Space Exploration

[Grand Vol]

I think it's a scientific barrier akin to Mach. Moving things at light speed will take adjustment, and if not done right it will create issues. I dont think our tech now if continuously accelerated to light speed would survive. May not shake itself apart like Mach but something happens.

They go plaid?

 

[LouderVol]

They go plaid?

If not ludicrous

 

[Orangeburst]

If not ludicrous

How was the speed of light measured? I forget and not sure I really understood it in high school physics. That behavioral/observation thing might come into play.

 

[LouderVol]

How was the speed of light measured? I forget and not sure I really understood it in high school physics. That behavioral/observation thing might come into play.

I know way back they used mirrors miles apart. As far as I know observation doesnt change the speed. But that is an interesting question. Because we base everything on it being constant. But if it was traveling faster or slower right before we saw it that would change everything1

 

[Hunerwadel]

How was the speed of light measured? I forget and not sure I really understood it in high school physics. That behavioral/observation thing might come into play.

Would you believe if we placed two mirrors four miles apart and one of them moved 1/10,000 the diameter of the nucleus of an atom that we could detect it and measure it? Who can do that? Well we can. Not you and me but experimental physicists can. That is how gravitational waves are now being detected. Therefore measuring the speed of light with lasers is relatively easy.

This is a good read:

Facts | LIGO Lab | Caltech

 

[Orangeburst]

I know way back they used mirrors miles apart. As far as I know observation doesnt change the speed. But that is an interesting question. Because we base everything on it being constant. But if it was traveling faster or slower right before we saw it that would change everything1

Well apparently the speed of light is not constant and depends on the gravitational pull.

How can a black hole reduce the speed of light?

 

[Orangeburst]

Would you believe if we placed two mirrors four miles apart and one of them moved 1/10,000 the diameter of the nucleus of an atom that we could detect it and measure it? Who can do that? Well we can. Not you and me but experimental physicists can. That is how gravitational waves are now being detected. Therefore measuring the speed of light with lasers is relatively easy.

This is a good read:

Facts | LIGO Lab | Caltech

So we got LIGO and Euros got the collider. Cool.

 

[Hunerwadel]

So we got LIGO and Euros got the collider. Cool.

True, but they are both multinational operations. I don't know the cost but they are both very expensive.

 

[Orangeburst]

True, but they are both multinational operations. I don't know the cost but they are both very expensive.

I have been in pneumatics and vacuum systems for 30 years and I was not aware that one could achieve one trillionth of atmosphere.

I remember disappointment when the US did not get the location, but as you said we are still research participants. I have read up on what is it called,,,the God particle.

 

[marcusluvsvols]

I just read a bunch, and just in the link above where they are discussing why light doesnt escape black holes...it bothers me.

It bothers me for all of those people, perhaps less the 1 who posted all of the links, speak so definitely and with such certainty...as if they know. We dont know what the Hell happens at the "event horizon" of a black hole. We will likely never know for sure, because we will never be able to get close enough to 1 to test it in any physical sense at all...all we can do is look. In many ways, mind you, with many instruments, but all we can do is look...from billions of miles away. Yet these people speak with absolute certainty, in conflicting manners mind you, like they are telling you that grass is usually green.

Look, Einstein was beyond brilliant. Both general and special relativity seem to hold up...as a theory. May well be true, but as the history of science has shown us...will likely be modified and changed as we learn more. I hate to hear scientists or pseudoscientists speak in absolutes and certainties about anything which cannot be tested, repeated, verified and certified by the scientific method.

To do so is blasphemous to science itself. It is antiscience. The truth is, we have a pretty good idea what a black hole is, with a very rudimentary at best understanding of light, matter, gravity, and the other factors at play. To say anything more than that without a modifier of "to the best of our understanding at the present" is to misrepresent or outright deceive. It troubles me to see people speak of theoretical physics as if they are talking about a simple chemical reaction that can be duplicated and observed. I am fascinated by what we learn collectively, and love to read the research. To speak of these things as facts is just not true, though.

 

[Hunerwadel]

I have been in pneumatics and vacuum systems for 30 years and I was not aware that one could achieve one trillionth of atmosphere.

I remember disappointment when the US did not get the location, but as you said we are still research participants. I have read up on what is it called,,,the God particle.

I wonder if the graviton is next?

 

[marcusluvsvols]

I have been in pneumatics and vacuum systems for 30 years and I was not aware that one could achieve one trillionth of atmosphere.

I remember disappointment when the US did not get the location, but as you said we are still research participants. I have read up on what is it called,,,the God particle.

I too read about the Higgs boson? Particles a few years ago...don't know how that research is going though. Still not sure we can actually observe neutrinos either?
Or anything smaller than an electron? Need to do some more reading i guess.

 

[82_VOL_83]

I think it's a scientific barrier akin to Mach. Moving things at light speed will take adjustment, and if not done right it will create issues. I dont think our tech now if continuously accelerated to light speed would survive. May not shake itself apart like Mach but something happens.

Nothing like mach. Mach is a function of the compressibility of a gas at a given density. There is nothing in a vacuum to impede exceeding the light speed barrier.

 

[82_VOL_83]

Would you believe if we placed two mirrors four miles apart and one of them moved 1/10,000 the diameter of the nucleus of an atom that we could detect it and measure it? Who can do that? Well we can. Not you and me but experimental physicists can. That is how gravitational waves are now being detected. Therefore measuring the speed of light with lasers is relatively easy.

