Speed of light: Fastest speed in the universe or not?

[Thegeni99]

For Woeler1 and Regulus.

[Woeler]

[quote="Regulus"][quote="Woeler1"]If you dont mind I can explain exactly why the speed of light is in fact the maximum speed possible for any object to travel. So may I explain?[/quote]

May I explain why it might not be?

Because, as far as I know, nobody here even has half of the mathematical knowledge to understand anything about tachyon theory.

Some scientists support Einstein. Some don't. But I believe, that as we unlock the secrets of the quantum realm, we will find that Einstein is partially wrong. Because history repeats itself.[/quote]
Tachyons are massless or negative-mass particles meaning that they are not bound to a maximumspeed such as photons are. Aslo a tachyon would travel through 4 dimensions instead of 3, the 4th being spacetime. Still Tachyons have never been proven to exist. Even though the existence of tachyons would not contradict the laws of physics, that doesn’t mean there is such a thing. If tachyons were to exist it would mean that the smaller the energy they have the faster they will travel, meaning that it's minimum speed will be c aka speed of light. that would suggest tachyons are capable of traveling back into time. Highly unlikely and never proven!

[Miharuka]

But.. they said that they found something faster than the speed of light so.. I guess I believe it.
Seriously who knows
Maybe we will ever be able to travel back in time!! O:
Woulnd't that be SO AWESOME?! 8DD
It sounds impossible to me, but... xD

[Woeler]

[quote="Phantomhive"]But.. they said that they found something faster than the speed of light so.. I guess I believe it.
Seriously who knows
Maybe we will ever be able to travel back in time!! O:
Woulnd't that be SO AWESOME?! 8DD
It sounds impossible to me, but... xD[/quote]
Yes but what they did not tell you is that the machine which tested it has a slight delay in it's results and they did not close the tunnels which run below the machine, which could have created false results.

the media only posts what they wanna post. they don't post what it actually was.

[FlipMode]

Just pasting my post from the "other" thread (apologies again, I thought this was the duplicate one >.>)

I thought this was all but a fact?
Is there really much room to debate something that makes sense? Yeah in case not obvious, I believe it is the fastest speed possible yes.
The speed of light, if I am not mistaken requires an infinite amount of energy to reach. With that in mind, no amount of energy can make anything in the known universe pass c (speed of light).

[Miharuka]

[quote="Woeler1"]Yes but what they did not tell you is that the machine which tested it has a slight delay in it's results and they did not close the tunnels which run below the machine, which could have created false results.

the media only posts what they wanna post. they don't post what it actually was.[/quote]

COULD have created false results.
So that doesn't mean it's not true. ^^

[Woeler]

[quote="Phantomhive"][quote="Woeler1"]Yes but what they did not tell you is that the machine which tested it has a slight delay in it's results and they did not close the tunnels which run below the machine, which could have created false results.

the media only posts what they wanna post. they don't post what it actually was.[/quote]

COULD have created false results.
So that doesn't mean it's not true. ^^[/quote]
AS long as they cannot redo the experiment and have the exact same results, it's not scientific evidence.

FM: no need to apologize Xd

[Regulus]

But, it is important to remember that everything in space is relative.

Perhaps I'm just being a moron here, but I don't understand how there can be a constant speed of light. Allow me to explain. We are revolving around the sun at a speed of about 67,000 miles per hour. Keep in mind that the sun itself is also moving, spinning around the galaxy. And, as we all know, galaxies aren't stationary either. If we're moving away from the center of the universe at a speed of 0.6c, and so is another galaxy on the other side of the universe, then our relative speeds exceed the speed of light, at 1.2.

But, seriously, think about this. If particles in the hadron collider are traveling very close to the speed of light, then they must be going faster than the speed of light relative to the sun, for example. But, surely, that can't be possible, as the speed of light is supposedly a constant in every frame of reference.

I've talked to many people about this, and I haven't received any sort of explanations.

While the theory of relativity does make sense, and was no doubt a great scientific advancement, I don't believe we should follow Einstein's work like it is perfect.

[Woeler]

it is indeed moving 1.2x the speed of light RELATIVE to us. then again light is traveling faster than it. it's absolute speed is not bigger than the speed of light. In Einstein's theory all speeds are measured compared to an object at rest. As our galaxy is not stationary it would still be moving at 0.6c. Don't mistake the name relativity, it is about absolute speeds.

Indeed those particles do get close to the speed of light, but they don't reach it. because as speed increases, the mass of an object increases thus needing a bigger amount of energy. eventually when an object reaches c it needs and infinite amount of energy which is impossible so it is not possible for any object with a mass to travel faster then light. light consists of photons which have no mass and need no energy to move.

[Regulus]

[quote="Woeler1"]In Einstein's theory all speeds are measured compared to an object at rest.[/quote]

Exactly, but there is no such thing as rest, because everything is moving. If you're in your car, driving down the road at 20m/s, and you turn on your lights, the photons still only move at a speed of c, relative to the ground.

But then, relative to the car, the light is moving at a speed of c - 20m/s. Einstein specifically stated that the speed of light never changes. Likewise, the rear lights would be moving at a speed of c + 20m/s relative to the driver.

It still makes no sense to me.