The speed of life

well the australian agriculture and horticulture in Gosford NSW
made plants move from one spot to another without touching them they broke them down in i guess dust like stuff

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

they did things there that would blow the mind away
i used to work in the office as a receptionist and i did a lot of snooping round the labs
and they mentioned gasses not sure what sort of gasses

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Enmos. Light speed is a maximum speed. If it were possible to travel at 1 mph below light speed, then you could not walk at 2 mph in that direction because you would be travelling faster than light.

If you could go fast enough so that light speed forces electrons to move slower as they travel around a nucleus, then an atom would start to collapse in on itself in the direction of travel.

It is possible that the energy of an electron declines ever lower as it moves faster.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

This completely goes against the notion that p = mv/sqrt(1 - v^2/c^2). Are you implying that there is some kind of deviation from this? I don't see where you would get that from, and I wonder about the authenticity of your opinion when you make off the cuff remarks without any kind of explanation. It's somewhat insulting to your audience's intelligence.

 

Well, what would be keeping me from doing that ?
And I would be traveling faster than the speed of light relative to what ?

How can mere (relative) speed cause electrons to slow down ?

I don't know, but I have to ask: Why would it ?

 

Humans are already traveling at over 2 million miles per hour here on Earth

as it travels through the cosmos. If one day we were to build a

transportation device similar to that of Stargate we would be traveling at

far greater speeds than light itself. We just wouldn't feel it or see it.

 

certainly if you tried to accelerate to the speed of light you would be dead..

if you started at the speed of light with no acceleration like presumably..well..light does, then there is no reason why you couldnt withstand that.

 

If a constant acceleration nearly equivalent to that at the surface of the Earth is generated, no mayhem would be expected. Special relativistic time dilation preserves the body's process. If you did it right (v >> c), you could travel across intergalactic distances with years of life ahead of you upon arrival.

It would not hurt, assuming you land in an opportune fashion.

 

you seem pretty smart so I pose a question to you. I dont know if anyone has asked this question or not but I was curious as to what the answer might be.

the speed of light can change depending on the medium it passes through right? So if you shined light through a bucket of water out into space, the speed of light would slower in the water..but when the light exited the water and entered the vacuum would light resume its normal speed of "light in a vacuum" or is the speed only observably changing from our perspective and other things are actually happening on a sub-molecular level?

 

I believe that light traveling through a sphere of water in vacuum would truly refract/reflect as you expect. I think that's entirely the point actually ("in vacuum"), good one.



Gravitation also does cool things to light.

 

I kind of thought it was something like that. I read alot of things about ways to go faster than the speed of light and one proposed method is to reduce how fast the speed of light is. So if the refraction/reflection thing is correct then the speed of light is only observably slower but really does remain a constant....

 

shalayka. Continually adding energy to particles in a cyclotron is not the same as a free moving particle.

I feed birds and have among others blue tits and great tits. They are tiny birds and weigh maybe an ounce but to watch a twig drop down as they land on it, you'd think they weighed a pound at least. But it's only for a moment as the kinetic energy is changed to potential energy and lost that their real mass asserts itself and the twig springs back into place.

There is a difference between the energy of a particle and the energy of the motion it has (kinetic energy.)

Instead of an off the cuff insult, why don't you ask for an explanation of what you don't understand?

 

Ranthi. Light is said to travel at c/2 in glass. However a Bose-Einstein condensate where all molecules are made to behave the same can slow light down to a walking pace and even stop it, allowing you to walk faster than the speed of (that) light.

 

Hey, tell you what. Why don't I take you for a tour of the synchrotron in Saskatoon? We can discuss particle acceleration while we walk. It's a good thing I've got you to explain to me what the definition of acceleration is!

You were the one who set yourself up for questioning by not initially indicating which type of energy you were referring to. Even though I now know you are referring to rest mass, I still have no idea what you are talking about. Are you saying that mass in the rest frame observably reduces, even though there is no relative velocity? If that's the case, you have hammered out a way to determine absolute rest. Man, how stupid Einstein must have truly been...

Seriously, you need to learn how to take criticism better. I'm not trying to call you a crank -- I've pointed that out several times already. You might also want to think about how to make your thoughts a little more "airtight", so that you don't continue to be misunderstood by uneducated simpletons such as myself.

 

Errrrr... wrong.

Anything that reached ''c'' would need to double its mass every light second; besides, nothing can reach ''c''. It would require an infinite amount of energy.

 

im curious how you, or whoever, came to this conclusion...speak to me in dummy talk. not the infinite energy thing..but the double mass every light second thing...

 

Reiku, v >> c is not the same as v = c. And it is kinetic energy which is increased, not mass. If you want to interchange the two, at least use the term mass-energy.

I also must object to your use of "light second", which is a distance, since acceleration is generally given in relation to units of time (ex: metres per second per SECOND).

Sorry, I just couldn't let this slide. From here on you can dig your own head out of the sand. Please don't think I'm a jerk, because this is baby-kitten love taps in comparison to what I'm capable of (and what you deserve).

I just can't believe I let you con me into thinking that you had a clue when you tried to tell me "my units are wrong". What a joke. It's just as pathetic as those in academia who blindly whip out the "it's based on SR, so it must be 1/6th short of the actual value" argument every time, even if it doesn't apply. Congratulations on becoming the closeminded person you've obviously spent your time running away from. That is why I do not belong, thankfully.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kinetic_energy
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Momentum
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass-energy

 

shalayka. I wasn't sure whether to publish in a peer reviewed magazine or post here. Duh!

To repeat the toys out of the pram statement : Is it possible that the energy of an electron declines ever lower as it moves faster?

"Is it possible". Does that sound like I am putting forwards a definite theory?

I ask if the electron could be losing energy as it moves faster? We both know it is building up kinetic energy so that if it hit something, that would be transferred, but an electron does not gain mass. That is a crap use of words as I explained with the birds. If they gained mass enough to bend twigs, they would not be able to fly. So, I mean the electron itself. Can it lose energy?

Absolute rest mass? Who cares? I'm interested in comparisons, not setting up a theory that can slavishly be followed by someone working a sychrotron in the ass end of nowhere.

As to Einstein, he couldn't even see what was wrong with the double slit experiment. Doh!

It looks to me that you're the one that can't take criticism. Hey I work with particle accelerators and I'm so smart and you're not. I can see me and you are going to have some fun together.

 

Evidence that a number of effects which are labelled as "time dilation" actually works on people? If accelerating someone slows time down, then slowing them down as in freezing something near absolute zero should speed the time element of something up causing it to age quicker. Peer reviewed proof of this is where?

Evidence that time exists as a dimension is...?