if the environment is completely the same again, the genetic pool would be so changed that Natural Selection must make-do with its new resources and shape a creature that might look a bit like us again, but still be a different species. But who knows! It all depends on the length of time there are no homo sapiens for :)

I reckon the only way to move at least at the speed of light will be a wavelength shift of atoms in any given space. The atoms will need a whack and then they will ripple through space time until they appear at the other end of the wavelength.

If anyone knows where I can buy an atom whacker ( technical term) please let me know :D

Gravage:

Would it be possible travel faster than light if you're capable of bending space-time(as well as its bended laws of physics) with magnetic/electrical/electromagnetic field?Or using the subspace like in Star Trek?

Yes, it might be possible to travel faster than light if you can work out how to bend spacetime at will.

As for subspace, that's just fiction right now.

:) Time dilation and the speed of light

It may be that there is a solution to this problem in The Special Theory of Relativity. As the traveler approaches the speed of light in their vehicle, the equations indicate that the passage of time will slow down in this inertial frame relative to the inertial frame of their point of origin. Thus they may age slowly and return to their place of origination having aged only a few years whilst hundreds of years will have elapsed in their absence on our planet. The decay of radioactive particles in cosmic rays progressing at close to the speed of light as a measure of time duration bears out this hypothesis. Thus interstellar travel may be possible for the intrepid.

Yours sincerely,

Paul W. Dixon

He's right, in a way; if you travel at a certain fraction of light speed you end up travelling one light year in one subjective year of time; about 80% c I believe...

Hmm... I don't know much about the Special Theory of Relativity so I'm not sure if this idea is possible, but if we were to somehow create a BIG, gigantic, enormous disk and find a way to spin it fast enough in the center of it, couldn't the speed on the outside edge of the disk surpass the speed of light??? I've been pondering this idea for a while now.

This is an old chestnut; in fact it is quite easily solved- any disk rotating at relativistic speeds could not be rigid, as different parts would rotate at different time rates; such a disk exceeds the possible maximum strength of any real object in this universe and would disintegrate into a disk of rotating particles.

Hmm... I don't know much about the Special Theory of Relativity so I'm not sure if this idea is possible, but if we were to somehow create a BIG, gigantic, enormous disk and find a way to spin it fast enough in the center of it, couldn't the speed on the outside edge of the disk surpass the speed of light??? I've been pondering this idea for a while now.

First problem, finding something rigid enough to withstand the strain.

Assuming this problem is solved, you still have to deal with the energy needed to spin up the disc. As the rim approaches c, the amount of energy needed to get it closer to c increases to infinity as the rim approaches c. Thus you would need to exert an infinite amount of energy to spin the disc up the point where the rim moves at c. Since you are always limited to an finite amount of energy, you will never be able to even get the rim speed up to c, let alone above it.

Gravage:



Yes, it might be possible to travel faster than light if you can work out how to bend spacetime at will.

As for subspace, that's just fiction right now.

Yes,but everything has its price,who knows what disaster would be caused by bending space-time.

Yes,but even evolution is not eternal,we will eventually DEVOLVE.There's no such thing as 'de-evolution'. Evolution changes a species to better suit it's environment. What's good for a species in one environment may not be in another. Some previous state may be better, and they may evolve into that state again, but this is not 'de-evolution'. This is still evolution. Evolution has no direction, other than the apparent one we see in the form of a timeline.

I have been told that nothing surpasses the speed of light, but I believe it's possible. If light DOES have a speed, even though it's not matter, why can't we exeed it?
I dont know if anyone said this yet but what about thought. Isnt thought almost instant or pretty close?

There's no such thing as 'de-evolution'. Evolution changes a species to better suit it's environment. What's good for a species in one environment may not be in another. Some previous state may be better, and they may evolve into that state again, but this is not 'de-evolution'. This is still evolution. Evolution has no direction, other than the apparent one we see in the form of a timeline.

Maybe yes,maybe no.

Maybe yes,maybe no.
:rolleyes: Whatever. Believe what you will, but 'de-evolution' is nonsense. Any evolutionary process you would call 'de-evolution' is simply evolution. Regardless of whether or not the species has evolved down that path before. Evolution doesn't just go in one 'direction'. It has no direction.

Maybe yes,maybe no.
care to elaborate?

greywolf:

I dont know if anyone said this yet but what about thought. Isnt thought almost instant or pretty close?

Nothing like it. Thought is very slow. It takes place by electrical signals in the brain, which travel at less than the speed of light.

Those Who believe in views of legendary JAMES R need not read the below question, please.

Take two long space ships A and B, on A there are two stick S1 and S2 coming out from one side, S1 is at top and S2 at end of ship A. Both of these ships are in opposite directions and at 75% speed of light relative to earth. As they glide past each other, ship B breaks first S1 and then S2 sticks; the time gap between the two breakages is detected. So what will be the result if we use the breaking of sticks to measure speed of ship B relative to A from within Ship A ?

