ok here is something I just thought of. I have a laser pointer and i can shine it on the wall and such. I can make the point go from the top of the wall to the bottom of the wall rather fast.

So i went outside and shined the point out in an open field from a balcony in a barn. The point zipped across the field covering a large distance in no time.


so then i put my laser pointer into the sky. I pointed it at the north star and then moved it over across the sky onto another star. Bother stars are equal distance from me but millions of miles away from each other.


Now replace my laser pointer with something that has a solid beam, like a light saber that is 1 billion miles long. Now place a vessel at the end of the light saber. With me on the ground or any stationary point I just have to move my end a little bit to make the other end move billions of miles in only a few seconds.

This works the same way that if a sniper is off just a degree of an angel , his bullet hits feet or yards off.





ideas?

[&:][&:]

ORIGINAL: ZerofluxCal

[&:][&:]


+1

:eek:

very interesting
it brings to mind having a vessel on your light saber would be heavy
but would it really?
no gravity in space..

if you really had a large stick like that, it would require unimaginable amounts of force to move it like that, with one point stationary even, because the other end would have to travel those billions of miles.


wheres 2000AZ5.0GT to chime in? i want to see what he says about this, he really knows his ****.

this is all theoretical that you had the money and time to build such a thing. not a light saber , but a big tower that moves on a henge

ORIGINAL: SXGT

this is all theoretical that you had the money and time to build such a thing. not a light saber , but a big tower that moves on a henge


think of newtons laws. either way, to put enough force on the tower or w/e to move it reasonably quickly, it would be so much force that the earth would move; theres no stationary point sturdy enough. but thats the least of the problems.

lol @ henge

TRIGG FTW?
(im really asking is trigonometry helpfull here? i THINK it might be)

idea- your a cross dressing idiot

ORIGINAL: NYstang

idea- your a cross dressing idiot


You're



[8D][8D][8D][8D][8D][8D][8D][8D][8D][8D][8D][8D][8D][8D][8D][8D][8D][8D][8D][8D]


:D:D:D:D:D:D:D:D:D:D:D:D:D:D:D:D




























p.s - I love you [8D][8D][8D]

according to einstein it will be impossible to travel at the speed of light because when you go that fast time stops so the closer and closer you get to that point the slower time is and therefore it wont happen... in other words in other peoples perspective you will have stopped in time, but to you you will never reach that point

ORIGINAL: surfbum7190

according to einstein it will be impossible to travel at the speed of light because when you go that fast time stops so the closer and closer you get to that point the slower time is and therefore it wont happen... in other words in other peoples perspective you will have stopped in time, but to you you will never reach that point


I though people watching you stopped but you didnt. Like in batman with the clock king [&:]

ORIGINAL: SXGT

this is all theoretical that you had the money and time to build such a thing. not a light saber , but a big tower that moves on a henge


you're comparing light(weightless, massless, andmaterial-less) to a big tower on a hinge:eek:

ORIGINAL: 86 5.0L

ORIGINAL: SXGT

this is all theoretical that you had the money and time to build such a thing. not a light saber , but a big tower that moves on a henge


you're comparing light(weightless, massless, andÂ*material-less) to a big tower on a hingeÂ*:eek:


in space there is no gravity. but I would imagine a lot of torque twist.

ORIGINAL: SXGT


ORIGINAL: 86 5.0L

ORIGINAL: SXGT

this is all theoretical that you had the money and time to build such a thing. not a light saber , but a big tower that moves on a henge


you're comparing light(weightless, massless, andmaterial-less) to a big tower on a hinge:eek:


in space there is no gravity. but I would imagine a lot of torque twist.


Actually there is gravity in space.

this is ot, nothing in here is supposed to make us think, it hurts too much.

ORIGINAL: 03mustgt

ORIGINAL: SXGT


ORIGINAL: 86 5.0L

ORIGINAL: SXGT

this is all theoretical that you had the money and time to build such a thing. not a light saber , but a big tower that moves on a henge


you're comparing light(weightless, massless, andÂ*material-less) to a big tower on a hingeÂ*:eek:


in space there is no gravity. but I would imagine a lot of torque twist.


