What is anti-light-speed?
-
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; -
About twice the size of a quarter of string.
-- 100% natural. No superstitious additives.
Only for average values of 2. For extremely small or extremely large values of 2, it would be smaller or larger, respectively.
Software Zen:
delete this; -
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
Chris Maunder wrote:
Mont Ventoux ... Galibier
Oh. My. God. <Wayne_Campbell_voice[^]> We're not worthy! We're not worthy! We're not worthy! </Wayne_Campbell_voice>
Software Zen:
delete this; -
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
watching a white cedar grow on a cliff in canada....[^] however, for practical purposes, I am sure you can watch grass grow and it will feel just as slow. _________________________ Asu no koto o ieba, tenjo de nezumi ga warau. Talk about things of tomorrow and the mice in the ceiling laugh. (Japanese Proverb)
-
ensger wrote:
What is above 0 and and slowly enough
1E-99?;P Paul
Paul van der Walt wrote:
1E-99?
not slow enough! ;P long double : exp:15 mant:64 Quadruple: exp: 15 mat: 112 _________________________ Asu no koto o ieba, tenjo de nezumi ga warau. Talk about things of tomorrow and the mice in the ceiling laugh. (Japanese Proverb)
-
No - it doesn't work like that :) Heisenberg's principle (in part) means dx.dp >= h_bar/2, where dx is uncertainty in position and dp is uncertainty in momentum. If we assume a unit mass then we have dx.dv >=h_bar/2. => dv >= h_bar/(2.dx) (h_bar = planck's constant / pi) So the bigger your uncertainty in exactly where you are, the less your uncertainty about your velocity. 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. cheers, Chris Maunder
CodeProject.com : C++ MVP
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.
So you are saying that the slowest speed is the pair of binoculars I lost at Taos at the age of 5? _________________________ Asu no koto o ieba, tenjo de nezumi ga warau. Talk about things of tomorrow and the mice in the ceiling laugh. (Japanese Proverb)
-
No - it doesn't work like that :) Heisenberg's principle (in part) means dx.dp >= h_bar/2, where dx is uncertainty in position and dp is uncertainty in momentum. If we assume a unit mass then we have dx.dv >=h_bar/2. => dv >= h_bar/(2.dx) (h_bar = planck's constant / pi) So the bigger your uncertainty in exactly where you are, the less your uncertainty about your velocity. 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. cheers, Chris Maunder
CodeProject.com : C++ MVP
Chris Maunder wrote:
No - it doesn't work like that :) Heisenberg's principle (in part) means dx.dp >= h_bar/2, where dx is uncertainty in position and dp is uncertainty in momentum. If we assume a unit mass then we have dx.dv >=h_bar/2. => dv >= h_bar/(2.dx) (h_bar = planck's constant / pi)
Now your just showing off with all that algebra and big words. And to think you started off in Canberra making mud pies from memory. Michael Martin Australia "I controlled my laughter and simple said "No,I am very busy,so I can't write any code for you". The moment they heard this all the smiling face turned into a sad looking face and one of them farted. So I had to leave the place as soon as possible." - Mr.Prakash 24/04/2004
-
Chris Maunder wrote:
No - it doesn't work like that :) Heisenberg's principle (in part) means dx.dp >= h_bar/2, where dx is uncertainty in position and dp is uncertainty in momentum. If we assume a unit mass then we have dx.dv >=h_bar/2. => dv >= h_bar/(2.dx) (h_bar = planck's constant / pi)
Now your just showing off with all that algebra and big words. And to think you started off in Canberra making mud pies from memory. Michael Martin Australia "I controlled my laughter and simple said "No,I am very busy,so I can't write any code for you". The moment they heard this all the smiling face turned into a sad looking face and one of them farted. So I had to leave the place as soon as possible." - Mr.Prakash 24/04/2004
modelling mud pies, thank you very much. Poorly, too. 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?
ensger wrote:
What is the most slowly speed we know?
The speed at which the American government makes decisions.
"You have an arrow in your butt!" - Fiona:cool:
Welcome to CP in your language. Post the unicode version in My CP Blog [ ^ ] now.People who don't understand how awesome Firefox is have never used CPhog[^]CPhog. The act of using CPhog (Firefox)[^] alone doesn't make Firefox cool. It opens your eyes to the possibilities and then you start looking for other things like CPhog (Firefox)[^] and your eyes are suddenly open to all sorts of useful things all through Firefox. - (Self Quote)