NationStates Jolt Archive

If I was faster than light…

…then would I be next to you, before you see me?

The forces exerted on your body would kill you before you accelerated past the speed of light.

The forces exerted on your body would kill you before you accelerated past the speed of light.Only if he takes any 'sharp' corners (linear acceleration wouldn't have to be a problem, although it'd still take forever to get up to light speed, let alone beyond it, seeing as that is impossible).

If I was faster than light…

…then would I be next to you, before you see me?

Indeed. That's how it should work anyway.

And, to the posters quibbling over real world physics and such, I think for the purposes of the question, those things have somehow been taken care of.

let alone beyond it, seeing as that is impossible).


Aha which my not actually be true. Forgetting for the moment the speed in which entangled particles act simutanisly, even though separated by great distance, and concentrate instead on an experiment done about 3 perhaps 4 years ago by now.

This experiment showed that the speed in which gravity excerts it's influence, considering a margin for error, is just over or just under the speed of light.

If I was faster than light…

…then would I be next to you, before you see me?


I'd still smell you before you got too close.

Aha which my not actually be true. Forgetting for the moment the speed in which entangled particles act simutanisly, even though separated by great distance, and concentrate instead on an experiment done about 3 perhaps 4 years ago by now.

This experiment showed that the speed in which gravity excerts it's influence, considering a margin for error, is just over or just under the speed of light.

Question is would the weak nuclear force holding your atoms and molecules together handle that kind of speed without sheering apart.

Question is would the weak nuclear force holding your atoms and molecules together handle that kind of speed without sheering apart.

Good question, I think so. I mean with my laymans knowledge even in particle accelerators they have to smash atoms into each over to break these bonds. So who is to say at what speed(without collision) this weak nuclear force is overcome?

Question is would the weak nuclear force holding your atoms and molecules together handle that kind of speed without sheering apart.

Sure, but they were also thinking like that when:

- Montgolfier did his first balloon trip
- Chuck Yeager broke through the wall of sound
- When they sand the first beings into space…

Good question, I think so. I mean with my laymans knowledge even in particle accelerators they have to smash atoms into each over to break these bonds. So who is to say at what speed(without collision) this weak nuclear force is overcome?

Particle accelerators speed atoms to close to the speed of light, but not past it. There's probably no way of knowing what would happen to matter beyond that.

Sure, but they were also thinking like that when:

- Montgolfier did his first balloon trip
- Chuck Yeager broke through the wall of sound
- When they sand the first beings into space…

So clearly because scientists had no way of knowing before those first tests they must therefore abandon asking the question whenever they subject humans to a faster speed...:rolleyes:

Relativity violations make my brain hurt. You do realize that the universal speed limit exists to prevent this kind of thing from happening?

Particle accelerators speed atoms to close to the speed of light, but not past it. There's probably no way of knowing what would happen to matter beyond that.

Indeed. although the point I was making though is that even at these speeds the atoms require a collision before the bonds are broken.

Relativity violations make my brain hurt. You do realize that the universal speed limit exists to prevent this kind of thing from happening?

Meh, that rule is made to be broken. We'll figure it out.

Indeed. although the point I was making though is that even at these speeds the atoms require a collision before the bonds are broken.

I defy you to move through air without colliding with any atoms.

Speaking as someone who is faster than the speed of light, I would say that it is fun for a day or two, but then it becomes kind of a bore…

That and once people learn that you can go faster than the speed of light they all try to charter you for errands and wont cease pushing you to do menial tricks at dull parties…

Not to mention those so-called forces of good and evil, who expect you to do the most outrageous feats of heroism or villainy… :(

I would say that you are better off at slow speeds

How do you manage without bursting into flames almost instantly the moment you move? Space shuttle tiles? Aerogel?

How do you manage without bursting into flames almost instantly the moment you move? Space shuttle tiles? Aerogel?

Accelerate slowly could help, no?

If I was faster than light…

…then would I be next to you, before you see me?

Theoretically: time is meaningless for you and you're everywhere at once.

There was a young lady named Bright
Whose speed was much faster than light.
She set out one day,
In a relative way,
And returnéd the previous night.

If I was faster than light…

…then would I be next to you, before you see me?

Oh, faster then light? Einstein said that was impossible.

Oh, faster then light? Einstein said that was impossible.

Maybe Einstein didn't say that at all...

http://dustbunny.physics.indiana.edu/~dzierba/HonorsF97/Week1/NYTJuly22.html

If I was faster than light...

you wouldn't see me around here anymore. :D

Aha which my not actually be true. Forgetting for the moment the speed in which entangled particles act simutanisly, even though separated by great distance, and concentrate instead on an experiment done about 3 perhaps 4 years ago by now.

This experiment showed that the speed in which gravity excerts it's influence, considering a margin for error, is just over or just under the speed of light.I don't quite see how that is relevant. It follows from special relativity that no massive object can accelerate past the speed of light. Relativistic mass would go to infinity, as would the kinetic energy (and there isn't quite that much in the universe as best we can tell)

Theoretically: time is meaningless for you and you're everywhere at once.Why would he be everywhere at once?
Suppose he's twice as fast as light, and me and a friend are two light minutes apart; doesn't it stand to reason it would take him a minute to move between the two of us?

Accelerate slowly could help, no?

Actually, no.

If I was faster than light…

…then would I be next to you, before you see me?

If you were faster than light, you'd never be able to go slower than light. So you could never be next to me for long enough to count.

Oh, faster then light? Einstein said that was impossible.

No He didn't. He said it was impossible for an object with mass to accelerate past the velocity of light. However(much to his annoyance), he could never show that an object could not travel as fast as it wanted to as long as it was and always had been faster than light.

However, the barrier is two-way. An object traveling faster than light could never travel slower than light.

That explains space. A star could explode somewhere and we wouldn't see it until years later unless it was our own sun.

I don't quite see how that is relevant. It follows from special relativity that no massive object can accelerate past the speed of light. Relativistic mass would go to infinity, as would the kinetic energy (and there isn't quite that much in the universe as best we can tell)

Well you are right it's not really relevant as anything other than what it was intended to convey, which is that the speed in which gravity exerts it's force may well be faster than the speed of light.

Of course since we don't really understand gravity that much, and if there is such a think as a graviton, then I guess it could well be very relevant.

Why would he be everywhere at once?
Suppose he's twice as fast as light, and me and a friend are two light minutes apart; doesn't it stand to reason it would take him a minute to move between the two of us?
That would be only for the two of you or for him, I forgot which one.:p

I AM faster than light. Hmmm.

http://www.jupiterscientific.org/sciinfo/slowlight.html