| Topic: |
Science > Physics |
| User: |
"" |
| Date: |
11 Oct 2007 10:33:42 PM |
| Object: |
Further than light travel |
Travel at near c and your clock goes slow. You have more time to
travel in compared to light's clock. Let us say your clock is running
10 times slower than light's and you are traveling at just a hair
under light speed so to speak. In this case you will be traveling
almost 10 times farther than light can by its clock.
Faster than light travel is impossible. But further than light travel
is possible.
Mitch Raemsch
.
|
|
| User: "Front Office" |
|
| Title: Re: Further than light travel |
12 Oct 2007 09:26:34 AM |
|
|
wrote:
Travel at near c and your clock goes slow. You have more time to
travel in compared to light's clock. Let us say your clock is running
10 times slower than light's and you are traveling at just a hair
under light speed so to speak. In this case you will be traveling
almost 10 times farther than light can by its clock.
Faster than light travel is impossible. But further than light travel
is possible.
Mitch Raemsch
Your terminology does not make sense to me, but I think
that this relativistic travel business does allow that, if you
have enough energy, then you can travel to the present edge
of the observable universe in one day's worth of subjective
travel time.
Of course, if you were, by this evening, to get to this
morning's edge of the observable universe, the edge of
the observable universe would then be farther from you
than it is this morning.
I think that statement accurately reflects the current view
of physics. But I am not sure . . .
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Paul Cardinale" |
|
| Title: Re: Further than light travel |
12 Oct 2007 07:46:42 AM |
|
|
On Oct 11, 8:33 pm, wrote:
Travel at near c and your clock goes slow. You have more time to
travel in compared to light's clock. Let us say your clock is running
10 times slower than light's and you are traveling at just a hair
under light speed so to speak. In this case you will be traveling
almost 10 times farther than light can by its clock.
Faster than light travel is impossible. But further than light travel
is possible.
Mitch Raemsch
There is no such thing as "light's clock"; and there is no distance
limit, so "futher than light travel" is nonsense.
Try learning before you spew crap in public.
Paul Cardinale
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Further than light travel |
12 Oct 2007 06:56:09 PM |
|
|
On Oct 12, 4:46 am, Paul Cardinale <pcardin...@volcanomail.com> wrote:
On Oct 11, 8:33 pm, wrote:
Travel at near c and your clock goes slow. You have more time to
travel in compared to light's clock. Let us say your clock is running
10 times slower than light's and you are traveling at just a hair
under light speed so to speak. In this case you will be traveling
almost 10 times farther than light can by its clock.
Faster than light travel is impossible. But further than light travel
is possible.
Mitch Raemsch
There is no such thing as "light's clock"; and there is no distance
limit, so "futher than light travel" is nonsense.
Try learning before you spew crap in public.
Paul Cardinale
The fact is LIGHT'S clock runs the fastest.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Ray Vickson" |
|
| Title: Re: Further than light travel |
12 Oct 2007 07:55:44 PM |
|
|
On Oct 12, 4:56 pm, wrote:
On Oct 12, 4:46 am, Paul Cardinale <pcardin...@volcanomail.com> wrote:
On Oct 11, 8:33 pm, wrote:
Travel at near c and your clock goes slow. You have more time to
travel in compared to light's clock. Let us say your clock is running
10 times slower than light's and you are traveling at just a hair
under light speed so to speak. In this case you will be traveling
almost 10 times farther than light can by its clock.
Faster than light travel is impossible. But further than light travel
is possible.
Mitch Raemsch
There is no such thing as "light's clock"; and there is no distance
limit, so "futher than light travel" is nonsense.
Try learning before you spew crap in public.
Paul Cardinale
The fact is LIGHT'S clock runs the fastest.
The fact is that "light's clock" is a meaningless concept, or non-
concept if you prefer. No matter how fast you travel (less than c),
your clock still ticks at one second per second as far as you are
concerned. Observers seeing you whiz past at high velocity, though,
will see your clock as running /slow/. In the limit as your speed
approaches c, your clock appears to slow down to zero.
R.G. Vickson
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Further than light travel |
12 Oct 2007 09:01:37 PM |
|
|
On Oct 12, 4:55 pm, Ray Vickson <C6...@shaw.ca> wrote:
On Oct 12, 4:56 pm, wrote:
On Oct 12, 4:46 am, Paul Cardinale <pcardin...@volcanomail.com> wrote:
On Oct 11, 8:33 pm, wrote:
Travel at near c and your clock goes slow. You have more time to
travel in compared to light's clock. Let us say your clock is running
10 times slower than light's and you are traveling at just a hair
under light speed so to speak. In this case you will be traveling
almost 10 times farther than light can by its clock.
Faster than light travel is impossible. But further than light travel
is possible.
Mitch Raemsch
There is no such thing as "light's clock"; and there is no distance
limit, so "futher than light travel" is nonsense.
