• Welcome To Our Community

    The most creative and intelligent people on planet Earth hang out on this forum. Be ready to have your points of view challenged and refined.

    We also want others to share your posts to ALL the social media outlets not just our own.

    You need to be registered and logged in to get full access and to add content yourself. 

     

Jack Ryan

What is the scientific proof that nothing can travel faster than the speed of light?

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 account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Similar Content

    • By Marcus Aurelius
      Let me attempt to blow your mind: “Now” travels at the speed of light.
      When the light turns green, I don't concern myself with the fact that the light actually turned green a nanosecond earlier than I saw it. As far as the distances we're used to, “now” might just as well be universal.
      On interstellar distances, you might expect that the lag start mattering. Except it really doesn't. Maybe Sirius isn't there anymore. Maybe it went supernova five years ago, and the shockwave is riding towards us as you read, and it will hit us in another three years. There's no way we'd know. We look up and see the old faithful Sirius sitting right where it's always been. And we can measure its gravitational influence on us and neighboring stars. There is no knowing it's actually gone, and that's because it actually isn't. To someone in the neighborhood of Sirius, the star is no more, but, to us, it still exist. “Existence” travels at the speed of light.
      If the sun was spirited away by a species of prankster kardashev 3 aliens, it would keep “being there” for 8 minutes as far as we'd be concerned.

      And those 10 billion light years away stars we see through our telescopes, they are there. Because we can see them.
      - Julien Boyer
    • By Bible Speaks
      Origin of the Universe:
      Gen. 1:1: “In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.”                                
      Astronomer Robert Jastrow wrote: “Now we see how the astronomical evidence leads to a biblical view of the origin of the world. The details differ, but the essential elements in the astronomical and biblical accounts of Genesis are the same: the chain of events leading to man commenced suddenly and sharply at a definite moment in time, in a flash of light and energy.”—God and the Astronomers (New York, 1978), p. 14.                      
      JW.ORG

    • By Bible Speaks
      “Send out your light and your truth. May these themselves lead me.” Psalm 43:3.  JEHOVAH is very considerate in the way he makes his purposes known to his servants. Instead of revealing the truth all at once in one blinding flash of light, he enlightens us progressively. Our trek along life’s pathway might be compared to a walk that a hiker takes down a long trail. He starts out early in the morning and sees little. As the sun begins to rise slowly over the horizon, the hiker is able to distinguish a few features of his surroundings. The rest he sees in hazy outline. But as the sun continues its ascent, he can see farther and farther into the distance. So it is with the spiritual light that God provides. He allows us to discern a few things at a time. God’s Son, Jesus Christ, provided spiritual enlightenment in a similar manner. Let us learn how Jehovah enlightened his people in ancient times and how he does so today.

    • By admin
      Remarkably, the question cannot be answered.  Einstein's theory of relativity gives the rate of time in any "inertial frame" relative to that in any other inertial frame. (Inertial frames are traditionally called Lorentz frames, after the person who first introduced the transformation.) 
      According to relativity theory, there is no inertial frame that travels at the speed of light. Therefore, according to our current theory, the question is fundamentally unanswerable. 
      What we can say is this: compared to an Earth-bound clock, the clock in a frame moving at velocity v progresses at a slower rate.  In the limit as the frame velocity approaches the speed of light, that rate approaches zero.
      But that does not mean that the value at c is zero. To do that, mathematically, you must first show that the limiting situation exists.  According to relativity theory, it does not. Some future theory might give a different answer, but in the present day, no alternative to relativity theory has made predictions that show it to be correct. 
      - Richard Muller, Prof Physics, UCBerkeley, author of "Now-Physics of Time" (2016)
    • By SciTechPress
      Light always travels at the speed of light. It never increases or decreases its speed. (Technically, this is only true when the light is in vacuum, but the air in a room where the light is turned on is sufficiently close to a vacuum.)

      You're thinking about light as a classical particle, which indeed has to start from rest if it wants to move. Instead, think of light as a vibration of the electromagnetic field.

      There is a simple analogy for this - without any quantum mechanics or relativity, just classical mechanics.

      Consider a string attached to a wall on one side and held by you on the other side. If you vibrate the string on your side, the vibration will propagate to the other side at a fixed speed that depends on the material from which the string is made and on the tension of the string.

