Not signed in (Sign In)

Vanilla 1.1.2 is a product of Lussumo. More Information: Documentation, Community Support.

    • CommentAuthorwwbwb9636
    • CommentTimeSep 9th 2006
     

    The speed of light is 299,792,458 m/s

    Now take a disk with a circumference of 299,792,458 meters.
    Circumference = 2 * Radius * Pi
    Radius of this disk is 47,713,452 meters.

    A point on the edge of a disk with a radius of 47,713,452 meters that makes one revolution in 1 second will be traveling
    at the speed of light. What happens to this disk at that radius or of a radius greater than 48 million meters?

    • CommentAuthorLyet
    • CommentTimeSep 9th 2006
     

    The disk still rotates, but if you were on the point at the radius, you would perceive shifts: mass increases, making everything seem heavier, length decreases, making everything seem shorter, and time slows down thanks to relativity.

    • CommentAuthorwwbwb9636
    • CommentTimeSep 9th 2006
     

    So a point on the rim of a 48+ million meter radius disk that makes a revolution in 1 second will or will not be moving faster than 299,792,458 m/s ?

    • CommentAuthoraznduk
    • CommentTimeSep 10th 2006
     

    yea if you can get it that fast...
    i think if something is that big, the amount of energy required would be too much...

    •  
      CommentAuthorMrFingers
    • CommentTimeSep 10th 2006
     

    technically you cannot go faster than the speed of light. but i am yet to understand why that is entirely, so i can't definitively tell you yes or no.

    no need to try to explain it to me, i understand the basics, just not the why why whys.

    • CommentAuthormigrena
    • CommentTimeSep 10th 2006
     

    if you are trying to accelerate material object (ie edge of that disc) its mass is getting bigger and bigget the closer you get to c and therfore its also getting harder to accelerate more, if you have enough energy by accelerating you will eventually end up with black hole

    but aside of that theoreticaly you can go "faster" than c in two cases:
    1-you will find a medium in which light speed (not c!) is very low and then make some object move faster than that, iirc this is called czerenkov radiation and was proven for smal practicles (mind you that c constant is defined as "light speed in vacuum")
    2-get a strong laser and a good binoculars or small telescope, point them to the moon and move the laser (slowly), you will observe that dot on moons surface is moving faster than light but its not material so again you didnt beat ~300000000mps for material objects

    •  
      CommentAuthorUdoboy
    • CommentTimeSep 11th 2006
     

    migrena, your #1 up there is not going faster than c, but going faster than light in a medium. c is the speed of light in a vacuum.

    •  
      CommentAuthorMrFingers
    • CommentTimeSep 11th 2006
     

    *does a hand stand on the disk*

    • CommentAuthormigrena
    • CommentTimeSep 11th 2006
     

    yes, #1 should be classified as moving faster than light, my bad

    •  
      CommentAuthorIllnab1024
    • CommentTimeSep 11th 2006
     

    I suppose centrifugal force would utterly destroy any matter at that speed.

    • CommentAuthormigrena
    • CommentTimeSep 11th 2006 edited
     

    you could use a dyson ring with large mass in its center, but you will need to find a way to increase its mass to balance centrifugal force (ie shoot some matter to its poles as you increase its spinning speed)

  1.  

    ok, how about this

    your in your car going 100mph on the highway, you turn on your head lights.

    how fast is the light from your headlights going?

    •  
      CommentAuthorIllnab1024
    • CommentTimeSep 12th 2006
     

    It's going at the speed of light in that medium...Since you are already moving you are not applying any additional speed to that light...it is still the same.

    •  
      CommentAuthorUdoboy
    • CommentTimeSep 12th 2006
     

    migetman, that's like asking this:

    You're moving at one inch per hour. You throw a baseball. How fast is the baseball going?
    The initial velocity is immaterial to the answer.

    •  
      CommentAuthorMrFingers
    • CommentTimeSep 12th 2006
     

    hit the nail on the head ;)

  2.  

    ok say you're going half the speed of light and then turn on the headlights. What happens? Everything I've ever read/heard says the light goes the speed of light in the medium, relative to yourself OR any onlooker. I have yet to understand why so far but this is what I understand. If someone can explain, please do.

    •  
      CommentAuthorMrFingers
    • CommentTimeSep 12th 2006
     

    that is where consensus diverges. There are people who have quite differing opinions on that, take with a pinch of salt everything you learn in school that is physics related from the last 50 years, alot of it is high up for questioning.

