"The speed of light is the fastest known speed..."

"The speed of light is the fastest known speed..."

What about when light hits something and that thing accelerates away from the impact?

Other urls found in this thread:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_sail
en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Photon
en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Time
en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laser
youtu.be/IsEDigUHsOQ?t=6m18s
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Light
askamathematician.com/2013/11/q-why-does-iron-kill-stars/
twitter.com/SFWRedditImages

I think you just broke science.

>implying it is a conservative force

Can something accelerate away from the impact of light? The closest thing I can think of is a radiometer, but that is not because of the light, but rather the near-vacuum in the bulb.

Yes, except it's probably not what you're thinking about.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_sail

The speed of light is a rate of inductance and nothing more. The speed of light is not constant and changes its speed based on what material it's passing through. That blue water in a nuclear reactor? That is basically slow light to put it simply.

On a cosmic scale how fast do you think you're traveling right now? The milky way is spinning you far faster than the speed of light.

jesus the retardation in this comment is unbelievable

learn some special relativity senpai

Nothing that you just said is correct. Congratulations on misinterpreting everything that you just stated.

kys

>believing time exists
>believing light exists as something that does something
>calling something retarded then throwing the basis of a theory

If you can define time as something other than a measurement based on human perception then be my guest. If you can define light as something other then a wave (which is what something DOES not what something IS) then be my guest.

How do you think a laser works?

lol these parrots. Next they'll try and say that an electron exists.

en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Photon
en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Time
en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laser
>Trying to appear smart when Wikipedia can answer all of these

Sooooo? How did you see that "thing" accelerate away?
I won't bother waiting for your reply.

lmao

How do YOU think a laser works because Im almost positive you dont have a clue with this line of reasoning.

Light has no mass, dumb-dumb

The speed of sound is faster than the speed of light OP, you got gotta reach enough machs to go faster than light

Light is massless. It's force of impact is F = 0v, so 0.

and your point is?

The line of reasoning being that the fundamentals of special relativity and relativity are heavily based on two things that don't even exist; Light and time.

Time is absolutely nothing we tangible. It has no quantity and cannot be measured, it is nothing but a measurement itself.

A Laser is nothing more than a rock with an ELECTROMAGNETIC coil wrapped around said rock. This ELECTROMAGNETIC coil causes INDUCTION and the quartz crystal makes it coherent.

Light is nothing more than a perturbation of magnetic fields which is why a magnetic field can bend that fucking shit in the first place.

Photons don't have mass but they do have a gravitational effect when they reflect off of a surface. Energy is essentially the same thing as mass.

Retard here

Why would something accelerate faster from the point of impact than the thing accelerating into it? Would whatever it hits not absorb some of that force in the first place?

The only sane post in this thread

ye just think about the reverse process for Compton scattering

The only non-bullshit phenomenon that is faster than light is abstract concepts, like the speed at which the distance between two near-lightspeed objects grows and shrinks.

>Time is absolutely nothing we tangible

>tfw nothing we tangible

Sorry I used a human language incorrectly. Kinda how like math can be wrong because it's nothing more than a language.

>The milky way is spinning you far faster than the speed of light

Hope this is bait

speed is relative to energy, a photon cant push somthing faster than itself it can barely emit enough energy to match it's own.

but by that logic, the moment a photon hit anything at all in the universe it would instantly reflect.

Top kek

No it's not bait. Sorry you never considered thinking about how insignificant you are on the grand scale of things.Yes the milky way does turn (in case you didn't know this) and it itself is also moving (probably orbiting something else at god knows what speed). You are going far faster than light, sorry to break it to you.

>S-speed is relative.
>To what exactly we don't know but it is!

Someone with a brain please explain to me what light is? A particle? A wave? A wave of what? A wave is not something goddammit! What is a particle? "O a bunch of empty space made of these things that are made of mostly empty space that are made of... oh and they have this thing called inertia.

So it's all fucking inertia and the loss of said inertia. Light is a byproduct of magnetism and inertia.

You want proof? Here's your proof in pic related. This simple device is nothing more than a chunk of coherent matter and a copper coil. Shake it through the copper coil and magically you get this thing called light! But wait how does that work? Doesn't that mean the the light somehow came from the magnet and the coil? Oh right, this magnet moved a bunch of incommensurable fields that are COHERENTLY aligned in a copper coil and then hooked in a loop. This creates a DIFFERENCE in the inertia already present in the subatomic makeup of the wire and the already coherently aligned structure of the magnet.

When you jump in the water and make waves that carry energy, these waves cannot be described differently than water other than the fact that the water is now moving.

