Sign in to follow this  
Wishfire

The laws of physics

Recommended Posts

Einstein's law of relativity said that to be able to travel back in time, you'd have to travel faster than the speed of light. However, to attain the speed of light, you'd need infinite energy.

 

However, protons (the basis of light) can be affected by gravity and atmosphere. If light travels through an atmosphere, it bends. Anything that "bends", in relation to its course, must slow down first. So if a ray of light bends, doesn't it slow down?

 

Additionally, anything with matter (and protons do have matter, though not as everything else we know of), speeds up as it approaches in object with enough gravitational force. So, if a ray of light is caught in the gravitational well of a black hole, wouldn't it speed up?

 

To sum it up, the speed of light is not a constant. So, wouldn't Einstein's "infinite energy" theory become irrelevant?

 

Also, to gain infinite energy, you could harness a gravity well. As long as you had an anti-grav containment field around it, you'd be okay, plus you could potentially harness this never-ending energy source.

 

Okay, that last part is pure speculation on my side, but what if? I'd like your opinion on this.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

you are talking about photons... There is a huge difference! The difference is that the speed of light is constant. But the photon does not necessarily travel at the speed of light. It can be slowed down but the speed constant is not.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The funny thing is that the speed light comes at us from stars while the earth moves towards the star (as it orbits the sun) is the speed of light. The speed light comes towards earth while it's moving away is still the speed of light, even if logic would dictate it would be less.

So claims my physics teacher.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

but remember, the speed of a light molecule (photon) is different from the actual maximum speed of light. (186,000 mps)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
A photon is not a molecule. It's more like a packet of energy or something.

270514[/snapback]

 

A photon is a molecule. Go look it up on any particle physics website. basic science and relativity.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If photons can be slowed, how is the speed of light constant? Unless by "speed of light" they mean the speed it travels from the moment it's created.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I just remembered a better example of something my teacher gave me.

If a space ship traveling at almost the speed of light would be going in the opposite direction of another ship traveling at almost the speed of light (999/1000s or something) they would see each other traveling with the speed of light, even if it would have been logical to assume they would see one another traveling faster.

 

And a photon is NOT a molecule. A molecule is composed of atoms, atoms are made of electrons, protons, neutrons, gluons, quarks etc. etc. When an electron jumps to a lower layer than he's on he looses a packet or energy in the form of a photon.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I just remembered a better example of something my teacher gave me.

If a space ship traveling at almost the speed of light would be going in the opposite direction of another ship traveling at almost the speed of light (999/1000s or something) they would see each other traveling with the speed of light, even if it would have been logical to assume they would see one another traveling faster.

 

And a photon is NOT a molecule. A molecule is composed of atoms, atoms are made of electrons, protons, neutrons, gluons, quarks etc. etc. When an electron jumps to a lower layer than he's on he looses a packet or energy in the form of a photon.

270716[/snapback]

 

photons are subatomic molecules...

Can we get nik in here to clarify for you? Oh god.... This is much more than you can comprehend... (no offense of course)

 

Go read "The Particle Explosion". It's a very good book on elelmentray particle physics.

 

BTW all matter is energy because it is all potential. All atoms have different kinetic energies at different stages. So you cannot say that just photons are packets of energy. Everything in this universe is according to the first law of thermodynamics.

 

I'm sorry, but you example does not prove anything. C (the speed of light) is a misnomer. It is not that of light particls in itself, but the maximum velocity of light. Scientists have managed to slow down light molecules. Your evidence has nothing to do with the maximum speed of light and the constant. The max speed of light is constant. For example, look at black holes. Remember, black holes do not release anything except electrons according to our observations. The speed of a light molecule is slowed to zero within the black hole. It is actually slowed at the event horizon. What you are pointing out is the Newtonian perception of Relativity. It's close to Einsteinian relativity but no cigar.

 

@ wishfire Remember the first law of thermodynamics. NO ENERGY IS CREATED OR DESTROYED.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Your statement contradicts the very definition of molecule which states that a molecule is made out of two or more atoms. How can something made of atoms be subatomic?

 

And who says photons are particles? They have properties of waves and particles, so they can be treated as both.

 

C the speed of light (in this case) is only used to name the speed at which an object would need infinity energy to move faster. (that object being of matter).

 

Also true, that no energy can be created or destroyed. I won't even try arguing with that, I don't know enough about physics, and I never will.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

you're referring to a different typ of molecule. You're thinking about a compound molecule. I'm talking about a gluon, quark, guage boson, neutrino, etc.

