Jump to content
Guest_Jim_*

Is Relativity Correct? Faster-Than-Light Speed Detected: Discussion

Recommended Posts

This whole discussion reminds me of a discussion some friends and I had when we were stoned and acting philosophical. I was the only one who said it could be possible. They said I smoked too much lol

 

I think the idea isn't as crazy as people think. In fact, Sihastru put it best in saying E=~MC^2. Maybe relativity isn't set in stone, but is relative to the observer?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Then we have the time paradox...... :mellow:

Relativity already lets us have an effect be observed before the cause, and this has been observed. The thing is the observation of effect before cause would be at the effect side, not at the beginning where the cause occurs. By where the cause occurs, the cause would still appear to occur before the effect. With faster than light travel involved, then you could get the information of the effect to the point where the cause occurs before the cause happens.

 

But speed is relative.

Say you point too torches at each other. The streams of photons are traveling at 2x light speed relative to each other.

Speed is relative only according to classical mechanics. At larger speeds, relativity takes over.

Here's the actual equation from relativity for adding two speeds (v and w are the two speeds): (v+w)/(1+(v*w)/c^2). Setting v=c=w gives you: 2c/(1+c^2/c^2)=2c/2=c. This equation predates relativity and is from experiments by Lorentz and Fitzgerald. They were not working together or even on the same phenomena, but both arrived at the same equations called the Lorentz-Fitzgerald Transformations, or, more simply, Lorentz Transformations.

 

OP: Wouldn't this be more pertinent to "Special Relativity" rather than "Relativity"?

 

My 2cents is that if proven true this is quite an interesting find. I know this discovery will be huge for time-travel theorists, however keep in mind that if you have to get past the speed of light to travel in time you must also stop at faster than the speed of light. For some reason I don't think stepping in front of a greyhound doing 100mph does this illustration justice. lol

Do you want me to change the title? I will.

Converting a second for someone on the 100mph bus to a stationary observer's second would give you 1.0000000000000111159 seconds. The effect is there, but very small, only appearing at 10^-14.

Your point about the stopping at a superluminal speed is correct, last I heard. The speed of light technically isn't a speed limit, but a nondifferentiable point (ah, calculus). Basically, nothing can be accelerated to the speed of light without requiring infinite energy (and according to the Big Bang Theory, there is only a finite amount of energy in our universe), so you are trapped on one side of c or the other. It's just that while below c you need infinite energy to speed up, but above c you need infinite energy to slow down. I am curious if the energy of the neutrinos would be enough to slow them down to the 1.0000248 c speed observed. Basically, does the math fit with the neutrinos starting above c? (In case you're curious, if one were to cross over the speed of light, according to the Lorentz-Fitsgerald Transformations, measurements of distance, time, and energy would all be imaginary, as in i.)

 

This whole discussion reminds me of a discussion some friends and I had when we were stoned and acting philosophical. I was the only one who said it could be possible. They said I smoked too much lol

 

I think the idea isn't as crazy as people think. In fact, Sihastru put it best in saying E=~MC^2. Maybe relativity isn't set in stone, but is relative to the observer?

Too many things to respond to!

As I pointed out earlier, E=mc^2 should not be effected by this. In fact, E=mc^2 comes from the Lorentz-Fitsgerald Transformations, which relativity explains. The transformations are truly independent of relativity. Also, Special Relativity is what shows nothing is truly relative to the observer. You may observe something different to than another observer, but after transforming one frame of reference to the other, the observations are the same.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I dropped a bowling ball on my foot today, science! :D

 

Look on the bright side....if it would have been a wrecking ball or even a marble instead, it would have still hit your foot going the same speed :lol:

 

Hmmm...science proving or disproving something that man initially thought otherwise, no way :P

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Look on the bright side....if it would have been a wrecking ball or even a marble instead, it would have still hit your foot going the same speed :lol:

 

Hmmm...science proving or disproving something that man initially thought otherwise, no way :P

Nothing's been proven yet, (except that Death is clumsy) not until a lot of verification. After all both theories of relativity are still theories and not considered natural laws yet. This is just the most damaging evidence to Special Relativity yet found.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Too many things to respond to!

As I pointed out earlier, E=mc^2 should not be effected by this. In fact, E=mc^2 comes from the Lorentz-Fitsgerald Transformations, which relativity explains. The transformations are truly independent of relativity. Also, Special Relativity is what shows nothing is truly relative to the observer. You may observe something different to than another observer, but after transforming one frame of reference to the other, the observations are the same.

This makes way more sense than what my stoner friends were telling me haha

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Look on the bright side....if it would have been a wrecking ball or even a marble instead, it would have still hit your foot going the same speed :lol:

 

Hmmm...science proving or disproving something that man initially thought otherwise, no way :P

 

Actually, due to friction, it would have hit at different speeds, although very tiny change due to not a very high drop, would have resulted in tiny changes in speed. Unless he dropped a bowling ball on his foot in a complete vacuum...then off from that I don't know how he is alive.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Actually, due to friction, it would have hit at different speeds, although very tiny change due to not a very high drop, would have resulted in tiny changes in speed. Unless he dropped a bowling ball on his foot in a complete vacuum...then off from that I don't know how he is alive.

 

Friction!?! Damn, you mean that the world isn't ideal???

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Nothing's been proven yet, (except that Death is clumsy) not until a lot of verification. After all both theories of relativity are still theories and not considered natural laws yet. This is just the most damaging evidence to Special Relativity yet found.

I may be clumsy but at least I understand why toast needs to pop out of a toaster instead of simply lifting the toast back up, and that's more than you will ever know. :D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I may be clumsy but at least I understand why toast needs to pop out of a toaster instead of simply lifting the toast back up, and that's more than you will ever know. :D

Toaster oven; no popping :snap:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×