/sci/ - Science & Math

>>3191964
Whoops, forgot article: http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,2386429,00.asp

Uh, what about going that speed would kill you? I can't think of any reason.

It's not the high velocities that kill you, it would be high accelerations.

We're going over 9000 meters per nanosecond or whatever depending on what your reference frame is.

i thought there was no g-force in space

>>3191989
The speed of light mostly applies to particles, there's only so much speed a body of mass can handle altogether. If you go beyond the speed the said body of mass is capable of, it ends up turning into energy. So if a human went at light speed, s/he would be converted into energy, which would kill him/her in the process.

>>3191991

Most proposals for interplanatary travel involve only minor acceleration. Even at 0.99c, it's going to take a hell of a long time to get wherever you're going, so there's no point in being in a big hurry to get up to maximum speed.

You could get very close to c without it killing you, technically. The catch is you have to accelerate slowly.

>>3192005
Uh, no. You have a very fucked understanding of relativity.

>>3192013
I'm afraid you're the one here that applies to.

>>3192013
... he just described E=mc^2 basically, the hell are you getting your information?

>>3192005
If you go beyond or at light speed, then yeah you will turn into energy, or go straight to the end of time.

>>3192005

lol

>>3192020
>>3192022
How about you go back to studying for your prealgebra test tomorrow. I think you'll need it.

>>3192013
>>3192035
>doesn't bother explaining why or uses citations

And you're the one questioning somebody's understanding of a subject.

>>3192005
>>3192026
Where the hell are you people getting this shit? You can't convert mass to energy with any speeds, it doesn't work like that. Fuck, /sci/ is full retard. Next you're going to be telling me you can convert energy into matter.

>>3192039
>go fast
>turn into energy
Herp derp.

>>3192042
Unless you're going to explain why that or back up your claims with a citation, you have no argument here of any kind.

>>3192042
>>go fast
>>turn into energy
Way to prove >>3192020's claim.

>>3192050
>>3192052
Where are your citations? I'm waiting.

>>3192052
i'm sorry i'm new here and i see you guys arguing about citations....

have you considered it to be a troll from /b/?

i mean really

>>3192057
Who's the troll, exactly? Idiots think that going fast means objects turn into energy. Burden of proof is on them.

>>3192057

It's either a very clever /b/ or a very stupid /sci/. Since it's summer, the probably of it being the latter is greater.

>>3192054

http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Motion_of_Electrification_through_a_Dielectric
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Renormalization_group
http://www.springerlink.com/content/rg7362734j162u73/
http://www.mathpages.com/rr/s8-08/8-08.htm
http://www.univ-nancy2.fr/poincare/bhp/

>>3192054
>>3192061
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kinetic_energy
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass_in_special_relativity

>>3192061
>Idiots think that going fast means objects turn into energy
you seem to have a misunderstand what "mass" and "energy" means...

>>3192071
>>3192076
>>3192079
My understanding is fine. Your posts aren't addressing mine at all.

>>3192061
Don't you even know how an object stays an object? It's a simple case of states of matter, the reason we have gas, liquids, and solids is because of the speeds of the vibrations it's atoms are going at: if slow, the better they can stay to get together; if fast, they just end up bouncing and flying around. Going at fast speeds would make it difficult for a body of mass to hold itself, thus end up loosening and breaking apart, and hence a conversion of energy can happen.

>>3192099

The mass is not converted into energy. It simply stays the same, but increases in velocity.

>>3192099
>Going at fast speeds would make it difficult for a body of mass to hold itself, thus end up loosening and breaking apart, and hence a conversion of energy can happen.
You're either a very clever troll, or an idiot.

>>3192104
No once after it reaches a certain speed the atoms can't keep up with themselves, that's when they convert into forms of energy.

>>3192104

Even at CERN they are able to smash hadrons into each other at near LS, matter is still not converted into energy... it is simply broken into smaller parts, which cluster into larger parts after a decrease in velocity.

Mass can't be converted into energy, matter particles can.

Objects GAIN energy when they travel very very fast. Their mass isn't converted into energy though. The objects don't get destroyed in any way.

