Hi all. I'm new to the forum so I don't know my way around here yet. I welcome all takers to this thread.

Here is a series of related questions.
I've seen clues about this but I suspect there's something pretty deep here:
Can we measure the speed of light that travels in one direction only (without bias)?
Surely we would need two seperated clocks. Isn't it true that the best way to syncronize them is by sending a light pulse from one to the other and back?
Such a setup, it would seem, would guarantee that we measured a one-way light pulse at the expected value of c.
If this is all true, then wouldn't it suggest that there is something unknowable about the speed of light in, say, the x direction compared to light speed in the -x direction? I suppose there's no way to directly compare light speed in opposite directions??
What do you think?:bugeye:


Natural

Synchronise two clocks, then separate them by a given distance. At a given time, get each to fire a light pulse towards the other one. If both pulses are received at the same time, then it would be fair to say that the speed of light was the same in both directions, wouldn't it?

I believe that's a fair assumption, JR. Anyone know what the time is for light to travel one metre? .000000005640952 seconds. It was long believed light was the fastest thing in the universe, but scientists have found things faster, although it is still controversial. I wonder if they will ever find out that, correct me if I'm wrong, photons travel faster than light? If so, then Einsteins E=MC2 is in serious jeopardy, isn't it?

Norad

It was long believed light was the fastest thing in the universe, but scientists have found things faster, although it is still controversial.

Cite please. What have scientists found that is faster than light?

I wonder if they will ever find out that, correct me if I'm wrong, photons travel faster than light?

Photons are the quanta of light.

If so, then Einsteins E=MC2 is in serious jeopardy, isn't it?

Not really. But I think your understanding of science is in serious jeopardy.

Well I know for a fact that scientists have slowed light to walking pace. I heard recently they'd stopped light altogether. You can go find out for yourself though you seem smart enough to do some research of your own. Thats how the rest of us find stuff out.

Hoodlum:

Those experiments did not slow individual photons (which always travel at c). They slowed a <b>pulse</b> of light, which is made up of many photons, though an effect called <i>anomalous dispersion</i>. An important thing about them is that the experiments had the light in a specially-prepared medium of atoms, which could absorb and re-emit the light as it propagated through the medium.

How come you cant go faster than the speed of light? If i were accelerating in space forever and hit the speed of light would i just stop accelerating?

Originally posted by Weedguy
How come you cant go faster than the speed of light? If i were accelerating in space forever and hit the speed of light would i just stop accelerating?

http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?s=&postid=280969#post280969

- Warren

Originally posted by norad
I believe that's a fair assumption, JR. Anyone know what the time is for light to travel one metre? .000000005640952 seconds. It was long believed light was the fastest thing in the universe, but scientists have found things faster, although it is still controversial. I wonder if they will ever find out that, correct me if I'm wrong, photons travel faster than light? If so, then Einsteins E=MC2 is in serious jeopardy, isn't it?

Norad: I think we don't have to worry about Einstein's equation being in somekind of jeapardy. Only under very special conditions can photons of light be induced to travel much faster then they would normally travel. As you mentioned...one metre in .000000005640952 second!
These special conditions were to be found at the very start of the Big Bang within the first 1x10-34 sec. and inside the imploding supernovae!! ONLY THEN can the conditions be possibly met to FORCE photons of light to travel faster then light speed or 300,000km sec.

Originally posted by Faz
Only under very special conditions can photons of light be induced to travel much faster then they would normally travel.
Photons (nor material bodies) can ever travel faster than the speed of light in a vacuum.
These special conditions were to be found at the very start of the Big Bang within the first 1x10-34 sec.
I don't know where you came up with 10^-34, but you're wrong.
and inside the imploding supernovae!!
Supernovae don't involve anything travelling faster than light.
ONLY THEN can the conditions be possibly met to FORCE photons of light to travel faster then light speed or 300,000km sec.
There are no such conditions.

- Warren

Originally posted by chroot
Photons (nor material bodies) can ever travel faster than the speed of light in a vacuum.

that's true chroot...but inside an imploding supernovae is anything but a vacuum! and at the birth of our universe, the temperature and gravitational extremes were even much more pronounced! you underestimate the power of the FORCE...gravity that is man...gravity. Besides, where's the proof that photons of light and much more MASSIVE 'particles' can be somehow accelerated to hyper-light velocities.



I don't know where you came up with 10^-34, but you're wrong.

Supernovae don't involve anything travelling faster than light.

