111 réponses à ce sujet

[Stensig]

Whereto wrote...

One thing its a game, if they didn't have it, it would be extremely slow work getting any where.
Oh and secondly, as much as I'm intended to agreenwith current theories, they arenjust theories till tested. If you want to accelerate to the speed of light and tell me how it goes that would be great, just mind the speck of dust as at that speed apparently it could rip a hole in your spaceship. But then again I guess thats just a theory as well to some degree

well iven with FTL speed as they have in ME it would take YEARS!!! to get around the galaxy.


ALso it just accourd to me. THeoredicly we KNOW that there's a greater speed then light. If you belive in the Big Bang theory, the univers expanded with a speed more then the speed of light, in the time between big bang and one second later. As it in that time space grew to over a light year in diameter.

[Spartas Husky]

This topic just got stuck on the "no there is nothing that can go faster" and the other side of "we dont know yet"...



It was fun while it lasted

[Stensig]

Ulzeraj wrote...

Stensig wrote...
also to move faster then light, you would(in "simple theory") have to have a smaller mass then light, as even light has mass.

Thats wrong. Photons (the "light particle") have no mass.

According to the laws of physic, light DO has a mass, since light waves is curved wen passing by a mass center(star or plante). This means that gravity is working on the light particles, and since gravity only works on mass, light must have a mass. Its extremely tiny, but it does have it.

[TheJiveDJ]

Ulzeraj wrote...

Stensig wrote...
also to move faster then light, you would(in "simple theory") have to have a smaller mass then light, as even light has mass.

Thats wrong. Photons (the "light particle") have no mass.

This is true.  Also even the most powerful particle accelerators in the world are unable to accelerate particles passed the light barrier.  The mass of a particle appraoching light speed will continue to increase in mass.  Eventually it's mass will approach infinity mass.  To accelerate a particle or any peice of matter (including a human) with infiity mass any further you would need an infinite amount of energy.  Not possible.

[Ulzeraj]

Stensig wrote...

Ulzeraj wrote...

Stensig wrote...
also to move faster then light, you would(in "simple theory") have to have a smaller mass then light, as even light has mass.

Thats wrong. Photons (the "light particle") have no mass.

According to the laws of physic, light DO has a mass, since light waves is curved wen passing by a mass center(star or plante). This means that gravity is working on the light particles, and since gravity only works on mass, light must have a mass. Its extremely tiny, but it does have it.

Thats also wrong. Light will be curved because of the distorcion of space-time caused by matter.

Check your physics book. Photons are the transmiting particles of the eletromagnetic force. They have no mass.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Photon

[Spartas Husky]

Only reason you say light has mass is due to the energy formula which carries a variable for mass. Nevertheless if you break everything apart, light is made of photons, and photons have no mass, therefore by extention light has no mass. Only reason why some believe light has mass is because of the e=mc^2.



So there is a contradiction... Light is made of photons which have no mass. But according to einstein light has mass....



imho... we are wrong. If we know photons have no mass yet we have a formula that states light has mass.... a.k.a... we're wrong.

[SomeKindaEnigma]

YES special relativity AND general relativity have both been experimentally verified.  Using synchronized atomic clocks, one aboard a supersonic jet and another stationary on the ground, the time dilation by convention of the Lorentz factor, which is SqrRt[ 1 - v^2/c^2] has been observed in practice, albeit incredibly small for something moving at nowhere even close to the speed of light c.  The effects of general relativity have been observed over and over again simply by using deep-space telescopes.  Gravitational lensing, which is the bending of light caused by the distortion of the spacetime fabric by massive objects, has been observed and you can look up pictures the Hubble space telescope took of distant galaxies subject to gravitational lensing if you don't believe me.  Also according to Einstein, in order for something to move at the speed of light, it requires an infinite amount of energy, and because of the relation E = Mc^2 it thus also attains an infinite amount of mass.  This is physically impossible, which is why the only things that can travel that fast are photons (which, alongside the wavelike properties of matter forms the idea of wave-particle duality) because they have zero mass.  Scientists have verified the mass-gaining aspect of something moving at relativistic velocities in the lab by propelling particles to near-light speed in particle accelerators, and they observed the changes in the particles' mass/energy.  Einstein's theories of relativity are true and accurate.

