What is anti-light-speed?
-
Chris Maunder wrote:
So you can say the velocity of an object is as close to 0 as you want. You just have no idea where you left it.
Sounds like a contradiction. :~
-- 100% natural. No superstitious additives.
Welcome to quantum mechanics ;)
--Mike-- Visual C++ MVP :cool: LINKS~! Ericahist | PimpFish | CP SearchBar v3.0 | C++ Forum FAQ VB > soccer
-
It felt like it today! We did Mont Ventoux[^] this morning and while the ascent hurt a little the descent - using the entire road since there was no traffic - was insane. I'm still trying to get the grin off my face. Galibier[^] on Monday. cheers, Chris Maunder
CodeProject.com : C++ MVP
Looks beautiful. Though slightly completely insane.
I can imagine the sinking feeling one would have after ordering my book, only to find a laughably ridiculous theory with demented logic once the book arrives - Mark McCutcheon
-
Chris Maunder wrote:
All sorts of fun things happen if you just go faster than the speed of light.
Did you ever reach c and beyond on your way down the alpes...? ;)
-- 100% natural. No superstitious additives.
So if you travel faster than light you are doing C++? :laugh: The tigress is here :-D
-
Hi Chris, Since speed is distance over time, shouldn't the lowest speed be the Planck length over the Planck time? Ivor S. Sargoytchev Dundas Software -- modified at 16:27 Saturday 24th June, 2006
-
Chris Maunder wrote:
So you can say the velocity of an object is as close to 0 as you want. You just have no idea where you left it.
Sounds like a contradiction. :~
-- 100% natural. No superstitious additives.
It's the same for any wave really. Confining a wave to a small region requires a lot of interference to cancel it out everywhere else. Then as these waves evolve, they quickly get out of phase where you forced them to cancel out. Which translates to velocity being uncertain for a measuring a specific position. The same argument applies in momentum space meaning if you know a particle is standing still, then you have no idea where it is. I don't think it reall applies to photons because the velocity momentum relationship breaks down with 0 mass. There you have a frequency momentum relationship.
I can imagine the sinking feeling one would have after ordering my book, only to find a laughably ridiculous theory with demented logic once the book arrives - Mark McCutcheon
-
So if you travel faster than light you are doing C++? :laugh: The tigress is here :-D
nice one.
I can imagine the sinking feeling one would have after ordering my book, only to find a laughably ridiculous theory with demented logic once the book arrives - Mark McCutcheon
-
Albert Einstein had a thought that if you traveled backwards away from a clock faster then light speed you would actually be going back in time as the clock would turn backwards. The same thing is applied to if you see farther into the universe you are actually seeing further back in time as light takes time to travel. So if you equate going back in time to going a negitive velocity in terms of space time, then actually going a faster speed then the speed of light would be slowest. E=mc2 -> BOOM
Kinda like the mathematics behind negative temperature it involves going through an infinity to get there. Wish it were that easy though.
I can imagine the sinking feeling one would have after ordering my book, only to find a laughably ridiculous theory with demented logic once the book arrives - Mark McCutcheon
-
As we know, light speed is the fastest speed we know. But I have a question. What is the most slowly speed we know?
that depends....
-
Drew Stainton wrote:
In one dimension you could have [-c].
Huh? How could that be?
-- 100% natural. No superstitious additives.
Look at it like this. There is a one dimensional line. The fastest anything can go is the speed of light. It's velocity is a speed associated with a direction. Thus the highest velocity is straight forward at the speed of light. Like so: (The double arrows is the vector)
|---------------------|========================>|
-c 0 cNow, the lowest speed is 0. You can't go slower than no speed at all. But the lowest velocity is -c, because of the directional component. You'd be travelling straight backwards at the speed of light. Like so:
|<====================|-------------------------|
-c 0 cAnd when we saw the computer, when we saw its code - and Turing saw it first - we were looking at complexity incarnate. And then suddenly we saw complexity everywhere. It materialized, it crystalized around us - even though it had always been there.
We have yet to recover from the shock. -
Look at it like this. There is a one dimensional line. The fastest anything can go is the speed of light. It's velocity is a speed associated with a direction. Thus the highest velocity is straight forward at the speed of light. Like so: (The double arrows is the vector)
|---------------------|========================>|
-c 0 cNow, the lowest speed is 0. You can't go slower than no speed at all. But the lowest velocity is -c, because of the directional component. You'd be travelling straight backwards at the speed of light. Like so:
|<====================|-------------------------|
-c 0 cAnd when we saw the computer, when we saw its code - and Turing saw it first - we were looking at complexity incarnate. And then suddenly we saw complexity everywhere. It materialized, it crystalized around us - even though it had always been there.
We have yet to recover from the shock.That's no different from any n-dimensional space, where n > 2. In all cases, the speed would still be c. Sure, from an abstract mathematical point of view, then the speed (or magnitude of the vector) could be negative. But a negative speed is ludicrous (at best) in the physical world. The direction is what's relevant.