This is a good read:

Facts | LIGO Lab | Caltech

Are ww talking hydrogen or uranium 236?

 

[LouderVol]

Nothing like mach. Mach is a function of the compressibility of a gas at a given density. There is nothing in a vacuum to impede exceeding the light speed barrier.

I am more speaking to the rules, as we currently understand them. Basically the faster things go the more they weigh. At some point the way things work has to be redesigned for FTL.

Like anything moving has certain restrictions, FTL is going to have it's own. Like planes couldnt fly upright in early props until engines were redesigned. If we are traveling at ftl will the relativistic bubble still apply to our equipment? Probably but who knows? - what I mean here is if you are walking back to front in a plane we are traveling faster than the plane in relation to the earth. But to our fellow passengers in the same bubble we are just walking. If the ship is traveling ftl does our equipment which is near ftl speeds survive/work the same way? Or does getting that fast basically keep electronic signals from moving as we are used to. It's my understanding that as things get closer to as fast as light speed relativistic forces start getting funky, so that relative bubble of "normal" speed may not apply at ftl.

Breaking barriers always causes hiccups. I dont see why light would be different.

 

[LouderVol]

Hey Marcus if you want to trip some serious science theory stuff look up the theories on what they think happens if you were to emit light while traveling at light speed. Either to your front or rear. The light always having to be in motion to be light is trippy when considering those relativistic situations.

 

[82_VOL_83]

I am more speaking to the rules, as we currently understand them. Basically the faster things go the more they weigh. At some point the way things work has to be redesigned for FTL.

Like anything moving has certain restrictions, FTL is going to have it's own. Like planes couldnt fly upright in early props until engines were redesigned. If we are traveling at ftl will the relativistic bubble still apply to our equipment? Probably but who knows? - what I mean here is if you are walking back to front in a plane we are traveling faster than the plane in relation to the earth. But to our fellow passengers in the same bubble we are just walking. If the ship is traveling ftl does our equipment which is near ftl speeds survive/work the same way? Or does getting that fast basically keep electronic signals from moving as we are used to. It's my understanding that as things get closer to as fast as light speed relativistic forces start getting funky, so that relative bubble of "normal" speed may not apply at ftl.

Breaking barriers always causes hiccups. I dont see why light would be different.

You speak of this as if it is fact. None of it is absolutely proven. I simply don't believe that an arbitrary number holds any value in a vacuum when simply based on something with no mass.

The mistake is made thinking of c as a physical barrier like mach. It isn't.

 

[82_VOL_83]

Hey Marcus if you want to trip some serious science theory stuff look up the theories on what they think happens if you were to emit light while traveling at light speed. Either to your front or rear. The light always having to be in motion to be light is trippy when considering those relativistic situations.

What happens to sound when emitted at greater than Mach?

 

[Hunerwadel]

Are ww talking hydrogen or uranium 236?

I don't know what you're asking? I have mentioned several times I am not a physicist (or chemist). Just someone who enjoys reading and learning about all things related to science. I took some physics in college but I'm just commenting on and mentioning things that may be of interest to people who read this thread. I was totally fascinated when I found out how LIGO works and how accurate we can measure things. I thought others might also.

I notice some here are skeptical about the laws of physics. That's fine with me.

 

[LouderVol]

You speak of this as if it is fact. None of it is absolutely proven. I simply don't believe that an arbitrary number holds any value in a vacuum when simply based on something with no mass.

The mistake is made thinking of c as a physical barrier like mach. It isn't.

I didn't speak as if anything as fact. In fact one of my first statements was things it probably works just fine. I also through in a lot of qualifiers "may", "might" and "who knows"

 

[LouderVol]

What happens to sound when emitted at greater than Mach?

no clue. what happens? if i had to guess i would think its something like the doplar effect. either that or completely normal.

not sure where you are going with this, because you just got done telling me sound and light are two completely different things. which they are.

 

[LouderVol]

I don't know what you're asking? I have mentioned several times I am not a physicist (or chemist). Just someone who enjoys reading and learning about all things related to science. I took some physics in college but I'm just commenting on and mentioning things that may be of interest to people who read this thread. I was totally fascinated when I found out how LIGO works and how accurate we can measure things. I thought others might also.

I notice some here are skeptical about the laws of physics. That's fine with me.

we know how things work at faster than light speeds? Please point me to these laws and I will go away.

 

[marcusluvsvols]

Hey Marcus if you want to trip some serious science theory stuff look up the theories on what they think happens if you were to emit light while traveling at light speed. Either to your front or rear. The light always having to be in motion to be light is trippy when considering those relativistic situations.

I will check it out Louder. So what if we had a shark...with LASERS MAN...traveling with us at the speed of light...and it shot the LASER forward, or backwards? I am being somewhat serious, i want to know what the Muppets of science THINK would happen...

 

[Hunerwadel]

we know how things work at faster than light speeds? Please point me to these laws and I will go away.

We don't know of anything that goes faster than light. I never said we do. Nor do I want you to go away.

 

[Grand Vol]

We don't know of anything that goes faster than light. I never said we do. Nor do I want you to go away.

This baby gets .5 past light speed.