Sorry if this has already been cleared up, I just noticed someone saying that relativity has not been proven/verified 

[TheJiveDJ]

Stensig wrote...

Ulzeraj wrote...

Stensig wrote...
also to move faster then light, you would(in "simple theory") have to have a smaller mass then light, as even light has mass.

Thats wrong. Photons (the "light particle") have no mass.

According to the laws of physic, light DO has a mass, since light waves is curved wen passing by a mass center(star or plante). This means that gravity is working on the light particles, and since gravity only works on mass, light must have a mass. Its extremely tiny, but it does have it.

A good theory but an incorrect one unfortunately.  Photons have zero mass.  Gravity is not acting on the light itself but infact it is bending space.  The bend in space causes the light to follow this bend.

[Spartas Husky]

SomeKindaEnigma wrote...


Sorry if this has already been cleared up, I just noticed someone saying that relativity has not been proven/verified 

Until now. After all, Laws were ment to be bent or downright broken.

For now yes relativity is our limit.

[Stensig]

Spartas Husky wrote...

Only reason you say light has mass is due to the energy formula which carries a variable for mass. Nevertheless if you break everything apart, light is made of photons, and photons have no mass, therefore by extention light has no mass. Only reason why some believe light has mass is because of the e=mc^2.

So there is a contradiction... Light is made of photons which have no mass. But according to einstein light has mass....

imho... we are wrong. If we know photons have no mass yet we have a formula that states light has mass.... a.k.a... we're wrong.

that formular doesn't write, "it's light's mass". It gives you the energi, which is both light and warmth in this case... E is just eh amount of enerfy, not necessarly the amount/mass of light.

[Ulzeraj]

Spartas Husky wrote...

Only reason you say light has mass is due to the energy formula which carries a variable for mass. Nevertheless if you break everything apart, light is made of photons, and photons have no mass, therefore by extention light has no mass. Only reason why some believe light has mass is because of the e=mc^2.

So there is a contradiction... Light is made of photons which have no mass. But according to einstein light has mass....

imho... we are wrong. If we know photons have no mass yet we have a formula that states light has mass.... a.k.a... we're wrong.

No. That formula stats mass-energy equivalence. It does not say anywhere that photons has mass.

[Spartas Husky]

Ulzeraj wrote...

Spartas Husky wrote...

Only reason you say light has mass is due to the energy formula which carries a variable for mass. Nevertheless if you break everything apart, light is made of photons, and photons have no mass, therefore by extention light has no mass. Only reason why some believe light has mass is because of the e=mc^2.

So there is a contradiction... Light is made of photons which have no mass. But according to einstein light has mass....

imho... we are wrong. If we know photons have no mass yet we have a formula that states light has mass.... a.k.a... we're wrong.

No. That formula stats mass-energy equivalence. It does not say anywhere that photons has mass.

no. I was answering to the statement before that someone said photons have mass.

[SomeKindaEnigma]

GLaDOS_ wrote...

Fromyou wrote...

Mass Effect is science fiction (for the time being) and plus this is Einsteins theory and only a theory. To be honest I don't believe in that theory

lolollllololololollolo

lmao...  Fromyou if that was a serious post please read my previous one a few posts up.  

[TheJiveDJ]

Ulzeraj wrote...

Spartas Husky wrote...

Only reason you say light has mass is due to the energy formula which carries a variable for mass. Nevertheless if you break everything apart, light is made of photons, and photons have no mass, therefore by extention light has no mass. Only reason why some believe light has mass is because of the e=mc^2.

So there is a contradiction... Light is made of photons which have no mass. But according to einstein light has mass....

imho... we are wrong. If we know photons have no mass yet we have a formula that states light has mass.... a.k.a... we're wrong.

