Einstein is wrong! Faster than light speed proved!

Discussion in 'Community' started by peter2002, Oct 3, 2002.

  1. peter2002 macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Aug 1, 2002
    Location:
    Dallas, TX
    #1
    Einstein's 97 year old General Theory of Relativity has been proven wrong. Speeds faster than light have been observed.

    Using the Chandra X-Ray telescope, scientists headed by Phil Kaaret of the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics observed jets of gas being pulled by a super massive black hole traveling faster than light.

    Of course, much work still needs to be done, but in 50 years, maybe will be traveling to distant stars to make love with hot babes like in Star Trek.

    Dr. Evil :D

    http://www.cnn.com/2002/TECH/space/10/03/black.holes/index.html
     
  2. krossfyter macrumors 601

    krossfyter

    Joined:
    Jan 13, 2002
    Location:
    secret city
    #2
    where are you getting this info from. state your source. sounds intresting. if true... man this is ground breaking.
     
  3. krossfyter macrumors 601

    krossfyter

    Joined:
    Jan 13, 2002
    Location:
    secret city
    #3
    oh okay never mind i see that you have linked the photo to cnn. awsome man. im going to read up on this now.
     
  4. Durandal7 macrumors 68040

    Joined:
    Feb 24, 2001
    #4
    I needs a link. I dig this stuff.

    It is exciting, it is a better prospect then the human race being isolated to the immediate area by the speed of light :D

    edit- Oh OK, the photo is a link.
     
  5. Durandal7 macrumors 68040

    Joined:
    Feb 24, 2001
    #5
    I think it is a bit early to declare Einstein wrong on this. Though Einstein says the speed of light is constant he also says that time isn't necessarily constant. It is known that gravity could distort time and that singularities are immense sources of gravity. Could it be possible that this is time moving at an accelerated pace which would appear faster then light to an outside observer?
     
  6. FelixDerKater macrumors 68000

    FelixDerKater

    Joined:
    Apr 12, 2002
    #6
    Time, il Tempo, el Tiempo, die Zeit

    Accelerate time enough and it will seem that even something traveling at a speed lower than the speed of light would appear faster. Absolutely. Even still, their is a great possibility that Albert OneRock or OneStone (Einstein) was wrong.:rolleyes: :p :cool: :eek: ;) :( :eek: :)
     
  7. Stike macrumors 65816

    Stike

    Joined:
    Jan 31, 2002
    Location:
    Germany
    #7
    Einstein is not wrong on this. His theroy says that speed of light is constant and time is not. And that time is relative is already proven.

    For example, two clocks run synchronous. Bring one of them now into orbit, and one stays on earth. Later, the clocks show a difference, because the time in orbit proceeds slower. Hence a human living in orbit would live much longer COMPARED to the people on earth. But for him, his life is not longer... just the comparison.

    IF it is really possible to move at a higher speed than light speed, the moving object would travel back in time, relatively for the onlooker it would move SLOWER than lightspeed... weird stuff, huh? :rolleyes: :D

    Now I need to build a DeLorean that makes Hyperlightspeed :eek: :D :D :D
     
  8. Stike macrumors 65816

    Stike

    Joined:
    Jan 31, 2002
    Location:
    Germany
    #8
    :eek: WOW! Ok, seems like a wormhole!? I think we forgot the "space" factor, always talking of time and speed... hmm...
     
  9. Hemingray macrumors 68030

    Hemingray

    Joined:
    Jan 9, 2002
    Location:
    Ha ha haaa!
    #9
    Sounds like the basis of a new episode for Red Dwarf. :D
     
  10. KeilwerthSX90R macrumors newbie

    Joined:
    Jul 16, 2002
    #10
    Scientists have already conducted lab experiments in which they are able to get light particles to travel faster than the speed of light by altering the medium in which they travel. The experiments are performed in a tube that is filled with something (not totally sure what) that allows light to travel faster than it does in a vacuum.
     
  11. madamimadam macrumors 65816

    madamimadam

    Joined:
    Jan 3, 2002
    #11
    Due to an optical illusion, the jet pointed toward us appeared to move faster than the speed of light,"

    Need I say anymore other than pointing out the words "optical illusion" and
    "appeared"?
     
  12. Backtothemac macrumors 601

    Backtothemac

    Joined:
    Jan 3, 2002
    Location:
    San Destin Florida
    #12
    This is at CNN.com It is not an illusion. There will always be something faster than that which is known to humans. Remember when they thought that breaking the speed of sound would kill the pilot.

    Humans are only limited by thought, and yet only advance by it.
     
  13. hvfsl macrumors 68000

    hvfsl

    Joined:
    Jul 9, 2001
    Location:
    London, UK
    #13
    Imagine in the future Macs with quatum cpus and hyperlight engines. You would be able to travel backwards and forewards in time using your Mac. Maybe deploy an AirPort webcam in the past to see what really happened to the dinosaurs, then broadcast your results over the internet in 1996.
     
  14. medea macrumors 68030

    medea

    Joined:
    Aug 4, 2002
    Location:
    Madison, Wi
    #14
    sorry to burst your bubble hvsfl, but if that were possible, then you would have already seen that happen in 1996......
     
  15. PCUser macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Mar 1, 2002
    #15
    Backtothemac... the entire CNN article says it is an illusion. Even the title says so: "Black hole outburst looks 'faster than light'". madamimadam quoted a line from the article.

