Anonymous B joined in and replied with this 14 years ago, 11 minutes later[^][v]#308,734
No, sorry.
Broseph !!fxnDb+Ve4 joined in and replied with this 14 years ago, 4 minutes later, 15 minutes after the original post[^][v]#308,735
No. First of all, travelling at the speed of light takes an infinite amount of energy. It's impossible. Second, it's impossible to travel faster than the speed of light, so even if the ship was hypothetically travelling at light speed, being shot out of a cannon would not make you travel faster than light.
Let's say you were traveling 1mph under the speed of light, and pointed a flashlight in front of you. To an outside observer, the light from the flashlight would seem to be traveling 1mph faster than your ship, but from your perspective the light from the flashlight would still be traveling at the speed of light. Light always moves at the speed of light relative to you, no matter what speed you're going.
Anonymous D joined in and replied with this 14 years ago, 1 hour later, 1 hour after the original post[^][v]#308,756
> says its impossible to travel the speed of light > gives example of someone traveling 1mph under the speed of light
Expert physics expert detected. Do you explain the properties of light and relativity to people interested in buying a new flat screen? Carry on, professor.
Broseph !!fxnDb+Ve4 replied with this 14 years ago, 4 minutes later, 2 hours after the original post[^][v]#308,757
@previous (D)
It is possible to travel at any speed under the speed of light. 1mph under the speed of light would take so much energy that's it's probably not feasible, but it was just an example. Was anything I said incorrect? No, so fuck off.
Anonymous D replied with this 14 years ago, 9 minutes later, 2 hours after the original post[^][v]#308,759
> possible > not feasible
Now you are back peddling. It looks like you enjoy lecturing people until you get called out on your bullshit.
Anonymous C replied with this 14 years ago, 3 minutes later, 2 hours after the original post[^][v]#308,762
@previous (D)
I'm not back peddling at all. There is a difference between possible and feasible. It is physically possible, it doesn't break any laws of physics, but is not feasible with current technology. It was just an example used to explain special relativity. What exactly is bullshit about what I said?
(Edited 1 minute later.)
Anonymous D replied with this 14 years ago, 8 minutes later, 2 hours after the original post[^][v]#308,763
You were being an arrogant ass and talking down to someone who had a legitimate question. Instead of explaining the concepts to him on a level he could understand, you fired off an explanation that was over complicated and filled with semi-technical jargon in an attempt to appear as an authority on the subject. All I did was point out that your example failed to make a very strong argument for your original point.
Anonymous C replied with this 14 years ago, 7 minutes later, 2 hours after the original post[^][v]#308,764
@previous (D)
He had a legitimate question, and I answered it, without dumbing it down or using technical jargon. I wasn't talking down to green at all. The fact that you think that was technical jargon and over complicated really just shows that you're intimidated by anything you don't understand and feel a need to attack me. You're nitpicking over what amount under the speed of light I used. It doesn't fucking matter. I could have said 9/10 the speed of light, I could have said c-x, the example would have been exactly the same. > your example failed to make a very strong argument for your original point.
I wasn't making any argument. I was explaining a physics problem.
(Edited 36 seconds later.)
Anonymous D replied with this 14 years ago, 13 minutes later, 2 hours after the original post[^][v]#308,770
> He had a legitimate question, and I answered it, without dumbing it down or using technical jargon. I wasn't talking down to green at all.
You were talking down to him. > The fact that you think that was technical jargon and over complicated really just shows that you're intimidated by anything you don't understand and feel a need to attack me.
There you go again, talking down to people as well as making assumptions about their intelligence based on perceived intimidation. You seem you have a lot to prove and feel threatened when anyone calls you out about something you obviously know little about beyond what Wikipedia told you. > You're nitpicking over what amount under the speed of light I used. It doesn't fucking matter. I could have said 9/10 the speed of light, I could have said c-x, the example would have been exactly the same.
I'm pointing out that in one breath you marveled at how silly the idea of traveling the speed of light was and in the next you were able to conceive that traveling 1mph under it was a complete possibility. > >your example failed to make a very strong argument for your original point. > I wasn't making any argument. I was explaining a physics problem.
Wikipedia explained the physics problem, you merely recited what you read while attacking Green for asking an honest question.
Broseph !!fxnDb+Ve4 replied with this 14 years ago, 6 minutes later, 2 hours after the original post[^][v]#308,774
@previous (D)
I wasn't talking down to him, it's possible to go any speed under the speed of light, everything I learned about physics I learned in college and just put up the link in case he wanted to read further. End of story.
Anonymous D replied with this 14 years ago, 4 minutes later, 2 hours after the original post[^][v]#308,778
> I wasn't talking down to him, it's possible to go any speed under the speed of light
It is a concrete possibility or a theoretical one? > everything I learned about physics I learned in college and just put up the link in case he wanted to read further.
You were a physics major? You learned special relativity? > End of story.
This story has been over but your arrogance prevents you from not responding.
