Traveling faster than C(yes i screwed the name up so i made a new one) (1 Viewer)

Samuel Shergold

New Member
Joined
Feb 23, 2009
Messages
12
Gender
Male
HSC
2009
Hey
Well I asked my teacher this Question and i got a confused look, so read carefully.

We all know that the speed of light is constant to the frame of reference, According to relativity.
Therefore If i took 2 partical accelerators and placed one inside the other, and accelerated the inner accelerator to just Below C and then Accelerated a partical to just below C then therefore wouldn't it be going faster than C, in reference to the first frame of reference(outside both accelerators?
 

the-derivative

BCom/LLB (UNSW)
Joined
Nov 11, 2007
Messages
2,124
Location
Within the realms of the complex field.
Gender
Male
HSC
2009
Hey
Well I asked my teacher this Question and i got a confused look, so read carefully.

We all know that the speed of light is constant to the frame of reference, According to relativity.
Therefore If i took 2 partical accelerators and placed one inside the other, and accelerated the inner accelerator to just Below C and then Accelerated a partical to just below C then therefore wouldn't it be going faster than C, in reference to the first frame of reference(outside both accelerators?
From what I know, no.

Einstein stated that NOTHING can go beyond the speed of light. According to mass dilation, the object would continue to increase in mass as it accelerated, therefore always stopping it from reaching and exceeding the speed of light.

Take c as the infinite value. An object can approach c, however will never actually reach the speed of light.
 

youngminii

Banned
Joined
Feb 13, 2008
Messages
2,083
Gender
Male
HSC
2009
Hey
Well I asked my teacher this Question and i got a confused look, so read carefully.

We all know that the speed of light is constant to the frame of reference, According to relativity.
Therefore If i took 2 partical accelerators and placed one inside the other, and accelerated the inner accelerator to just Below C and then Accelerated a partical to just below C then therefore wouldn't it be going faster than C, in reference to the first frame of reference(outside both accelerators?
Well for one thing, they're not in an inertial frame of reference (they're spinning around) so that MIGHT screw it up (l2general relativity)
But anyway, particles are not light rays.
The end.
 

tommykins

i am number -e^i*pi
Joined
Feb 18, 2007
Messages
5,730
Gender
Male
HSC
2008
read something along the lines of 'to be quicker than c you have to be initially faster than c' on an article once
 

Aerath

Retired
Joined
May 10, 2007
Messages
10,169
Gender
Undisclosed
HSC
N/A
Shergold, I say this in the nicest possible way - do you spend your spare time thinking up of these relativity questions? =P If not, where did you get them from? =P
 

Samuel Shergold

New Member
Joined
Feb 23, 2009
Messages
12
Gender
Male
HSC
2009
Well Acorting to the different frames of reference you are not going faster than the speed of light so therefore the first frame would be going twice as slow as the second, if the observer was in the third frame of reference.

Aerath. No not really, although i do enjoy the mind equations.
 

Pwnage101

Moderator
Joined
May 3, 2008
Messages
1,408
Location
in Pursuit of Happiness.
Gender
Undisclosed
HSC
N/A
aha, OP you'd be wrong to think that

i'll give u a simpler example, if i travel in a car going north at 10km/hr and someone goes south at 10km/hr, to me, the other guy is travelling at 20km/hr, right?

now imagine 2 spaceships, each travelling in opposite directions, each at 0.8c - using normal adding ot velocities, you would think one spaceship is going at 1.6c relative to the other one - but you'd be wrong to do so, because adding velocities at near relativistic speeds is not straight addition

the jacaranda book has a simple formula of how to add velocities when travelling at relativistic speed s - its not just a simple addition because, as you see in my example, that would defiy einstein's theory

here is a more complicated explanation, ill try and type up the simple form from jacaranda this arvo: Velocity-addition formula - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 

Samuel Shergold

New Member
Joined
Feb 23, 2009
Messages
12
Gender
Male
HSC
2009
your talking about velocity and speed, but I'm talking about relativity. there two different things. because its not about addition its about the frames of reference.
For instance if we accelerated two chambers next to each other with a crew inside both. Chamber A was accelerated to .5C and the other(Chamber B) to .9C. According to relativity in our frame of reference (C), A is traveling at .5C and B at .9C.
But if we change the point of reference to Chamber B, Chamber A is traveling at .4C relative to them.
Can you see where I'm coming from. Its about the Frame of reference rather than the Velocity. Because light is constant in all frames of reference C=3x10^8
 
Last edited:

Pwnage101

Moderator
Joined
May 3, 2008
Messages
1,408
Location
in Pursuit of Happiness.
Gender
Undisclosed
HSC
N/A
your talking about velocity and speed, but I'm talking about relativity. there two different things. because its not about addition its about the frames of reference.
For instance if we accelerated two chambers next to each other with a crew inside both. Chamber A was accelerated to .5C and the other(Chamber B) to .9C. According to relativity in our frame of reference (C), A is traveling at .5C and B at .9C.
But if we change the point of reference to Chamber B, Chamber A is traveling at .4C relative to them.
Can you see where I'm coming from. Its about the Frame of reference rather than the Velocity. Because light is constant in all frames of reference C=3x10^8
okay then, i'm not quite sure what your asking.....

the Original Post says "Therefore If i took 2 partical accelerators and placed one inside the other, and accelerated the inner accelerator to just Below C and then Accelerated a partical to just below C then therefore wouldn't it be going faster than C, in reference to the first frame of reference(outside both accelerators? ", and i think i answered that..

but before you go on, think whether or not you are going to prove wrong what the worlds leading physicists have accpeted for 100 years...
 