 

Photons are treated as particles in relativity. Their property of wavelength can be attributed to their treatment as waves, particles, or radiation.

 

However, light in your example moves lie we think in common sense. However, since we do not move t those speeds, we cannot think in terms of comment sense.

 

I'm sorry, but C is the constant in the equation of E=MC^2

 

You cannot increase the max speed unless you bend space time. But then you would have to consider speed in a different way because you would have to consider time dilation.

 

If you increase the mass put into the process, the higher the energy. But can you go faster than the max speed of light squared?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

But back to my first post, I raised a question...

 

Say you knew how to turn the gravitational energy into the energy you need to fuel your ship. Say also that you had a nugget of highly-compressed matter (like the same matter that exists in the Earth but compressed to the size of your fist) AND a gravitational containment field. Gravity is constant, so couldn't gravity be a source of infinite energy, making the speed of light possible?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
but remember, the speed of a light molecule (photon) is different from the actual maximum speed of light. (186,000 mps)

270485[/snapback]

 

WAB, so which is faster then??

 

 

And wishfire you said: "To sum it up, the speed of light is not a constant. So, wouldn't Einstein's "infinite energy" theory become irrelevant?"

 

Don't you think if it were it would have been discovered by now?? :angry: where's nik when we need him.?? :lol: :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
but remember, the speed of a light molecule (photon) is different from the actual maximum speed of light. (186,000 mps)

270485[/snapback]

 

WAB, so which is faster then??

 

 

And wishfire you said: "To sum it up, the speed of light is not a constant. So, wouldn't Einstein's "infinite energy" theory become irrelevant?"

 

Don't you think if it were it would have been discovered by now?? :angry: where's nik when we need him.?? :) :lol:

271330[/snapback]

 

I forgot to factor in the fact that the speed of light refers to the maximum speed light travels. Apparently, I've been doing that for several years. Sometimes I'm an idiot. :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That sort of harsh wf. :) :) This is just a friendly discussion. And by the way, I'm probably an idiot too. :lol: Who else thinks they are an idiot?? :angry: :blink:

Edited by Jeanway

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I do. But I like arguing.

 

One thing I noticed while scribbling in my Computer Technology notebook is that apparently C = SQRT(E/M) ...constant, eh? :angry:

 

...oh, I need sleep ><

 

On a side note, I'm sorry for my earlyer remarks. I'm used to standing to my point, which was that photons are not moleculs, which I still stand by, but ok.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, I agree. Photons are NOT Molecules. :blink: Or are they? :angry: Hmm, I thought I had that straight in my head, now it's gone :lol: No, yea they are. No wait, no they're not :) AW, Crap! :) :look:

 

Here, perhaps this will clarify things:

 

Molecule: NOUN: 1. The smallest particle of a substance that retains the chemical and physical properties of the substance and is composed of two or more atoms; a group of like or different atoms held together by chemical forces.

 

 

Photon: NOUN: 1. The quantum of electromagnetic energy, regarded as a discrete particle having zero mass, no electric charge, and an indefinitely long lifetime.

 

Well, since it has no mass it can't BE a molecule now, can it???? :lol: :lol:

Edited by Jeanway

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

But that's not the scientific description of a sub-atomic particle....

 

You're talking about a compound molecule in chemistry.

 

I'm referring to the generic term in physics. You might have been confused, but I was referring to the properties of being a particle/molecule.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

a photon does not travel at speed of light.. if you could go that fast it be easy reach another solor system..everyday nasa goes were geting closer to anwser. i got picture of x-43a nasa tried to launch today they try again tommorrow.thats space plane looks like surf board..

post-761-1100647922.jpg

post-761-1100648171.jpg

post-761-1100648299.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Light has mass because it can be quantified. This quantum is the proton. As things speed up, their mass increases as they approach the velocity of light. More energy must be put in in order to accelerate the object. However, theoretically, it takes an almost infinite amount of energy to accelerate an object to the speed of light. Theoretically of course.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've just had a thought... Einstein's Law of Relativity states that to obtain the speed of light you must have infinite energy. So basically, to go faster is impossible. (Correct me if I'm wrong.)

 

If you turn on a light in your living room, the light that leaves the light-bulb is travelling the speed of light. That's a given. But that only requires 60 watts. So basically, it takes almost no energy to create light. Basically, to create something that travels the speed of light. While the mass of a light proton is almost nothing, it still has mass.

