Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Taibak
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by alfricnow
My problem with the whole relativity theory is that...well lets see before we broke the sound barrier there were all kinds of reasons and theories why you couldn't do it. Now we have theories and reasons for light speed.
just no commen sence in them. time stops when you reach light speed? How then does light ever get anywhere?
I think light speed is just a speed we havent figured out how to move faster than yet.
Think about it for 5 seconds.
Light may not be the fastest thing out there it may just be the fastest thing we can see. If something were moving faster than light we would never be able to see it, probably wouldnt be able to detect it since all of our detection arrays consist of light or sound.
Time is an illusion created by man(I know this sounds a bit weird) to explain day to day riggers.
I myself just cant see how light speed and time actually have anything to do with each other, other than the fact that they ( haha) happen at the same time.
|
I see what you're saying, but there's more to it than that. According to relativity, the faster an object travels, the harder it is for you to get that object to accelerate. More precisely, as an object speeds up, it takes more and more energy to get that object to go even faster. According to the equations, it would take an infinite amount of energy to get an object with mass to reach the speed of light.
As for the speed of light being related to space and time, you might want to read Einstein's Relativity. He derives the whole thing in there. The short version is that since there's no evidence whatsoever that the speed of light changes, the only way for the laws of physics to be correct in any and all reference frames, then space and time MUST be variable.
It might not be what common sense tells us but wise man once say, 'Common sense is neither common nor does it make very much sense.' |
I'd like to throw out there a "lunatic" idea. But what if E=mc^2 is really an
Earthcentric idea? This means that the "rest mass" is not at velocity of zero, but it could be anything
vis a vis the rest of the universe. From our Earth point of view, of course, we can call it "rest mass", but this may be a problem of semantics, since nothing is ever really truly at
rest. If this is taken one step further, how do we know with certainty that our
rest mass is not already at mv = c? Why not, if we do not know the real velocity of our universe? Granted, this would immediately violate the maximum velocity of v = c, since any motion accelerated in any direction would then exceed lightspeed. Just a thought, but how do know for sure that it is not so? [-X :^o
If by chance it were so, that our Earthcentric rest mass is actually at lightspeed already, then E = mc^2 would of necessity be an Earth based postulate, but invalid in universal terms. To make it more interesting, why not set the limit on energy at E = mc^3, if we're already at rest mass of m = c? Speculation to be sure, but at E = mc^3 you would have a totally different perspective of how the universe is put together, where mass is no longer gravitationally binding, but converts to pure EM energy. In effect, mass converts to (massless!) photons of light. 8)
Now that I look at it, I kind of like it! ... it's all math postulates, so it's all Relative...
Addendum: Something interesting on mass, if not directly relative:
Beyond E=mc^2