Repercussions when breaking the speed of light ?

Pitbull

Verboten
Joined
Apr 8, 2006
Messages
64,432
Reaction score
5,088
Location
Hartbeespoort
Was thinking about this for a very long time.

What would happen the day humans break the speed of light ?
Damn you could run into the back of urself :eek:

I'll be moving faster than my body image would that would look so damn freaky :D
 
Well from what I know, remybfg10k is correct in a "simple" way.

There are ways to break the speed of light, but they technically aren't "breaking" the speed of light, they're circumventing it instead.

Granted, this is just from my rather basic knowledge of that branch of physics.
 
I wouldn't have a clue, the physics don't interest me. I just know from history what happens when someoen says its not possible/impossible/etc.
 
Logically it's not possible.

Mathematical it is. So it is feasible.

Few problems with it though.

The force to drive the object at that speed would have to be enormous. This would have to be controlled power. The acceleration would cause such a big G-force that no living organism would survive it. However if it was applied gradually the G-force would not be that big. But what power source could maintain such a force over a prolonged period of time ?
 
For all we know we're already traveling faster than the speed of light in relation to something else.

e.g. 2 traveling photons, one on each side of the sun, they, in relation to each other, are exceeding the speed of light.

I really do not see how an object's rate of motion in relation to another object has any dangerous implications, unless it crashes into something else.

If an object moves at the speed of a photon, and happens to line up next to a photon traveling at the same speed, then .. whoop de doo .. and then if same object starts going faster than the photon .. it will overtake the photon ... eeeeeeek ... :rolleyes: ... whoop de doo, nothing will happen.

@JK8 .. utter bull, it's only because they want to accelerate so damn hard that they are exposed to those G forces. They can accelerate a lot slower, and just take longer to break the sound barrier, like the Concord.
 
Last edited:
We have to train so hard just to survive gforces when breaking the sound barrier, we wont survive the speed of light....

Like mentioned above. G-force is the applied to the body by eccelaration and de-ecceleration. If the speed is increased gradualy it's not that big of an issue.
 
For all we know we're already traveling faster than the speed of light in relation to something else.

e.g. 2 traveling photons, one on each side of the sun, they, in relation to each other, are exceeding the speed of light.

I really do not see how an object's rate of motion in relation to another object has any dangerous implications, unless it crashes into something else.

If an object moves at the speed of a photon, and happens to line up next to a photon traveling at the same speed, then .. whoop de doo.

@JK8 .. utter bull, it's only because they want to accelerate so damn hard that they are exposed to those G forces. They can accelerate a lot slower, and just take longer to break the sound barrier, like the Concord.

Now we're getting somewhere ;)
 
So, now apply Einsteins point that when an object is moving at a speed greater than light that the e=mc^2 to 2 objects is undefined.
What he is saying, is that the mass and energy is unknown when c > speed of light, but remember that c = the speed relative to you.

If something is flying away from or towards you at greater than the speed of light, then it has undefined mass and energy, and, at the point of impact there is no know result.

Bottom line, if you're going that fast, don't hit anything?
 
So, now apply Einsteins point that when an object is moving at a speed greater than light that the e=mc^2 to 2 objects is undefined.
What he is saying, is that the mass and energy is unknown when c > speed of light, but remember that c = the speed relative to you.

If something is flying away from or towards you at greater than the speed of light, then it has undefined mass and energy, and, at the point of impact there is no know result.

Bottom line, if you're going that fast, don't hit anything?

I was thinking about this.

Now Lets say we have inter planet travel. I could arrive at point B from point A in lets say 1 hour. Then wait for my Image to appear a couple of days later :D

Or would the image part only effect people in view of when you pass them ?

example:

I depart at point "A" some where between point "A" and point "B" I pass "Sam"
"Sam" would notice an Imgae moving past him at the speed of light when I have already passed ages ago.

I arrive at Point "B". People standing at point "B" would see me arriving in the same way as "Sam" would have seen me along the way. However people that traveled with me would see my image from start at point "A" to finish at point "B" in real time.

