I've got a question Veeky Forums

Yes.

>If we assume that nothing can travel faster than light, then the mollecules of an object also have to follow that rule, and therefore there is a maxium energy they can generate
thats retarded, your a retard, a retarded, popsicle licking, top hat wearing, retard.

man are you retarded, listen, retard, energy goes to, I said listen, retard, the energy goes to infinity as, RETARD, are you listening? to infinity as retardedly as your face on which I am sitting and farting, you retard.

you sure rar retard

this is a very good post

>its theoretically possible to go faster than c.
How

Just take than classic definition of speed = space/time instead of the reletivistic interperetation.

With what theory it is possible?

But classic mechanics is just relatevistic mechanics on low speed. It is not a stand-alove theory.

No, relativistic formulas are equal to classic ones at low speed, but the formulas itself aren't the same. If you just take the normal day-to-day definition (wich is the classic one), no "c" is present there. The problem here is that someone has definied a new formula for "speed" that on speeds near "c" behaves completly diferent than our understaning of the word "speed". Hell we could take c for any other constant and there would be no problem on our definition. c unlike pi or e, is not a mathematical constant.

By the way, I'm not

None of that means you can go faster than c

search this at youtube - PBS Nova Absolute Zerov- 2 parts

absolute 0 = no relative velocity\oscillation on the microscopic scale .
pic related is how they came up with the idea of absolute zero , they noticed that if they extrapolate the pressures of several 'ideal gases' they all reach 0 pressure at the same temperature so its assumed that its the temperature where there is no microscopic motion .

as for 'absolute hot' there's no such thing, things can always go faster, the closest thing i can imagine is some sort of plasma type thing where the particles all move at relativistic speeds .

wha the fuck senpai, 0 celcius was defined as the tri-phase temperature of water , what the fuck is 273 ?

No, it means that when speaking with non physicians that doesn't know the relative definition of speed you should use the classic definition, hence the speed of light is not a limit.

The phrase "You can't travel faster than light", is not something that comes from experiments, it comes by the definition itself of the word "speed" if you're using the relativistic definition.

If I were to define speed as being equivalent to mass, I could say things like "The faster you go the more it grows the gravitational field". Does it make any sanse to use this definition? It makes the same as any other. What doesn't make sense is to assume that everybody will use it when they are already using something else.

>For more information get a PhD in Theoretical Physics.

which is an euphemism for waste 9 yrs of your life to find no jobs

Explain what you mean by the relativistic definition of speed. Pretty sure it's still basically how far you move in a given unit of time.

Are you sure speed isn't how fast a given amount of distance moves over you?

>c is not a mathematical constant
>c literally stands for constant
>c being constant is the basis for relativity
>c is the same in ever reference frame, something time, energy, or length aren't
>one of the 5 fundamental constants used to build the planck units
>Not a constant

Well yeah technically c is a constant. What I meant with that is that it's not a value that you got from maths, from mathematical definitions (like PI, wich is a value that you get from geometric definitions), c is a value that you get from data on the physical world, and therefore it doesn't depend on math but on the instruments you use to mesure it. Since it doesn't depend on other definitions, changing c wouldn't be a problem. Pi for example is problematic, pi is defined as "The ratio of a circle's circumference to its diameter". If you want to change the value of the constant pi without changing its definition either you have to change the definition of diameter or the definition or circumference, in any case that would have serious repercusions on everything that depends on those definitions. Generally speaking messing with definitions is not a good idea, and that's exacltly what relativistic physics do.

>Yet at absolute zero, this is when things stop moving entirely if we could reach it.
Not really. If all movement were reduced to zero, the other factor of the Heisenberg inequality would go through the roof. A perfectly defined position due to zero velocity would create an infinite impulse out of nowhere. This is true for any object, micro- or macroscopic.

Regret is strong

lol no. the heisenburg inequalities depend on a non-zero energy of the system.

if what you were saying were even remotely true, then ultra-cold physics labs would be an impossibility, as you should see an increase in momentum (and thus thermal energy) as you approach absolute zero, and yet, here we are pushing it to 10,000ths of a kelvin above zero.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Relative_velocity

>The violation of special relativity occurs because this equation for relative velocity falsely predicts that different observers will measure different speeds when observing the motion of light.

Well the equation itslef doesn't mention the speed of light at all. Define "observing", becouse if you meant obsering an imege (aka light) then it's true. But if you meant observing assuming that we are on a WYSIWYG envoirmet, then the equation it's still valid. And if you define "observing" as in "observing sound signals" then both are false.