    If you think about what you are asking, lets imagine two people. one in a vehicle racing along at half the speed of light, the other far off and stationary. if the vehicle emits a pulse of laser light forwards, how can one observer see either 50% or 150% the speed of light, while the other sees 100%. I cannot answer your question. ask me again in 4 years when I have my masters in physics lol.

    • CommentAuthormigrena
    • CommentTimeSep 12th 2006
     

    complicated answer: dig into information about corpuscular nature of light and you will know why
    simple answer: why you think that fotons will move at vechicle speed + light speed?

    •  
      CommentAuthorUdoboy
    • CommentTimeSep 13th 2006
     
    Posted By: bluebandit08

    ok say you're going half the speed of light and then turn on the headlights. What happens? Everything I've ever read/heard says the light goes the speed of light in the medium, relative to yourself OR any onlooker. I have yet to understand why so far but this is what I understand. If someone can explain, please do.

    You cannot "add momentums" when considering photons, because photons have no mass. Photons always travel at c in a vacuum.

    •  
      CommentAuthorMrFingers
    • CommentTimeSep 13th 2006
     

    they do have mass :p

    •  
      CommentAuthorUdoboy
    • CommentTimeSep 13th 2006
     

    ixnay on the otonphay assmay

    I'm making a point.

    • CommentAuthormigrena
    • CommentTimeSep 13th 2006
     

    we are talking about fotons in their wave or material state?

    •  
      CommentAuthorGeog
    • CommentTimeSep 13th 2006
     

    *wishes he knew enough about physics to participate* :sad:

    •  
      CommentAuthorMrFingers
    • CommentTimeSep 13th 2006
     

    migrena, u never heard of wave particle duality? every wave has a particle property and visa versa.
    that is why light lands in packets called photons.

    •  
      CommentAuthorMrFingers
    • CommentTimeSep 13th 2006
     

    that is also how solar wind is supposed to work.

    • CommentAuthormigrena
    • CommentTimeSep 14th 2006 edited
     

    "supposed" :wink:
    its hard to grasp those vapour of knowlage that i still have from my studies... i asked because i remembered that there was something wrong with fotons being material all the time and maintaining their speed, so they have and at the same time they havent any mass?

    •  
      CommentAuthorUdoboy
    • CommentTimeSep 14th 2006
     

    migrena
    It's an extension of the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle. If you measure a photon's mass, you change its state.
    In order to make any meaningful statements about photons, then, you need to disregard mass.

    • CommentAuthormigrena
    • CommentTimeSep 14th 2006
     

    you need that mass to know how much exacly light will bend in gravitational field (a fact you can confirm during each solar aclipse)

    •  
      CommentAuthorMrFingers
    • CommentTimeSep 14th 2006
     

    and the fact that a black hole is black.

    • CommentAuthormigrena
    • CommentTimeSep 14th 2006
     

    its not black hole that is black, event horizon is black, and its not really black because it emits some moving particles, ergo it emits heat...
    ok we moved totally off-topic :wink:

    •  
      CommentAuthorMrFingers
    • CommentTimeSep 14th 2006
     

    lol :)

    well it's black because light is sucked into it and not emitted, and light is sucked into it because it has mass and is therefore affected by the gravitational field.

    •  
      CommentAuthorUdoboy
    • CommentTimeSep 15th 2006
     

    I'm not sure that gravity has any effect on light (photons) at all.

    Gravity wells distorts the shape of space around them. A photon travels in a straight line. If a black hole or other gravity well causes said "straight line" to curve, then the photon appears to travel in a curve when in fact it continues to travel in a straight line.

    No, I'm not making this up!

    •  
      CommentAuthorMrFingers
    • CommentTimeSep 15th 2006 edited
     

    no you are right, i get your point completely.

    hmmm.... but if you think about it the same could be said about any orbiting body, they are simply following a straight line in a parobolic indentation of the space-time fabric caused by a larger mass. we recognise the slope of this fabric by the size of the force the mass experiences.

    •  
      CommentAuthorUdoboy
    • CommentTimeSep 15th 2006
     

    If you shine a light from the earth, it will travel the path photons take. The earth will travel a different path, due to gravity.

    •  
      CommentAuthorMrFingers
    • CommentTimeSep 15th 2006
     

    I think that is resultant of the difference in speed.