 

What I'm saying is, basically all we need to do is find an energy source that has a reaction equal to the amount of mass in an object. While it may take a long time to get an object as large as, say, the Enterprise, up to light speed, why not something smaller? And why does it have to be an object? Why can such a technology be applied to communications?

 

I don't know how fast radio waves travel. Could someone enlighten me?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I've just had a thought... Einstein's Law of Relativity states that to obtain the speed of light you must have infinite energy. So basically, to go faster is impossible. (Correct me if I'm wrong.)

 

If you turn on a light in your living room, the light that leaves the light-bulb is travelling the speed of light. That's a given. But that only requires 60 watts. So basically, it takes almost no energy to create light. Basically, to create something that travels the speed of light. While the mass of a light proton is almost nothing, it still has mass.

 

What I'm saying is, basically all we need to do is find an energy source that has a reaction equal to the amount of mass in an object. While it may take a long time to get an object as large as, say, the Enterprise, up to light speed, why not something smaller? And why does it have to be an object? Why can such a technology be applied to communications?

 

I don't know how fast radio waves travel. Could someone enlighten me?

296720[/snapback]

 

You're not creating light (photons are particles of matter). The heating of gases and the tungsten produce light because of a special property of metals I will not go into because we might go off on a tangent.

 

The square root of the energy over the square root of the mass = the speed of light.

 

Plug in the number for the speed of light and plug in the number you need for mass. Then you can calculate the amount of energy you need for that specific mass.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I didn't say that we're creating light. I said that when a light bulb is turned on, the light from it travels at the speed of light. And according to the equation you just gave, the amount of energy needed is quite finite.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And that equation is quite correct considering it is another way of writing e=MC^2

 

|

|

|

V

 

E/M= C^2

|

|

V

sqr( E/M) = C

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
But that's not the scientific description of a sub-atomic particle....

 

You're talking about a compound molecule in chemistry.

 

I'm referring to the generic term in physics. You might have been confused, but I was referring to the properties of being a particle/molecule.

 

Which of course are two completely different things, but are often confused. Yes, a photon is a sub-atomic particle. I am a couple years out of taking physics courses, but I can see what you are trying to convey clearly WEARE. And yeah, it does seem like he is at least partially confusing the terminology.

 

For those who use metric speed of light is c = 3.00 x 10^8 meters/sec

 

The heating of gases and the tungsten produce light because of a special property of metals I will not go into because we might go off on a tangent.
:yes: Probably a good idea, but could make for a good second thread concerning the topic. Photoelectric effect can be an interesting subject...I just have to get the rust out of my brain (LOL) to more easily join in a discussion, it has been 2 1/2 years since I last was in a physics course. And I also would be switching gears from Organic Chemistry back to either Modern Physics or Classical Mechanics.

 

A couple of good links:

Photon -from Eric Weisstein's World of Physics

When I searched photon in the Chemistry Branch...

World of Chemistry entry

Edited by Yillara_Soong

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Remember the first law of thermodynamics. NO ENERGY IS CREATED OR DESTROYED.

 

 

Energy may not be created or destroyed but I believe, oscillation can be transfered to rotation, which causes further oscillation that transfers to rotation and so on... if the design complies with proportions found in cubed magic squares.

 

 

 

 

Ant

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Einstein's law of relativity said that to be able to travel back in time, you'd have to travel faster than the speed of light. However, to attain the speed of light, you'd need infinite energy.

 

Would you? How about solar power?

 

However, protons (the basis of light) can be affected by gravity and atmosphere. If light travels through an atmosphere, it bends. Anything that "bends", in relation to its course, must slow down first. So if a ray of light bends, doesn't it slow down?

 

I'm not sure.

 

Additionally, anything with matter (and protons do have matter, though not as everything else we know of), speeds up as it approaches in object with enough gravitational force. So, if a ray of light is caught in the gravitational well of a black hole, wouldn't it speed up?

 

I believe the black hole sucks in the light, as well as everything else. Speed up? Not sure. I would think that light would remain as the same speed at all times.

 

To sum it up, the speed of light is not a constant. So, wouldn't Einstein's "infinite energy" theory become irrelevant?

 

But are you sure it's not constant?

 

Also, to gain infinite energy, you could harness a gravity well. As long as you had an anti-grav containment field around it, you'd be okay, plus you could potentially harness this never-ending energy source.

 

Interesting. Why would this be a necessity?

 

Okay, that last part is pure speculation on my side, but what if? I'd like your opinion on this.

 

How about if we could absorb great amounts of solar power? Should be infinite energy in space.

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
Sign in to follow this