Physics Question About the Speed of light

Goistein

Junior Member
Joined
Oct 8, 2006
Messages
109
I was discussing this topic with some friends of mine, pusueing my goal of invalidating every law of physics. So I am attempting to show that it is possible to go faster than the speed of light. Now suppose we have an enormous black hole, say with event horizon radius 17 light years. Now drop an object from the event horizon and it falls for t seconds. Just to underestimate the final velocity, we will say acceleration is always c. Now, with the formula v(final)=v(init)+at=ct, which, if t>1-and it probably is-will be more than c. So, I brought this to the attension of my physics teacher, he said as you approach the speed of light, time goes slower. So I say to myself, well this means that if it's an anti-particle thats falling, it will never hit the singularty disproving Hawking radiation, but whatever. So now, after learning the kinetic and potential energy formulas, and the law of conservation of energy, I can say,

mad=1/2(m)(v(final))^2
Now again, we have a huge black hole, with radius a big number, mass can be 5kg, a=c to underestimate the final velocity, and I get

5(300000)(999999999999999999999999999)=1/2(5)v^2

Now, after solving this, I'm sure you will agree that v(final)>300,000 km/sec. Well, I didn't use time this time, so time dialation doesn't matter, so I'm still trying to think of why this is impossible. Where did the energy go? If v<c, then the maximum kinetic energy for this object that is 5 kg is only 1/2(5)(300000)^2. But potentialk energy can be a lot more than that... Heat energy comes from friction, but space is a vacuum. So my question is, where did the energy go? :D
 
Before I get into detailed discussion about this, I need to know

are you serious or just kidding??
 
Well, I'm serious about the question, but I doubt I can disprove all off the laws of physics. I can still try, and I'll learn more physics besides.
 
Suppose you could prove that human height is restricted to 9 feet - because strength of our bone and gravity.
Suppose you could prove that our skin structure does not restrict our height.

Then the limitation imposed on our height (from bone structure) is not over-ridden by the fact that our skin structure can support any height.

It is almost like you can disprove a conjecture with one one counter-example (limitation) - no matter how many examples you can find to support the conjecture.

So if a part of Physics tells you that speed has a upper limit - unless you can "disprove" that - you are stuck with a limit.
 
That's what I was trying to do; If there was a big enough black hole, then an object falling into it, could theoretecally end up faster than the speed of light. But I'm not a physicist, so I'm sure there's something wrong with what I did. I was trying to show that astronomers are wrong about the existence of black holes, it is possible to go faster than light, or the law of energy conservation is wrong. But I think that there is some other energy that the potental energy is converted to, other than kinetic.
 
Goistein said:
That's what I was trying to do; If there was a big enough black hole, then an object falling into it, could theoretecally end up faster than the speed of light.

No - the object will convert to photons and those will travel at the speed of light.

But I'm not a physicist, so I'm sure there's something wrong with what I did. I was trying to show that astronomers are wrong about the existence of black holes,

it is possible to go faster than light, or the law of energy conservation is wrong. <<<< Why is that ?? Law of conservation of energy just does not put any limitation on speed. It is not wrong - it does not say that there is no limit - it just does not speak to the issue.


But I think that there is some other energy that the potental energy is converted to, other than kinetic.
 
Will finding out all there is about black holes bring down the price of groceries ?
 
mad=1/2(m)(v(final))^2
Now again, we have a huge black hole, with radius a big number, mass can be 5kg, a=c to underestimate the final velocity, and I get

5(300000)(999999999999999999999999999)=1/2(5)v^2

Goistein,

First let me say I’m glad you’re trying to disprove physics as we know it. Seriously. That’s the only way we’ll make any progress if we are, in fact, on the wrong track.

That being said, I will venture a few comments about your assumptions. First of all, setting “mad” equal to KE is only appropriate as an approximation where it is safe to assume a CONSTANT acceleration and a CONSTANT mass. Neither applies around a black hole for objects at relativistic speeds. The acceleration increases rapidly with decreasing distance to the black hole, and the mass of the object increases as the object approaches the speed of light. As an aside, I’d also mention that c = 3 x 10^8 m/s; I’m not sure what units your “300000” is in, but I was guessing that you were perhaps confusing acceleration with velocity and maybe had the units wrong? No matter…

Personally, I’d suggest you concentrate on Gravity, Dark Matter, and Dark Energy. That’s where the Nobel prizes are waiting. Good luck.
 
wjm11 said:
... No matter …


I've long suspected that it all has something to do with this.