      The propagation speed of the vibration of the string does not start from zero, nor does it increase or decrease at any time. It is always constant.

      Similarly, light is a "vibration" of the electromagnetic field. This vibration always propagates at a constant speed c.
      - Barak Shoshany, Graduate Student at Perimeter Institute for Theoretical Physics
      Listen to my commentary on this
    • By SciTechPress
      This is a tough one to answer since in an earlier post we debunked the infinite mass old theory.
      Any ideas?
    • By admin
      A common misconception is that light travels at different speeds through different mediums. People say that the speed of light in a vacuum is cc, and then say that the speed of light through glass is slower than cc. This simply is not true.

      The speed of light is always cc. Then why does it take longer for it to travel through glass? Experiments show that light "moves about  200000 km/s through glass" (as opposed to 300,000 km/s through a vacuum), so how could the speed of light be constant?

      Because of this little thing called interaction.

      Imagine you are receiving a prize, maybe for writing a great paper about physics. As you walk from point A to point B, you take 2 steps every second. The walkway, being 60 steps long, takes you 30 seconds to get from A to B. Your pathway looks like this.
      Pretty simple right? I would think so. 

      But let's say you didn't win the prize just by yourself. Some people also helped. In this case, you might want to thank your contributors as you walk to the prize. If you walk at a speed of 2 steps a second, it takes you 120 seconds now to get from the same point A, to the same point B. How is this possible? Both times you were walking at 2 steps a second, yet it took twice as much time as before? Well, let's take a step back and look at the picture.
      Well that explains it. You were moving both times at 2 steps a second, but you interacted with other external things.

      Now, let's substitute you for light, the walkway for glass, and the contributors for glass molecules.

      No matter what, light is always moving at cc. The speed of light does not change in a vacuum, but the time from point A to point B does change, depending on what interacts with the light.

      So in short, no, light does not change speeds depending on the medium it travels through. The speed of light is always cc.
      - Ignacio Cabero
    • By admin
      "The notion of mass "increasing" with velocity is an outdated one. Under current definitions of "mass", mass doesn't increase at all with velocity; instead, it is an intrinsic property of the object in question, which is the same in all reference frames.
      ... If you're inside your rocket ship traveling at 99.99% of the speed of light relative to Earth, you wouldn't be able to tell you were moving at all without looking out the windows (or at your instruments, etc.) Specifically, you would not somehow have more trouble moving because of your increased inertia, and you would not see time slow down for yourself. It's only observers on Earth who would see your time slow down and your inertia increase."
      The magnitudes of most of the famous effects of special relativity (time dilation, length contraction, increase in inertia) are determined by the "gamma factor",

      γ=11−v2/c2√γ=11−v2/c2.

      This is where Allan Steinhardt's answer comes from. It's the factor by which inertia increases, and it's the factor by which we used to say your mass increased, before "mass" was redefined. (Again, this is all according to an observer who sees you moving at 99.99% of the speed of light relative to them; according to you, everything about you is "normal".)" Source
       
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.