I think user just disproved relativity by his high-school tier argument that implies nothing
Time to get rid of Electrodynamics, SR and GR, particle physics and QFT

Expanding this a little, basically the constant "c" shouldn't be the speed of light but the speed of the waves from which you're getting your observations, and assuming a WYSIWYG envoirment that would be infinite, so the classic formula is valid.

I've not disproved relativity. I've just said that we're using the wrong definitions and that it makes common people misunderstand everything.

c is the speed of light in vacuum and as far as we know we can't go faster than that
Pretty sure nothing is wrong with that assumption
What's your qualification?

P.S. Using the wrong definitions is a subjective point of view and it doesn't prove that whatever conclusions your got from that definition are false. But it does mean that you can not port those conclusions to another definition. Aka: You can't say you can't travel faster then light if you think that speed = distance / time

>as far as we know we can't go faster than that
Given what definition of speed? Becouse that's only true if you use the relativistic definition.

Relativistic
You are assuming Gallilean invariance which is wrong, it's only used in high-school to familiarize students with mechanics
I really don't see your point
What's your qualification?

>Relativistic
Then there is nothing to discuss here, since my statments are for people that uses the newtonean definitions (wich is what usually people does, they apply spacial relativity conclusions to their newtonean physics, wich is wrong and a mess).

There is only one definition of speed friend, it is the absolute scalar magnitude of velocity. As such, there is an upper limit, that of electromagnetic radiation.

The fact the speed of light is a number shouldn't shock anyone. Everything is a number once you measure it.

299792458 ms^-1

Can anything go 299792458+1 ms^-1? Sure why not, it would have to be an exotic thing that does not interact with light and is as yet undiscovered, invisible, unknown to us.

So for clarity, the speed of light in a vacuum is taken as the maximum speed for anything that is light interacting, which is everything in our experience of reality, since we experience reality as matter.

>that uses the newtonean definitions
Which are only correct at low speeds

>There is only one definition of speed friend, it is the absolute scalar magnitude of velocity.

That is relative velocity, and it's defined in two ways en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Relative_velocity, therefore there are also two definitions of speed.

A definition is not correct or incorrect, a definition is just a definition. If I want to define a property called "Sefu" as the product of speed and frecuency, nothing forbids me to do so. What you're actually saying is "the classical an relativistic definitions differ on speed near light", wich is true but it doesn't make one or the other false.

dude what the fuck are you on about? pi is a physical constant that is restricted to measurements just as much as c is.

In our case, pi is 3.1415927.... because and only because space time is flat and euclidean in our local frame.

If you went somewhere with a shit ton of graviational force such that you space-time was perceptively non-flat, then you could measure that distortion by measuring the difference in pi. Draw a (reasonably perfect) circle, calculate pi, vupti you have a different constant because the real world has physically changed.

For that matter, your value of Pi is going to depend on your measurement instruments as well. There are a bunch of other mistakes in your argument, but those were the most egregrious.

Please refrain from speaking on the matter again until you actually fucking know something.

>the speed of light in a vacuum is taken as the maximum speed for anything that is light interacting

no, the speed of light is the maximum speed for anything that has no mass. whether or not it will interact with bosons is besides the point entirely.

Well since the planck length exists and there is a linkage between temperature and emitted wavelength i guess there exists an "absolute hot"

>there is a linkage between temperature and emitted wavelength

black body radiation is not a restrictive limit, user, not by any means

There is no indication that the planck length is the smallest distance possible.

Even if that were the case, your argument makes no sense.

I would have assumed, that you could calculate it with:
T=b/λ
T=2.8978x10^-3/1.61x10^-35
That would mean that the maximum temperature is 1.8x10^32 K
But that's probably not true

True, but it would be the highest measurable temperature

>dude what the fuck are you on about? pi is a physical constant that is restricted to measurements just as much as c is.
Pi is not a measurement, it's the result of a bunch of arithmetic transformtaions: embed.gyazo.com/1003158dede1593d491078454cd2394e.png

>Please refrain from speaking on the matter again until you actually fucking know something.
I think I should be the one saying that to you.

Does the speed of light change in an absolute zero vacuum?

Bonus question: Is it called light because its massless?

>0 celcius was defined as the tri-phase temperature of water
No, the triple point is about 0.01 °C; as can also be seen in your image.

Only the relativistic definitions apply in real life though

Why is that?