-

... suggest you concentrate on Gravity, ...


Yes, original poster, please choose gravity. I want to know what causes the force of gravity, and time is running out for me.

 
Goistein said:
I was discussing this topic with some friends of mine, pusueing my goal of invalidating every law of physics. So I am attempting to show that it is possible to go faster than the speed of light.

What's the problem? Of course it is possible to go faster than the speed of light. Just look up 'Cerenkov Radiation'. Then you will realize you left out a couple of important words.
 
wjm11 said:
Personally, I’d suggest you concentrate on Gravity, Dark Matter, and Dark Energy. That’s where the Nobel prizes are waiting. Good luck.
I could do that if I worked for LHCb of one of those other Hadron collider companies, but they are in Europe and I'm in America and still in high school...

mmm4444bot said:
Yes, original poster, please choose gravity. I want to know what causes the force of gravity, and time is running out for me.

Isn't gravity caused by gravitons moving around randomly and getting stuck in a massive object, and the more mass it has, the more gravitons get stuck, and the ration of those pushing down on to those pushing up is higher. At least that's what I think.
 
wjm11 said:
Personally, I’d suggest you concentrate on Gravity, Dark Matter, and Dark Energy. That’s where the Nobel prizes are waiting. Good luck.
I could do that if I worked for LHCb or one of those other Hadron collider companies, but they are in Europe and I'm in America and still in high school...

mmm4444bot said:
Yes, original poster, please choose gravity. I want to know what causes the force of gravity, and time is running out for me.

Isn't gravity caused by gravitons moving around randomly and getting stuck in a massive object, and the more mass it has, the more gravitons get stuck, and the ration of those pushing down on to those pushing up is higher. At least that's what I think.
 
"gravitron" is still a conjecture - figment of imagination - no body demonstrated concretely its existence. However, no body can prove it does not exist either.

Kind of like intelligent designer......
 
Goistein said:
... Isn't gravity caused by gravitons moving around ... the [ratio] of those pushing down on to those pushing up is higher ...


Graviton (or gravitron). Isn't that an amusement ride on the midway? I have a faint memory of being inside the Gravitron the last time human puke was splashed across my face. Oh wait, that's not correct. (I've had just about all types of fluids produced by human creatures splashed across my face during a dozen years of working shifts in emergency medicine. I forgot.)

Okay, inside a Gravitron is the last place where I was splashed with human puke while having fun.

Anyway, even if such a thing as a gravity particle (or whatever it's supposed to be -- I have not looked up this term, yet) does account for the force of gravity, the basic premise does not satisfy me.

What causes gravitrons to move and to push?

I will not be happy with any explanation of the force of gravity that employs undefined force to account for it.

:(

 
wjm11 said:
... Some fun and thought provoking ideas there. Enjoy!


Thank you, WJM. I learned a new scientific term, "spaghettification".

That's fun. The following excerpt is thought-provoking.

"... inside the ergosphere [the region immediately surrounding a black hole] space is moving faster than light! Matter cannot move that fast, but it turns out, according to Einstein, space itself can."

 
MUCH ADO ABOUT NOTHING
========================
There's a whopping huge cosmic interchange out there.
Half the time, "X" switches positions with "NOW".
And this is the solution to many ageless puzzles.
Follow me.

To get going, we must first solve this mystery:
-did it "start" or was it "always there"?
-was there "always nothing" or was there "something"?

If it "started", then right before "the start" there was "nothing".
Why? Simple: if there was "something", you wouldn't get a "start".
Instead, you would get a "carry on".
Agree? Good. Let's carry on.

Yes, I heard you...and I see it too: if we can prove that "nothing" is
impossible, then by default there was always something. So let's do a
nothing analysis.

If we try and imagine "nothing" existing, we can't: try it. Darn it, we're
always left with a handful of darkness, or a chunk of space, or a tiny wee
atom thay simply refuses to disappear. Sorry to disappoint you, "Big Bang"
pushers, but if as you say there was nothing, then all of a sudden, out of
nowhere, this mysterious "BANG", then tell us: what banged?

Well, fellow philosophers, we've managed to kick nothing out. Therefore,
there was always something. Hey: in other words, we got something out of
nothing...who says philosophers don't make jokes!

Think of it: there was always something. Always. You got it: we've just
established a past eternity, or a past infinity. Good work.

Gee, since past infinity means no beginning, then it automatically follows
that there is no ending: you can't have one without the other. Hey, look
at what we've just done: established a future eternity, in other words,
a future infinity...Wow-Wee.