Humans are going to find this question too difficult to answer, as the sticks are not going to break in relativistic manner, as they are not near speed of light.

I am not human, I am Rationalist.

How many times do you need this questioned answered? The answer is 0.96c

Your comment about the sticks not traveling at near the speed of light is nonsensical; there is no "magic" velocity where relativistic effects "kick in". All velocities are subject to Relativity. If the velocties of the ships were 75 meters/sec, the velocity of ship B to A as measured from A would be 149.999999999990625000000000585937 meters/sec. (not 150 m/s, but since at these velocities the difference is so small, we generally ignore the correction.)

As they glide past each other, ship B breaks first S1 and then S2 sticks; the time gap between the two breakages is detected. So what will be the result if we use the breaking of sticks to measure speed of ship B relative to A from within Ship A ?

Janus58 is correct, but there is a purely practical consideration to take into account when measuring extremely short time intervals by this method.
The finite time taken for the signal from the breaking sticks to reach the equipment used to measure the time separation must be taken into account. That is, the path length from either stick to the equipment must be identical or a misleading interval will result.

Let me rephrase the problem for U humans.

Take two very long Trains A and B, on A there are two speedometers S1 and S2, S1 is on the ground
Which is it, is S1 on train A or on the ground?

and S2 is at its left.
To the left of what, S1 or train A?, and how to the left? On the left side of the train facing forward? Or is train A susposed to be moving to the right in this scenerio. putting the back of the train to the left?

Both of these trains are in opposite directions and at 75% speed of light relative to earth. As they glide past each other, Train B Brushes off S2 speedometer of Train A. So what will be the speed measured by speedometer S2 ?
That depends on what S2 was designed to measure, you never specified. If it is a typical speedometer that measures the trains speed relative to the track to will measure 0.75c. If it was designed to measure train A's velocity relative to train B, then it will read 0.96c


Humans are going to find this question too difficult to answer, as the speedometer has no idea what relativity is unlike humans, its justa mechanical device. Long lives Newton.
That is just silly. Inanimate objects simply behave according to the laws of physics. A rock has no idea what the laws of gravity are, but it still falls if you drop it from a height. Likewise, objects and mechanical devices follow the rules of Relativity because it is natural for them to do so.



Buddies of Legendary JAMES R need not reply.

I am not human, I am Rationalist.

Since the only thing that can travel the speed of light is pure energy, I think it is safe to say we would be transformed into energy if we attempted to travel the speed of it....

I think it is also safe to say that the only way to travel the speed of light is to creat a ship that uses electro magnetic fields to create a bubble in space as we move through space. Just as the planets do when they move through space. Of corse I really do not know a thing for sure. All I know is that I need air, water, food, light to live and that I am bound to this earth.

I think as long as we realize that what we know is only relative to our experiences
and that what we know really has no meaning to what reality is, we can hypothesize all we want.... Its the person who believes his own bull@#$% that worries me :)

Let me rephrase the problem for U humans.

Take two very long Trains A and B, attached to Train A there are two speedometers S1 and S2, S1 is for the ground and S2 is at its left to be touched by train B. Both of these trains are in opposite directions and at 75% speed of light relative to earth. As they glide past each other, Train B Brushes off S2 speedometer of Train A. So what will be the speed measured by speedometer S2 ?

Humans are going to find this question too difficult to answer, as the speedometer has no idea what relativity is unlike humans, its justa mechanical device. Long lives Newton.

Buddies of Legendary JAMES R need not reply.

I am not human, I am Rationalist.

Still pretty vague as to the set up. What does "S1 is for the Ground" mean? If it means that S1 measures the speed of train A relative to the ground, say so, Don't use shorthand that leaves the reader quessing as to your meaning.

What is S2 susposed to be measuring? "S2 is to be trouched by train B" tell us nothing in that respect. Is it susposed to measure the realtive speed between Train A and Train B? If so, then say so, don't rely on ambiguous wording.


But to cut to the chase. No matter what method train A uses to measure its realtive velocity to train B, it will always get the same answer: 0.96c

Goto; "Superconducting Photons via Atomic Oort Zones"
http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=37921

I've been summarily informed by God that nothing goes faster than Light speed, however Dr. Wang's god can apparently kick some serious photon butt up to 310 X light speed, although that effort requires an existing conduit or beam (photonic waveguide) and a fairly specific environment as to making that happen.

At least so far the likes of the NEC lab and of their Dr. Wang have been exceeding the speed of light for years, yet the GR and QM folks are still freaking out because, that accomplishment essentially screws up every conceivable formula they've got, and then some.

As such something, perhaps quantum-string like, has been pushed to 310 X light speed.

I have another somewhat mortal sub-light-speed question.

Being that running yourself into even a mere 2 mg speck of something is going to be absolutely lethal at 3e8 m/s, how about we contemplate upon the notion of 3e7 m/s (10% light speed), or 3e6 as 1% light speed.