No. That formula stats mass-energy equivalence. It does not say anywhere that photons has mass.

Correct.  Photons are a very strange particle indeed.  They have energy, yet have no mass.  Einsteins equations show that mass is equal to a particles potential energy so light photons should have SOME mass, but indeed they don't.  I love this stuff.

[Spartas Husky]

Again I was answering to the statement made by Stensig ... should have quoted it

[Ulzeraj]

Spartas Husky wrote...

Ulzeraj wrote...

Spartas Husky wrote...

Only reason you say light has mass is due to the energy formula which carries a variable for mass. Nevertheless if you break everything apart, light is made of photons, and photons have no mass, therefore by extention light has no mass. Only reason why some believe light has mass is because of the e=mc^2.

So there is a contradiction... Light is made of photons which have no mass. But according to einstein light has mass....

imho... we are wrong. If we know photons have no mass yet we have a formula that states light has mass.... a.k.a... we're wrong.

No. That formula stats mass-energy equivalence. It does not say anywhere that photons has mass.

no. I was answering to the statement before that someone said photons have mass.

Sorry. Misunterstood.

[Aramintai]

Stensig wrote...

ALso it just accourd to me. THeoredicly we KNOW that there's a greater speed then light. If you belive in the Big Bang theory, the univers expanded with a speed more then the speed of light, in the time between big bang and one second later. As it in that time space grew to over a light year in diameter. 

Which had something to do with dark energy, which in turn has something to do with mass effect in ME apparently. To make things short, to make a sci-fi you don't have to invent a whole new Universal theory with full explanation folio or whatnot - just throw in a few existing theories, even better if they are newly discovered and still have many white spots, so that people have some connection that is not just fiction but a science fiction. And then extrapolate from that to whatever ends you want, be it the invention of mass effect fields via dark energy or instanteneous quantum communication via entangled particles. After all, until the theory is fully understood and proven anything can be true and sci-fi can still retain it's prefix.

[Spartas Husky]

Ulzeraj wrote...

Spartas Husky wrote...

Ulzeraj wrote...

Spartas Husky wrote...

Only reason you say light has mass is due to the energy formula which carries a variable for mass. Nevertheless if you break everything apart, light is made of photons, and photons have no mass, therefore by extention light has no mass. Only reason why some believe light has mass is because of the e=mc^2.

So there is a contradiction... Light is made of photons which have no mass. But according to einstein light has mass....

imho... we are wrong. If we know photons have no mass yet we have a formula that states light has mass.... a.k.a... we're wrong.

No. That formula stats mass-energy equivalence. It does not say anywhere that photons has mass.

no. I was answering to the statement before that someone said photons have mass.

Sorry. Misunterstood.

nah dude my fault... tried quoting someone but the quoting system is not my friend lol

[Stensig]

TheJiveDJ wrote...

Stensig wrote...

Ulzeraj wrote...

Stensig wrote...
also to move faster then light, you would(in "simple theory") have to have a smaller mass then light, as even light has mass.

Thats wrong. Photons (the "light particle") have no mass.

According to the laws of physic, light DO has a mass, since light waves is curved wen passing by a mass center(star or plante). This means that gravity is working on the light particles, and since gravity only works on mass, light must have a mass. Its extremely tiny, but it does have it.

A good theory but an incorrect one unfortunately.  Photons have zero mass.  Gravity is not acting on the light itself but infact it is bending space.  The bend in space causes the light to follow this bend.

Not true either... Photons DO have mass. They can carry energy, thus having a mass. Nothing has been found yet that has no mass.. Photons mass = zero is a figure of spech due to its mass being SO small, that it really is insainly close to 0, in human logic.

Although wiki is not a 100% true source, it too says that Photons has a mass... <1*10^-18 eV

[Spartas Husky]

photons dont have mass dude.



