/sci/ - Science & Math

>I've been thinking abot the speed of light thing and I came to conclusion
Oh boy, shitty thought-experiment conclusions incoming.

>But look, if you are seeing an object and you are outside of it, you see his speed right?
Yep, arguments from intuition. Failure is imminent.

>So lets think about an object(transparent), which travels for example with a speed sligtly lower than the speed of light, and inside of it an object which travels with a huge speed, so for you standing outside this object, the object inside object is travelling with a speed greater than the speed of light.
Assuming the conclusion, that the speed of light can be surpassed. Good job.

>Shouldn't it be taken that way? I know that for very big speeds there are different equations, but cmon, in my opinion, my theory is right....
Your intuition is worthless, because you have never witnessed any objects moving at a relative speed close to c.

that pic made me lol

>>2412559
wow fuck, you are so great internet tough guy. I said it is only mine theory so stfu.
>Your intuition is worthless, because you have never witnessed any objects moving at a relative speed close to c.
What if I build a camera, which will can see that?? maybe in some time people will build some shit travelling with that speed? Then for the camera that object inside object will be moving with speed faster than light.
If you do not agree, tell me what is wrong in this kind of thinking, but without your shitty tone and ignorance fag

Galilean relativity says that for an external observer, the speed of light emitted from a car moving at speed v would be v + c. This is wrong, and is pretty much why special relativity was created.

>>2412608
ok, i get your point.
Also i heard, that in some places in space the laws of physics aren't the same as on earth, so in fact there could be something moving faster. How it works then?

>>2412601
>What if I build a camera, which will can see that?? maybe in some time people will build some shit travelling with that speed? Then for the camera that object inside object will be moving with speed faster than light.
>If you do not agree, tell me what is wrong in this kind of thinking, but without your shitty tone and ignorance fag

Now you're getting closer, because you're asking how light works. Thought experiments that ask about travel time of light get you going in the right direction.

But really, you are way in over your head. I'm sorry if I sound overly disparaging, but there is no possible way you are 18 or over. If you're younger than that, you aren't welcome here.

I wish you the best of luck, and hope you can come to understand special relativity. But right now, I don't think there's much chance.

Perhaps I should be more helpful, rather than disparaging. But I think this is a lesson you need to learn early.

Intuition is worthless if you have no personal experience with the phenomena at hand. What "makes sense" does you not good if you've never seen what you're talking about.

Whoever made this picture is retarded. The outside lining is JAPANESE, not chinese.

>>2412631
>Also i heard, that in some places in space the laws of physics aren't the same as on earth, so in fact there could be something moving faster. How it works then?
It's possible, but as far as we can tell the laws of physics are the same everywhere. One consequence of this NOT being the case would be that energy would not be conserved in interactions between the two regions. This comes from Noether's Theorem, that explains how certain symmetries imply conservation laws.

>>2412631
As far as we know, there are no such places. Unless you're talking about hypothetical separate universes or dimensions, which we also don't know exist.

>>2412537
is this a troll physics thread?

>>2412631

Scientists like to assume that the entire universe abides by the same laws that affect the region of space we inhabit. As outrageous as this claim may or may not be, it makes everything a hell of a lot easier.

Something you might want to look into is the Alcubeirre metric, under which ftl travel is theoretically possible.

>>2412713
I thought that only required bending of spacetime, which has nothing to do with the universality of the laws of physics.

>>2412713
nothing with mass can travel as fast as light, or it would require an infinite amount of energy to travel that fast.

in other words, as an object gets closer to c, extra energy you add to it isn't as efficient as it was at slower speeds. rather than being used to increase the speed, it increases the mass with very little to no increase in speed.

with your example OP, the object inside the glass thing wouldn't be able to break the speed of light because of time dilation. because of the speed of the glass deal, the thing inside of it, even if going "Faster" than the glass, would be experiencing "slower" time, and could not reach c.

now, moving an object through space quicker than light can travel (which is different than an object moving at or above c) might be possible.

see: >>2412713

>>2412761

It's more a case of moving the space around the object faster than light, as opposed to moving the object through space. For all intents and purposes, the object could be static.

>>2412772
thats what i said in my second to last sentence. not moving an object with mass at or above c, but "getting it somewhere" faster than light could travel.

same thing, i just wasn't being specific because i then give a link.

see my post.