Say once we get past a given nullification zone, such as 8% towards Sirius (that's merely 0.7 light year along the way), and being that the Sirius star system is twice the mass of what all our solar system has to offer, what would be the energy requirement as to maintaining either 1% or 10% LS if the medium of said space were sufficiently slight in terms of atom count/m3.

In other words, what's the terminal velocity of such space travel beyond a given nullification zone, and of how much additional energy is that going to require as to exceeding that terminal velocity?

The light in Dr Wang's experiment does not, repeat not, travel faster than light; by clever manipulation of the waveforms, the group velocity appears to exceed c, but that is a phenomenon travelling along an exising light beam.

This is just a conjouring trick, equivalent to the shadows in the Hubble Variable Nebula which also exceed c; if no information can be transmitted it has no relevance to relativity.

Take two very long Trains A and B, attached to Train A there are two speedometers S1 and S2, S1 is for the ground and S2 is at its left to be touched by train B. Both of these trains are in opposite directions and at 75% speed of light relative to earth. As they glide past each other, Train B Brushes off S2 speedometer of Train A. So what will be the speed measured by speedometer S2 ?

You've essentially just re-quoted the same problem without adressing any of the issues I brought up.

What is the purpose of S1? You introduce it into the problem and then never make use of it. What is the purpose of having train B "brush off" S2? To brush off something means to knock it loose. Why would need to knock S2 loose of train A in order to get a reading? If you mean that something like a wheel touches train B as it passes Train A and S2 takes a reading of Train B's speed realtive to Train A from it, just say exactly that.

Your use of words has to paint a clear picture of the scenerio that you are describing. You may have a clear mental picture of what you're talking about, but the reader of this post cannot read your mind to see it. You have to translate that mental picture into words that the reader has no trouble understanding. So far you are failing miserably at this.


But, once again if your objective is to measure the relative speed of train B to Train A as measured by train A (or B), then by whatever method you come up with to to measure that speed the answer is and always will be 0.96c

What's the realistic Terminal Velocity of Space?

I'm speaking of physical stuff, such as for a craft that's displacing 1000 m3, how fast is fast enough?

Obviously at 3e8 m/s * 1e3 = 3e11 m3/s being displaced, and obviously that's either expecting way too much, or of simply requiring way more energy than any 1000 m3 craft could possibly muster.

It takes energy as to displace your way through that many m3/s, perhaps as containing 1e6 atoms/m3.

So, what's possible without our having to utilize the twilight zone?


BTW; life itself is a conduit or waveguide, as such something in fact traveled at 310 X light speed for the likes of Dr. Wang. If that performance was in the form of a given packet, then lo and behold, a quantum string worth of some extremely slight amount of mass kicked serious butt for a brief moment.

Since the only thing that can travel the speed of light is pure energy, I think it is safe to say we would be transformed into energy if we attempted to travel the speed of it....

I don't think it's safe to say that. Subatomic particle accelerated to really high energies aren't "transformed into energy." I've seen this thought expressed elsewhere. From where does it originate?

Nope, nothing can go faster than C in inertial reference frames, but taking general relativity into account, I believe you could during acceleration, but that's kind of different.

The Trains cannot be at 96% speed of light because they are already at 75% relative to earth in opposite directions.

Nevertheless this is true; they travel at 0.96c with respect to each other, not 1.5c as you might expect. This is relativity... Fun isn't it?

Take two very long Trains A and B, attached to Train A there are two speedometers (not necessarily a mechanical devices) S1 and S2, S1 is for measuring speed relative to the ground and S2 is at its left to for measuring speed relative to train B. Both of these trains are in opposite directions and at 75% speed of light relative to earth as measured by S1. As they glide past each other, Train B Brushes by S2 speedometer of Train A.

So what will be the speed measured by speedometer S2 ?

All the information needed had been in the above question form period of its instigation, those who understand relativity need not respond as that theory is wrong due to the above question. The Trains cannot be at 96% speed of light because they are already at 75% relative to earth in opposite directions.

There, was that so very hard? The answer, however, is still .096c. This is because velocities don't add up linearly. They add up by the relation of :

w = (u+v)/(1+uv/c²)

where u and v are the velocities you are adding and w is the resultant velocity.

those who understand relativity need not respond as that theory is wrong due to the above question. The Trains cannot be at 96% speed of light because they are already at 75% relative to earth in opposite directions.

Just repeating this ad infinitum will not make it true.

RawThinkTank -
are you trying to disprove SR without knowing it?
just remember - Newton was wrong - v is not v1 + v2!
accept it - learn some SR.

Rawthinktank, your trains do close the gap between them at 1.5c as a bystander measures. But the trains’ crews measure the gap closing (the other train’s velocity) at 0.96c. This is well-explained by books.

How do you 'measure' the velocity of the other train when that velocity is relativistic?
What method?