Try learning before you spew crap in public.
Paul Cardinale
The fact is LIGHT'S clock runs the fastest.
The fact is that "light's clock" is a meaningless concept, or non-
concept if you prefer. No matter how fast you travel (less than c),
your clock still ticks at one second per second as far as you are
concerned. Observers seeing you whiz past at high velocity, though,
will see your clock as running /slow/. In the limit as your speed
approaches c, your clock appears to slow down to zero.
R.G. Vickson- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
What is lights frequency if there is no time?
The fact is light's clock is the fastest.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Ray Vickson" |
|
| Title: Re: Further than light travel |
13 Oct 2007 09:57:21 AM |
|
|
On Oct 12, 7:01 pm, wrote:
On Oct 12, 4:55 pm, Ray Vickson <C6...@shaw.ca> wrote:
On Oct 12, 4:56 pm, wrote:
On Oct 12, 4:46 am, Paul Cardinale <pcardin...@volcanomail.com> wrote:
On Oct 11, 8:33 pm, wrote:
Travel at near c and your clock goes slow. You have more time to
travel in compared to light's clock. Let us say your clock is running
10 times slower than light's and you are traveling at just a hair
under light speed so to speak. In this case you will be traveling
almost 10 times farther than light can by its clock.
Faster than light travel is impossible. But further than light travel
is possible.
Mitch Raemsch
There is no such thing as "light's clock"; and there is no distance
limit, so "futher than light travel" is nonsense.
Try learning before you spew crap in public.
Paul Cardinale
The fact is LIGHT'S clock runs the fastest.
The fact is that "light's clock" is a meaningless concept, or non-
concept if you prefer. No matter how fast you travel (less than c),
your clock still ticks at one second per second as far as you are
concerned. Observers seeing you whiz past at high velocity, though,
will see your clock as running /slow/. In the limit as your speed
approaches c, your clock appears to slow down to zero.
R.G. Vickson- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
What is lights frequency if there is no time?
The fact is light's clock is the fastest.
Please cite EXPERIMENTS in which "light's clock" speed has been
measured and been found to be the 'fastest'. This is a Physics
newsgroup, so experiment (or, at least, observation---as in Astronomy,
for example) is the ulimate arbitrer. Of course, many of the arguments
are largely theoretical, but successful physical theory is largely
based on experiment and observation (leaving out such things as string
theory, etc.) If you can cite well-designed experiments with
convincing outcomes that support your claim, nobody will argue with
you anymore. Otherwise, accept the fact that just by claiming
something to be true, just because you want it, is no kind of
scientific argument at all.
R.G. Vickson
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Further than light travel |
13 Oct 2007 04:36:28 PM |
|
|
On Oct 13, 6:57 am, Ray Vickson <C6...@shaw.ca> wrote:
On Oct 12, 7:01 pm, wrote:
On Oct 12, 4:55 pm, Ray Vickson <C6...@shaw.ca> wrote:
On Oct 12, 4:56 pm, wrote:
On Oct 12, 4:46 am, Paul Cardinale <pcardin...@volcanomail.com> wrote:
On Oct 11, 8:33 pm, wrote:
Travel at near c and your clock goes slow. You have more time to
travel in compared to light's clock. Let us say your clock is running
10 times slower than light's and you are traveling at just a hair
under light speed so to speak. In this case you will be traveling
almost 10 times farther than light can by its clock.
Faster than light travel is impossible. But further than light travel
is possible.
Mitch Raemsch
There is no such thing as "light's clock"; and there is no distance
limit, so "futher than light travel" is nonsense.
Try learning before you spew crap in public.
Paul Cardinale
The fact is LIGHT'S clock runs the fastest.
The fact is that "light's clock" is a meaningless concept, or non-
concept if you prefer. No matter how fast you travel (less than c),
your clock still ticks at one second per second as far as you are
concerned. Observers seeing you whiz past at high velocity, though,
will see your clock as running /slow/. In the limit as your speed
approaches c, your clock appears to slow down to zero.
R.G. Vickson- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
What is lights frequency if there is no time?
The fact is light's clock is the fastest.
Please cite EXPERIMENTS in which "light's clock" speed has been
measured and been found to be the 'fastest'. This is a Physics
newsgroup, so experiment (or, at least, observation---as in Astronomy,
for example) is the ulimate arbitrer. Of course, many of the arguments
are largely theoretical, but successful physical theory is largely
based on experiment and observation (leaving out such things as string
theory, etc.) If you can cite well-designed experiments with
convincing outcomes that support your claim, nobody will argue with
you anymore. Otherwise, accept the fact that just by claiming
something to be true, just because you want it, is no kind of
scientific argument at all.
R.G. Vickson- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
Please show the measurement that shows light's clock has stopped.
Mitch Raemsch -- Light fell --
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