Actually there is gravity in space.



any matter generates SOME degree of gravity , thats what causes it , existence of mass

It's not weight you have to worry about, it's mass. If I weigh 160 lbs on earthand only 1/3 of that on the moon, I still have the same mass and it still takes the same amount of energy to get me moving, or to stop me.

Also theoretically the speed of light is relative, therefore exceeding the speed of light is impossible.

ok, lets go back to your laser pointer

first of all, the 2 stars are not equally distant from earth, but lets assume they are, just for the sake of this argument. also, they are several light years away keep that in mind (it takes the light years to reach those stars)

also, lets ignore the fact that the laser pointer is not bright enough to reach that star

now, think of the laser beam you just pointed at the northstar like the water coming out of a hose. assuming there's no gravity (since in most cases gravity has a negligible effect on light), it would go straight at that star. but when you move your laser pointer / garden hose, what happens? in the case of the garden hose, you would observe the water's path bending in relation to the nozzle, even though each molecule would continue on its absolute path in a straight line at the speed it exited the nozzle

the same happens with the laser pointer, but much, much faster, so you can't see it. so even though would observe the light's path bending in relation to the tip of the laser pointer if you were to slow it down enough, each photon would still be travelling on the same linear path that it exited the laser pointer on at the speed of light

so no, you are not breaking the speed of light [&:]


therefore, your thread is stupid

We'll have to take the engine from some's GT here to power the movement. Sorry V6'ers not enough hp for that to work.

ORIGINAL: Joolander

ok, lets go back to your laser pointer

first of all, the 2 stars are not equally distant from earth, but lets assume they are, just for the sake of this argument. also, they are several light years away keep that in mind (it takes the light years to reach those stars)

also, lets ignore the fact that the laser pointer is not bright enough to reach that star

now, think of the laser beam you just pointed at the northstar like the water coming out of a hose. assuming there's no gravity (since in most cases gravity has a negligible effect on light), it would go straight at that star. but when you move your laser pointer / garden hose, what happens? in the case of the garden hose, you would observe the water's path bending in relation to the nozzle, even though each molecule would continue on its absolute path in a straight line at the speed it exited the nozzle

the same happens with the laser pointer, but much, much faster, so you can't see it. so even though would observe the light's path bending in relation to the tip of the laser pointer if you were to slow it down enough, each photon would still be travelling on the same linear path that it exited the laser pointer on at the speed of light

so no, you are not breaking the speed of light [&:]


therefore, your thread is stupid



i appreciate the insight.

ORIGINAL: SXGT


ORIGINAL: 86 5.0L

ORIGINAL: SXGT

this is all theoretical that you had the money and time to build such a thing. not a light saber , but a big tower that moves on a henge


you're comparing light(weightless, massless, andmaterial-less) to a big tower on a hinge:eek:


in space there is no gravity. but I would imagine a lot of torque twist.


... if it deals with light, its refraction you're talking about where light will bounce off of molecules in space. Or when you reach into a vessel full of water trying to grab something your hand is off by an inch or so if you aim directly for the thing you're trying to get. Light is bent by air or any material it goes through. Unless you can account for it, you will be off in your aim.

For the other item, there is no gravity in space so no centripital force, there would be forces acting on the rod over large distances though as it passes through graviational fields of other planets and suns. Again you have to account for that. Light would be a more efficient (easier) way to transmit something instead of a 'cable' or something else that is solid.

sorry derf, i'd just like to point out that you don't need gravity for centripetal force, since centripetal force arises because of circular motion

otherwise [sm=smiley20.gif]

alright, lets dispel some of the stupidity that has rampantly taken over this thread, as well as started it. originally I didn't want to reply, I wanted to see how far the retardation got (I'm not going to name names or anything) but now I feel it's in the best interest of intelligence to reply.

1.The movement of Light is absolute - this means that where if you and I are moving, accelerating, it is relative to something else in space, whereas the "movement" of light is absolute. If you were hypothetically travelling at 670 million miles per hour relative to some other object in space, light would still seem to move at the speed of light from your perspective. You cannot, will not, and cannot grasp the idea that it is impossible to break the speed of light.

2. There is no gravity in space - I don't know where you got this idea, but gravity is the warping and distortions of the fabric of space and time, and as newton was proved wrong, gravity isn't even communicated at anything more than the speed of light (newtons theory said that gravity was communicated imidiately which was then proved wrong by einstein, and that gravity is communicated at exactly the speed of light, nothing more).