    • CommentAuthorwwbwb9636
    • CommentTimeSep 15th 2006
     

    So... I'll assume from the answers... that the disk will, in a sense, become a spiral, with the inside rotating, but as we approach the edge, it begins to slow down to nothing since it's to massive to move? (Then it begins to move backwards and then I am totally screwed) :surprised:

    • CommentAuthormigrena
    • CommentTimeSep 16th 2006
     

    i mentioned this in one of topics here
    photons mass was experimentally proven by measuring difference betwen expected and real stars positions during sun eclipse - measured positions of stars observed near sun was different from calculated if fotons wouldnt have mass, stars were observed closer to the sun thus proving that gravity affects photons, and because gravity affects only objects that have mass therfore fotons have mass
    i hope my english was good enough to make this clear

    Posted By: Udoboy

    If you shine a light from the earth, it will travel the path photons take. The earth will travel a different path, due to gravity.

    photons will travel different path because they have much smaller mass than earth and therfore they are much less affected by gravity

    Posted By: wwbwb9636

    So... I'll assume from the answers... that the disk will, in a sense, become a spiral, with the inside rotating, but as we approach the edge, it begins to slow down to nothing since it's to massive to move? (Then it begins to move backwards and then I am totally screwed)<img src=" TITLE=":surprised:">

    if it will be made from rubber then yes :bigsmile:

    •  
      CommentAuthorUdoboy
    • CommentTimeSep 18th 2006
     
    Posted By: migrena
    Posted By: Udoboy

    If you shine a light from the earth, it will travel the path photons take. The earth will travel a different path, due to gravity.

    photons will travel different path because they have much smaller mass than earth and therfore they are much less affected by gravity

    That's what I said!

  3.  

    wow i started somthing with alot of big words...

    • CommentAuthorblasto
    • CommentTimeOct 5th 2006 edited
     
    Posted By: MrFingers

    technically you cannot go faster than the speed of light. but i am yet to understand why that is entirely, so i can't definitively tell you yes or no.

    no need to try to explain it to me, i understand the basics, just not the why why whys.

    There's no real need to understand why. It's classical theoretical physics, and the most elegant answer was given by the third poster.

    PS to "migrena" - a black hole emits a hellava lot more than "some particles"..... Black holes are "messy eaters".

    •  
      CommentAuthorMrFingers
    • CommentTimeOct 6th 2006 edited
     

    I am a physics student and the only reason I accept something I do not fully understand, such as the above, is because so many more knowledgable people than I do accept it. I just don't digest things I don't understand, simple as. The majority of physics within the last 50 years I view with extreme scepticism. especially quantum physics. yuck. wave-particle duality, ok, but tell me a particle could be anywhere in the universe until you measure it? :tongue:

    •  
      CommentAuthorBigRig
    • CommentTimeOct 6th 2006 edited
     
    I have been banned

    <blockquote><cite>Posted By: Geog</cite>*wishes he knew enough about physics to participate*:sad:</blockquote>

    DUMBASS!

    •  
      CommentAuthorTaed
    • CommentTimeOct 6th 2006
     

    Isn't Dumbass the guy who wrote The Three Musketeers and the sequel The Man in the Iron Mask? I hear that there's going to be another sequel Iron Man coming out in May 2007 where Leonardo finally kicks some serious butt with his robot armor.

    •  
      CommentAuthorAthene
    • CommentTimeOct 6th 2006
     

    I think that was Dumas, Taed... :wink:

    •  
      CommentAuthorUdoboy
    • CommentTimeOct 7th 2006
     

    The Man in the Iron Mask was actually book 5. The second book was alright... the others were boggy in politics to get to the end.

    •  
      CommentAuthorTaed
    • CommentTimeOct 7th 2006 edited
     

    Yeah, it's pretty confusing. While they're subtitled The Three Musketeers: Book 4 and The Man in the Iron Mask: Book 5, the first 3 prequels were never made. It was a typical Dumas move to try to create a franchise that he could just sit back and live off the royalties. Of course, in the 18th century, merchandising rights were less than bubkus, so he didn't even cash in on the back-end, either. And, as you probably know, he later died a pauper. It wasn't until the Classics Illustrated versions of the books came out that the original novels then became popular in the mid-1900's.

  4.  

    That was the most awesome turn of a conversation I have ever seen, Taed. Thank you for that.

  5.  

    I thought that a black hole is black because the light goes so fast you can't see it :wink: