What is anti-light-speed?
-
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)
-
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)
-
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
-
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:
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 think it's the speed at which my ex-wife trundles back and forth to the kitchen for more food. I call it "Desiree speed".
"Why don't you tie a kerosene-soaked rag around your ankles so the ants won't climb up and eat your candy ass..." - Dale Earnhardt, 1997
-----
"...the staggering layers of obscenity in your statement make it a work of art on so many levels." - Jason Jystad, 10/26/2001 -
Speed or velocity? (Lowest velocity is -c. Lowest speed is 0) cheers, Chris Maunder
CodeProject.com : C++ MVP
-- modified at 13:14 Saturday 24th June, 2006
Have you seen the article about light traveling backwards? http://www.rochester.edu/news/show.php?id=2544[^] Here is the professor's Nonlinear Optics Group Page[^]. -- Marcus Kwok
-
Speed or velocity? (Lowest velocity is -c. Lowest speed is 0) cheers, Chris Maunder
CodeProject.com : C++ MVP
-- modified at 13:14 Saturday 24th June, 2006
If I have two directional light sources A and B and I aim them diametrically opposed in a pure vacuum, and I observe in the direction of travel of the beam A, do photons of stream A travel at c or at 2c relative to photons of stream B? If I place the camera point C collinear but not between A and B, so that both streams are, for a short period, in a single observational frame of reference, are the photons constrained to travel at c/2 or does the fact that none of the photons from one of the beams will ever reach the observer provide them with a sort of quantum get-out-of-gaol-free-card, incidentally also releasing the other beam from the constraint? If we treat photons as field perturbation wavefronts in a fluid with a viscosity such that the wave travels at c, this certainly accounts for the constant velocity aspect, but it totally fails to explain the directionality. Imagining vacuum as a sea of contangent bubbles of potential kinda like valence shells, maybe photons don't travel but are absorbed and a new photon of the same energy emitted at the other side of each bubble.
PeterW -------------------- If you can spell and use correct grammar for your compiler, what makes you think I will tolerate less?