The velocity can be directly measured just like any velocity is measured. All positive velocities result in relativistic effects; when a velocity is said to be non-relativistic that just means that it’s so far below c that relativistic effects are ignored.

The crew can wait for the other train to pass by and directly measure the velocity; knowing that neither train is accelerating then the crew knows that the gap between them closed at that velocity.

Y'all might want to flip through this page (http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/SpeedOfLight/FTL.html).

I have been told that nothing surpasses the speed of light, but I believe it's possible. If light DOES have a speed, even though it's not matter, why can't we exeed it?

What is light anyway? Energy, or a by-product of it, (Like when we see flames in a fire, which is heat energy) Or something totally different. :confused:



nutrinos supposedly have no mass and pass through planets like air, experiments done under mountains holding tanks of heavy water and arrays of thin sheets of gold, have managed to capture a nutrino in action.....as it passed through the gold sheet, a supernova has occured within sight of earth based telescopes.... for some reason. the nutrino has flashed, emitting a single photon, that was detectable. the correlation between the energy released from a supernova, and the nutrino flashing simultaneously escapes me....but it does point to a sub structure that is unhindered by the tyrrany of distance associated with the speed limit of light.

has anyone else heard of those experiments?

During the inflationary period of the universe space traveled MUCH faster then the speed of light.

Not if you actually choose inertial frames correctly. Look at it this way. Take two flashlights and place them end to end. The wavefronts of the beams will separate at a rate twice the speed of light if a third observer measures the change in separation and then just calculates the time. This, however, doesn't constitute an actual FTL event because no information is transmitted.

Warp drives and wormholes are all hypothetical topologies that have one thing in common, all necessitate some calculated energy-momentum distribution with a negative energy density component.

Rev Prez

I know I'm just 15 but I'm perty good in the feild of physics.

I think it's possible using my following idea:

If an object was to travle at the speed of light and if the thoery that mass gains mass at this speed than if something (just like antimatter) was to destroy the mass as it increases and use the mass to accelerate the object than it could surpass the speed of light, but that's just one of my ideas that only took my a few minutes to create so it wasn't thought through very much.

Good grief folks,
Rev Prez;
"Not if you actually choose inertial frames correctly. Look at it this way. Take two flashlights and place them end to end. The wavefronts of the beams will separate at a rate twice the speed of light if a third observer measures the change in separation and then just calculates the time. This, however, doesn't constitute an actual FTL event because no information is transmitted."

Perhaps the lack of information is the very essence of information.

Since we have nothing capable of creating true LS, much less detecting beyond LS, as such of whatever is launching itself off the moving frame of a laser beam end-point or wavefront of a given photonic waveguide (somewhat like the NEC/Wang results, though not intentionally speed restricted), chances are that the information is there to being had, it just needs an equal LS demodulator situated ahead of the approaching wavefront, especially since that of the incoming quantum/FM packets should become easily differentiated from those of regular photon packets, where as regular photons might represent the binary "O" packet, whereas the other quantum/FM packets could yield those terabytes/ms at FTLS.

Of course, our instruments of today would detect absolutely nothing, and even if they did, the results would be bashed to hell, and then some, before ever allowing the truth and nothing but the truth out in the open.

Here's a little something other that's anti-SR from: eshal (un ty@yahoo.com.au)
http://groups.google.com/groups?q=atom+electron+spin&hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&selm=3d51b6c7_1%40news.iprimus.com.au&rnum=9
(the speed of light - since that is what is spinning to form the particle)

Spin frequency of electron = 1.236e20/sec

It's not true that nothing can go faster than the speed of light. The rule is that no matter or information can go faster than the speed of light.

For example, point a pocket laser at one side of the moon. Then, turn your hand so that the beam sweeps across the moon's surface to the other side. If you calculate the rate at which the spot moved across the moon's surface you'll find out that it is faster than the speed of light. But notice that no material object moved across the moon when you did this.

Ive heard of this effect, new scientist i think, someone was postulating that the 'flash' from rotating pulsars was infact a light boom caused by the magnetic field of the pulsar travelling faster than light when it reached beyond 4000km above the surface of the spinning pulsar.

Apparantly somene has made a device, like a ring of lights, where each light is timed to fire a fraction of a second after the preceeding one. This creates a circular motion of light travelling faster than a beam of light would be able too, around a circular course. This motion creates a light boom (rather than a sonic boom) and the very fast 'booms' create a super high frequency that can be used in communication (terrahertz ?)

kula

Another thought.

We know that light is effected by gravity and any measurement we make is within the gravity well of our galaxy. Maybe the speed of light, and other physical properties we take as 'law' would be different in flat space.

kula

I know I'm just 15 but I'm perty good in the feild of physics.

I think it's possible using my following idea:

If an object was to travle at the speed of light and if the thoery that mass gains mass at this speed than if something (just like antimatter) was to destroy the mass as it increases and use the mass to accelerate the object than it could surpass the speed of light, but that's just one of my ideas that only took my a few minutes to create so it wasn't thought through very much.