Hey-hey, we're really getting somewhere. We now all agree on a two-way
infinite flow. Let's depict this using a simple straight line. Let's show
where we are "NOW" at the middle of that line, the "past" on the left, and
the "future" on the right. Let's see:
Code:
                                 NOW
                                  |
        <_________PAST____________|_________FUTURE__________>

Clear? Sure is. Before we proceed further toward "The Answer", let's pause
here and reflect deeply on our "two-way infinity" diagram. We can clearly
see two baffling facts:
1) Since infinity is equal to infinity (as 2 equals 2) then the past is
always equal to the future, no matter when the "NOW" is.
2) Therefore, we always were, always are and always will be "right in the
middle of it all".

Forward: "The Answer" awaits. It has been proposed and it is believed that
space is curved, that there is no such animal as a straight line, and that
everything (not only woman) moves in a curvy fashion; sort of elliptical.

Well, always "being straight" ain't all that much fun, so let's accept this
curvature concept. If we don't, then we gotta leave our "two-way infinity"
diagram the way it is, with stuff moving left and right eternally straight
...and that's boooooring...

Ok dokay. Now, let's apply this curvistic and ellipsic knowledge to our
infinite flow diagram. And here's what we get:
Code:
                          --->    X     <----
                       /                       \
                      /                         \
                      \                         /
                       \         NOW           /
                        ^__PAST___|___FUTURE__^

How does that grab you, honey? We can clearly see, beyond the shadow of
Galileo, that not only is the past heading toward the future, but also that
the future is heading toward the past. Hey: maybe we've just discovered the
origin of the expression "the past always catches up with you".

Finally, we're at "The Big Cosmic X:NOW Interchange". For the 64 thousand
dollar question: what the heck happens at point "X" when these 2 rushing
infinities meet? Big crash? Well, don't worry. It's very simple. Since all
is smooth and symmetrical out there, the "NOW" and the "X" will simply
change places, and all carries on as before...ye olde positional swap.
Look see:
Code:
                         __PAST______FUTURE__
                       /          |           \  
                      /          NOW           \
                      \                        /
                       \                      /
                         --->     X      <---

Ain't it all clear now? Life carries on, another "X" to shoot for, meet at
"X" again, perform the cosmic hop...eternity right and left. In other words,
we're all being taken for an infinite ride.

I hear some of you objecting: that last flow diagram shows that for half
the time, the past is moving ahead while the future is in reverse gear.
Good point. But you'll agree that this does answer many puzzling questions:
1) Why do we feel we're wasting half our time living in the past?
2) Why do we often feel there's no future ahead?
3) Why do we get the feeling we're headed in the wrong direction?

Well, let's figure out where we are after all this. We've established that
we're always right in the middle of things, we're all in for a long ride,
there's a big "X" somewhere out there, and we're getting nowhere fast half
the time...to tell you the truth, I'm still as confused as ever.

It was nice, you know: on the farm, 5 years old, real secure on that steady
piece of flat earth. All I had to do was stay put, keep away from that deep
edge a couple of miles off. But they started to educate me: all that
rotating, ellipsing and spinning stuff. Well, think I'll forget all about
these deep questions. No more. Over and out.

Well...now...maybe...just maybe. Just maybe it did all start with nothing.
How can I make this tiny wee atom vanish? Let's give it another shot. Now,
if I imagine a huge pair of magical hands cupping up everything, squeezing
it all down, then making it all vanish with the big POUFF like they do in
magic shows...Ya! That's it! I see nothing!

...Oh no: that big pair of hands is still there.
...Suddenly, I'm very, very, very tired.
...I hear marbles dropping all over the place.
...They're coming to get me...HA-HA! HA-HA!
 
Sorry it took so long to reply, my computer crashed and took a while to get back internet. One of you siad something about that mass increases as speed increases. That would explain my past inbalance with m*g*h=1/2*m*v^2, but now the object hits the singularity with a really high mass, so the black hole gets more mass than what was thrown in. But then by Hawking Radiation, photons adding up to the final mass of the object would come out with velocity c. Then, if this energy was converted into mass, a bigger something can be obtained, thrown in like before and this can continue until you get all the raw energy you want. But I don't think that there is such thing as an infinite energy creator.

Also, Hawking Radiation creates potential energy out of nowhere. Sooo, is the first thermodynamic law really that accurate?

Denis: That's why history repeats itself. Look at the US 80 years before and look at it now. Very familiar.
 
Top