Immense Controversey, as Scientist's Break the speed of light.

[clarky003]

Using Light Scientist managed to accelerate it faster than C, the constant, proving the natural constant isnt a barrier, just mearly a natural speed (that differ's in certain situations anyway).

After so many years of scratching our heads over this, because of our reliance on light as an indicator of time, it may finally become apparent that time, or the ageing of matter, doesnt truely correspond with light, and is infact only an illusionary factor... making touch and feel a more reliable measure of time when the visual sense cant be trusted. For some it becomes much simpler, for others it becomes even more of a headache.

SOURCE

 

[Lemonking]

Warp Speed Coooolllll

 

[NeptuneUK]

woah..

 

[PvtRyan]

That's nothing new, now if they accelerated something with mass, it would have been special. The theory that something with mass can't be accelerated to c still holds.

 

[Kristafon]

That's nothing new, now if they accelerated something with mass, it would have been special. The theory that something with mass can't be accelerated to c still holds.

Oh you would have to go and spoil it!

 

[kaf11]

no freakin way! what do you think theyll come up with in 2001? the possibilities are endless!!! just kidding, sorry about the sarcasm.

 

[Gunner]

June 4, 2000 NEC Research Institute in Princeton?

 

[DiSTuRbEd]

I get the USS Enterprise as my ship!

 

[clarky003]

theory's dont hold anything until they are proved. and just because the mass would appear from a by standers view to dissapear as it passed C, doesnt mean it has, all light gives us, is a visual image, it doesnt dictate weither something exist's or not,

e.g if you sat in a pitch black room, you would still feel the objects around you and yourself without light to tell you its there,(even if light was somehow travelling slower and there was a delayed visual image), , so it doesnt matter what you see, your touch sense still operates within the boundary of experianced time, and its a valid sense which we ignore in theory.

 

[mortiz]

WOWWOWOWOWOWOWOWOW

erm...yeah.

 

[Kristafon]

June 4, 2000 NEC Research Institute in Princeton?

and.......

 

[The Mullinator]

300 times the speed of light eh?

Thats around 55,800,000 miles per second. Proxima Centauri is our closest star at 4 light years away. So if my craptacular math is correct it would take 421,397 seconds or approximately 5 days for a message travelling at that speed to reach Proxima Centauri.

 

[The Dark Elf]

cool.. one less reason to be late for work

 

[clarky003]

and if you could see it in that light frame Proxima Centuri would'nt seem 4 year's in the past,,, you would see it as it was 4/5 days ago.

 

[Gray Fox]

Well this doesn't bring us any closer to interstellar travel, but it could bring us closer to finding alien life, caue now we would be in pronciple be able to send signals trough space 300 times faster than now, it could also make comm between a space craft that are hedding to mars and earth smoother, it could also make faster than light travel lighter, cause you have now some kind of radar, cause you are not blindly flying if you as fast as the light cause nothing can go faster than it.
That is offcourse if it is true, but i doubt it.

 

[Sulkdodds]

Owned.

 

[The Mullinator]

If it really is a simple speed increase that they saw then it looks like 300 may not be any sort of limit. :O

Owned.

Yup, w3 OwNz0r3d t3H L1GhT!!

 

[clarky003]

lols, I should think so, I was getting fed up of it being so slow all the time ,

one things for sure, would help with latencey problems on net games

 

[The Mullinator]

lols, I should think so, I was getting fed up of it being so slow all the time ,

one things for sure, would help with latencey problems on net games

What if it gets so fast it recieves commands before you actually make them? :O

 

[NeptuneUK]

lols, I should think so, I was getting fed up of it being so slow all the time ,

one things for sure, would help with latencey problems on net games

yup, the data would arrive shortly before it begins its journey thus travelling through time... then we get a problem with reverse lag it would be the oppisite to lag somehow

"OMG! -252 ping!! j0O r Teh Laggzor! st00pid 56000000000kers...."

 

[PvtRyan]

theory's dont hold anything until they are proved. and just because the mass would appear from a by standers view to dissapear as it passed C, doesnt mean it has, all light gives us, is a visual image, it doesnt dictate weither something exist's or not,

e.g if you sat in a pitch black room, you would still feel the objects around you and yourself without light to tell you its there,(even if light was somehow travelling slower and there was a delayed visual image), , so it doesnt matter what you see, your touch sense still operates within the boundary of experianced time, and its a valid sense which we ignore in theory.

Don't know what you're on about, but the reason why an object with mass can't surpass the speed of light is because it would require an infinite amount of energy to accelerate its infinite mass that it would gain from closing in on c. That's a theory with evidence that is yet still to be disproven.

 

[clarky003]

it wouldnt arrive before it began, it would just be instantanious, light cant travel through time,, time as we see it is just the illusionary natural constant of C.

 

[Sulkdodds]

one things for sure, would help with latencey problems on net games

Waitasec. You thinking what I'm thinking? No, probably not. Fibre optics! Faster than light light! World communications revolution!

Ahem.

 

[Parrot of doom]

So you're quoting a 4 year old news report, the source of which remains confidential prior to publication?

So has it been published? Or was it rubbished?

