| Creation & Evolution Forum for the discussion of this important topic. This forum is open to non-believers. There is a Christians-only forum in the Christians-only section too. |
 | | 
7th September 2007, 01:56 AM
| | Senior Member
   
| | Join Date: 5th September 2007
Posts: 713
Blessings: 91,502
Reps: 45,241 (power: 50) | | Originally Posted by Allegory 
sigh...we just had this conversation last night on a similar thread. Conclusion...scientists have broken the speed of light + the speed of gravity is infinite, thus contradicting the notiong that "nothing" is faster than the speed of light.
sorry-- this post was meant for the OP. |
7th September 2007, 02:26 AM
| | Junior Member
| | Join Date: 4th September 2007
Posts: 24
Blessings: 90,393
Reps: 16 (power: 0) | | Originally Posted by guzman sigh...we just had this conversation last night on a similar thread. Conclusion...scientists have broken the speed of light + the speed of gravity is infinite, thus contradicting the notiong that "nothing" is faster than the speed of light.
sorry-- this post was meant for the OP.
Uhhh, no. We never came to that "conclusion" you may have but the websites you referenced were psuedo-physics at best.
I'll tell you why matter can not travel faster than the speed of light; the faster something travels, the smaller it gets. So if something is going half the speed of light, it's mass will decrease by around 50%. Once it reaches the speed of light, its mass will reach 0%. This is why its impossible to go that fast, matter would be destroyed or it would go backwards in time, because the faster an object goes, the more time slows down. Something traveling at the speed of light would be frozen in time.
And didn't your teachers ever tell you not to site wikipedia as a reference? that article clearly says, "this entry is lacking references"  |
7th September 2007, 04:15 AM
|  | The Moon is a reflection of the MorningStar
| | Join Date: 11th August 2007
Posts: 5,781
Blessings: 4,078,254 My Mood 
Reps: 56,734,881,133,185,528 (power: 56,734,881,133,195) | | | so what would happen to light if bent by gravity? it doesen't go faster?
I always thought gravity changed the speed of light. |
7th September 2007, 08:18 AM
| | Member
  
| | Join Date: 2nd June 2004
Posts: 90
Blessings: 90,115
Reps: 2,910,667 (power: 2,918) | | Originally Posted by MoonLancer so what would happen to light if bent by gravity? it doesen't go faster?
I always thought gravity changed the speed of light.
No, Light in a vacuum has always the same velocity. In a gravity well the space (and time) gets bend so light from an outside observer doesnt go slower but the time goes slower. That effect is miniscule except for very heavy objects like black holes.
And to guzman: the effect of gravity spreads at the speed of light, it never goes faster and is also not instantaneous, even Newton knew that because of the Mercury-problem. Didnt you read the link i gave you in the other thread? |
7th September 2007, 08:23 AM
| | Member
| | Join Date: 2nd June 2004
Posts: 90
Blessings: 90,115
Reps: 2,910,667 (power: 2,918) | | Originally Posted by Krak Uhhh, no. We never came to that "conclusion" you may have but the websites you referenced were psuedo-physics at best.
I'll tell you why matter can not travel faster than the speed of light; the faster something travels, the smaller it gets. So if something is going half the speed of light, it's mass will decrease by around 50%. Once it reaches the speed of light, its mass will reach 0%. This is why its impossible to go that fast, matter would be destroyed or it would go backwards in time, because the faster an object goes, the more time slows down. Something traveling at the speed of light would be frozen in time.
And didn't your teachers ever tell you not to site wikipedia as a reference? that article clearly says, "this entry is lacking references"
sorry but this is not quite right. approaching the speed of light makes the object gaining more mass. The energy you would use to accelerate is making the object "heavier" and you need more energy to accelerate. This is reaching an infinite at the speed of light. So you never could reach speed of light with an object with mass. The energy you need to get it at the speed of light would be infinite. |
7th September 2007, 12:36 PM
|  | Contributor
 
