What if you shined a flashlight...
Thursday, June 10, 2004 by I.R. Brainiac | Discussion: WinCustomize Talk
while going the speed of light?Would it shine any further?(or would the light just collect at the source and get REALLY hot) 
 |
|
Page 4 of 9 | |
|
|---|
Hus
Reply #62 Friday, June 11, 2004 10:25 PM
Anyone that is allergic to water isn't gonna care about how many calories and the percentage of fat it contains...
Plus, they should put a warning label for those people...not nutritional facts! 
Reply #62 Friday, June 11, 2004 10:25 PM
| That's for people who are allergic to water |
Anyone that is allergic to water isn't gonna care about how many calories and the percentage of fat it contains...
Plus, they should put a warning label for those people...not nutritional facts!
I.R. Brainiac
Reply #63 Friday, June 11, 2004 11:50 PM
Reply #63 Friday, June 11, 2004 11:50 PM
hmmmmmmm...veeery interesting....I still think the flashlight would melt from the build-up of energy incapable of escaping the emitter.
Glass however is a very slow flowing liquid...panes have been proven to bulge at the bottom and shrink from the top,it just takes a really long time(100 years or so)
[Message Edited]
Glass however is a very slow flowing liquid...panes have been proven to bulge at the bottom and shrink from the top,it just takes a really long time(100 years or so)
[Message Edited]
Aleatoric
Reply #64 Saturday, June 12, 2004 12:47 AM
Nah. Even if, by some chance, there really was some kind of mechanism that would prevent the light energy from escaping the flashlight (and there's not), the maximum amount of energy that could be released would be from the batteries, which don't have the energy content to melt a flashlight.
As for glass, it really *is* an amorphous solid (or a supercooled liquid, they're pretty much the same thing). There's some debate as to where the line between an amorphous solid and a regular solid lies, but the physics of amorphous materials is pretty well defined. As for glass flowing:
That's a pretty slow rate of flow
Reply #64 Saturday, June 12, 2004 12:47 AM
| I still think the flashlight would melt from the build-up of energy incapable of escaping the emitter |
Nah. Even if, by some chance, there really was some kind of mechanism that would prevent the light energy from escaping the flashlight (and there's not
), the maximum amount of energy that could be released would be from the batteries, which don't have the energy content to melt a flashlight. As for glass, it really *is* an amorphous solid (or a supercooled liquid, they're pretty much the same thing). There's some debate as to where the line between an amorphous solid and a regular solid lies, but the physics of amorphous materials is pretty well defined. As for glass flowing:
| In the October 1999 issue of Discover, Yvonne Stokes, a mathematician at the University of Adelaide in Australia, says that it would take a mere ten million years for a windowpane to get 5 percent thicker at the bottom. |
That's a pretty slow rate of flow
Jafo
Reply #65 Saturday, June 12, 2004 1:32 AM
Reply #65 Saturday, June 12, 2004 1:32 AM
It still flows, ergo it is a liquid .... a state defined at natural 'room' temperature....[ambient air].
It 'can' be a solid....it 'can' be MORE of a liquid [flowing]...it 'can' be a gas....however it IS a liquid.
For light to be emitted from a torch travelling at the speed of light it MUST be accepted that light can travel faster than light...which is by definition absurd, ergo it won't happen...
Watson
Reply #66 Saturday, June 12, 2004 1:37 AM
This is consistent with the thinkin of your thoughts question
If a light traveled ffaster than than the speed of light, that new speed would then consistently be defined as the speed of light so no matter how fast it went, the defined speed of light would just increase no matter how fast the light traveled because the object doing the traveling is LIGHT ITSELF
[Message Edited]
Reply #66 Saturday, June 12, 2004 1:37 AM
| light can travel faster than light...which is by definition absurd |
This is consistent with the thinkin of your thoughts question
If a light traveled ffaster than than the speed of light, that new speed would then consistently be defined as the speed of light so no matter how fast it went, the defined speed of light would just increase no matter how fast the light traveled because the object doing the traveling is LIGHT ITSELF
[Message Edited]
Jafo
Reply #67 Saturday, June 12, 2004 1:41 AM
Reply #67 Saturday, June 12, 2004 1:41 AM
Wrong....the speed of light is 'supposed' to be a finite, constant and also an ultimate limitation.