Dumbledore

Member
Joined
Sep 11, 2008
Messages
290
Gender
Male
HSC
2009
there is a formula for adding velocities

with 2 objects travelling at velocities v and w:

s = [v+w]/[1+(vw)/c^2] where like the relativity laws, the denominator is insignifcant at low velocites.

as v and w approach c the denominator will approach 2 and the numerator v+w will decrease

yay my first post!
 

Samuel Shergold

New Member
Joined
Feb 23, 2009
Messages
12
Gender
Male
HSC
2009
I think one of the things i should have mentioned was that from the point of reference C the the object inside both accelerators I believe may appear in different way's(because this is only a theory that is untested and i haven't sat down and thought about it)
I'll do that sometime and get an answer for you. because its based on RELATIVITY and THE SPEED OF LIGHT
 

random-1005

Banned
Joined
Dec 15, 2008
Messages
609
Gender
Male
HSC
2009
Hey
Well I asked my teacher this Question and i got a confused look, so read carefully.

We all know that the speed of light is constant to the frame of reference, According to relativity.
Therefore If i took 2 partical accelerators and placed one inside the other, and accelerated the inner accelerator to just Below C and then Accelerated a partical to just below C then therefore wouldn't it be going faster than C, in reference to the first frame of reference(outside both accelerators?

your thinking far to complex and wasting ur time
 

Affinity

Active Member
Joined
Jun 9, 2003
Messages
2,062
Location
Oslo
Gender
Undisclosed
HSC
2003
your talking about velocity and speed, but I'm talking about relativity. there two different things. because its not about addition its about the frames of reference.
For instance if we accelerated two chambers next to each other with a crew inside both. Chamber A was accelerated to .5C and the other(Chamber B) to .9C. According to relativity in our frame of reference (C), A is traveling at .5C and B at .9C.
But if we change the point of reference to Chamber B, Chamber A is traveling at .4C relative to them. Not according to the theory
Can you see where I'm coming from. Its about the Frame of reference rather than the Velocity. Because light is constant in all frames of reference C=3x10^8
The above calculation is the precisely type of intuitiion/common sense that is not valid under the theory of relativity.

You should read the recommended information carefully. for this particular example, if you are in chamber B, then chamber A would be travelling at approiximately 0.72c.
 
Last edited:

Samuel Shergold

New Member
Joined
Feb 23, 2009
Messages
12
Gender
Male
HSC
2009
I'm pretty sure you'll find that chamber a is traveling at .4C relative to chamber B.
for instance say we made a car going at .01C(A) and another car traveling at .015C(B).Both are not Accelerating!!
If we made A the point of reference(0) then B is traveling at .005C in reference to them.
This may make no sense but its about the point of reference.
AHAHAHAH!!!!
Its so hard to explain. Because its all about the thought. Just like the space elervater that there planning to build, soon... When they develop the carbon tube enough.

Quote:
Originally Posted by random-1005
your thinking far to complex and wasting ur time


Your full of it, they would of said that to many great scientist who developed what the solar system looked like"espectialy the ones who said that we aren't at the center.
 

Affinity

Active Member
Joined
Jun 9, 2003
Messages
2,062
Location
Oslo
Gender
Undisclosed
HSC
2003
I'm pretty sure you'll find that chamber a is traveling at .4C relative to chamber B.
for instance say we made a car going at .01C(A) and another car traveling at .015C(B).Both are not Accelerating!!
If we made A the point of reference(0) then B is traveling at .005C in reference to them.
Wrong again. You are thinking in terms of absolute reference frames. Though this time the error is about 1/10000
 

Affinity

Active Member
Joined
Jun 9, 2003
Messages
2,062
Location
Oslo
Gender
Undisclosed
HSC
2003
so whats so wrong about it?
You are using intuition from the classical theory which does not apply here.. The whole point of the theory is precisely saying that velocities do not add together like that.

Let's analyse your argument for your original example:

A is moving at 0.5c away from you (U)
B is moving at 0.9c away from U in the same direction, again as seen by you.

then.. seen by you... B is indeed moving away from A at 0.4c.. but the catch is A doesn't see the same thing (And this is exactly where relativistic mechanics differ from classical mechanics).. A sees B travelling at 0.72c, B also sees A moving at 0.72c
 
Last edited:

Pwnage101

Moderator
Joined
May 3, 2008
Messages
1,408
Location
in Pursuit of Happiness.
Gender
Undisclosed
HSC
N/A
You are using intuition from the classical theory which does not apply here.. The whole point of the theory is precisely saying that velocities do not add together like that.

Let's analyse your argument for your original example:

A is moving at 0.5c away from you (U)
B is moving at 0.9c away from U in the same direction, again as seen by you.

then.. seen by you... B is indeed moving away from A at 0.4c.. but the catch is A doesn't see the same thing (And this is exactly where relativistic mechanics differ from classical mechanics).. A sees B travelling at 0.72c, B also sees A moving at 0.72c
exactly. you satisfied now OP?
 

Timothy.Siu

Prophet 9
Joined
Aug 6, 2008
Messages
3,449
Location
Sydney
Gender
Male
HSC
2009
so whats so wrong about it?
learn to ready buddy, so many people have said that b4 (pwnage) and u just ignored him and said he was wrong,

before u prove the world wrong, make sure u listen to other people first and not just think you are right all the time so as to ignore other people
 

Users Who Are Viewing This Thread (Users: 0, Guests: 1)

Top