Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.

# 186,282 miles per second

## Recommended Posts

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.

• 3

##### Share on other sites

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
• 3

##### Share on other sites
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.

• 1

##### Share on other sites
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
• 3

##### Share on other sites

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

• 4

##### Share on other sites
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.

• 1
• 1

##### Share on other sites
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

• 1

##### Share on other sites
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 on other sites
2 minutes ago, RabidMongoose said:

Information transfer doesnt require mass or energy either.

Huh? Did you read that in the Urantia?

• 3

##### Share on other sites
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.

• 2
• 1
• 2

##### Share on other sites
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'

• 4

##### Share on other sites
23 minutes ago, OverSword said:

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

• 1
• 5

##### Share on other sites

Darkness travels at the same speed as light.

Edited by XenoFish
• 1
• 3

##### Share on other sites
1 hour ago, XenoFish said:

Darkness travels at the same speed as light.

Light leaves at light speed

• 1
• 1

##### Share on other sites
48 minutes ago, sci-nerd said:

Light leaves at light speed

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

• 1
• 1

##### Share on other sites
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!

• 1
• 1

##### Share on other sites

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 on other sites
7 minutes ago, lightly said:

Does  "darkness" exist?

Yes. It exists lightly.

• 1

##### Share on other sites
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 on other sites
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?

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

##### Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Essan said:

Is darkness the absence of light?

Or is light the absence of darkness?

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 on other sites
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.

• 1

##### Share on other sites
On May 28, 2019 at 4:25 PM, XenoFish said:

Darkness travels at the same speed as light.

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 on other sites

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 on other sites
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
• 1