zep73 Posted May 28, 2019 #1 Share Posted May 28, 2019 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 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Duke Wellington Posted May 28, 2019 #2 Share Posted May 28, 2019 (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 May 28, 2019 by RabidMongoose 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zep73 Posted May 28, 2019 Author #3 Share Posted May 28, 2019 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 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Duke Wellington Posted May 28, 2019 #4 Share Posted May 28, 2019 (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 May 28, 2019 by RabidMongoose 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Taun Posted May 28, 2019 #5 Share Posted May 28, 2019 Actually the Moon is an average distance of 238,855 miles (384,400 km) away, but why be picky... 4 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zep73 Posted May 28, 2019 Author #6 Share Posted May 28, 2019 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 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zep73 Posted May 28, 2019 Author #7 Share Posted May 28, 2019 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 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Duke Wellington Posted May 28, 2019 #8 Share Posted May 28, 2019 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zep73 Posted May 28, 2019 Author #9 Share Posted May 28, 2019 2 minutes ago, RabidMongoose said: Information transfer doesnt require mass or energy either. Huh? Did you read that in the Urantia? 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
+OverSword Posted May 28, 2019 #10 Share Posted May 28, 2019 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 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
+and-then Posted May 28, 2019 #11 Share Posted May 28, 2019 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 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
XenoFish Posted May 28, 2019 #12 Share Posted May 28, 2019 23 minutes ago, OverSword said: Nothing can go faster because that is one of the physics limitations placed on us 1 5 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
XenoFish Posted May 28, 2019 #13 Share Posted May 28, 2019 (edited) Darkness travels at the same speed as light. https://futurism.com/how-is-the-speed-of-darkness-is-faster-than-the-speed-of-light Edited May 28, 2019 by XenoFish Link added 1 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zep73 Posted May 28, 2019 Author #14 Share Posted May 28, 2019 1 hour ago, XenoFish said: Darkness travels at the same speed as light. https://futurism.com/how-is-the-speed-of-darkness-is-faster-than-the-speed-of-light Light leaves at light speed 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
XenoFish Posted May 28, 2019 #15 Share Posted May 28, 2019 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 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zep73 Posted May 28, 2019 Author #16 Share Posted May 28, 2019 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 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lightly Posted May 29, 2019 #17 Share Posted May 29, 2019 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". . . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Will Due Posted May 29, 2019 #18 Share Posted May 29, 2019 7 minutes ago, lightly said: Does "darkness" exist? Yes. It exists lightly. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Duke Wellington Posted May 29, 2019 #19 Share Posted May 29, 2019 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Essan Posted May 29, 2019 #20 Share Posted May 29, 2019 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? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lightly Posted May 29, 2019 #21 Share Posted May 29, 2019 (edited) 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 May 29, 2019 by lightly Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zep73 Posted May 30, 2019 Author #22 Share Posted May 30, 2019 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 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lightly Posted May 31, 2019 #23 Share Posted May 31, 2019 On May 28, 2019 at 4:25 PM, XenoFish said: Darkness travels at the same speed as light. https://futurism.com/how-is-the-speed-of-darkness-is-faster-than-the-speed-of-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? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pallidin Posted May 31, 2019 #24 Share Posted May 31, 2019 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... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zep73 Posted June 8, 2019 Author #25 Share Posted June 8, 2019 (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 June 8, 2019 by sci-nerd 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
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 accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now