Why does the dun create "light"? The sun is nothing more than a bunch of hydrogen moving COHERENTLY and very fast, surrounding by a the great DIFFERENCE of the vacuum of space

Do you get it now? Light cannot be a speed limit, because light does not exist in the first place.

You see that sharp spike on the left?

that's you

Good Lord...

>Implying c isn't the same in all inertial frames.

Why do you think it would accelerate away faster than light?

Even if you take the case that the photon hit something and all of the photon's energy was transformed into kinetic energy for the object, you would increase the kinetic energy of the object by amount hf (Planck's constant times the frequency of the photon).

That incremental increase in its KE would change the object's velocity by only a small amount. If you did this process continuously, the object would accelerate continuously and its speed would approach c, but never reach it (because nothing with mass can move at c).

Retardation: the comment

Lol

Wat? The object would move with velocity less than or equal C. So.. I don't understand why you made this question.

what if a car going the speed of light turned on its headlights. check mate. The thing you got to ask is how do you measure something beyond the speed of light? with what? or are your observations purely based on it?..

But, Yeah c is defined as the speed of light in perfect vacuum, which isn't really achievable, but still.

>Light is both a particle and a wave.
>Wave is a transfer of energy.
>Particle is a small part of something...
>The sun generates light thru fusion of particles that emits energy in form of UV radiation and light.
Do you understand now Johnny?

Completely incorrect

At near relativistic speeds velocities aren't additive in the same way as we think of them, if you shone a flashlight out the front of a train moving 0.5c the photons would still apparently be going at c from your perspective just as they would an observer outside the train. This is technically true at all scales but the effects are so minute at our speeds that it isn't relevent

>Light (which doesn't exist) is both a particle (inertia) and a wave (which again is not a thing in and of itself, but what something does)
>Wave is a transfer of energy (which is once again inertia)
>particle is the a small part of something........LIKE INERTIA
> UV radiation( see electromagnetic spectrum) and light (which once again a perturbation of an EM field)

"Fucking magnets how do they work?"- the posts

it does wormhole

I know this is bait but you realize we have particle accelerators built specifically to smash electrons into eachother right? If electrons didnt exist then i guess we built several billion dollars worth of nothing smashers?

>The milky way is spinning you far faster than the speed of light.

I really thought this was going to be an intelligent post I could enjoy and move on from. Then you said some really stupid shit, REALLY stupid shit.

I don't really buy the it's the speed cap for the universe bs. What if we built giant scissors, get it wide open, attach real fast rockets at the end of each blade and something in the middle of both blades that would keep going forwards as it closes? There are plenty of other systems that can increase velocity in something.

Is this the next step up from flat-earthers? "Its not a light bulb lmao light isnt even real guys"

Materials do experience radiation pressure when illuminated by electromagnetic waves. However, even in the vacuum of space, this is so small that the acceleration is minuscule. Usually, the only amount of radiation pressure that matters is when the radiation is completely absorbed (more weirdness evolving from the black body experiments decades later).

I also want to emphasize that the radiation pressure is not a kinetic reaction from the photonic rest mass, but the ejection of energy caused by absorbing the photons themselves.

also I apologize if rest mass is the wrong term, I don't know a better term for what I'm trying to describe.

The irony of your post is that without the magnetic halbach array compressing these "electrons" into each other and propelling them toward one another, the experiment would not be possible.
And yes, if you could get paid to research and continue to give "well maybe but give us more money so we can build an even bigger accelerator" then yes you would continue the worthless nothing smasher.

Electrons do not exist, there is not proof of them or any particle for that matter. Everything is run by the LOSS of inertia and nothing more.

Do you honestly think that there are magical bits of particles like pixy dust, flowing down the copper lines like water in a pipe? Do you think that a camera captures particles or that a flashlight emits particles? That's fucking retarded. Everything is pressure mediation and nothing else, Charge and discharge. There is no "negative charge". "Light" travels faster in a vacuum because em radiation can create perturbations easier because there is less matter to pass through.

The LHC typically makes its best discoveries colliding protons.... I don't know about any times they collided electrons.

How are the rockets going to go faster than light?

You can just call yourself engineer, I won't judge you for it brother

>a wave (which is what something DOES not what something IS)
>light waves as it goes past you
>light, the good guy truck driver of physics
this guy over here

>light doesn't exist

Then how can our eyes be real?

damn..................... this is....... deep.......

What is time dilation?

That's what I was going to reply, but I wanted to check if someone said it first. Can someone explain why this isn't a problem?