Lets revisit this idea one more time. The light that you emmit, the photons that you are putting out are the same age the moment they reach this distant planet, star, or object as they are the moment they leave whatever device you emit them from. At the speed of light, time stops, nothing ages, and to say that it does, well is just retarded considering this was proved a whole century ago.

I don't get what the original question is though. Even light cannot travel at faster than the speed of light, otherwise it would arrive at the destination Before it is emmited, and that's just logically impossible. My god people, pick up a textbook sometime, this is century old physics that has already been discussed and it makes no sense arguing about it again. (sorry, I'm in a bad mood today)

oh and if you want to know why this is, it's quite simple. The faster you go, the more massive you become. Photons, namely the particles of light, are massless. Not that they have so little mass that we cannot measure it, but it has ZERO mass. No matter how fast it goes, it still has zero mass, and therefore, it doesn't take any effort to make it go the speed of light (if it were in a particle accelerator that is)

Even the lightest particle besides this known to man, namely, the Gluon (the messenger particle for the Strong Force) has a mass, and therefore, the faster it goes, the more massive it becomes, and therfore the more energy it requires to make it go faster. Infinity times even the smallest number, is a large number, duh, it's infinity. Infinity times zero is still zero.

Next time the OP has a thought, just let it go

let me boil down the original question as i understood it

kirby thought that the dot emitted by the laser pointer could move faster than the spped of light since he thought it would move like the end of a steel beam from one star to the other as both are light years from one another. basically, he thought he could swing the end of the light beam around like a lever arm

if you read my post i answered what i think was his question in laymans terms

I didn't get to your post before I had to respond to a couple of the other's posts. sorry, I believe you did, good job:D:D

Hey 2000AZ, not trying to be one of these retards you speak of, but I have read a few times that there have been lasers shot at superluminal speeds.

Any input on this?

http://i155.photobucket.com/albums/s302/03mustgt/400px-NewtonsLawOfUniversalGravitat.png

http://i201.photobucket.com/albums/aa103/bunso019/1205026926278.jpg

What do you mean they were fired at super luminal speeds? If they had traveled faster than 670 million miles per hour or more than 2.99x10^8 meters per second, then it would have appeared as if the beam had arrived at its destination before it had been fired, and something like that would have made front page news of every physics journal in the world.

Even the biggest particle accelerators, which are around 54 miles in length, firing Gluons, the lightest particle known at the moment, which is something like .0001 x the mass of the electron, has only been able to achieve something like 95% of the speed of light. If something had traveled faster than that, I think that the world would have to rewrite their laws on logic, because it would defy anything intuitive, and every philosopher that has existed would have been proved wrong. I doubt that it is going to happen

man do I feel dumb reading this thread..... basically because of 2000AZ5.0GT

and to the OP, how freaking baked were you when you thought this up? lol That is usually the only time that I get THAT deep into thought

Ok, I have 2 thoughts of my own...

In space there is no gravity (per se) and thus no weight. Here on Earth I cant pick my car up, but in space that wouldnt be difficult to carry my car around (assuming I have something to stand on. So, what is the limit? 2k lbs, 10k lbs, 100k lbs? Again, in theory, you would need something to stand on otherwise you would just pick yourself off the object your trying to lift...

And 2, something I find awkward. Fact: Time is effected by gravity and velocity. If you syncronize two watches, leave one on Earth and put the other in empty space, time will go faster here on Earth than empty space. Not to scale, but for example, 6:00 on Earth but 5:00 in space. Clocks in our satellites automatically compensate this difference to keep balanced with Earth's clocks. Also, velocity effects time. The faster you travel, the slower time passes by. A clock on a stationary ship will remain normal, while one on a ship traveling a million miles an hour will be considerable slower.