This is the funny part :cool:
 
Last edited:
@JK8 .. utter bull, it's only because they want to accelerate so damn hard that they are exposed to those G forces. They can accelerate a lot slower, and just take longer to break the sound barrier, like the Concord.

So you saying gforce is related to acceleration and not speed?
 
100% correct

If you eccelerate to 100 km/h there is G-force.

When u travel at 100km/h constantly = 0 G-force

When a F1 driver is taking a bend, no acceleration, speed and in another direction.... where are those gforces coming from?
 
And inertia?

Quote

Inertia is a non-quantifiable property of matter (not a unit of measurement) by which it remains at rest or in uniform motion in the same straight line unless acted upon by some external force. The principle of inertia is one of the fundamental principles of classical physics which are used to describe the motion of matter and how it is affected by applied forces. Today, it is most commonly defined using Sir Isaac Newton's third definition in Philosophiae Naturalis Principia Mathematica which states:
“ The vis insita, or innate force of matter is a power of resisting, by which every body as much as in it lies, continues in its present state, whether it be of rest, or of moving uniformly nor a measure of mass. ”
In common usage, however, people may also use the term "inertia" to refer to an object's "amount of resistance to change in velocity" (which is quantified by its mass), and sometimes its momentum, depending on context (e.g. "this object has a lot of inertia"). The term "inertia" is more properly understood as a shorthand for "the principle of inertia as described by Newton in Newton's First Law of Motion which, expressed simply, says: "An object that is not subject to any outside forces moves at a constant volocity, covering equal distances in equal times along a straight-line path." In even simpler terms, inertia means "A body in motion tends to remain in motion, a body at rest tends to remain at rest." On the surface of the Earth the nature of inertia is often masked by the effects of friction which brings moving objects to rest relatively quickly unless they are coasting on wheels, well lubricated or perhaps falling or going downhill, being accelerated by gravity. This is what mislead classical theorists such as Aristotle who believed objects moved only so long as force was being applied to them
 
Last edited:
When a F1 driver is taking a bend, no acceleration, speed and in another direction.... where are those gforces coming from?

He's changing direction

The direction he was moving in is changed = De-ecceleration in that direction.
That is why you have G-force in a bend. The G-force is worked on the body in the direction the object was moving in before it changed direction ;)
 
Quote

Inertia is a non-quantifiable property of matter (not a unit of measurement) by which it remains at rest or in uniform motion in the same straight line unless acted upon by some external force. The principle of inertia is one of the fundamental principles of classical physics which are used to describe the motion of matter and how it is affected by applied forces. Today, it is most commonly defined using Sir Isaac Newton's third definition in Philosophiae Naturalis Principia Mathematica which states:
“ The vis insita, or innate force of matter is a power of resisting, by which every body as much as in it lies, continues in its present state, whether it be of rest, or of moving uniformly nor a measure of mass. ”
In common usage, however, people may also use the term "inertia" to refer to an object's "amount of resistance to change in velocity" (which is quantified by its mass), and sometimes its momentum, depending on context (e.g. "this object has a lot of inertia"). The term "inertia" is more properly understood as a shorthand for "the principle of inertia as described by Newton in Newton's First Law of Motion which, expressed simply, says: "An object that is not subject to any outside forces moves at a constant volocity, covering equal distances in equal times along a straight-line path." In even simpler terms, inertia means "A body in motion tends to remain in motion, a body at rest tends to remain at rest." On the surface of the Earth the nature of inertia is often masked by the effects of friction which brings moving objects to rest relatively quickly unless they are coasting on wheels, well lubricated or perhaps falling or going downhill, being accelerated by gravity. This is what mislead classical theorists such as Aristotle who believed objects moved only so long as force was being applied to them

He's changing direction

The direction he was moving in is changed = De-ecceleration in that direction.
That is why you have G-force in a bend. The G-force is worked on the body in the direction the object was moving in before it changed direction ;)

Add that together with the the speed of light which is?? I forgot.
It will malsh our brains...
 
And also our eyes can only handle the speed our bodies are capable of doing... ie 25-30Kmh BUT we all know if trained they can manage upto 600km/h.... but its still a blur... we wont be able to see anything if we doin 1000kmh.
 
Top
Sign up to the MyBroadband newsletter
X