Good idea ! And maybe if we were carrying antimatter when we travelled, we would actually loose mass the faster we travelled.

kula

A physicist in New Brunswick says he's broken the cosmic speed limit by sending an electrical signal at three times the speed of light.

Prof. Alain Haché's research mostly involves developing optical circuits using laser light. As a model for the speed of light experiment, Haché sent a radio frequency down simple and inexpensive coaxial cables.

The wires showed different levels of resistance. Haché said the various resistances made most of the pulse bounce backwards, but a small portion went forward – very fast.




this is an artical, or a prove if u like, that speed of light is been surpassed!!

The scientific statement "nothing with mass can travel faster than the speed of light" is an entirely different belief, one that has yet to be proven wrong. The NEC experiment caused a pulse of light, a group of waves with no mass, to go faster than light.

For the experiment, the researchers manipulated a vapour of laser-irradiated atoms that boost the speed of light waves causing a pulse that shoots through the vapour about 300 times faster than it would take the pulse to go the same distance in a vacuum.

Light travels slower in any medium more dense than a vacuum, which has no density at all. For example, light travelling through glass slows to two-thirds its speed in a vacuum. If the glass is altered, the light can be slowed even further.

The NEC team produced the opposite effect. Inside a chamber, they changed the state of a vapour in a way that light travelling through it would travel faster than normal.

When the pulse of light travelled through the vapour, the pulse reconfigured as some component waves stretched and others compressed. As the waves approached the end of the chamber, they recombined, forming the original pulse.

The key to the experiment was that the pulse reformed before it could have gotten there by simply travelling through empty space. This means that, when the waves of the light distorted, the pulse traveled forward in time.

once again, another prove of a non mass body, travel faster then the speed of light!! how ever, the mystery of weather a body with mass can travel in a speed of light remains!!

This is beginning to take on the status of an internet myth.

Take a look at this link about the NEC experiments;

http://plus.maths.org/issue12/news/fasterThanLight/
In short - and in spite of appearances - no energy or information has travelled faster than the speed of light in vacuum. Rather, the anomalous region has rephased components already present in the rising edge of the signal, but well ahead of the peak, to recreate the peak ahead of its original position.

This phenomenon seems to be useful in speeding up information transfer; but the useful information carried by such a wave train will not exceed the speed of light.

I keep hearing same bullshit year after year, Dam U humans.

The information of gravity and the existence of blackhole escapes all the time. any ways G does escapes BH and hence its faster than light

Speed of gravity was measured last year by Kopeikin and Fomalot using the VLBA telescope when Jupiter passed infront of a radio quasar. The speed of gravity was found to be the same as light.

kula

Gravity, angular momentum, magnetism and charge can all escape a black hole; gravity is transmitted by virtual particles, so is magnetic force. Virtual particles can escape a black hole. Angular momentum can escape because of frame dragging.

Light cannot escape a black hole except as Hawking radiation; in a tiny black hole it is very bright.
Information apparently is conserved according to Hawking, but I don't know how yet;

Some writers on this thead has sugested, that by traveling close to the speed of light, it should be possible to reach the Andromeda calaxy in 250 years ?
But they forget that reaching the speed speed of light requires accelleration of the rocket with the humans on board from zero to 180000 mileles pr second within a reasonable time after takeof. And given the fact that humans cannot tollerate more than 6 g's at a sustainable level, it would take more than 200 years (if my math is corect) to even come up to 7/8 of the speed of light. Never mind traveling the rest of the way, and decellerating before we land. To go to even annother star in our Milky Way. Given the fraialty of the human body, I think the farthest we will ever get from earth is Mars, and even that is doubtfull

Regards APOLO

Nope; accelerating at one gee allows you to reach a sizeable fraction of the speed of light in just a few months;

once time dilation kicks in, you will easily be able to reach the Andromeda galaxy in a few years, and the apparent edge of the observable universe in a human lifetime

(of course you can never get there, as you are always in the centre of your observable universe wherever you are)

(of course you can never get there, as you are always in the centre of your observable universe wherever you are)

Ive never quite got my head around this notion, how does it work ? What happens when your speed exceeds the speed of expansion of the universe ?

kula

Please Aburakum45.

Can you show me the math for your statement aboe ?

Regards APOLO

3*10^8 m/s (the speed of light) / 9.8 m/s (one G acceleration) = about 30 million seconds to reach the speed of light. That means you could reach the speed of light in about 355 days under one G acceleration.

Here are the times it takes to get to various destinations;
it is a bit longer than I thought, but not much-
(from here)
http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/SR/rocket.html
At 1 gee (constant acceleration) (please note you do not exceed the speed of light)

4.3 ly nearest star 3.6 years
27 ly Vega 6.6 years
30,000 ly Center of our galaxy 20 years
2,000,000 ly Andromeda galaxy 28 years

As you continue to accelerate in time and in space you should be many billions of light years away after 50 years of travelling in this fashion...

but the most distant galaxies you are travelling towards are forever beyond your reach, as they are expanding away much faster than light. So you will never get there.