Watson
Reply #68 Saturday, June 12, 2004 1:49 AM
Reply #68 Saturday, June 12, 2004 1:49 AM
true... but I'm going off the theory of if it were possible, and if it were possible for light to go faster than what we have all accepted as the speed of light i.e 299,792,458 kilometers per second or 186,000 miles per second.
And it was actually somehow recorded, then consistent with the way we do things, it would be almost like breaking a record and things would have to be changed, because that would mean we had figured out how to accelerate the natural speed of light beyond its normal boundaries and if we learned to do that I think we can rest assured that people would naturally begin integrating it into everything possible
[Message Edited]
And it was actually somehow recorded, then consistent with the way we do things, it would be almost like breaking a record and things would have to be changed, because that would mean we had figured out how to accelerate the natural speed of light beyond its normal boundaries and if we learned to do that I think we can rest assured that people would naturally begin integrating it into everything possible
[Message Edited]
Aleatoric
Reply #69 Saturday, June 12, 2004 2:08 AM
Reply #69 Saturday, June 12, 2004 2:08 AM
Photon emission doesn't care what velocity the emitting object is travelling at. Even if the object is travelling at the speed of light, photons will still be emitted, exactly as if the emitter were standing still (detailed specifics of photon and particle behaviour is described in QED, quantum electrodynamics).
If the emitter *is* moving at the speed of light, from the 'point of view' of the photon (zero time), those photons will just be added to the pool of existing photons. And if one or more of those photons happened to be detected by a slow observer, the velocity of the photon(s) will be measured as 'c'.
You are, of course, correct in asserting that light cannot travel faster than light, as the speed of light is an absolute, per Einstein
As strange as it seems, the universe really does work like that (to the best of our current knowledge).
As for solid / liquid / intermediate states, even some crystalline solids can flow, given the right conditions and sufficient time (vast amounts).
Anyway, we could go back and forth on this for quite some time, and sooner or later, you'd catch me in a spelling error, and I'd have to slink away in shame
[Message Edited]
If the emitter *is* moving at the speed of light, from the 'point of view' of the photon (zero time), those photons will just be added to the pool of existing photons. And if one or more of those photons happened to be detected by a slow observer, the velocity of the photon(s) will be measured as 'c'.
You are, of course, correct in asserting that light cannot travel faster than light, as the speed of light is an absolute, per Einstein
As strange as it seems, the universe really does work like that (to the best of our current knowledge).
As for solid / liquid / intermediate states, even some crystalline solids can flow, given the right conditions and sufficient time (vast amounts
).Anyway, we could go back and forth on this for quite some time, and sooner or later, you'd catch me in a spelling error, and I'd have to slink away in shame
[Message Edited]
Jafo
Reply #70 Saturday, June 12, 2004 2:38 AM
Reply #70 Saturday, June 12, 2004 2:38 AM
Photon emission MUST 'care what velocity the emitting object is travelling at'....sure, it will be emitted if, and only if the emitter is slower than the 'projectile'...and if the projectile has a limited velocity identical to the projector's then nothing will be emitted.
Its pure relativity, nothing more....
Alternate Setting
Reply #71 Saturday, June 12, 2004 2:57 AM
Reply #71 Saturday, June 12, 2004 2:57 AM
As interesting, entertaining etc as this trip to the twilight zone has been 
when you start attributing values like 'caring' to photon emissions you are surely doomed - relatively speaking that is
when you start attributing values like 'caring' to photon emissions you are surely doomed - relatively speaking that is
Alternate Setting
Reply #72 Saturday, June 12, 2004 3:38 AM
Reply #72 Saturday, June 12, 2004 3:38 AM
For what its worth, I remembered something about the constancy of the speed of light being challenged and ergo the Universal application of Einstein's theories.