SOOOOOO, if it is impossible to travel at the speed of light but possible to travel just under it, time would go by at a fraction of the current rate. Could you travel universe without the problem of unthinkable amount of time?

well i believe the traveller's time would be fairly managable and comprehensible travelling almost the speed of light across the galaxy, but to anyone on earth or another planet, the time it takes for the traveller would seem much longer in comparison

My cat's breath smells like cat food.

http://animatedtv.about.com/library/graphics/ralphnose.jpg

Man, reading this thread was ever more confusing than listening to Michio Kaku in person. (He is a badass by the way)

open your mind man, expand your horizons [:-]


http://i51.photobucket.com/albums/f356/anthony_school/reading-rainbow.gif

ORIGINAL: Joolander

well i believe the traveller's time would be fairly managable and comprehensible travelling almost the speed of light across the galaxy, but to anyone on earth or another planet, the time it takes for the traveller would seem much longer in comparison


Interesting..kinda like The Chronicles of Narnia but in reverse. Leave for only a short while but come back and its 4008

light goes fast

ORIGINAL: SXGT

ok here is something I just thought of. I have a laser pointer and i can shine it on the wall and such. I can make the point go from the top of the wall to the bottom of the wall rather fast.

So i went outside and shined the point out in an open field from a balcony in a barn. The point zipped across the field covering a large distance in no time.


so then i put my laser pointer into the sky. I pointed it at the north star and then moved it over across the sky onto another star. Bother stars are equal distance from me but millions of miles away from each other.


Now replace my laser pointer with something that has a solid beam, like a light saber that is 1 billion miles long. Now place a vessel at the end of the light saber. With me on the ground or any stationary point I just have to move my end a little bit to make the other end move billions of miles in only a few seconds.

This works the same way that if a sniper is off just a degree of an angel , his bullet hits feet or yards off.


ideas?


First, great thought pattern if you are talking about a probe riding a beam of light (if not then I have no idea what your thread is about

Second it's been thought of and theorized before, which is to have an ultra small and light (weight wise) vessel that can ride the front of the beam of light in interstellar space and report what it discovers. In effect a light speed probe.

Theoritically super possible but hard in its execution.

There are so many volitale occurences in space that we wouold have to be real lucky for it to work. (as an exmaple it can collide with microscopic debree at light speed and vaporize etc..)

ORIGINAL: baddog671

Ok, I have 2 thoughts of my own...

In space there is no gravity (per se) and thus no weight. Here on Earth I cant pick my car up, but in space that wouldnt be difficult to carry my car around (assuming I have something to stand on. So, what is the limit? 2k lbs, 10k lbs, 100k lbs? Again, in theory, you would need something to stand on otherwise you would just pick yourself off the object your trying to lift...

And 2, something I find awkward. Fact: Time is effected by gravity and velocity. If you syncronize two watches, leave one on Earth and put the other in empty space, time will go faster here on Earth than empty space. Not to scale, but for example, 6:00 on Earth but 5:00 in space. Clocks in our satellites automatically compensate this difference to keep balanced with Earth's clocks. Also, velocity effects time. The faster you travel, the slower time passes by. A clock on a stationary ship will remain normal, while one on a ship traveling a million miles an hour will be considerable slower.

SOOOOOO, if it is impossible to travel at the speed of light but possible to travel just under it, time would go by at a fraction of the current rate. Could you travel universe without the problem of unthinkable amount of time?


http://i155.photobucket.com/albums/s302/03mustgt/400px-NewtonsLawOfUniversalGravitat.png

There is gravity in space, it may be miniscule(by definition), but in theory it is there.

ORIGINAL: 03mustgt

ORIGINAL: baddog671

Ok, I have 2 thoughts of my own...

In space there is no gravity (per se) and thus no weight. Here on Earth I cant pick my car up, but in space that wouldnt be difficult to carry my car around (assuming I have something to stand on. So, what is the limit? 2k lbs, 10k lbs, 100k lbs? Again, in theory, you would need something to stand on otherwise you would just pick yourself off the object your trying to lift...

And 2, something I find awkward. Fact: Time is effected by gravity and velocity. If you syncronize two watches, leave one on Earth and put the other in empty space, time will go faster here on Earth than empty space. Not to scale, but for example, 6:00 on Earth but 5:00 in space. Clocks in our satellites automatically compensate this difference to keep balanced with Earth's clocks. Also, velocity effects time. The faster you travel, the slower time passes by. A clock on a stationary ship will remain normal, while one on a ship traveling a million miles an hour will be considerable slower.