Killer Lettuce !!iNo3FkiZx joined in and replied with this 14 years ago, 48 minutes later, 3 hours after the original post[^][v]#308,791
astromermaid joined in and replied with this 14 years ago, 29 minutes later, 4 hours after the original post[^][v]#308,802
hi world
squeegee !firstkPE1Q joined in and replied with this 14 years ago, 2 hours later, 6 hours after the original post[^][v]#308,818
Broseph is right though, you can't go the speed of light but you can go any speed below it. When i was in school my prof never used an example where he didn't at least use 9/10ths the speed of light or some such number. That's just the way it is.
If you think broseph marveled at "going the speed of light" but then concieved of 1 mph below it as being completely possible then you're correct! This is totally true and not some bit of technical jargon, nor is it said just to confuse you or muddy the waters.
It's just a physical law and any discussion of relativity starts from there.
Anonymous D replied with this 14 years ago, 7 minutes later, 6 hours after the original post[^][v]#308,820
Had Broseph phrased it in the way you did and not talked down to Green I would have never said anything. He felt the need to insult Green and make himself appear smarter. He seems to do this a lot.
Anonymous H joined in and replied with this 14 years ago, 9 minutes later, 6 hours after the original post[^][v]#308,822
Anonymous D replied with this 14 years ago, 6 minutes later, 6 hours after the original post[^][v]#308,824
Broseph doesn't seem to notice.
Fake anon !ZkUt8arUCU joined in and replied with this 14 years ago, 24 minutes later, 7 hours after the original post[^][v]#308,827
@308,818 (squeegee !firstkPE1Q)
Well technically photons do travel at the speed of light, so it is possible for objects without rest mass. Also, there are theoretical particles called tachyons which could travel faster than the speed of light, but they would really mess with our theories of causation so most scientists don't think they exists, as far as I know.
green !YzDEWwv9Z2 (OP) replied with this 14 years ago, 3 minutes later, 7 hours after the original post[^][v]#308,828
What if you were travelling just under the speed of light and then shot out of a cannon?
(Edited 59 seconds later.)
Broseph !!fxnDb+Ve4 replied with this 14 years ago, 12 minutes later, 7 hours after the original post[^][v]#308,830
@previous (green !YzDEWwv9Z2)
Then you would get a tiny bit closer to the speed of light.
Dead !Pool7hVoC2 joined in and replied with this 14 years ago, 34 minutes later, 8 hours after the original post[^][v]#308,832
Becky detected
squeegee !firstkPE1Q replied with this 14 years ago, 15 minutes later, 8 hours after the original post[^][v]#308,834
@308,828 (green !YzDEWwv9Z2)
Think of it in terms of observer. If you're on the ship then you see the man shot from the cannon at a speed you would measure to be consistent with a man shot from a cannon anywhere. However, if you were on a planet and made the same measurement you would get different numbers such as distance traveled over time or apparent velocity.
Unintentional Jackass !LASXURl1b6 joined in and replied with this 14 years ago, 30 minutes later, 8 hours after the original post[^][v]#308,840
@308,828 (green !YzDEWwv9Z2)
If you were in a vacuum, I think you would actually wind up going a little slower because of the force of the cannon. The force would counteract some of the momentum propelling you forward.
If you were not in a vacuum, the force of the particles around you would probably slow you down (but approaching the speed of light is only possible in a vacuum, I'd imagine)
kook !nH6RAuX8mo joined in and replied with this 14 years ago, 10 minutes later, 9 hours after the original post[^][v]#308,843
@308,832 (Dead !Pool7hVoC2)
yeah, she has a real hate on for broseph.
Dead !Pool7hVoC2 replied with this 14 years ago, 9 minutes later, 9 hours after the original post[^][v]#308,845
They continue the experiment which is cool. So the next step wood b to shoot them with a cannon after they move past the speed of light and c what happens.
squeegee !firstkPE1Q replied with this 14 years ago, 14 minutes later, 9 hours after the original post[^][v]#308,865
@previous (Stealth)
Uh, actually the experiment was duplicated and they found errors in the original experiments measurments. The second test didn't corroborate the first, and a third test soon to be completed will more than likely uphold the speed limit.
In fact the researchers who did the first test even said the results needed to be confirmed and omly released their results so they could be retested.
Stealth replied with this 14 years ago, 10 minutes later, 10 hours after the original post[^][v]#308,867
@previous (squeegee !firstkPE1Q)
Yea I first heard all of that on NPR a while ago. Green's question was spot on, because Einstein came up with his discoveries by using thought experiments first before trying to find math that worked out the proof. Also Einstein was not the worlds best mathematician and often had help from the best of the best to work out the proofs.
Einstein on faster then the speed of light concluded that such was possible for matter, in distorted regions of spacetime. Currently the jury is not in about this, because of Einstein's own theory/proof re what wood be excluded by general relativity.
Perhaps a chicken or egg theory or catch 22. Also great for brain exercise.