>>3192110

Pretty sure you didn't start out as a troll on this thread. Pretty sure you said something retarded and trying to finish this thread with us thinking your a troll. I believe your just an idiot who shouldn't have clicked the /sci/ link. Perhaps you should hop over to /lit/ and discuss philosophy or something?

>>3192099
i want to say something retarded as well tonight, so here goes:
if you drink a lot of water, like just nonstop drink that water like a fucking water drinking machine, its possible that you will turn into water. like straight up, just a big puddle of water. and if you keep drinking water, you turn into a watermelon.

>>3192114 continued...
And even if the mass did, it's the particles who're being converted into energy, not mass.

>>3192099
>>3192110
http://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principle_of_relativity

>>3192121
That's not even the same claim as "going at light speed turns you into energy." You could've not missed the point any further even if you were shooting in the opposite direction.

>>3192121
i like how i browse sci for shits and giggles instead of enlightenment

i also never bump this shit

>>3192126
try again, moron. i bet you take religious arguments seriously too.

Go on, I'm learning.

My turn:
The saying, "You are what you eat"... is quite true. If you eat napkins you'll turn into origami. If you eat your boogers you'll turn into C.H.U.D. If you eat your girlfriend out, you'll turn into a pussy. If you eat fruit you'll start sucking the penis (if your male) or you'll start licking the walrus' walrus (if your a male walrus).

>>3192133
>try again, moron. i bet you take religious arguments seriously too.
I don't think you even know what this means...

>>3192126
I like how someone making fun of a troll and stating so gets taken seriously himself.

Energy equals matter times the speed of light!!!!!11111oneoneone

>Why are raindrops shaped like tears?

The water molecules are polar, so they want to turn to the polar magnetic field of the Earth. But when the molecules begin moving toward the magnetic field, the Coriolis force makes them turn upward. In the southern hemisphere, raindrops look like upside-down tears.

>Why does glass flow down old windows but not new ones?

Anything made out of glass is disturbed by waves at its resonant frequency. In old windows, the resonant frequency was often the same as the frequency of sunlight. New windows are designed not to have this problem.

>Why are eggs easier to balance on the day of the equinox?

At the summer equinox, the Earth is at its closest point to the Sun. This means that the Sun and the Earth pull on the egg in precisely opposite directions. The forces from the Earth and Sun cancel each other out, so the egg has zero angular momentum.

>Why is our galaxy expanding?

The stars in our galaxy are close enough together that once in a while, one star passes in front of another and blocks its gravity. Every time this happens, the galaxy expands a little.

>Why does tapping the side of a pop can keep it from frothing over when opened?

Pop cans explode because the carbon wants to get out of the can. When you tap the can, some of the carbon hits the side of the can and combines chemically with the aluminium.

Accelerating a mass to the speed of light would require more energy than exists in the universe. The question of what happens when you hit light speed is untestable and completely irrelevant.

Excessive acceleration on your way to 99% of c (relative to Earth, I assume) could harm you, as could collisions at that speed. At around 99% of c, even the sparse hydrogen atoms in the interstellar medium would prove hazardous.

However you cannot be harmed by your simple velocity itself.

>>3192147
this kid......

the moon is not actually made of cheese. but cheese is made of the moon. i mean, where did the wholes come from? you can't explain that

>>3192155
swiss cheese is my favorite.. those little meteorites really give it an extra kick

Snakes are able to cure the sick. Snake venom is able to poison things and when a person is ill, the snake is able to poison the illness and kill it. Thus allowing the person to recover.

>>3192161
if you toss cheese at the speed of light, it turns into quantum cheese that you can eat and not eat at the same time.

>>3192170
and now you stop bumping this thread

Is this thread a joke?

As an object approaches the speed of light, further acceleration increases its mass instead of its "speed." This is often called mass dilation. It is a VERY elementary part of Physics. The LHC, RHIC, and other accelerators all take this phenomenon into consideration as they do their calculations. There is no argument here. Approach speed of light = increased mass. That's it.

I am curious though, suppose you were traveling at 0.99c towards a star or some other source of light. Would the light be so far blueshifted as to prove a significant radiation hazard?

caption: nciallis poincare

>>3192147

>>3192175
i guess you hate science.

You can cure pretty much any disease by finding a substance that causes the same symptoms, diluting it over and over again, say by a factor of 100 repeated 30 times, and then taking the substance as medicine.