SOOOOOO, if it is impossible to travel at the speed of light but possible to travel just under it, time would go by at a fraction of the current rate. Could you travel universe without the problem of unthinkable amount of time?


http://i155.photobucket.com/albums/s302/03mustgt/400px-NewtonsLawOfUniversalGravitat.png

There is gravity in space, it may be miniscule(by definition), but in theory it is there.

ORIGINAL: baddog671

Ok, I have 2 thoughts of my own...

In space there is no gravity (per se) and thus no weight. Here on Earth I cant pick my car up, but in space that wouldnt be difficult to carry my car around (assuming I have something to stand on. So, what is the limit? 2k lbs, 10k lbs, 100k lbs? Again, in theory, you would need something to stand on otherwise you would just pick yourself off the object your trying to lift...

And 2, something I find awkward. Fact: Time is effected by gravity and velocity. If you syncronize two watches, leave one on Earth and put the other in empty space, time will go faster here on Earth than empty space. Not to scale, but for example, 6:00 on Earth but 5:00 in space. Clocks in our satellites automatically compensate this difference to keep balanced with Earth's clocks. Also, velocity effects time. The faster you travel, the slower time passes by. A clock on a stationary ship will remain normal, while one on a ship traveling a million miles an hour will be considerable slower.

SOOOOOO, if it is impossible to travel at the speed of light but possible to travel just under it, time would go by at a fraction of the current rate. Could you travel universe without the problem of unthinkable amount of time?

ORIGINAL: 03mustgt

ORIGINAL: baddog671

Ok, I have 2 thoughts of my own...

In space there is no gravity (per se) and thus no weight. Here on Earth I cant pick my car up, but in space that wouldnt be difficult to carry my car around (assuming I have something to stand on. So, what is the limit? 2k lbs, 10k lbs, 100k lbs? Again, in theory, you would need something to stand on otherwise you would just pick yourself off the object your trying to lift...

And 2, something I find awkward. Fact: Time is effected by gravity and velocity. If you syncronize two watches, leave one on Earth and put the other in empty space, time will go faster here on Earth than empty space. Not to scale, but for example, 6:00 on Earth but 5:00 in space. Clocks in our satellites automatically compensate this difference to keep balanced with Earth's clocks. Also, velocity effects time. The faster you travel, the slower time passes by. A clock on a stationary ship will remain normal, while one on a ship traveling a million miles an hour will be considerable slower.

SOOOOOO, if it is impossible to travel at the speed of light but possible to travel just under it, time would go by at a fraction of the current rate. Could you travel universe without the problem of unthinkable amount of time?



I think your misunderstanding young man... read better[:-]

http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/print/482
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2000/07/19/tech/main216905.shtml

Shabam. [&:]

Okay, I guess you guy's really don't undersand any of these concepts (except for a few people who seem to grasp it).

Even if you were to travel at almost the speed of light, your sense of time would only be different compared to whosever position your basing your speed off of. as in, if you were travelling at 660million miles per hour compared to someone here on earth (keep in mind you aren't traveling this speed absolutely, only relative to something else, wheareas if you were to turn on a light, it would still seem to you that light was travelling at 670million miles an hour, as if you were standing still)

The only feaseable way to "time travel" was to get close to the event horizon of a black hole, but not too close, at which the gravitational field would be so strong that your time is distorted, but you probably wouldn't be able to live at those gravitational levels.

i think Carl Sagan did a Cosmos special on the effects of traveling at the speed of light on time passage
Cosmos is on tuesday night on the Discovery/ Discovery Science Channel

or if you really want to travel faster than the speed of light then just take a ride in my [8D]"TOURQE MONSER'[8D] 4.0

The only question I have, is what ever happened to reading a book? The discovery channel is based upon theory upon theory, most of which hasn't been proven, nor even experimentally tested, the only reliable source your going to get any information at all is through a book.

First, great thought pattern if you are talking about a probe riding a beam of light (if not then I have no idea what your thread is about

Second it's been thought of and theorized before, which is to have an ultra small and light (weight wise) vessel that can ride the front of the beam of light in interstellar space and report what it discovers. In effect a light speed probe.

Theoritically super possible but hard in its execution.

