Jump to content
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
sci-nerd

186,282 miles per second

54 posts in this topic

Recommended Posts

sci-nerd

The speed of light in a vacuum - c - is 186,282 miles per second (299,792 kilometers per second).
That is approximately the distance to the Moon (in one second). Or a trip around the Earth 7,5 times.

Nothing* can go faster.

Do you accept that as natural, or does it make you wonder why nothing can go faster?
What prohibits a higher speed?


* Tachyons are hypothetical particles that has never been detected. But, according to the hypothesis, they can go faster than light.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
RabidMongoose
Posted (edited)

Relativity doesnt say nothing can go faster.

It says nothing with mass can go faster which means something else. Also, there is the possibility of particles that dont interact with gravity.

Edited by RabidMongoose
  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
sci-nerd
17 minutes ago, RabidMongoose said:

Relativity doesnt say nothing can go faster.

It says nothing with mass can go faster which means something else. Also, there is the possibility of particles that dont interact with gravity.

I fail to see this conflicting with my OP.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
RabidMongoose
Posted (edited)
7 minutes ago, sci-nerd said:

I fail to see this conflicting with my OP.

Well because mass increases the faster something goes it requires infinite energy to get something with mass to the speed of light.

Thats why nothing with mass can go faster. But, not all things have mass or to put it another way interact with gravity.

Edited by RabidMongoose
  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Taun

Actually the Moon is an average distance of 238,855 miles (384,400 km)  away, but why be picky...

  • Haha 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
sci-nerd
1 minute ago, RabidMongoose said:

Well because mass increases the faster something goes it requires infinite energy to get something with mass to the speed of light.

Thats why nothing with mass can go faster. But, not all things have mass or to put it another way interact with gravity.

That is covered in the link to tachyons.

But you must remember that those massless particles, in the tachyon class, are hypothetical. They are conjectures. So they don't really count.

  • Like 1
  • Confused 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
sci-nerd
Just now, Taun said:

Actually the Moon is an average distance of 238,855 miles (384,400 km)  away, but why be picky...

Yes indeed. That's why I used the word approximately :tu:

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
RabidMongoose
Just now, sci-nerd said:

That is covered in the link to tachyons.

But you must remember that those massless particles, in the tachyon class, are hypothetical. They are conjectures. So they don't really count.

Information transfer doesnt require mass or energy either.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
sci-nerd
2 minutes ago, RabidMongoose said:

Information transfer doesnt require mass or energy either.

Huh? Did you read that in the Urantia? :D

  • Haha 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
OverSword
56 minutes ago, sci-nerd said:

The speed of light in a vacuum - c - is 186,282 miles per second (299,792 kilometers per second).
That is approximately the distance to the Moon (in one second). Or a trip around the Earth 7,5 times.

Nothing* can go faster.

Do you accept that as natural, or does it make you wonder why nothing can go faster?
What prohibits a higher speed?


* Tachyons are hypothetical particles that has never been detected. But, according to the hypothesis, they can go faster than light.

Nothing can go faster because that is one of the physics limitations placed on us by the entities which programmed our matrix.

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1
  • Haha 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
and then
38 minutes ago, sci-nerd said:

That is covered in the link to tachyons.

But you must remember that those massless particles, in the tachyon class, are hypothetical. They are conjectures. So they don't really count.

Maybe not, but I bet their momma's still love them... just sayin'

  • Haha 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
XenoFish
23 minutes ago, OverSword said:

Nothing can go faster because that is one of the physics limitations placed on us

where-were-going-we-dont-need-sanity.jpg

  • Thanks 1
  • Haha 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
XenoFish
48 minutes ago, sci-nerd said:

Light leaves at light speed :rolleyes:

Then I won't bother with this anymore. Just trying to add something potentially useful to this thread. Good luck. 

  • Thanks 1
  • Sad 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
sci-nerd
1 hour ago, XenoFish said:

Then I won't bother with this anymore. Just trying to add something potentially useful to this thread. Good luck. 

I might not have told you this before Xeno, but I adore you! Any thread is lucky to have you in it! :wub:

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
lightly

Does  "darkness" exist?   I mean, I realize that "stuff" and forces can exist in an unlit space....but is there really such a Thing as "darkness" ?         I don't think so.   I think it's In the same category as "nothing".    .     .

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Will Due
7 minutes ago, lightly said:

Does  "darkness" exist? 

 

Yes. It exists lightly.

 

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
RabidMongoose
11 minutes ago, lightly said:

Does  "darkness" exist?   I mean, I realize that "stuff" and forces can exist in an unlit space....but is there really such a Thing as "darkness" ?         I don't think so.   I think it's In the same category as "nothing".    .     .

You can encode information onto a shadow but no known method exists of getting that information from A to B faster than light.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Essan
26 minutes ago, lightly said:

Does  "darkness" exist?   I mean, I realize that "stuff" and forces can exist in an unlit space....but is there really such a Thing as "darkness" ?         I don't think so.   I think it's In the same category as "nothing".    .     .

Is darkness the absence of light?

Or is light the absence of darkness?  :unsure:

Meanwhile, how is a species without optical nerves able to determine the speed of either?   

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
lightly
Posted (edited)
6 hours ago, Essan said:

Is darkness the absence of light?

Or is light the absence of darkness?  :unsure:

Meanwhile, how is a species without optical nerves able to determine the speed of either?   

Thanks for the responses ....I think the absence of light ...is the absence of light.    

Don't want to derail sci-nerd's topic...I just don't believe in "darkness" as someThing that exists.

 . . .RabidMongoose, I'm afraid I don't understand...encode information ON a shadow?

What exactly is a shadow?....I would guess a shadow is simply an area of less light, on some sort of Surface, than the surrounding area?   The information would be encoded on that surface?  

In a vacuum ..an area of blocked light (a shadow) would be totally dark...could information be encoded onto total darkness?  

Edited by lightly

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
sci-nerd
3 hours ago, lightly said:

Thanks for the responses ....I think the absence of light ...is the absence of light.    

Don't want to derail sci-nerd's topic...I just don't believe in "darkness" as someThing that exists.

 . . .RabidMongoose, I'm afraid I don't understand...encode information ON a shadow?

What exactly is a shadow?....I would guess a shadow is simply an area of less light, on some sort of Surface, than the surrounding area?   The information would be encoded on that surface?  

In a vacuum ..an area of blocked light (a shadow) would be totally dark...could information be encoded onto total darkness?  

You are absolutely right in your assumptions. Darkness is just absence of light. It's not a thing.

What they are trying to say is that information is not dependent on light. But light makes it much easier to read. At least to us.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
lightly
On May 28, 2019 at 4:25 PM, XenoFish said:

This is fun to think about.     If you turn on a light...the light travels at a known speed?  Right?   Which means it takes time before it is seen by our eyes?    When you turn off the light, and the last photons reach our eyes, darkness is instantaneous?  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
pallidin

And to add, if our Sun were to suddenly and instantaneously "dissappear", our Earth would continue to revolve around this now vacant sun for approx. 8-minutes...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
sci-nerd
Posted (edited)
On 31.5.2019 at 8:24 PM, pallidin said:

And to add, if our Sun were to suddenly and instantaneously "dissappear", our Earth would continue to revolve around this now vacant sun for approx. 8-minutes...

Not quite. The same moment that the gravity of the sun goes away, the earth will leave its orbit, and head for deep space, along with the other planets.

We just won't notice it's gone, until 8 minutes have passed.

Edited by sci-nerd
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.