  • Chatbox

    You don't have permission to chat.
    Load More
  • Topics

  • Posts

    • who then is the meek?    
    • I wrote the Mickey Spillane summit parody for Jane Spillane, who is re-releasing the Mike Hammer tough-guy series of late 1940's private eye books. It is a spoof on what if the President had handled Putin like Mike Hammer might handle a crime boss. She loved it. She said so right on my blog (almost immediately) when I released it. I wrote it because Mickey Spillane later became one of Jehovah's Witnesses and his work changed a lot. That triggered my interest in his books. Now, Jane is not a Witness, probably has mixed feelings about them at best, and may feel they were responsible for 'sabatoging' his work, since his post-JW writings lose the excess sex and violence and thereby become less of what Mickey himself once said about Hemingway and the highbrow authors: "What those guys could never get is that you sell a lot more salted peanuts than cavier." Nonetheless, there is no way she could not have picked up on his enthusiasm for the truth, and probably concedes that that is what ensured he remained the upright man he always had been. Jane is intensely political, another reason for the theme of my post. She assures me that Mickey would have been a Trump-man, too. I have not the slightest doubt of it, with the exception that he would know how to keep political leaning its place, and not disturb the peace of the congregation with such matters. All human governments will drop the ball, usually it is a bowling ball, and the only open question is upon which toe will it land. As individuals ponder their own toes, some will favor the left and some the right. Anyhow, I said to Jane that we could help each other. I will use the story to hopefully (this is extremely hard to do) flag the attention of some high profile figures, and did she want to be tagged or not?. She did. Good. It's a win-win, potentially helping both our causes. Mine is to direct attention to my blog, www.tomsheepandgoats.com, the first thing that hits the eyes is a link for my free ebook Dear Mr Putin - Jehovah's Witnesses Write Russia, which calls attention to the plight of our people there, (along with answering many a scurilous charge) and that goal motivates nearly everything I do these days. I draw some of my inspiration from Anton Chivchalov Blog. These days it is important to bring one's gift to the altar. The post is here: 
      http://www.tomsheepandgoats.com/…/showdown-at-the-summit.ht… Since the violence and sex is excessive in those pre-Witness days, it is easy to dismiss the novels as so much garbage. However, as to the writing itself, Ayn Rand (The Fountainhead, Atlas Shrugged) lavished high praise on them and compared them favorably to some elite authors of the day. Mickey's own dad, I think he was a bartender, called his writing "crud." Ayn Rand did not feel that way. Atlantic Magazine (I think it was) interviewed him in later years ('I may write one more Mike Hammer, but that's it. I can't sit eight hours in a chair anymore. My rear end gets sore.') and pointed out that his latter books were winning some critical acclaim. "To Mickey's disgust, one suspects," one suspects, the author adds. Come on! It is impossible not to love this guy. He had the combination of intense interest, yes, even love, of people, coupled with an absolute lack of pretence, a willingness to go 'in your face,' something that was a trademark of Witnesses of a certain generation. Jane herself, I am not sure that she realized it, give me the ultimate green light, when she said of my scheme: "Mickey would love it."    
    • Thank you so much and I appreciate ALL that you do. Love ❤️ you!! Have a beautiful weekend!!🌸🌺🌹🌺🌸🤧😊
    • I do not see here that Jesus support economic and money system of Jew, Greek or Roman people. He was not willing to support that. This verse "proving" my view and understanding on Jesus act: -------------- “But so that we may not offend them, go to the sea, cast a hook, and take the first fish you catch. When you open its mouth, you will find a four-drachma coin. Take it and give it to them for you” and Me. Jesus was not voluntary or by obligation participate in paying temple tax. His reason for pay tax money was in some sort of strange reason, "to not offend them". Does he payed tax more then this one time mentioned in this verse? Do not know. But this verse telling something different in connection to your statement:  "Jesus taught that a legitimate use of money is to support the Lord's work (The Great Commission) through the religious institutions the Lord established,the early Church/Christians." In this verse  he did contrary, he support Jew system and not "Lord's work". And as such, religious institutions aka Jew religion (or some other religious institution today), have to be, was been rejected by him and his followers, at the end of a day (or to the end of century in Romans's  siege and destruction of Jerusalem). 1.What is legitimate use of money? (by capitalist view, by socialist view, by particular religious institution view......?) 2.And would you, as beneficiary, accept money, as donation or in other forms, without knowledge and proves how donor/donors made their multiplication of money in legitimate using, way?     (Do you have interest to know is such money made in way that no one was damaged?) How many people working for one dollar per day or less, for few cents, in one part of a world??? And in different part of the world  other people buy cheap products because of such system? And what is LEGITIMATE in that? Only laws that was product of injustice. AND ALL THIS WAS IN DOMAIN OF WHO OWNS THE MONEY :))))))) I do not care, at the end, is that devil's money or people's money. It is injustice! This is all about injustice, greedy, lies, manipulation ...   
    • we both! :))) please help me to see, by your thoughts, is there something in this World that IS devil product? proved by Bible, because this is point you like to highlight - Bible verses. Thanks.
  • Forum Statistics

    • Total Topics
      52,419
    • Total Posts
      89,479
  • Member Statistics

    • Total Members
      14,622
    • Most Online
      1,592

    Newest Member
    Paul Garcia
    Joined