Page 3 of 5
Re: reality debate?
Posted: Mon Dec 17, 2007 4:11 pm
by Fear Of The Duck
everything happens within standard space-time.
the speed of light in a vacuum is the same for all observers, regardless of their relative motion or of the motion of the source of the light so when ya shoot that laser it travels at the speed of light from your point of view.
btw: how would someone sittin in another solar system interpret this scenario?
it all gets confuzzed
Re: reality debate?
Posted: Mon Dec 17, 2007 4:25 pm
by cyberblade
I think (realistically) long distance space travel is really not feasible if you have to stay in standard space time... In order to accelerate any object to the speed of light you'd end up breaking the rules of physics... That's why all interstellar travel it outside of standard spacetime-creating a rift between two points that is shorter enables you to get there faster and is still possible
Re: reality debate?
Posted: Mon Dec 17, 2007 4:58 pm
by Fear Of The Duck
aye. but i'm talking here about a hypotetical situation.
Re: reality debate?
Posted: Mon Dec 17, 2007 4:59 pm
by Spacey
I don't get how the ships and light beam are travelling at "c", and the beam gets to the other ship faster than the ship firing it does...
I don't think the problem is conceptual... I think the problem is in the numbers!
Re: reality debate?
Posted: Tue Dec 18, 2007 11:27 am
by Fear Of The Duck
Spacey wrote:I don't get how the ships and light beam are travelling at "c", and the beam gets to the other ship faster than the ship firing it does...
Corran Horn wrote:the speed of light in a vacuum is the same for all observers, regardless of their relative motion or of the motion of the source of the light
so when ya shoot that laser it travels at the speed of light from your point of view.
^^^^ i don't get it either, but that's what einstein said. i know there's probably a big error lurking in my reasoning there, but it's hidden from my eyes and other scanning equipement.
Re: reality debate?
Posted: Tue Dec 18, 2007 11:44 am
by Angnoch
thats if the speed of light is not a variable and flows constantly within time
Re: reality debate?
Posted: Wed Dec 19, 2007 12:37 pm
by Fear Of The Duck
never heard of speed of light being a variable
well, it changes depending on what substance the light passes through and in some even stops, but that's different story.
Re: reality debate?
Posted: Wed Dec 19, 2007 2:45 pm
by Spacey
There might be a flaw in your reasoning.... I don't know.
I think the assumption you are making, that would make your statement true and the diagram as well, is that (1) there is light speed, and (2) there is faster than light speed.
Faster-than-light communication is, by Einstein's theory of relativity, equivalent to time travel.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Faster-tha ... ght_travelBut then, if the beam of light is traveling faster than c, or traveling through time, how did it destroy the other ship?
I think we all agree that there is light speed: the speed (not velocity) with which light travels... but suggesting then going on saying that there is faster than light speed; I don't know.
I think, only then, would that diagram make sense, or at least, make sense to me.
Re: reality debate?
Posted: Wed Dec 19, 2007 3:31 pm
by Fear Of The Duck
it doesn't travel faster than c. it travels at c, ALWAYS AT c FROM WHATEVER POINT OF VIEW. so even if ya travel at c ya still see the light travels at c, no more no less. that's why from yer point of view the laser beam should destroy the other ship before the crash. but the other ship's point of view is different.
usually ppl talk about the short platforms and trains (if train travels at c ppl on the train see very short platform, but ppl on the platform see that it's the train that's short. since ppl on the train are "separated" from the ones on the platform one can kinda "imagine" this.
take a look:
http://library.thinkquest.org/C008537/r ... /math.htmlbut the spaceships problem is totally different story as your ship and the other aren't "separated" cos they are bound to meet head on at some stage in the same space and time.
i know there has to be some fault in the reasoning there, just it's not the one ya pointed out.
btw: does anyone know hawking's email???
Re: reality debate?
Posted: Wed Dec 19, 2007 3:38 pm
by Come_Forth
Corran Horn wrote:
btw: does anyone know hawking's email???
Hawking@IamSmarterThanYou.org
Re: reality debate?
Posted: Thu Dec 27, 2007 10:33 pm
by Phlamingoe
cyberblade wrote:I think (realistically) long distance space travel is really not feasible if you have to stay in standard space time... In order to accelerate any object to the speed of light you'd end up breaking the rules of physics... That's why all interstellar travel it outside of standard spacetime-creating a rift between two points that is shorter enables you to get there faster and is still possible
The faster you travel the slower time actually goes for you. This is a proven fact, it's been tested at much slower speed then what would work for interstellar travel though. But anyway, you only have to travel at near light speed, and time would be greatly reduced you so, so you would age slower making it feasable to travel much further. Then again, depending how far you go, everything back on Earth would be totally different. 200 years could have passed on Earth, and only a few weeks for you.
I'm sure someone knows what I'm talking about(relativity and all that)
Re: reality debate?
Posted: Fri Dec 28, 2007 11:38 am
by Fear Of The Duck
but:
1. i stay on earth
2. phlam travels to stars (and i know what star he'd like to travel to first.. ha ha..)
so:
3. from my point of view he travels at near light speed and i stay in one place.
but:
4. from phlam's point of view earth and me on it travel at near light speed and he stays in one place
so how come it's me, not him, who gets older first?
[me sister tried to explain that to me once but i didn't get it (probably cos she doesn't get it 100% right herself)]
Re: reality debate?
Posted: Fri Dec 28, 2007 12:06 pm
by Angnoch
Re: reality debate?
Posted: Sat Dec 29, 2007 9:27 pm
by Phlamingoe
Corran Horn wrote:but:
1. i stay on earth
2. phlam travels to stars (and i know what star he'd like to travel to first.. ha ha..)
so:
3. from my point of view he travels at near light speed and i stay in one place.
but:
4. from phlam's point of view earth and me on it travel at near light speed and he stays in one place
so how come it's me, not him, who gets older first?
[me sister tried to explain that to me once but i didn't get it (probably cos she doesn't get it 100% right herself)]
Emily Osment!! 
The best way to explain it that I can think of is to use the example of driving a car. When you're driving down the street at whatever speed, and pass a house, from the house's perspective you are moving, from your perspective, the house is moving.
I hope that clears something up....
Re: reality debate?
Posted: Sun Dec 30, 2007 2:04 pm
by Fear Of The Duck
Phlaminghoe wrote:The best way to explain it that I can think of is to use the example of driving a car. When you're driving down the street at whatever speed, and pass a house, from the house's perspective you are moving, from your perspective, the house is moving.
I hope that clears something up....
guess who that's the part i know.. so it doesn't clear much. sorry.