>I am me. I am here. I am defined as being here as me.
>I am me. I am here, but now I'm waving my hand at you. This magically makes me some completely different thing other then myself since the act of waving my hand somehow changed what I am entirely.
>This is logical to people.

Guess what happens when the frequency of light (magnetic/dielectric fields) become so high that it surpasses gamma? Hint it becomes something starting with an H and ending in an "n".

>Energy is essentially the same thing as mass
Equivalence is not the same thing as BEING a thing.
Gravitational waves are limited by the speed of light as well though.

>Gravitational waves are limited by the speed of light as well though.
>light gets trapped by blackhole.

>fake news

But it has momentum

Let's say we have a stick that's one lightyear and one inch long. We swing the bat at a normal speed (baseball swing). The tip of the bat will be moving faster than the speed of light.

The stick would be too massive to swing like a bat.

you're onto something

You spin it FROM THE CENTER with each side just as long. There is no logical reason why it wouldn't gain even more speed either. Start it slow and get it going and even if you get the center to 10rpms the speed at the ends would be incredible.

If we're traveling faster than light, then why do we see an equally dense starfield isotropically?

>Anonymous 10/17/17(Tue)23:42:32 No.9239544▶
The movement wouldn't be instant because atoms can't interact with each other faster than light since they interact with electro magnetism which moves at C velocity,

Light is a physical property in the universe.
Gravity is a physical property of the universe.

Because light is in the universe it can be trapped by black holes.
Because gravity is part of the universe it can't.

there is no material in the universe which could maintain strength enough to swing the mass

Movement only propagates down the stick at the speed of sound.
So, assuming your stick stayed in one piece, when you swung your stick in approximately 882,000 years the other end of the stick would start to move.

Special relativity says "nope"
youtu.be/IsEDigUHsOQ?t=6m18s

(At 6:18)

Wouldn't tidal forces essentially rip it apart mid-swing anyway?

How can light have any properties if it has no mass? If you meant to say "waves" aka EM waves are a property in the universe then yes, you would be correct.
What sort of magical device has been used to measure this "light?". Oh that's right, something that runs off of ELECTRICITY, and MAGNETISM.

Gravity is not a property as of yet because it's still a theory and the cause of which has never been explained.

>Because light is in the universe it can be trapped by black holes.
And why do you think that is?
>Because gravity is part of the universe it can't.
Again we don't know what gravity or even a blackhole is

But let's go with what we know. A super massive sun at the end of it's life leaves a shit ton of iron left at it's core. This iron implodes sheer density of itself and can form a blackhole. So we have IRON which is a ferromagnetic object, that is compressed and coherently aligned by the spin and energy from the sun. The magnetic fields are so compressed that there is no space for them to propagate.

>Giant coherently aligned iron ball that is perfectly aligned and imploded
>no space for the magnetic field to propagate outward
>Force driving magnetism is the dielectric inertia plane which is pure inertia.
>oh look I'm the dielectric plane and magnetism is my barrier, oh wait where is the magnetic fields?

For a moment I thought I was going to have to argue with you but then I realized you are one of those retards with self defeating arguments so I don't have to.

Yes. Well, it probably wouldn't even get to the point where it is tidal forces. Wouldn't it just be tension?

You guys haven't really addressed the... you know... utterly dumb-shit aspect yet

Imagine you have a constant stream of baseballs being thrown at your car. Let's even say it's in deep space so friction isn't a thing. They hit it and push it forwards a little.

So it's gets going faster right? Just like your idea?

But once it gets UP TO the speed of this stream of baseballs.... the baseballs are no longer hitting it. The car is going along with this stream of baseballs at the same speed. They're just floating next to each other. The baseballs behind it, never hit it.

>What about when light hits something and that thing accelerates away from the impact?
Yes, that's the basis of solar sails. And we could make focused lasers on earth that keep on pushing them for a long time. Just a little, but it solves the rocket equation.

But those ships, even given infinity, and a strong... "tailwind" of photons, would never go FASTER than the photons. Even ignoring all the other bullshit about time dilation and virtual mass and all that shit.

(AND ignoring the part where, if you could travel AT the speed of light, then you'd experience no time and simply pop up at your destination, resulting in a massive explosion or simply exist in frozen statis forever as you travel out into the inky black. But as something with mass, you cant go that fast. Because of.... increasing virtual mass... or something)

This is almost correct, except for the accelerated object, the photons will always strike it at c, regardless of how much is has accelerated compared to its starting destination.
The reason that the starting point will never observe it going faster than c is because velocity is not conserved by simple addition; the observed velocity will always increase less and less for each amount of kinetic energy it receives from the photons, always approaching, but never exceeding, c.