I love this. Decades from now.... or prolly a century or so into the future our progeny will be laughing at us lol

[RedKnight410]

TheJiveDJ wrote...

I see a lot of talk here about the tech limitations when it comes to the speed of light. Here's the thing. Relativity according to Einstein (which has already been proven correct, see Special Relativity Experiment) would not allow anyone to break the light barrier by simply attempting to accelerate past it. Heres why:

A woman is on a train traveling at 99.99% the speed of light. All is good. However, **** hits the fan when she decides to stand up and start walking forward. Crap! Technically this woman has broken the speed of light right? The whole universe implodes and space-time rips itself apart! Wrong. The speed of light is relative to the observer's frame of reference. This means it is different depending on where you are. The only way you could circumvent the speed of light would be to remove or work around Relativity!  This is not possible unless you could raise or lower the trains mass at will, or utilize Star Trek's "warp" system which moves space itself, not the ship, avoiding any relativistic effects. No matter how hard a person tried, they could never simply accelerate past light speed by conventional means.

Back to our time-traveling woman; time dilation and relativity do not allow this woman enough time to stand up and break the light barrier. So her standing up and taking a step makes no difference. In her frame of reference she is not traveling very fast (due to time dilation). As she peers out the window, everything appears to be moving much, much faster than her. Infact, to this woman, it is SHE who is moving slowely! Weird, I know...I love this stuff.

However to an outside observer the train appears to be moving insanely fast (99.99% light speed) but should said observer peer into the cabin, he would notice that everyone inside appears frozen in place due to the relativistic effects being applied.

Lets recap. In the woman's frame of reference, she is not traveling anywhere near the speed of light. She takes a step forward but nothing happens because no light barrier has been broken. In the observer's frame of reference the train appears to be moving near the speed of light and everyone inside the cab is frozen in place. If the woman were to stand up and take a step in the observer's reference frame she would effectively be breaking the light barrier but due to relativity she is frozen in place. She literally is unable to break the light barrier in either time-frame. The phyisical constant is unbroken, and the laws of relativity are victorious. It's a beautiful thing.

Check and mate.

Wow, first of all, the speed of light is always the same no matter the frame of reference. Most basic principal of relativity, maybe you should reread that chapter. Also from the woman's point of view she is not moving, everything is moving relative to her. Plus if you look at string theory, and the hologram theory they used to prove information isn't destroyed by black holes, you'd see that both together imply that FTL is possible and common place.


Everyone who says photons don't have mass you are also saying that E=mc^2 is wrong. As long as you believe in relativity you can't just arbitrarily choose to ignore this handy little equation.

Modifié par RedKnight410, 16 janvier 2011 - 10:11 .

[Ulzeraj]

Aramintai wrote...

Stensig wrote...

ALso it just accourd to me. THeoredicly we KNOW that there's a greater speed then light. If you belive in the Big Bang theory, the univers expanded with a speed more then the speed of light, in the time between big bang and one second later. As it in that time space grew to over a light year in diameter. 

Which had something to do with dark energy, which in turn has something to do with mass effect in ME apparently. To make things short, to make a sci-fi you don't have to invent a whole new Universal theory with full explanation folio or whatnot - just throw in a few existing theories, even better if they are newly discovered and still have many white spots, so that people have some connection that is not just fiction but a science fiction. And then extrapolate from that to whatever ends you want, be it the invention of mass effect fields via dark energy or instanteneous quantum communication via entangled particles. After all, until the theory is fully understood and proven anything can be true and sci-fi can still retain it's prefix.

incoming total off-topic stuff:

You know this sci-fi stuff sometimes can be cool.

Have you heard or readed some stuff from Willian Gibson (Neuromancer, Count Zero, Monaliza Overdrive)? Yeah he pratically invented the cyberpunk genre that was later brought into Blade Runner and then rolled some of it into Mass Effect.

Back in the 80's he used a lot of fictional technology that ended up being created. There are more memorable exemples like Aasimov, H.G. Wells and Julio Verne.