Here are the times it takes to get to various destinations;
it is a bit longer than I thought, but not much-
(from here)
http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/SR/rocket.html
At 1 gee (constant acceleration) (please note you do not exceed the speed of light)

4.3 ly nearest star 3.6 years
27 ly Vega 6.6 years
30,000 ly Center of our galaxy 20 years
2,000,000 ly Andromeda galaxy 28 years

As you continue to accelerate in time and in space you should be many billions of light years away after 50 years of travelling in this fashion...

but the most distant galaxies you are travelling towards are forever beyond your reach, as they are expanding away much faster than light. So you will never get there.


We'll be lucky just to get to the nearest stars in the next 200 years or so unless we get lucky and find a crashed alien spacecraft (Area 51?) that still has it's gravity drive intact...........

Yob Atta :D

“Cerenkov radiation” is a light shock waves, but it is NOT caused by light traveling faster than the speed of light. That is nonsense. Or by carefully timed light flashes as another post here suggested. Cerenkov radiation occurs when a charged particle is passing through some medium, like water, at faster than the speed of light IN THAT MEDIUM. I am nearly sure it would be created even inside a non transparent medium, like inside a copper block, but of course you could not see it and the cerenkov cone would only be a few light wavelengths long as the electrons of the metal quickly dissipate the energy. I suspect that this dissipation mechanism may be more important than the interaction with the nucleus and may be why high atomic number elements, like lead, uranium etc. (which pack a lot of electrons in roughly the same volume as low atomic number atoms, both of which have only one nucleus that occupies a very small part of the unit cube of the crystal) make better shielding. Anyone out there who really knows, please correct me if I am guessing wrong.

Just as the sound shock wave from a supersonic jet is a conical pressure wave hooked to the plane’s nose tip with smaller cone angle the faster the plane goes, so it is with cerenkov radiation. – a cone of light “hooked” (constantly generated is more accurate in both cases than “hooked”) to the moving particle and the cone angle is again a measure of how much the particle is exceeding the speed of light, IN THAT MEDIUM. Typically when you see cerenkov radiation (with your unaided eye) it looks bluish and no cone is seen as many particles are making a soft glow. I saw it, about 45 years ago, in the water of a small research nuclear fusion reactor, while still a graduate student working at LASL one summer. It is a very pretty, soft blue, glow and to me was calming to look at, deep below meters of shielding water. (I could see that the radius of the glow was much less than the thickness of the water separating the reaction from me. I was already confident that the uncharged neutrons, which on the average lose half their energy with each collision with a hydrogen nucleus or proton, in the H2O were being stopped.)

Tachyons – There has been a lot of speculation here about going faster than light. No particle will ever go be accelerated to light speed or even appear to be traveling faster than light speed IN A VACUUM even if you are moving towards its accelerator at near light speed. This, however, does not prevent (in theory) things going faster than light IN A VACUUM !!! That is permitted, in theory. Such fast particles are called “tachyons.” Forces applied to tachyons can slow them down, but as the slow down towards the speed of light IN A VACUUM they gain mass and can never be reduced in speed below (or even to) the speed of light. I think is well established that we can not detect tachyons, but am not sure of this (all this from memories at least 25 years old - Where I live it cost me to search the net, so you do it if you are interested, now that you know terms “tachyon” and “cerenkov.” I would be curious if any Tachyon detection experiments have been seriously (journal article) suggested. As I recall the theory of them, they might as well be in some other universe that can not interact with us, if they exist at all.

I have been told that nothing surpasses the speed of light, but I believe it's possible. If light DOES have a speed, even though it's not matter, why can't we exeed it?

What is light anyway? Energy, or a by-product of it, (Like when we see flames in a fire, which is heat energy) Or something totally different. :confused:

I LOVE this subject. As predicted I read all the usual posts about the Laws of Physics, bla bla bla.

technically speaking it is not possibel for any "mass" to travel faster then the speed of light, because it would take a infinite amount of fuel as the mass would grow infinitely. Light has no mass, so no problem. In order for mass to travel at the speed of light and not break any of the Laws Of Einstien, the mass would need to be converted to non-mass.

You should do web searches of Quantum Funneling and Quantum Field Theory. Quantum Mechanics experiements have been done since Einstiens time! And many experiements concluded that speeds faster then light were not only possible, but repeated several times! From light particals to music. In 1935 Einstein called this action, "spooky action at a distance", and did not consider it actually traveling faster then light (FTL). HOWEVER, Quantum Mechanics have proceeded over the years to a startling degree, a subject that has become verry controversial among top Physics. YOU SHOULD DO MORE READING ON THIS!!!