There are so many volitale occurences in space that we wouold have to be real lucky for it to work. (as an exmaple it can collide with microscopic debree at light speed and vaporize etc..)

I hope you don't truely believe it's possible. It would disprove Feyman, Einstein, And some of the greatest physicists EVER.

Especially if string theory proves to provide a true explanation of the universe, it means that this idea would be truely impossible, mainly because of the 11 demensions in existence, rather than "our" 3 intuitive demensions.

Bottom line, this whole Idea is completely impossible, both by means of current technilogical limits, and logically. If the smallest partical even theorized to be possible, the gluon, which is ligher than an electron, becomes more massive than a lead particle in it's solid state, at only 2/3's of the speed of light. It is IMPOSSIBLE bottom line

ORIGINAL: 2000AZ5.0GT

The only question I have, is what ever happened to reading a book? The discovery channel is based upon theory upon theory, most of which hasn't been proven, nor even experimentally tested, the only reliable source your going to get any information at all is through a book.

+5 bajillion

discovery,tlc,history and national geagraphic used to be SOOOOO much better only a few years ago...
TLC ESPECIALLY has pissed me off recently with stupid **** like "flip that house"

seriously go to a CC and take a basic physics course or read a book.

AZ can you recomend any good basic physics books?

2000, I understood the last two sentences of your comments. Put it in Chemistry terms, and it is easy to grasp.

I dunno about the rest of you guys, but I barely humped it through high school fizzics. [&:]

some very good books that I have found, along with math books, were actually required reading for some of my physics courses. The really good one I have found is "The Elegant Universe" by Brian Greene, "The Labyrinth of Time" is actually pretty good. They go into the basic principals of each theory, but they don't go very in depth. They are good for basic understanding. If you want to learn the math and the more fundamental equations, I would suggest anything written by Stephen Hawking, such as "God Created the Integers", and that goes into some higher math, including some mathematical modeling

ORIGINAL: KTownGT

2000, I understood the last two sentences of your comments. Put it in Chemistry terms, and it is easy to grasp.

I dunno about the rest of you guys, but I barely humped it through high school fizzics. [&:]




Well, Luckily for you, this is far more in depth than high school physics. High school physics deals with basic concepts such as velocity, acceleration, and some of newtons laws, it doesn't even go into relativity.

Normally, people such as you and I believe that there are three spatial dimensions, height, depth, and width, or in terms of math, an X, Y, and Z coordinates.

General relaitivity had a bunch of different consequences, one being that now time is considered to be another dimension. Basically time turned into the fourth dimension.

With string theory, in which the most basic constituent of matter is tiny little strings, vibrating in unison, in different ways (the different ways they vibrate determining what particle they are) says now that there are 11 dimensions to the universe. The four that we are familiar with, and 7 others

I only read the first post.

It's like this.

Grab a ruler. Point it in one direction, rotate 360 degrees. It traveled however far (not doing the math for you guys.. lol)

next
Grab a yard stick. Point it in one direction, rotate 360 degrees. The same amount of travel on your end, yielded a longer distance for the end of the yardstick when compared to the ruler.

I never knew there was 11 dimensions. I was only familiar with like you said width, length, and height...

Freaking creepy, mang.

well, technically we are all familiar with all four dimensions, including time, we all experience it, and while we usually don't think of it in this way, it isn't too difficult to do so, whereas the other 7 spatial dimensions are so small that they cannot be experienced in the same way, and are much harder to conceptualize

lmao at the people thinking its impossible to travel the speed of light

there was a time the top scientists stated the sun revolved around the world

there was a time when the worlds top scientists concluded the world was flat,

there was also a time when top scientists concluded it was impossible to go faster then the speed of sound

im just saying.... [8D]

ORIGINAL: 2000AZ5.0GT

well, technically we are all familiar with all four dimensions, including time, we all experience it, and while we usually don't think of it in this way, it isn't too difficult to do so, whereas the other 7 spatial dimensions are so small that they cannot be experienced in the same way, and are much harder to conceptualize



let me try to at least....

is electron spin that i heard about in chemisrty II and marterials engineering one of those other 7 dimensions?


btw are you like a physicist or something?

no, electron spin is completely different, in fact, it is now a little more than a theory that every particle technically has spin, well, okay if you are one to believe in Point particle physics, and quantum field theory (basically the idea that particles such as protons, gluons, and such are the most basic parts of the universe) particles have spin. If you are studying what I am working on, which is superstring theory, then everything is basically made up of tiny little rubber bands, one billionth of a billionth of a meter in size, that is vibrating, through each of these dimensions. It's really hard to vizualize, because the dimensions I'm talking about are about the Plack length in size, smaller than one billionth of a billionth of a meter, whereas the smallest distance we can probe is about one millionth of meter. There is a big gap in the technology available to confirm an experiment, and the theory behind it.