RedKnight410 wrote...
Wow, first of all, the speed of light is
always the same no matter the frame of reference. Most basic principal
of relativity, maybe you should reread that chapter. Also from the
woman's point of view she is not moving, everything is moving relative
to her. Plus if you look at string theory, and the hologram theory they
used to prove information isn't destroyed by black holes, you'd see that
both together imply that FTL is possible and common place.

String theory is a touchy subject since you cant test it. Yeah that and the 11 dimensions. Interesting stuff anyway someday we may be able to verify it.

Modifié par Ulzeraj, 16 janvier 2011 - 10:12 .

[Stensig]

Spartas Husky wrote...

photons dont have mass dude.

I love this. Decades from now.... or prolly a century or so into the future our progeny will be laughing at us lol

Idd they will. But seriously check it... it does have a mass, but the fact that its messured in electromagnetic volt says how small it is, and even in that messuring, its an insaly small number..

[TheJiveDJ]

RedKnight410 wrote...

TheJiveDJ wrote...

I see a lot of talk here about the tech limitations when it comes to the speed of light. Here's the thing. Relativity according to Einstein (which has already been proven correct, see Special Relativity Experiment) would not allow anyone to break the light barrier by simply attempting to accelerate past it. Heres why:

A woman is on a train traveling at 99.99% the speed of light. All is good. However, **** hits the fan when she decides to stand up and start walking forward. Crap! Technically this woman has broken the speed of light right? The whole universe implodes and space-time rips itself apart! Wrong. The speed of light is relative to the observer's frame of reference. This means it is different depending on where you are. The only way you could circumvent the speed of light would be to remove or work around Relativity!  This is not possible unless you could raise or lower the trains mass at will, or utilize Star Trek's "warp" system which moves space itself, not the ship, avoiding any relativistic effects. No matter how hard a person tried, they could never simply accelerate past light speed by conventional means.

Back to our time-traveling woman; time dilation and relativity do not allow this woman enough time to stand up and break the light barrier. So her standing up and taking a step makes no difference. In her frame of reference she is not traveling very fast (due to time dilation). As she peers out the window, everything appears to be moving much, much faster than her. Infact, to this woman, it is SHE who is moving slowely! Weird, I know...I love this stuff.

However to an outside observer the train appears to be moving insanely fast (99.99% light speed) but should said observer peer into the cabin, he would notice that everyone inside appears frozen in place due to the relativistic effects being applied.

Lets recap. In the woman's frame of reference, she is not traveling anywhere near the speed of light. She takes a step forward but nothing happens because no light barrier has been broken. In the observer's frame of reference the train appears to be moving near the speed of light and everyone inside the cab is frozen in place. If the woman were to stand up and take a step in the observer's reference frame she would effectively be breaking the light barrier but due to relativity she is frozen in place. She literally is unable to break the light barrier in either time-frame. The phyisical constant is unbroken, and the laws of relativity are victorious. It's a beautiful thing.

Check and mate.

Wow, first of all, the speed of light is always the same no matter the frame of reference. Most basic principal of relativity, maybe you should reread that chapter. Also from the woman's point of view she is not moving, everything is moving relative to her. Plus if you look at string theory, and the hologram theory they used to prove information isn't destroyed by black holes, you'd see that both together imply that FTL is possible and common place.

"Different" may have been the wrong word.  Relative is more proper.  And no, lol, the woman would not percieve herself as being frozen in place.  Again, relativity is a strange word many do not understand.  To the woman, everything would appear normal.  If she looked outside, she would see that time for everyone else is sped up.  Someone looking in the train would see HER as being frozen in place because time for both individuals are being experienced at different speeds due to...YES, time dilation.  

From either persons frame of reference, their own clocks would appear to be the ones moving at the correct speeds.  Special relativity dictates that BOTH clocks are correct in ths instance.  This sounds unintuitive and hard to believe but is correct none-the-less.

Modifié par TheJiveDJ, 16 janvier 2011 - 10:15 .