 

[baron insig]

lights does have a mass it is just negligible

 

[clarky003]

Don't know what you're on about, but the reason why an object with mass can't surpass the speed of light is because it would require an infinite amount of energy to accelerate its infinite mass that it would gain from closing in on c. That's a theory with evidence that is yet still to be disproven.

im not actually saying you can, im saying there are factors that you cant put into it without doing practical, so as its human theory, its always going to be limited, but we are limited in our perception anyway, so what do we know, we wont have a clue till we try to do it.

even though accelerating matter past the speed of light with brute force isnt the way to do it anyway. we will need to figure out how to warp space fabric in order to move matter that fast.

lights does have a mass it is just negligible

the photon does yeh,

im on about how we percieve light in our reality, at its speed, our perception gives us our small reality, the universe is operated and made up on a level beyond our reality, and understanding that is key to attempting to realise that what we percieve is very much illusionary, especially light ... and the illusion can be bent,.

your never going to get a sound theory based on illusionary factors, but never the less its still very important to understanding that light is a multi faceted visual medium, image experiance differs when the speed is changed and so is the experiance of time, but time itself is something else.

everyone knows about Schrondingers Cat.... right

 

[PvtRyan]

lights does have a mass it is just negligible

Photons do NOT have mass. They have a restmass of 0. Due to that, they travel with the speed of light.

 

[clarky003]

Photons do NOT have mass. They have a restmass of 0. Due to that, they travel with the speed of light.

i thought they did have a mass, being as they are in existence.

but wait, photons arnt actually tiny little balls as they are portrayed by science models, they are actually a flow of energy , science just uses that as a visual medium to try and understand it,

but then they try to apply mathmatical calculations to the visual model that they made up?!1.... when photons, are infact a collective energy form..

We dont really know what we are doing, we just seem to think what we can see is everything that is,, and using that we attempt to answer all the mysteries that plague us

I know it seems redundant, but how can we ever know the truth if we use fake model representations to try and explain what already exists in another form.

I say aslong as the wheel works, use it.

 

[Phisionary]

Sorry, this is not a harbinger for speedy exploration of space, or instantaneous internet... Read more here

 

[Tr0n]

300 times the speed of light eh?

Thats around 55,800,000 miles per second. Proxima Centauri is our closest star at 4 light years away. So if my craptacular math is correct it would take 421,397 seconds or approximately 5 days for a message travelling at that speed to reach Proxima Centauri.

Baiscally it other terms...Light speed isn't really as fast as you think it is.There are far better/faster ways of getting from one point to another in space.

IE: Watch the movie Event Horizon.

 

[clarky003]

this is not a harbinger for speedy exploration of space

We know, well atleast I know, thats why i made LIGHT bold in the first post.

Violating 'HUMAN'(edit) basic principle of the universe,

they even stated it didnt, ...

this guy sounds like a rougue scientist trying to keep his job,

trying to hold up old ideal's..

what is he an insider or something, was he hands on with the technology...?

you can be sceptical of both, there will always be arguement , but you dont make claims like that without a backing, so i dont see why people are so freaked out about the concept that maybe einstein's equations are incomplete. were only human.

if the Universe had a sense of humour it would be laughing at us right now, might even be laughing at einstein for missing out other perceptual components to his equation out.

 

[Angry Lawyer]

There was a visual demonstration of why this was absolute b*llocks somewhere online. I remember reading something about it being a number of normal light waves that are very slightly out of step, and wave superposition and cancellation causes all the peaks but one to be voided, and that peak only appearing to move faster than light, due to the way that the waves are moving out of step with each other. Hard to explain without a picture, but they definately proved it wrong.

-Angry Lawyer

 

[Fat Tony!]

what about the theory of relativity experiment where they proved light could travel no faster. Is this all wrong. does this proves that the theory of relativity is wrong. Im fairly spectical here.

 

[Angry Lawyer]

Notice the datestamp on the article, and how little voice this has had in news. The speed hasn't been broken, for a number of reasons.

-Angry Lawyer

 

[mortiz]

Baiscally it other terms...Light speed isn't really as fast as you think it is.There are far better/faster ways of getting from one point to another in space.

IE: Watch the movie Event Horizon.

Yes, but that's a science fiction movie, and one where the science behind it is very shakey. Most scientists would snuff at the idea that you could enter a black hole and survive, or that wormholes actually exist.

 

[Tr0n]

Notice the datestamp on the article, and how little voice this has had in news. The speed hasn't been broken, for a number of reasons.

-Angry Lawyer

Exactly.I will say again...there are better ways to get from one point to another in space.Light speed isn't all that great.

 

[Tr0n]

Yes, but that's a science fiction movie, and one where the science behind it is very shakey. Most scientists would snuff at the idea that you could enter a black hole and survive, or that wormholes actually exist.

I was giving an example and no they wouldn't.In theory it is possible... un-like light speed which isn't really that fast when you think about it.

 

[mortiz]

I was giving an example and no they wouldn't.In theory it is possible...just like light speed.

Not only that but how would you get to one of those black holes in the first place? You'd have to break the speed of light barrier just to reach one! Blackholes are extremely rare, and they require a massive star to go boom just to even create one, and even that sometimes doesn't do the job . Now the chances of a black hole appearing anywhere near us, never mind in the next star system is astronomically unlikely.

Plus anything to do with things in space that we have no ability to test is "theoretically possible" for instance it's theoretically possible that on the other side of a blackhole a race of evil cows that want to rule the universe exists, because we have no way of actually getting to a black hole to see. Hell, Blackhole's themselves are just theories. Have you ever been close to one?

I was just saying that most scientists "theorise" that wormholes don't exist & you wouldn't survive a trip through a black hole.

 

[Sprafa]

Wormholes are quite possible.

 

[Fat Tony!]

Black holes are just stars that you cannot see due to the fact that light is sucked in, it is amusing that somepeople seemed to think that it was a portal of some sort