An interesting situation arrises when discussing FTL. Einstein didn't like it because it seemed to break the law of cause and effect. Theoritically, if any thing could travel FTL, then the CAUSE could preceed the EFFECT! Now that is spooky action!!!!

How do you 'measure' the velocity of the other train when that velocity is relativistic?
What method?
2inquisitive,
Light is emitted from one train toward the other on coming train when separated by 3(1.75) x10<SUP>5</SUP>km. In the one second of light travel before reflection the emitting train is 3x10<SUP>5</SUP> km away. Closing at 1.75x3 x x10<SUP>5</SUP> km/s the light will arrive back at the emitting train in 1 + 3/1.75x3 seconds or, 1.571 seconds round trip time.
Geistkiesel

No.

Correct me if I am wrong, but I believe Hans Solo and Chubaca exceeded the speed of light in their Millineum Falcon space ship in the first Star Wars film.

... Quantum Mechanics experiements have been done since Einstiens time! And many experiements concluded that speeds faster then light were not only possible, but repeated several times! ...Not true.
Some people, ignorant of QM, have interpreted (falsely) that entangled particle effect imply this. In like manner other people, even more ignorant of physics, have done the same with fact the spot produced by powerful flashlight rapidly scanning across the surface of the moon moves FTL is also proof that FTL is possible.

In fact, while entanglement is still spooky and really fascinating, no information can be conveyed using it. In order to convey information, you first must "encode" some data into your source. Your source in the case of an entangled particle pair is the particle on your end of the "transmitter". The instant you disturb the particle, no matter how little, by trying to "encode" it into a known state, you collapse the indeterminate state of the other particle. All you ever know is the after-the-fact state of your no-longer entangled particle pair. Bummer.

In fact, while entanglement is still spooky and really fascinating, no information can be conveyed using it. In order to convey information, you first must "encode" some data into your source. Your source in the case of an entangled particle pair is the particle on your end of the "transmitter". The instant you disturb the particle, no matter how little, by trying to "encode" it into a known state, you collapse the indeterminate state of the other particle. All you ever know is the after-the-fact state of your no-longer entangled particle pair. Bummer.Nice. I could not have said it as well.

there is something possibly faster than light, the sub paticles of light that form the wave pattern in it.

click this image
http://www.fulvics.com/lighttheory/images/traslacion-lineal-ani-illustr.gif (http://www.fulvics.com/lighttheory/proposed.htm)

there is something possibly faster than light, the sub paticles of light that form the wave pattern in it.

click this image
http://www.fulvics.com/lighttheory/images/traslacion-lineal-ani-illustr.gif (http://www.fulvics.com/lighttheory/proposed.htm)

Great.....Is there an equation that goes with it? :D

Yeah, great. Sub particles of light. The present model for light explains all of the things he says it can't. But it is still one of the nicest, cleanest, and well done crank sites I've seen.

Yeah, great. Sub particles of light. The present model for light explains all of the things he says it can't. But it is still one of the nicest, cleanest, and well done crank sites I've seen. Oh thanks, I didnt knew that, so how do they explain the formation of waves or wavelike patterns of light?

Dont forget that even at max C there are ocilations of the waves so diagonaly that is faster than C itself. And if something is actually spinning so fast, one can only imagine how fast it must be.

Oh thanks, I didnt knew that, so how do they explain the formation of waves or wavelike patterns of light?

Quantum Electrodynamics.


Dont forget that even at max C there are ocilations of the waves so diagonaly that is faster than C itself. And if something is actually spinning so fast, one can only imagine how fast it must be.

Wait. No. A photon (also any elementary particle of matter) has wave-like and particle-like properties. The only thing that anyone can say is "waving" is probability. It's not someting that is intuitively obvious and has no simple analogy to help visualize it. The nature of a photon is something that has no counterpart in our experience.

It would take an infinite amount of energy to make a physical object reach the speed of light. I suppose if one could generate more then an infinite amount of energy then they could go faster then the speed of light.

I have been told that nothing surpasses the speed of light, but I believe it's possible. If light DOES have a speed, even though it's not matter, why can't we exeed it?

What is light anyway? Energy, or a by-product of it, (Like when we see flames in a fire, which is heat energy) Or something totally different. :confused:
HI.U SHULD AGREE THAT NATURE HAS MADE IT SO THAT LIGHT IS THE FASTEST ON EARTH. THUS IT'S POSIBLE TO EXCEED THE SPEED OF LIGHT ONLINE INA MIRACULOUS FIELD. NATURALLY THAT'S IMPOSIBLE.BECAUSE AN INFINITE ENERGY IS NEEDED,WHICH IS IMPOSIBLE.

I have been told that nothing surpasses the speed of light, but I believe it's possible. If light DOES have a speed, even though it's not matter, why can't we exeed it?