So far, there are three different spins that a particle can have, 1/2 , 1, and 2. The only particle theorized to have the spin -2 would be the Graviton, a massless particle that is the "messenger" particle of gravity, basically the particle that travels at the speed of light that in essence communicates gravity. Particles such as the Muon, gluon, and a whole bunch of others, (there are three families of particles) all have spin's such as 1, these are messenger particles. Then there are normal particles, such as electrons, which exhibit a spin of -1/2, and the cancellations of such spin's is generally what causes an electric charge (Generally, this is the most basic way I can put it)

The dimensions that exist are what make each of things possible, and so far, the indirect observations of some physics has provided alot of evidence for the existance of such dimensions called a Calabi-Yau Spatial Dimention. It gets pretty damn complex, so I don't think I'm going to write a textbook here

oh and I have a degree in Engineering Math with a specialization in theoretical physics, and I'm working on my masters in physics

so, are the particles actually spinning in 3 dimensional space? forgive me, im just a lowly engineering undergrad right now[8D]



also i found this, and thought it was funny, and it gives some of the other people that don't know what were talking about something to laugh at

http://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/string_theory.png

You also have to think that your "pole" will be attached to the Earth and, therefor, be pulled by the Earth's graviational pull. That means, that your stick and the vessle attached to it will all have weight according to the Earth's gravity (measured in the usual: Pounds or Kilograms). That kind of weight alone is astronomical. Add to that, the rotation and tilt of our Planet, and you're screwed:) Your ship will always be moving around and not doing what you want it to do.

yeah, actually the particles are spinning in 10 dimensional space, with another dimension being the time dimension. These are just mathematical representations of how much these particles are Vibrating/spinning.

Remember that even with point particle physics (basically quantum mechanics without anything related to string theory) still believes that these particles that make up atoms, and the quantum field, act like waves, as well as particles. These values of spin, are merely the fluctuations, similar to the wavelength, frequency and amplitude when you first get in to chemistry. This is but one of the concequences of the uncertainty principle founded in the 1900's.

This level of physics is far beyond the scope of anything that you will study with a basic undergraduate degree, unless you specialize in something such as this. In fact, I believe I had to get advanced standing in my class to take classes this high.

I don't know if you know, but the importance of string theory is quite big. With point particle physics, and quantum feild theory, it is believed that there is chaos at the plack length, and at tiny little distances, which is incompatable with General and Special Relativity. This is pretty huge, because these are our two theories of the way the universe works at it's big scales and on its small scales. String theory calms all of this, and actually incorperates gravity into the framework of both theories, and unites them, so that we have one unified theory of everything, in fact most the time it's reffered to as the T.O.E., something that is the wholy grail to physicists, The Theory Of Everything.

i understand the importance of string theory in relation to the theory of everything. i also get the 4th dimension bein time, thats no strech of the imagination. the webcomic i posted is really just something i found funny, as string theory is still a relatively new concept for most people

even though im an undergrad, i am at the top of all my classes, and i still love all the theoretical applications of the (for lack of a better term) more advanced sciences. i'm not going into those fields because i suck at forging new scientific ground

still when you say that there are 7 more dimensions, it boggles my mind because i can really ony visualize a total 6 dimensions if i really try (im a visual learner)


if you don't mind i'd like to hear about the 7 other dimensions sometime

Ok, I'm going to thread jack now:)

Why is it that everyone believes objects cannot travel at the speed of light? What is so significant about it? It is just a number, yes? A few hundred million miles an hour, as measured by humans in our own understanding of mathmatics. Why is it so hard to believe that we can propel an object to that speed, given the technology we need (power source and the fuel to run it)?

And what in the world are you talking about when you say that an object gains mass as it speeds up? How does that work?