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2001/02/010212075309.htm
The links there for anyone interested.
Oh and IR Brainiac you know as well as I, by the time we achieve light speed we will also have learnt to domesticate and train genetically modified glowflies and your question will be mute
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2001/02/010212075309.htm
The links there for anyone interested.
Oh and IR Brainiac you know as well as I, by the time we achieve light speed we will also have learnt to domesticate and train genetically modified glowflies and your question will be mute
Alternate Setting
Reply #74 Saturday, June 12, 2004 3:41 AM
Reply #74 Saturday, June 12, 2004 3:41 AM
Not in the future 
If we're all travelling at the speed of light as presently defined then we're also moving faster than the speed of sound so the question becomes 'mute'. That's my story and I'm sticking to it
[Message Edited]
If we're all travelling at the speed of light as presently defined then we're also moving faster than the speed of sound so the question becomes 'mute'. That's my story and I'm sticking to it
[Message Edited]
Old_Crab
Reply #75 Saturday, June 12, 2004 3:42 AM
Reply #75 Saturday, June 12, 2004 3:42 AM
All this bruhaha is impossible. The flashlight has not been invented yet. >
Alternate Setting
Reply #76 Saturday, June 12, 2004 3:46 AM
Reply #76 Saturday, June 12, 2004 3:46 AM
And yet you've taken the trouble to give it a name ?
Old_Crab
Reply #77 Saturday, June 12, 2004 3:58 AM
Reply #77 Saturday, June 12, 2004 3:58 AM
Hey IRB gave the thingamajig the name of whatever the watchamacallit is. I'd of called it something like oh, a, um, a "Electric Torch". >
>
Fuzzy Logic
Reply #78 Saturday, June 12, 2004 4:21 AM
Reply #78 Saturday, June 12, 2004 4:21 AM
It's already been proven in experiment that light travels faster than 186000 m/s through a solid object...
And before you say anything, solid objects can pass light (think about it)
Alternate Setting
Reply #79 Saturday, June 12, 2004 4:27 AM
Reply #79 Saturday, June 12, 2004 4:27 AM
I'm beginning to develop a whole new take on this thread. Consider the possibility if you will that I.R.Brainiac is not the harmless little ball of insanity he would have us believe. Instead ponder the history of his recent actions - a long absence followed by threads to probe us for:-
Reasoning (top 10 reasons to download my skins)
Stupidity quotients (can anyone match this)
Universal awareness (what if you shined a flashlight)
Surely overwhelming evidence that IR is in fact part (or possibly due to budget constraints all) of an advanced intergalactic scouting party whose nefarious aims we can only ponder.
Just how far does IR intend to extend his probe - and whose next ???
Reasoning (top 10 reasons to download my skins)
Stupidity quotients (can anyone match this)
Universal awareness (what if you shined a flashlight)
Surely overwhelming evidence that IR is in fact part (or possibly due to budget constraints all) of an advanced intergalactic scouting party whose nefarious aims we can only ponder.
Just how far does IR intend to extend his probe - and whose next ???
Old_Crab
Reply #80 Saturday, June 12, 2004 4:38 AM
Reply #80 Saturday, June 12, 2004 4:38 AM
Hmmmmmmmm. You're suggesting that IRB is.....not of this world? Some sort of...alien? From a different solar system? Why I just can't believe it....however.....maybe....why yes your right. Call Mulder and Skully...we've found the truth! >
>Please login to comment and/or vote for this skin.
Welcome Guest! Please take the time to register with us.
There are many great features available to you once you register, including:
- Richer content, access to many features that are disabled for guests like commenting on the forums and downloading skins.
- Access to a great community, with a massive database of many, many areas of interest.
- Access to contests & subscription offers like exclusive emails.
- It's simple, and FREE!
|
|
Page 4 of 9 | |
|
|---|
Reply #61 Friday, June 11, 2004 9:47 PM
That's an awful big move from Oklahoma to Australia
The books are probably a better value!