| | Join Date: 26th August 2003
Posts: 9,012
Blessings: 1,096,897
Reps: 84,929,301,057,186,064 (power: 84,929,301,057,204) | | Originally Posted by just another skeptic sorry but this is not quite right. approaching the speed of light makes the object gaining more mass. The energy you would use to accelerate is making the object "heavier" and you need more energy to accelerate. This is reaching an infinite at the speed of light. So you never could reach speed of light with an object with mass. The energy you need to get it at the speed of light would be infinite.
In addition, it would also take an infinite amount of time. Relative to an observer at rest, time dramatically slows for an object nearing the speed of light. This means that chemical and nuclear reactions slow to a near stand still. The time needed for that last chemical reaction or nuclear reaction to push the object to the speed of light is infinite.
And completing the Lorentz transform, your spaceship would also be flat as a pancake.
__________________
“Because they know not the forces of nature, and in order that they may have comrades in their ignorance, they suffer not that others should search out anything, and would have us believe like rustics and ask no reason...But we ask in all things a reason must be sought.” --William of Conches (c. 1090 – after 1154) |
7th September 2007, 01:19 PM
|  | Contributor
28 
| | Join Date: 12th June 2005
Posts: 6,067
Blessings: 2,074,514
Reps: 1,197,048,778,347,054 (power: 1,197,048,778,360) | | Using quantum tunnelling light can "travel" instantly through space at the macroscopic level. It is a scientific fact, it has been experimentally tested and fits perfectly in with present theories.
I'm not sure speed of light arguments are as valid as they were once thought.
Of course there are issues relating to this because there is no evidence to suggest that light is "travelling" in evanescent modes and if they are the question becomes how far exactly are the stars away?
Edit: For all those evidence huggers. 
Personally I don't like the title, I don't think that it actually is a violation of special relativity, since the photon is not travelling through the gap.
__________________ Now with added Olanzapine
Everyone has the right to a standard of living adequate for the health and well-being of himself and of his family, including food, clothing, housing and medical care and necessary social services, and the right to security in the event of unemployment, sickness, disability, widowhood, old age or other lack of livelihood in circumstances beyond his control.-UDHR
Last edited by Maxwell511; 7th September 2007 at 01:36 PM.
|
7th September 2007, 02:50 PM
| ![[serious]'s Avatar](http://www.christianforums.com/cache/customavatars/avatar160873_6.gif) | 'As we treat the least of our brothers...' RIP GA
 | | Join Date: 29th August 2006
Posts: 7,695
Blessings: 47,487 My Mood 
Reps: 3,420,883,339,671,885 (power: 3,420,883,339,684) | | Originally Posted by guzman sigh...we just had this conversation last night on a similar thread. Conclusion...scientists have broken the speed of light + the speed of gravity is infinite, thus contradicting the notiong that "nothing" is faster than the speed of light.
sorry-- this post was meant for the OP.
Not really, there are a couple of ways of "faking" something going faster than the speed of light, but nothing that can carry matter or information faster than light in local time. The wki you cite is too rough of a draft to figure out exactly what they are talking about. No citations are given and they don't give enough detail to look it up. Originally Posted by MoonLancer so what would happen to light if bent by gravity? it doesen't go faster?
I always thought gravity changed the speed of light.
Gravity wells can do some strange things to outside observation of motion, but there is no way of using a large mass to actually transmit data or matter faster than the speed of light. |
7th September 2007, 02:54 PM
| | Senior Veteran
23 
| | Join Date: 12th January 2007
Posts: 4,598
Blessings: 96,233
Reps: 7,526,451,563,718 (power: 7,526,451,573) | | Originally Posted by Maxwell511 Using quantum tunnelling light can "travel" instantly through space at the macroscopic level. It is a scientific fact, it has been experimentally tested and fits perfectly in with present theories.
I'm not sure speed of light arguments are as valid as they were once thought.
The whole of general relativity breaks down somewhat at quantum scales. You can't break the speed of light on normal scales, still. |
7th September 2007, 04:02 PM
| | Contributor
| | Join Date: 26th August 2003
Posts: 9,012
Blessings: 1,096,897
Reps: 84,929,301,057,186,064 (power: 84,929,301,057,204) | | Originally Posted by guzman sigh...we just had this conversation last night on a similar thread. Conclusion...scientists have broken the speed of light + the speed of gravity is infinite, thus contradicting the notiong that "nothing" is faster than the speed of light.
Information was not transmitted faster than the speed of light, not to mention that the phenomena observed was quantum tunneling which is governed by the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle. This effect, for photons, only occurs within one or two wavelengths. For visible light this occurs over hundreds of nanometers. For microwaves, which is what the recent study used, this occurs over 30-50 cm. Outside of that there is no "violation" of the speed of light, if you can even call it that.
As to the speed of gravity, no such experiment has been run. Tom van Flandern's stuff is pseudoscience at best. His argument with the sun and earth supporting instant propogation of gravity is seriously flawed. I can go through it with you if you want. It's been a while since I dug that stuff up. If you want, there are plenty of threads debunking TvF over at www.bautforums.com (including his pet theories involving the Face on Mars).
__________________
“Because they know not the forces of nature, and in order that they may have comrades in their ignorance, they suffer not that others should search out anything, and would have us believe like rustics and ask no reason...But we ask in all things a reason must be sought.” --William of Conches (c. 1090 – after 1154) | | |
| Thread Tools | | | | Display Modes |  Linear Mode |
| | |