ORIGINAL: trickdriller

Ok, I'm going to thread jack now:)

Why is it that everyone believes objects cannot travel at the speed of light? What is so significant about it? It is just a number, yes? A few hundred million miles an hour, as measured by humans in our own understanding of mathmatics. Why is it so hard to believe that we can propel an object to that speed, given the technology we need (power source and the fuel to run it)?

And what in the world are you talking about when you say that an object gains mass as it speeds up? How does that work?



its all in Einsteins theory of Relativity, in the famous equation E=mc²

i'm gonna link you to wikipedia because im tired and shouldnt be up right now

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory_of_relativity

whoops, double post

ORIGINAL: trickdriller

Ok, I'm going to thread jack now:)

Why is it that everyone believes objects cannot travel at the speed of light? What is so significant about it? It is just a number, yes? A few hundred million miles an hour, as measured by humans in our own understanding of mathmatics. Why is it so hard to believe that we can propel an object to that speed, given the technology we need (power source and the fuel to run it)?

And what in the world are you talking about when you say that an object gains mass as it speeds up? How does that work?



E=Mc^2

where E= Energy, M= mass, C=speed of light (2.99x10E8). If you plug in experimental values to the equation, you will find that the faster an object goes, or the more energy it posses, the more mass it "aquires". As it's energy increases (speed/velocity), the more massive, in a literal sense, it becomes.

basically M=(c^2)/E

If you graph the equation, your going to see that as the energy increases, the Mass increases exponentially (literally). The closer you get to the speed of light, the heavier you become. Plain and simple

No, not plain and simple. E=Mc2 is nothing more than an equasion made by a man. Yes, to this day it has yet to be DISproved, but that doesn't mean it wont be. You said it yourself, Newton's laws were disproved by Einstein. Back in the day, people just as you were saying the EXACT same thing about Newton as you are now about Einstein.

I believe that the speed of light is nothing more than a number; and that it can be exceeded. I do not have a reason to back this up, nor do I have the eduaction. But I can tell you that based on trends throughout history, we are wrong. Humans are almost always wrong. We have been known to be correct about some things. The Egyptians had it right in their Astrology. They were right, even if it is basic stuff now; they were right. I believe, however, that we are wrong about the speed of light. I think it is perfectly attainable. We just don't know HOW yet. Just as the speed of sound was "unattainable" at one point. No, we just didn't know how yet.

That's just my 2 cents.

The problem is that this equation hasn't been proved to be infallible at all. In fact, a particle that has been accelerated to roughly 95% of the speed of light (this is one particle, and it takes 54 miles of the strongest electromagnets known to man), normally less than one millionth of a gram, becomes about 22ounces at 95% of the speed of light. This is exactly predicted by this equation. There have been countless things proving this "theory", so it isn't like it was just his opinion. People who used to resist what he said more than anything were the ones to prove him right, by trying to prove him wrong.

And no, they weren't saying the same thing about newton. The only thing that Einstein proved wrong about newton is that newton said that gravity was communicated at the speed light. Thats it, the only thing that was disproven. Newtons theory never said what gravity was, and that's what Einstein's theory predicts, and ultimately spells out (what gravity is)

In fact, Newtons laws, specifically that of gravity, is still used, some 300 years after it was developed. So are you completely sure that it is wrong? in fact, I don't think that anyone has proved anything that newton said, other than the speed of light not being a limit, to be false. In fact, he was one who believed, as you do, that it is just a number. You don't seem to understand what would happen if it were to ever happen. You would literally go Back in time, which means that we would have already experienced something that happened traveling at faster than the speed of light.

If you turned on a light, and somehow the light particles (photons) traveled faster than 670 million miles per hour, you would see that the light beam would get to where they were going, before you flipped the switch.

I know, if you really want to at least figure out if your theory is valid, find one, thats it, one physicist in the world who believes as you do, that the speed of light is merely a barrier that can be overcome. It was already proved with the speed of sound that there were particles traveling faster than 670mph, in fact that's just an air wave thats traveling that fast. Light is completely different, sound does travel relatively, whereas light travels absolutely. Completely different concept

i didnt read the whole post, but the two things that come to mind are: Negative integer and -x^2