🚀 go-pugleaf

[header]

> >> > The trouble with this quandry is that one has no need for
> >> > "headlights" at
> >> > that speed, as when we reach the speed of light, our mass is
> >> > infinite,
> >> > therefore filling the whole universe.
> >
> >Nope, no, no, no!   Infinite mass does NOT mean filling the
> >whole universe... that would be infinite volume.   Anything
> >more massive than a black hole simply leaves the universe
> >(so to speak).   ANYWAY, ONLY light travels at the "speed
> >of light"  (light has NO mass, anything that has any mass *cannot*
> >travel exactly at the speed of light (99.9999+% of the speed of light
> >is OK, though...)
> >
> You're correct in saying that infinite mass does not mean infinite
> volume but the rest is a load of bollocks.  I take it that by saying a
> black hole leaves the universe you mean visibly, but don't forget the
> most important characteristic of a black hole is its mass and that
> would leave a gravitational footprint that would be very detectable.

Due to the compton-effect, where photons collide with other particles, it
was needed to assign momentum to photons. In order to explain the effect,
there had to be conservation of momentum and energy. Calculations led to
the statement that photons had no mass. (you can read that in any
quantummechanics book). Still, a black hole is usely interpreted as a
concentration of matter so large, that at gravitationfield even attracts
photons. (hence: black hole, light cannot escape it).

 
> I admit that it would not be possible to accelerate a body with mass
> to the speed of light but there is nothing in the equations of special
> relativity that say that faster than light travel is impossible.  What
> the equations imply is that it is impossible to cross the speed of
> light barrier as this would require an infinite amount of energy but
> if a particle existed with a velocity greater than that of light it
> would require an infinite amount of energy to slow down to light
> speed.  These particles are given the name tachyons (don't you watch
> star trek).
> 

Typical. Some diffrential equations also imply the negative square-root
solutions. Complex algebra yields satisfactory solutions for that. We could
also make a TV-series about a parralel world, where they don't have
positive square roots.

> >> > At that speed, by the above
> >> > statement, we have instant access to every point in the universe,
the
> >> > trouble
> >> > is in choosing the right point to start decelerating.
> >
> >Not really, it takes light one year to travel between two points in
> >the universe that are one light-year apart.
> >
> 
> Wrong again I'm afraid.  

No he's not. It's the excact definition.

> You seem to be completely ignoring the
> effects of time dilation and length contraction which are at the heart
> of special relativity.  As velocity increases time decrease until
> light speed is attained when time grounds to a complete stop.  The
> length also decrease as velocity increase until at light speed the
> distance between the photon of light and everything in the universe is
> zero.  You could say that time has no meaning for an electromagnetic
> wave or that the wave touches everything in the universe at once.
> 
Quit a statement, wouldn't you say? Kindly explain doppler shifts in
starlight.
If it touches everything at once, how come it doesn't touch 2 detectors at
once.

> Of course a tachyon would travel backwards in time.
> 
Purpose a way over measuring tachyons.

> >> > Two ships are travelling at the speed of light in opposite
> >> > directions, how fast
> >> > are they receding from each other and can they see each other.
> >
> >Well, assume they are travelling at 99.999999999% of the speed
> >of light (see above).
> >
> >> > 
> >> > The answer is perplexing, they are receding from each other at the
> >> > speed of
> >> > light and are also receding from an object in between them at the
> >> > speed of light.
> >
> >No, they are travelling from each other at 99.9999999999999999999999%
> >of the speed of light, but are receeding from the central point at
"only"
> >99.999999999% of the speed of light.  The universe is "curved" in the
> >fourth dimension (time) but the curveature is so small that you can't
> >"see" it unless you are going near the speed of light.
> >
> 
> You got this one right. The total relative velocity of the ships would
> combine to be less than that of light, but the ships velocity relative
> to the central point would be even less than this.  

Quit obvious, isn't it? If two cars travel at 20 mph in oposite directions
of 
eachother, away from say a gasstation, there relative speed is 40 mph which

is less than the speed of light. There real velocities are ofcourse
smaller.

>Of course if the
> ships were actually travelling at the speed of light the ships would
> indeed be receding from each other and from the centre point at the
> speed of light.  This is related to the headlight problem stated
> above.  If your car was travelling close to the speed of light you
> would still need you headlights because the speed of light is constant
> and so from the point of view of your car you just can't catch up with
> your headlights no matter how fast you go.
> 
True.

> >> > Due to the special properties of light, they can also see each other
> >> > racing
> >> > away from both the centre point and each other.
> >
> >Not really, the light catching up with each ship is "red shifted" into
the
> >radio
> >wave region of the spectrum...   They would need a GIGANTIC radio
> >telescope to "see" each other.
> >
> >> 
> >> If two ships have inifinite mass, how can they recede from each other?
> >
> >Black holes can orbit each other and still have very large masses. 
Since
> >you are only going at 99.999999999999% of the speed of light, you only
have
> >a very large mass (like a black hole), not an infinite one.
> 
> Your really talking about two completely different problems.  I'm
> afraid your gonna have to decide how fast they're going.
> 
> >
> >Here is an interesting think that the "great" physicists are STILL not
sure
> >of.
> >Consider motion.  Assume you are in intergalactic space (no stars
around,
> >just in the blackness).  How would you know if you were moving, since
there
> >was nothing around you to see to judge your motion in comparison  to?
> >They consider therefore that the concept of motion is somehow
> >"asymptotically
> >connected" to all other mass in the universe.  If you are close to
> >something, then
> >whether or not you are moving has some meaning, but if there is
*nothing*
> >around
> >you, even very far away, then motion has no meaning...
> >
> >
> You wouldn't know if you were moving without any external references
> that's where the "relative" of relativity comes from.  I personally
> don't have a problem not knowing if its the train or the platform
> moving ( Do you ???) and as far as motion being connected to the mass
> of the universe that's another load of bollocks.  

As you consider that mass is in a way a form of energy, and it requires
energy to
get to a certain velocity, there is a connection. Not 'assymptotically'.

>What do "great"
> physicists know anyway, I've solved all the problems in the universe
> and I can't even get a job (does that count as a problem).

No. Gene Roddenberry managed to find a job, and know all the answers.