-- 100% natural. No superstitious additives.
-
That's no different from any n-dimensional space, where n > 2. In all cases, the speed would still be c. Sure, from an abstract mathematical point of view, then the speed (or magnitude of the vector) could be negative. But a negative speed is ludicrous (at best) in the physical world. The direction is what's relevant.
-- 100% natural. No superstitious additives.
Actually it's one of the topological features of one dimension that there are 2 distinct directions which cannot be continously connected without changing their magnitude. In all higher dimensions you can continously transform any 2 vectors of the same magnitude and type into each other without changing the magnitude. [edit] Just like strings can only be tied in 3 dimensions. In all higher dimensions there is enough freedom of movement that they can always untangle themselves. [/edit]
I can imagine the sinking feeling one would have after ordering my book, only to find a laughably ridiculous theory with demented logic once the book arrives - Mark McCutcheon
-- modified at 19:36 Saturday 24th June, 2006
-
We've done a few 15% and on Tuesday we're doing a stupid 2km, 24.5%. I just look inside for my happy place and hope my knees don't explode. cheers, Chris Maunder
CodeProject.com : C++ MVP
Chris Maunder wrote:
We've done a few 15% and on Tuesday we're doing a stupid 2km, 24.5%.
Please tell me you've got a triple on the front, and an MTB wide-range cassette on the rear...
-
That's no different from any n-dimensional space, where n > 2. In all cases, the speed would still be c. Sure, from an abstract mathematical point of view, then the speed (or magnitude of the vector) could be negative. But a negative speed is ludicrous (at best) in the physical world. The direction is what's relevant.
-- 100% natural. No superstitious additives.
I thought he clearly said that the lowest speed is 0, but the lowest velocity (taking direction into account) is -c...
Ryan
"Punctuality is only a virtue for those who aren't smart enough to think of good excuses for being late" John Nichol "Point Of Impact"
-
I thought he clearly said that the lowest speed is 0, but the lowest velocity (taking direction into account) is -c...
Ryan
"Punctuality is only a virtue for those who aren't smart enough to think of good excuses for being late" John Nichol "Point Of Impact"
I just don't see how a vector could be negative. -c is just c in some opposite direction. The lowest velocity is zero - meaning zero movement. Any speed in any direction, any velocity in other words, means movement, and is therefore "higher" than zero.
-- 100% natural. No superstitious additives.
-
But 0 is no speed - it's only 0. What is above 0 and and slowly enough:confused: I once heared an answer that fascinated me - speed is relative to you. So the answer was 'your body'. And that's true;P I never moved in front or bhind my body:laugh: But 0 - thats too simple in my mind
ensger wrote:
What is above 0 and and slowly enough
1E-99?;P Paul
-
It felt like it today! We did Mont Ventoux[^] this morning and while the ascent hurt a little the descent - using the entire road since there was no traffic - was insane. I'm still trying to get the grin off my face. Galibier[^] on Monday. cheers, Chris Maunder
CodeProject.com : C++ MVP
My goodness, that looks beautiful!! I'm going to have to copy you (your actions at least) someday!! :-D
Paul
-
So if you travel faster than light you are doing C++? :laugh: The tigress is here :-D
No, c++ - assuming C is heat capacity ;P I know I know, C isn't a constant ;P Paul
Where are you?[^] How much time is left?[^]
-- modified at 20:36 Saturday 24th June, 2006
Last modified: zaterdag 24 juni 2006 19:33:11 --
-
I just don't see how a vector could be negative. -c is just c in some opposite direction. The lowest velocity is zero - meaning zero movement. Any speed in any direction, any velocity in other words, means movement, and is therefore "higher" than zero.
-- 100% natural. No superstitious additives.
Jörgen Sigvardsson wrote:
Any speed in any direction, any velocity in other words, means movement, and is therefore "higher" than zero.
Higher in magnitude, therefore higher in speed. Velocity is a vector relative to a certain direction, so velocity in one direction is the -ve of the velocity in another direction. If your velocity reference is a vector pointing directly ahead of you, then an object moving away from you has positive velocity, and an object moving towards you has negative velocity, although its speed will be positive. So what Chris originally said is true, an object moving at light speed toward you by convention has a velocity of -c, but a speed of c.
Ryan
"Punctuality is only a virtue for those who aren't smart enough to think of good excuses for being late" John Nichol "Point Of Impact"
-
Chris Maunder wrote:
We've done a few 15% and on Tuesday we're doing a stupid 2km, 24.5%.
Please tell me you've got a triple on the front, and an MTB wide-range cassette on the rear...
No, but I did wimp out and get a compact crank. :-> cheers, Chris Maunder
CodeProject.com : C++ MVP
-
As we know, light speed is the fastest speed we know. But I have a question. What is the most slowly speed we know?
I know of a squirrel on the side of the road who's the World's Slowest Squirrel. He's been about to cross the road for several weeks now. Does that qualify?
Software Zen:
delete this;