There are no such conditions.

Really? And just how can you be so sure of this as a fact? This 1x 10-34 should have read from 1x 10-37 to 1x10-34 sec. you're right...I'm sorry. during the great inflationary period of the universe during the above period of time...photons of light could and surely did travel much, much faster then today!! Perhaps even to velocities approaching C2!! Light constant is only 'constant' in NORMAL everyday, run of the mill existence in the universe. No astronomer, astrophysicist, cosmologist will ever see or be able to see light traveling faster then 300,000km, because NO human could live inside an imploding supernova to measure it, and NOone was living at the time of creation, ...except of the Creator obcourse!!!

- Warren

Faz, u messed up the quotes it seems..:(

Originally posted by Faz
that's true chroot...but inside an imploding supernovae is anything but a vacuum!
I don't know what an "imploding supernova" is. Normal supernovae are the result of core collapse from electron-degenerate domains to neutron-degenerate domains or beyond. They don't involve anything moving faster than light, no matter what opinion you hold.
and at the birth of our universe, the temperature and gravitational extremes were even much more pronounced!
Once again, you fail to establish that pressure, density, or temperature lead to superluminal motion. You say it, but you have no theory (much less evidence) on your side. You're making this up. Close your mouth.
you underestimate the power of the FORCE...gravity that is man...gravity.
Are you a televangelist by day?
Besides, where's the proof that photons of light and much more MASSIVE 'particles' can be somehow accelerated to hyper-light velocities.
Do you really want to embark on this? I can give you at least 10 different reasons, ranging from the mathematical (manifold calculus, Lorentz transforms, conservation of energy) to the philosophical (zero-time experiments, acausality, etc.). I get the feeling you are ill-equipped to discuss these topics. Your blue-sky speculation is not wanted here.
Really? And just how can you be so sure of this as a fact? This 1x 10-34 should have read from 1x 10-37 to 1x10-34 sec. you're right...I'm sorry. during the great inflationary period of the universe during the above period of time...photons of light could and surely did travel much, much faster then today!!
Perhaps you could show some calculations that support this. I suspect that you cannot.
Perhaps even to velocities approaching C2!! Light constant is only 'constant' in NORMAL everyday, run of the mill existence in the universe.
This is unsupported by both theory and observation.
No astronomer, astrophysicist, cosmologist will ever see or be able to see light traveling faster then 300,000km because NO human could live inside an imploding supernova
We have extremely detailed and extremely successful models of stellar evolution and supernovae. We use some kinds of supernovae as standards with which to measure distance, to great accuracy. We don't need to make pleas to "faster than light" hocus-pocus to understand supernovae. You have no idea what you're talking about.

- Warren

chroot,

Photons (nor material bodies) can ever travel faster than the speed of light in a vacuum.

According to Relativity.


Faz:
and at the birth of our universe, the temperature and gravitational extremes were even much more pronounced!

chroot:
Once again, you fail to establish that pressure, density, or temperature lead to superluminal motion. You say it, but you have no theory (much less evidence) on your side. You're making this up. Close your mouth.



The fact is I have read many accounts of the Big Bang. Virtually all have claimed that at the very first moments the materials greatly exceeded the current speed of light.

One article I know was from the "Scientific American".

So while you MAY be right today your statements that FTL can never be achieved is blatantly false.

Originally posted by MacM
The fact is I have read many accounts of the Big Bang. Virtually all have claimed that at the very first moments the materials greatly exceeded the current speed of light. One article I know was from the "Scientific American". So while you MAY be right today your statements that FTL can never be achieved is blatantly false. The article clearly said that 'if true' it would only have been in the frst few moments after the big bang. Stop misrepresenting things you idiot.

Persol,

Before calling someone an idiot perhaps you should learn the english language. I qualified my statement. It was linked to events at the Big Bang. I think those studying that process know more than you or I.

I think it's humorous how frequently Mac appeals to an authority of which neither he nor his opponent are constituents.

I wonder what Major League Baseball has to say about this topic? They are my preferred authority.

- Warren

chroot,

I think it's humorous how frequently Mac appeals to an authority of which neither he nor his opponent are constituents.

I wonder what Major League Baseball has to say about this topic? They are my preferred authority.


ANS: That is funny. You and most members here do nothing but appeal to authority. I quote a bonifide source and somehow that is deemed inappropriate.

I'll promise to not refer to scientific studies when you promise to quit appealing to Relativity. Deal?