Holy shit, are you the same guy who stated the gun were electric powered?

>Hint it becomes something starting with an H and ending in an "n".
Horse Excretion?

I was thinking Hamiltonian

>If you can define light as something other then a wave

[spoiler] Do you even Broglie [/spoiler]

Wait a minute YOU CAN'T SPOILER ON SCI?

i bet you follow IFL science and spirit science on facebook, because those are literally the only retards that drone on about "time not existing"

That's why they don't want you to go to the underside of the Earth.

The hamiltonian is an operator that can be used to describe the state of energy in a system. What the fuck are you talking about?

user we are not traveling faster than light, that's bs, people tend to say that space expands "faster than light" but tht's not how it works, it's a pretty long answer.

It was a joke damnit, like the user who wrote Horse Excecration.

...

HYDROGEN

it'll go as fast

>claims it's a self defeating argument
>fails to point out where it defeats itself
>no argument

You must be a woman or something.

no

Time is not a force, nor modality, nor a factor in anything! Time is contrivance of our perception and is described by language. It is nothing but a recording and is described by human language and tools that were created by creatures that can't see the greater picture. Please tell me what force time falls under, is it a particle now or something?
This isn't some New age garbage, this should be fucking logical to anyone who has the capacity to understand that:

>NUMBERS AND MATH ARE A LANGUAGE AND NOTHING MORE.

When light hit something it translates to thermal energy not kinetic, because Photons have energy but no mass

>Milky way
>Accelerating faster then the speed of light

If it were then all we have to do is gradually apply energy to the opposite side and then we reach the speed of light easily(At least in earth perspective)

You are drunk user, and are not making any sense, Just little by little undermine the velocity and we could reach at the speed of light.
Just because we can explain exactly what is light, it does not mean It cannot be measured.

> B-BUT MY MAGNETISM

Everything has an magnetic field, what is your next claim? Protons and electrons are just magnetic energy, just because?

yes they all are energy, but they have different properties, you are drunk go home.

Light is made by protons a quantum shit we don´t really know how it works, but it reacts as a wave and a particle.

you are a troll, but lorentz transforms faggot.

My god I am truly flabbergasted. You call me incorrect and say I'm not making any sense and then in the same post you further disprove the widely accepted beliefs with statements such as:

>Just because we can explain exactly what is light, it does not mean It cannot be measured
>Light is made by protons a quantum shit we don´t really know how it works, but it reacts as a wave and a particle

And you're calling me drunk?

Let's start with even the most normie of knowledge banks.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Light

Read the first fucking sentence and then get back to me. Of course it goes onto say that there is a "wave-particle" duality, but that's hilarious because every time we look closer at the goddamn "particles" more "particles" appear. So what that should tell the average knuckle head is that no matter how close you look at it, all it fucking is force and motion, inertia and acceleration.

Also an electron is nothing more than a dielectric discharge, but my guess is that you have absolutely no idea what that means. Simply put it means it sure as fuck isn't a particle. Particles aren't magically appearing out of nowhere and flowing down the power lines like hamsters running down a tube.

You have been huffing too much quantum glue if you ask me.

when the sun rays hit my hand, particles coming in move faster than light relative to the ones reflecting off my hand. I hold faster than light in my palms.

>>fails to point out where it defeats itself
I shouldn't have to.

>we don't know what gravity or a black hole is
>trying to describe the creation of a black hole without gravity
You just can't do it.

All I can use is the info given to me. Gravity as a separate modality is still a theory by the way so describing anything with it is flawed.

askamathematician.com/2013/11/q-why-does-iron-kill-stars/

Who would have thought that a sun full of DIAMAGNETIC elements would be altered by the presence the FERROMAGNETIC iron. Gravity and everything else is nothing more than centripetal/centrifugal magnetism, and counter spacial inertia. Counter-spacial inertia is accelerated by a coherent ferromagnetic object because the "atomic stucture" is also aligned and coherent.This perfectly aligned, massive, coherent, counter spatial object is not trapping light or anything else, it's seeking equilibrium from a sun expelling a shitload of EM radiation and creating a large counter spacial void. Counter space is the bloch wall/dielectric inertia plane. And that is most likely what your black hole is, but again it's a theory much like the others.

That's why everything fucking spins and the most efficient way to get off said spinning object is by rotating around it and accelerating.

What an absolute leap from that article to the drivel you spout.

I mean, for starters, the iron doesn't stay in the core after the supernova, or else we wouldn't have iron on our planet.