You can survive just fine at 99% light speed, provided your ship is not destroyed by colliding with interstellar dust or anything else. Accelerating to that speed safely (if such a thing is possible) would take a very long time, but is survivable.

>>3192182
Yes.

Wut?
Speed doesn't kill you.
Hell, we could be moving ar 0.99c already and we wouldn't know.
Sage

fuck you sci im supposed to be asleep

Here's the truth.
Trolls and idiots aside, here's what the real truth behind the universe.

Let all of the statements are true:

You cannot surpass light speed.
Light speed remains constant no matter what reference frame you're in.


This means there is no "universal speed limit". That's all a bunch of garbage that trolls and idiots use to disguise it. Yes, you cannot travel faster than light, but that doens't mean there's a speed limit at all. In fact, it's just the opposite.
Just what is considered static when everything in the universe is moving? Lets say we have object X going 0 m/s. Measure light- it moves at C. Speed up to 100m/s. Light is still at C. You haven't surpassed light speed yet. Speed up to 1/2 C, and measure light's speed again.- it's still at C. Speed up 3/4 C and measure light's speed again- it's still at C. Speed up 3/4 C again and measure light's speed once more- it's still C. No matter how fast you go, light's speed is constant "C". Even though you're going twice as fast the speed of light from when you initially started, light is still at C no matter how fast you're going. Thus, there is no "universal speed limit", because light is always moving at C no matter how fast you're moving. Therefore, you can, in fact, go faster than the speed of light, without surpassing the speed of light. Because the reference frame, compared to C, is always zero.

>>3192187
Taking length contraction into account, you WOULD collide with something, and destroy your ship.

But yes, provided your ship isn't destroyed, whilst you're inside it, you're basically in an inertial frame. For you, it would be no different than if you were staying still.

>>3191964

I remeber that this Einstein dude once thought about if he could see himself in a mirror while running at the speed of light. He had no problem whatsoever running at that speed, he was partially blind so he worried only about the mirror. So I guess there is no problem.

>>3192214
mfw black holes stop light
mfw i have no face

>>3192198

>Hell, we could be moving ar 0.99c already and we wouldn't know.

Holy shit. No. Just... no.

E = mc^2 is real. No argument about it. I want you guys to sit down with this equation until you REALLY understand it. When you do, you will see the absurdity of thinking that a physical body could be traveling near the speed of light without being greatly altered.

We know how fast the Earth is moving. It's about 65,000 MPH. Speed of light: 670 616 629 mph

65,000
670,616,629

Do you get it now? Read about E =mc^2 and think about the difference between the 2nd fastest speed in the Universe and the speed of light. Vastly vastly vastly different things.

>>3192228
>When you do, you will see the absurdity of thinking that a physical body could be traveling near the speed of light without being greatly altered.
So explain it to us, o wise one.

>>3192228
>We know how fast the Earth is moving.
I see that you know nothing about physics.
See you later.

>>3192214

Yeah, but to the outside observer, you'd be going .999c even if you were going that fast. Time slows you down to keep you in that limit. Suppose you have a ship that moves from Jupiter to Earth. It takes light about 3 seconds, from Earth's perspective, to travel that distance. If the spaceship was moving 1/2c toward Earth, from the ship's perspective, light would be moving at 1/2c + c. So measuring light speed from the ship, it would take 2 seconds, not 3. The clock slows down on the ship. The universal speed limit isn't relative only to the speed of light, but to everything else. Sure, you might go "faster" than light speed without surpassing it, but time will slow you down to keep you under the limit, that's why it seams you're going so fast.

>>3192228
seems like you REALLY understand it. no argument there. i've been "greatly altered" by your completely relevant post to an absurd claim.

>>3192228
>We know how fast the Earth is moving. It's about 65,000 MPH.
relative to the sun

The principle >>3192198 you objected to is the principle of relativity. Stated again, you can't tell how fast anything's moving, only how fast it's moving relative to a particular frame of reference. Historically it is one of the two fundamental axioms Einstein used in his work on special relativity. If your understanding of special relativity conflicts with the principle of relativity, you've got it way fucking wrong.

