Space, light, and time

[Joey]

So here you cam discuss space, light, and time(relativity, space program, star trek, all that good stuff!)

just a quick fact: when you travel close to the speed of light, point a and point b become closer together. Sort of scrunched up if you like. Knowing that, if it would take a year on earth time, and if they watched you in space, it would be a year. But in the ship it would acctually take less time to you because of the condensing of a and b. That's the reason for the "twin paradox". And even though we can meause how long it takes for light to travel from a to b, it is acctually so condensed, that it is at a and b atnd everywhere inbetween at the same time because it is so condensed into one.

Now discuss!

[Ryan]

I think your wording is a little off. But you have the right idea.

If you are travelling at the speed of light, it takes less time to get from point a to point b, than an observer could calculate based on your speed. This is the beauty of special relativity. It would also allow you to shoot a gun even if you're travelling at .99c and, assuming the same direction of travel, it could hit another person traveling at .99c with the same amount of force as if they were not moving at all.

and this explains why the volume of a black hole is technically infinite, even though the euclidean volume of the space between the event horizon and the center is finite.

And it explains how muons that come from the surface of the sun (which only have a life span of less than a few nanoseconds upon entering the atmosphere) can hit the earths surface (they would have to travel faster than the speed of light to do that, but they don't because the time for them is longer than a few nanoseconds)


I could go on and on haha I love this stuff

[Joey]

Yea, now that I look back it does sound weird. BUT ISNT THIS STUFF EPIC!

[Ryan]

yup I love light

[bombmaniac]

lol ive spent hours talking about this stuff /me reminisces...

[Silverrida]

Apr 7, 2010 0:10:51 GMT -5 Ryan said:

I think your wording is a little off. But you have the right idea.

If you are travelling at the speed of light, it takes less time to get from point a to point b, than an observer could calculate based on your speed. This is the beauty of special relativity. It would also allow you to shoot a gun even if you're travelling at .99c and, assuming the same direction of travel, it could hit another person traveling at .99c with the same amount of force as if they were not moving at all.

and this explains why the volume of a black hole is technically infinite, even though the euclidean volume of the space between the event horizon and the center is finite.

And it explains how muons that come from the surface of the sun (which only have a life span of less than a few nanoseconds upon entering the atmosphere) can hit the earths surface (they would have to travel faster than the speed of light to do that, but they don't because the time for them is longer than a few nanoseconds)


I could go on and on haha I love this stuff

Although this is all correct, I think that the OP was referring to the phenomenon known as the Lorentz Contraction which does cause things to "scrunch" when getting closer to the speed of light.

What I like, however, is that to travel at light speed you must have infinite mass.

Also this:
www.rochester.edu/news/show.php?id=2544

[Joey]

What I like, however, is that to travel at light speed you must have infinite mass.

correct me if I'm wrong, but ain't that part of einstein's theroy of relativity?

[ninjaearl]

Apr 7, 2010 0:10:51 GMT -5 Ryan said:

I think your wording is a little off. But you have the right idea.

If you are travelling at the speed of light, it takes less time to get from point a to point b, than an observer could calculate based on your speed. This is the beauty of special relativity. It would also allow you to shoot a gun even if you're travelling at .99c and, assuming the same direction of travel, it could hit another person traveling at .99c with the same amount of force as if they were not moving at all.

and this explains why the volume of a black hole is technically infinite, even though the euclidean volume of the space between the event horizon and the center is finite.

And it explains how muons that come from the surface of the sun (which only have a life span of less than a few nanoseconds upon entering the atmosphere) can hit the earths surface (they would have to travel faster than the speed of light to do that, but they don't because the time for them is longer than a few nanoseconds)


I could go on and on haha I love this stuff

Do you mean infinite density? Cause infinite volume would consume space 9_6

[Silverrida]

Apr 8, 2010 21:50:18 GMT -5 Joey said:

What I like, however, is that to travel at light speed you must have infinite mass.

correct me if I'm wrong, but ain't that part of einstein's theroy of relativity?

Special Relativity, yes. General Relativity, no.

[Ryan]

its 0 mass, infinite density I'm pretty sure if I remember Einstein's equations properly

[Silverrida]

Apr 9, 2010 0:33:29 GMT -5 Ryan said:

its 0 mass, infinite density I'm pretty sure if I remember Einstein's equations properly

That's very counter-intuitive. Density is Mass over Volume. Therefore for density to be infinite, mass has to be infinite. You can't have one infinite and another 0.

They are, in fact, both infinite. E = mc^2. Because c is a constant, as energy goes up, which is necessary to go faster, mass must go up.

[shinigami345]

on a related note another solid that has finite volume but infinite surface volume is to take the equation f(x) = 1/x starting at x=1 and rotating it around the x axis your volume is pi but your surface area is infinite

[Ryan]

density = m/V

if density is infinite, then either m is infinite or volume is infinitesimal. Photons have 0 mass, and infinitesimal volume and are the only particles that travel at the speed of light. So it is safe to assume that mass does not actually increase. Also, Einsteins theories suggest that since it takes an increasing amount of energy to accelerate a particle to the speed of light but the universe prefers a lower energy system, the mass of an accelerating particle decreases by breaking apart.

[Silverrida]

Apr 9, 2010 23:33:18 GMT -5 Ryan said:

density = m/V

if density is infinite, then either m is infinite or volume is infinitesimal. Photons have 0 mass, and infinitesimal volume and are the only particles that travel at the speed of light. So it is safe to assume that mass does not actually increase. Also, Einsteins theories suggest that since it takes an increasing amount of energy to accelerate a particle to the speed of light but the universe prefers a lower energy system, the mass of an accelerating particle decreases by breaking apart.

You're referring to when the volume is 0. In that instance, you have infinite density, with the exception of mass equaling 0. Mass and volume cannot be 0 as then there is nothing, or, at least, nothing determinable. So while it is possible to have a small mass and, due to the Lorentz Contraction, a smaller volume, mass cannot be 0. Photons must have mass as they have wave-particle duality: Their particles, photons, have a wave-like quality, as does all mass. If they were massless then they would be unable to bounce electrons off of metal at higher frequencies, as they do. In the case of photons, you are correct that their volume is infinitesimal, but they do have mass. In the case of non-subatomic particles, which under the Lorentz Contraction have 0 volume as they are already so small to begin with, to our knowledge they would gain mass as it gained energy.