>>2412783
That is an important distinction. Violating the local speed limit is the forbidden thing relativity. But if you bend space up enough, you can get what *looks* like FTL travel when you're done with the trip, IIRC.

Too bad it requires stupid-high energy densities.

>>2412783

Hate to be pedantic, but:

>moving an object through space quicker than light can travel

You can't move an object with mass faster than light. Maybe it's just poor wording.

>>2412795
well, stupid-high energy is a lot more probable than infinite energy :)

>>2412795

Doesn't it require negative energy?

>>2412809
I said, in my first post, that you can't move an object with mass at or faster than the speed of light. right in the first sentence, nonetheless. >>2412761


here, let me quote myself from my first post:

"nothing with mass can travel as fast as light"

second post:

"not moving an object with mass at or above c, but 'getting it somewhere' faster than light could travel"

i know you mathematicians aren't pros with words, but what I said was that you could possibly move an object from Point A to Point B faster than light alone could move from Point A to Point B. but in all my posts, I've made it clear that you cannot move the object itself at the speed of light, just that it could be delivered (inside a bubble of space, for example) faster than light could travel.

>People say, that there is no such a thing as a speed faster than light.
No, people say that objects can't move faster than the speed of light. If I have point in space A, and one photon B travels away from it, and one photon D travels away from it the opposite direction, at what speed is the distance between the two photons increasing? 2c.

B<----------A---------->D

>>2412761
>>it increases the mass with very little to no increase in speed.

No, no, no. We've been over this already.

Unless you believe that atoms just randomly synthesize from nothing. In that case, have a good one.

>>2412895
who has been over what?

you believe that adding energy to an object will continue to increase its speed and will not increase its mass?

you think that objects with mass can reach c?

this is /sci/, right?

are you talking about higgs boson? its a subatomic particle that is theorized to move faster than the speed of light. As a matter of fact, its so fast that it can't be seen. hence whit it is still a theory

>>2412841

The sentence "moving an object through space quicker than light can travel" implies the object is moving faster than light. Which isn't right. The correct wording would be "moving the space around an object quicker than light can travel". Just sayin, you're the one who might want to re-examine his sentence-forming ability.

>>2412920
Why are you making all these baseless assumptions?

I am asking you whether or not you believe that matter (in my previous post I said atoms, which is also matter) can spontaneously synthesize from nothing. Your answer will obviously be "yes," to which I will ask the follow-up question of how that works. If your answer for some reason is "no," you are directly contradicting yourself.

>>2412941
"getting it somewhere" faster than light could travel

lemme explain it to ya.

getting somewhere faster than light could travel doesn't imply that i'm moving something at or above the speed of light. only that is is leaving location 1 and arriving at location 2 before a photon could travel the same distance.

wormhole, warping space, whatever.

i don't say that i'm moving the object at c or faster. just that it "gets there" faster.

i'm always amused when simple laymens terms throws people off a relatively simple concept.

>>2412953
so, you're asking me a question you know the answer to, proving that i'm contradicting myself?

lol

9/10

>>2412537
>in my opinion, my theory is right....

GTFO, you fail at logic, reasoning and science.
You = fail!

>>2412971
Instead of holding a discussion with a guy who's curious about how matter synthesizes from nothing near the speed of light, you resort to ad hominem, eh. That's a shame. I was hoping I'd learn something new today.

I want to believe that you know the answer to my question and you're just trolling me, but something tells me that you would have engaged in a discussion at once if you did know, especially judging from your last reply.

Anyway, I think we're done here.

>>2413052
matter synthesizing from nothing is a quantum physics matter. what that has to do with the speed of light, i don't know.

your question has no relevance to the conversation i'm interested in having, not to mention, i'm not sure what your question is.

you pretend that you desire a conversation, and then say, "No, no, no, we've been over this already", which we haven't, and then say that if I "believe" something (not science, btw) that the conversation is over.

Either you're a troll, or you need to:

1. Learn not to be condescending to someone you might or might not be in a conversation with

2. Explain yourself better, rather than saying that you know I believe something and that if I do, I'm wrong, or if I don't believe it, I'm contradicting myself.

How about this, explain wtf you are asking, and I'll give an answer.

If all you are going to do is assume that I know what you're talking about and that if I ask, whatever my opinion is wrong, then you need to learn how to have a conversation.

Anyway, considering you probably don't know wtf you're talking about, I think we're done here.