>>3192228
>65k mph
He's not talking about it's revolutionary speed around the sun. He's talking about the planet, and the entire solar system altogether. We could be moving that fast since the big bang pushed not just earth, but everything away from a point.

>>3192099
I don't care if this is a troll or not. I literally have not laughed at anything on /sci/ as hard as I'm laughing at this. I'm losing my shit here.

>>3192256
Okay, that's right for the most part, but there's no unique central point that the universe is expanding away from. From everybody's perspective, everyone else is moving away.

Guys, the math isn't hard on this.

1G is what you're all experiencing right now, which is 9.8 m/s/s (lets pretend 10 m/s/s). The speed of light is 300 000 000 m/s. So it will take you 30 000 000 seconds to reach almost C, which is a little less than a year.

This is all within the inertial reference frame of the guy on the ship accelerating. To someone watching you from back on Earth the acceleration will not appear constant, it will take millennia to get to 0.9C, and infinite years to get to 0.999... C, but what someone on-board the ship will experience is a year long constant acceleration to very close to C.

>guy using e=mc^2 to explain everything

IT'S LIKE I'M IN GRADE 7 AGAIN

>>3192260

>there is no unique central point

Actually, there is. Everything in the universe is moving away from the point from the place the big bang occured. It's rumored that all matter in the universe fit into the size smaller than a dime. The universe is expanding, almost like a balloon. it's not hard to find the center.

>>3192282
http://curious.astro.cornell.edu/question.php?number=71
http://map.gsfc.nasa.gov/site/faq.html

>>3192261

I don't understand how Inflation happened at the speed it did if light speed is constant also could a point be found where there is the least movement.

>>3192282
>It's rumored that all matter in the universe fit into the size smaller than a dime.
It was actually smaller than the smallest atom we can observe today.

>>3192298
The lightspeed limit applies to speed of massive objects as measured relative to an inertial reference frame. We don't measure the expansion of the universe relative to an inertial reference frame, nor could we, because spacetime curvature screws things up. In cosmology, we measure the velocity of objects relative to the nearby galaxies ("with respect to the Hubble flow"). Those speeds are fairly low compared to lightspeed. The figure describing the expansion of space isn't the speed of an object at all; it's the rate of change of the distance between objects.

There is no point from which everything is moving away from. The universe is expanding. The big bang happened right next to you, man.

To answer the initial question: No, going 99% of the speed of light will not kill you. In fact, you're doing it right now relative to some of the farthest objects in the universe.

>>3192675 There is no point from which everything is moving away from.

Except for you know: Every point in the entire universe!

>>3192689
Stop talking to yourself!

>>3192693
Oh, wait.

>>3192689
>>3192700
>>3192693

Meth is a hell of a drug isn't trip man?

>>3191964
>Can humans even survive going at 99% light speed in ships that go, uhh, at about that speed?

Yes. You're in such a ship now. It's called the Earth.

There is no absolute rest, and there is no absolute 99% speed of light. Speed is all relative.

>>3192706
Naaaaaaah

guies, i have a question!

If we know that the Earth is moving at about 65,000 MPH and we do LHC experiment where particles go at 0.99c isnt total speed combined surpassed c ?

>>3192724
>If we know that the Earth is moving at about 65,000 MPH
First off. The Earth is at rest. And it's going .99 c. And whatever else speed you want in [0, c), depending on the observer.

>and we do LHC experiment where particles go at 0.99c isnt total speed combined surpassed c ?
No.

>>319273
not that guy but, no, you're retard. Earth IS going at about 65000 mph

WARNING!

This thread's stupidity containment is about to be breached. The thread was not designed to withstand this level of wilful ignorance. Everyone who remains in this thread will be quarantined to prevent the infection from spreading.

Abandon thread! Repeat: abandon thread!


(Instead of being a pseudo-intellectual faggot who pretends to have deep thoughts on subjects that you've never studied, why don't you stop wasting your time by posting your inane bs here and go read some of the books and other info in the sticky? You can actually learn this shit instead of trying to pass of some pop-sci half-arsed understanding of it as "deep insight").

>>3192724
I know you're a troll but,
>lorentz transformation

Yes you can survive, just don't admire your destination too much through the windshield. (You can look into the rear mirror quite safely though.)