    The full quote is:
    "'Initially the jets have been launched at a velocity close to the speed of light. Due to an optical illusion, the jet pointed toward us appeared to move faster than the speed of light,' University of Paris astronomer Stephane Corbel said." (par. 7)
     
  16. IndyGopher macrumors 6502a

    IndyGopher

    Joined:
    Nov 3, 2001
    Location:
    Indianapolis, IN
    #16
    No one ever said (well, ok, lots of people say it, but that's because they're misquoting someone else) that it was impossible to move faster than light. Einstein said it was impossible to accelerate to the speed of light. (as you approach the speed of light, mass approaches infinity, the whole problem is with the notion of infinite mass) While I find this tidbit interesting, it doesn't change anything or break any rules. Speed is distance/time. If time is not constant, then speed measurements are also not constant. That's the easy definition of relativity.
     
  17. e-coli macrumors 68000

    e-coli

    Joined:
    Jul 27, 2002
    #17
    light particles have no recordable mass, so it would be possilblt to propel them faster than the calculated speed of light. Einstein's theory says that no object with mass can be propelled to the speed of light.
     
  18. Frobozz macrumors 65816

    Frobozz

    Joined:
    Jul 24, 2002
    Location:
    South Orange, NJ
    #18
    Einstein's doing just fine...

    Light does have mass. Everything that exists has mass. In fact, Scientists have just been able to measure distances at 10^-35, which is the smallest quanta possible. The reason why light moves so quickly is because it has so little mass-- anything else that is very light could be accelerated to similar speeds. However, gravity effects the laws of physics and time/space. It has been proven that a signal can be sent faster than the speed of light-- but that's not because a particle went from point A to point B by shooting it out of a cannon. It's because time/space was warped with immense magnets (to simulate gravitational effects) that altered the physical distance needed to travel. The signal, thusly, arrived BEFORE it was sent. On a large scale, Black holes allow for this time/space folding to occur. Think of it like a rubber band: if you compress the band the distance is short to travel around the circumference. The opposite is true if you stretch it. Yet, it is the same surface you are traveling on.

    There is an excellent issue of Scientific American than discusses the concept of time. The whole issue is devoted to it. Should be on news stands now.
     
  19. alex_ant macrumors 68020

    alex_ant

    Joined:
    Feb 5, 2002
    Location:
    All up in your bidness
    #19
    Dude, this is not news. Apple has been offering Power Macs with G4 CPUs that process data "faster-than-light" for years now!
     
  20. mischief macrumors 68030

    mischief

    Joined:
    Aug 1, 2001
    Location:
    Santa Cruz Ca
    #20
    Eesh....

    This is where it gets ugly:

    All objects, by definition of their substance have mass. The sticky bit is that objects are an illusion of frame rate..... that is: the only difference between an insubstantial photon and a "substantial" proton in terms of their substance is that (so to speak) a proton has a higher frame rate.

    The only reason we continue to cling to particle theory is that a). it's easier to grasp the concept and b). we are limited to equipment that cannot observe continuously, with a high enough frame rate to isolate the standing oscillation that is commonly thought of as the "surface" of a SA particle.

    With that said: If every standing oscillatory point that represents what we think of as SA "objects" has observable mass-interaction (gravitational presence) except the two least substantial than the logical conclusion is that those two are not exceptions but merely have unobservably slight mass. After all.... If photons had no mass they would not be effected by gravity.

    The only conclusion is that the velocity/force/mass equation in E=mc^2 is fundamentally flawed because even with infinetessamally (sp?) small mass, acceleration to what is considered functionally infinite velocity would result in nearly infinite potential energy... BTW: Ever notice that E=mc^2 is just the Newtonian calculation for discovering the potential force-at-impact calculation for a given mass?
     
  21. mischief macrumors 68030

    mischief

    Joined:
    Aug 1, 2001
    Location:
    Santa Cruz Ca
    #21
    Re: Einstein's doing just fine...

    Signals can also be sent "faster than light" by way of sending them over a standing wave as a secondary, harmonic oscillation. The secondary signal is sympathetically generated in the reciever nearly instantly . Ask Duke about Tesla, NASA communications and standing-wave data transmission.;)
     
  22. boom-boom macrumors member

    Joined:
    Aug 4, 2002
    #22
    If light particles didn't have a mass then it would not be affected in a black hole and the hole would not be black.
     
  23. e-coli macrumors 68000

    e-coli

    Joined:
    Jul 27, 2002
    #23
    If light did have a mass, then it would, itself, disprove einstein's own theory. The baseline cannot disprove the theory it is the constant for.

    light has no recordable mass. I don't know where you're reading this that light has a mass. That's the whole debate over light as a wave or as a particle. It exhibits properties of both. If it had mass, it would be a particle. A wave (e.g. a photon) has no mass. The substrate has the mass.

    This question comes up in the context of wondering whether photons are really "massless," since, after all, they have nonzero energy and energy is equivalent to mass according to Einstein's equation E=mc2. The problem is simply that people are using two different definitions of mass. The overwhelming consensus among physicists today is to say that photons are massless. However, it is possible to assign a "relativistic mass" to a photon which depends upon its wavelength. This is based upon an old usage of the word "mass" which, though not strictly wrong, is not used much today.
     
  24. e-coli macrumors 68000

    e-coli

    Joined:
    Jul 27, 2002
    #24
    yes, that would be true, if light were a particle; which it isn't.
     
  25. sturm375 macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Jan 8, 2002
    Location:
    Bakersfield, CA
    #25
    Hypothetically speaking

    If a beam of light is aimed at earth (speciffically you on earth). And at the time, earth is moving (relative to the light source) toward the light source. How fast is the light moving to you (the one the beam is aimed at)?

    It all depends on your frame of referance. To the person "receiving" the beam of light, it appears to be traveling faster than the speed of light. However, an observer outside this system, would see that the light is moving at the normal 3.0*10^8 m/s (approx.).
     

Share This Page