What is light anyway? Energy, or a by-product of it, (Like when we see flames in a fire, which is heat energy) Or something totally different. :confused:
HI.U SHULD AGREE THAT NATURE HAS MADE IT SO THAT LIGHT IS THE FASTEST ON EARTH. THUS IT'S POSIBLE TO EXCEED THE SPEED OF LIGHT ONLINE INA MIRACULOUS FIELD. NATURALLY THAT'S IMPOSIBLE.BECAUSE AN INFINITE ENERGY IS NEEDED,WHICH IS IMPOSIBLE.ANYOTHER QUESTION?

there is something possibly faster than light, the sub paticles of light that form the wave pattern in it.

click this image
http://www.fulvics.com/lighttheory/images/traslacion-lineal-ani-illustr.gif (http://www.fulvics.com/lighttheory/proposed.htm)
HAHA!I LIKE YOUR ANSWER BUT U SHULD UNDERSTAND THAT U'RE JUST COMING TOWARDS THESAME THING.THE PARTICLES OF LIGHT MAKE UP LIGHT ITSELF SO IT'S THESAMETHING.U CANNOT COMPARE AN OBJECT TO ITSELF OR THE PARTICLES OF AN OBJECT TO IT SELF.FOR WITHOUT THE PARTICLES IN LIGHT, THEN WAT IS LIGHT?
ALSO IF U DISAGREE WITH THE FIRST OPTION TAKEIT THIS WAY.
WE MEASURE THE SPEED OF LIGHT USING THE PARTICLES FOUND INIT.SO THE PARTICLES IN LIGHT HAVE THE SAME SPEED,FOR THESE PARTICLES THEMSELF MAKE UP LIGHT.
ANYOTHER QUESTION?

Quantum Electrodynamics..... So what does it explain anything about a light wave ?

...U CANNOT COMPARE AN OBJECT TO ITSELF OR THE PARTICLES OF AN OBJECT TO IT SELF... Why not MR. ALL CAPS.

Why not MR. ALL CAPS.
HI ANO. I ACTUALY UNDERSTAND YOUR ANSWER AND ITS RIGHT.BUT FOR SOME ONE WHO HAS A STRICT CONTROVERSY, HOW CAN U COMPARE THE PARTICLES OF THE LIGHT TO ITSELF.WITHOUT THESE PARTICLES THEN WAT IS LIGHT MADE UP OF.
BUT IF WE THINK DEEPLY YOUR ANSWER IS RIGHT. THE TINY PARTICLES IN LIGHT MAKE AN OSCILLATRY MOVEMENT AND TOGETHER FORM A BEAM.SO IF WE TAKE THEIR SPEED INDIVIDUALY IT WILL BE FASTER THAN THAT OF THE WHOLE BEAM ITSELF. BUT ASUME THE QUESTION THIS WAY.
WAT IS FASTER THAN LIGHT EXCLUDING ANYTHING FOUND INIT.?

Can anything surpass the speed of light??? Yes the speed of time itself...though its not a particle or wave(sips a huge mug of coffee). However it is also entirely possble that the duration of my sleep after a hard days work these days is also faster.

Can anything surpass the speed of light??? Yes the speed of time itself...though its not a particle or wave(sips a huge mug of coffee). However it is also entirely possble that the duration of my sleep after a hard days work these days is also faster.
HI D.HAHA! YOUR ANSWER IS QUITE RESEANABLE BUT A LITTLE IRATIONAL.IF U THINK WELL, WE MESURE SPEED WE RESPECT TO TIME SO U CANNOT MEASURE TIME WITH RESPECT TO TIME.WHEN U SAY TIME IS FAST IT DOES NOT MAKE SENSE BECAUSE U CANN'T MEASURE SPEED OF TIME WITH RESPECT TO TIME.

SPEED=DISTANCE/TIME TAKEN. SO IF U MEASURE SPEED OF TIME U'RE SAYING

TIMESPEED=TIME/TIME, IT DOESN'T MAKE SENSE
I HOPE AM CLEAR, IF NOT, IS THERE ANY OTHE R QUESTION

HI ANO. I ACTUALY UNDERSTAND YOUR ANSWER AND ITS RIGHT.BUT FOR SOME ONE WHO HAS A STRICT CONTROVERSY, HOW CAN U COMPARE THE PARTICLES OF THE LIGHT TO ITSELF.WITHOUT THESE PARTICLES THEN WAT IS LIGHT MADE UP OF.
BUT IF WE THINK DEEPLY YOUR ANSWER IS RIGHT. THE TINY PARTICLES IN LIGHT MAKE AN OSCILLATRY MOVEMENT AND TOGETHER FORM A BEAM.SO IF WE TAKE THEIR SPEED INDIVIDUALY IT WILL BE FASTER THAN THAT OF THE WHOLE BEAM ITSELF. BUT ASUME THE QUESTION THIS WAY.
WAT IS FASTER THAN LIGHT EXCLUDING ANYTHING FOUND INIT.? Break the light to its fundamental particle and watch the magic. BLOODY ALL CAPS. :mad: