70,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 stars in the universe
- Thread starter tool
- Start date
-
Two Factor Authentication is now available on BeyondUnreal Forums. To configure it, visit your Profile and look for the "Two Step Verification" option on the left side. We can send codes via email (may be slower) or you can set up any TOTP Authenticator app on your phone (Authy, Google Authenticator, etc) to deliver codes. It is highly recommended that you configure this to keep your account safe.
Jaunie said:
Oh! Oh!
Oh.
I'm sorry. You fail.
That wasn't one object, but two, and the sum of their speeds at that.
Velocity at the time of a crash is not the same as ordinary speed, methinks, because more than just the moving object and the resistance forces are there; there is another object (mobile or immobile) that directly affects the moving object in question.
Now. That paragraph was completely irrelevant in this paragraph, but I added it in a facade to make it look like I know what I'm talking about, and I'm trying to make myself look intelligent.
Jaunie said:
So you're saying if I'm going 35mph and another car is going 35mph, and we collide, one of us would go at 70mph?
BlAcK_PlAgUe22 said:
No, only if you were travelling into the same direction [of course you wouldn't crash then and friction would reduce the speed significantly]. The force of impact, however, would be indeed equal to the force of your car hitting a static object [like a wall] with 70mph.
no, it would be equal to 0 (if they crash in opposite directions (90º) ---><--- )
no matter what is the angle of the crash...
the sum of the forces will allways be less than speed of light...
Last edited:
One of the fundamental principles of the (special) theory of relativity is that speeds are relative---hence the name.
However, another of its fundamental principles says that two objects that travel towards each other each with a velocity near the speed of light still have a relative velocity below the speed of light, each from their own point of view (or "frame of reference").
Here's a short introduction to Special Relativity for those who are interested (and here is something about the relative speeds problem).
However, another of its fundamental principles says that two objects that travel towards each other each with a velocity near the speed of light still have a relative velocity below the speed of light, each from their own point of view (or "frame of reference").
Here's a short introduction to Special Relativity for those who are interested (and here is something about the relative speeds problem).
If you are standing on a point X (fixed for you of course) and see an object A moving close to the speed of light (99.99 % for instance) and an other object B moving in the opposite direction close to the speed of lihgt as well (still 99.99 %) here is what you see
A--------------->>>>>>>> <<<<<<<<--------------B
________________ X _____________________
But for the objects A and B from there point of view they get close to themselves with a speed inferior to the speed of light (99.9975 % of the speed of light) numbers are accurate the caculus were made using the equations :
E=µmc²
µ=1/squareroot(1-v²/c²)
time shifts when you go fast.
To bad, I'd like to go fatser...
edit : damn I was too slow to answer....
A--------------->>>>>>>> <<<<<<<<--------------B
________________ X _____________________
But for the objects A and B from there point of view they get close to themselves with a speed inferior to the speed of light (99.9975 % of the speed of light) numbers are accurate the caculus were made using the equations :
E=µmc²
µ=1/squareroot(1-v²/c²)
time shifts when you go fast.
To bad, I'd like to go fatser...
edit : damn I was too slow to answer....
Last edited:
I don't believe that for a second.Ferd said:
There's no such thing as time. Time has been invented so we can measure events. There's only now and NOW is everywhere.
If you could travel faster than light it would be the same as traveling faster than sound. Someone would see/hear you when you were somewhere seconds ago, BUT that wouldn't BE you, only a "picture" of you.
I was talking about earth's time... and it's been kinda "proved"
if a ship goes out of the earth in the earth's year 2005... and travels the space at really high speed, (not necesarily at the speed of light) and ,let's say, during 5 astronaut's years and then returns to the earth.... the astronauts are gonna find out that everyone is very old, and that it's like the year 2020 on earth (just to say something) when actually they lived 5 of their own years outside the earth.
Their time travel from the year 2005 to the year 2020 lasted 5 years.
if a ship goes out of the earth in the earth's year 2005... and travels the space at really high speed, (not necesarily at the speed of light) and ,let's say, during 5 astronaut's years and then returns to the earth.... the astronauts are gonna find out that everyone is very old, and that it's like the year 2020 on earth (just to say something) when actually they lived 5 of their own years outside the earth.
Their time travel from the year 2005 to the year 2020 lasted 5 years.
Last edited:
...though that principle does not allow travel back in time, which generally is what people associate with time travel. And consequently it also doesn't allow those astronauts to go back to their own time after their trip into the future.
For that matter, aren't we all on a constant "time travel" into the future, all the time?
For that matter, aren't we all on a constant "time travel" into the future, all the time?
I think Myr's hit it on the head here. Remember when everyone was trying to break the sound barrier, which they said couldn't be done, and all those test pilots were killing themselves trying to do it, until Chuck Yeager finally did it? The problem was that the laws of physics mandated a buildup of resistance relative to your velocity, such that a huge envelope of air was pressed harder and harder in front of the plane. When you finally do crack that speed, the resistance drops dramatically as the air rushes back in behind the plane, and "SONIC, BOOOOOM!"Myrmidion said:
I'll bet the same is true with light. Theoretically it may be possible to surpass it, but I'm guessing that there are similar circumstances whereby there is a resistance as you approach c. There's probably a certain amount of additional energy required to push through that envelope and surpass c.
There are similar concepts at work in heat transfer. The transfer rate is fairly constant as objects heat up or cool down, but there's an added amount of energy necessary to push the material from solid to liquid, and then again from liquid to gas.
I may be taking a lot of unrelated scientific principles and illegally trying to correlate them, but it just makes sense in my brain that there's a pattern here in terms of energy transfer.
Doc_EDo said:
I don't have the book handy which states the observations that can be made on an object travelling at relativistic speeds, but I can tell you that time is relative to the observer. In the interests of backing up this point I invite you to look up the experiment where they synchronised two atomic clocks and slapped one on a high speed aircraft. After sending the clock all the way around the world they compared the times that each one was showing, and the one that had been on the plane was slower - admittedly, it was slower by a teeny tiny amount, but the speed that the aircraft reached was nothing compared to the speed of light.
In fact, returning to the particle accelerators, they have accelerated particles with very short lifespans to close to the speed of light, and observed a considerable increase in the period before the particle decays
.Why does Jupiter appear to be slightly flattened? Because it's rotating at a helacious speed - which highlights another factor of objects moving at bloody high speeds (that they contract). Meter rules and yardsticks have been shown to contract by tiny amounts when slapped on shuttles and spacecraft orbiting the earth (I'm not entirely sure how they measured that effect, but I suspect that lasers were involved somewhere
.
Theoretically, if you were in a spaceship, and it hits the speed of light... say... to go to another galaxy, you would appear there instantly, even though to people who might be watching say it took assloads of years.
Distances contract when going near lightspeed, and once you hit lightspeed, all distances suddenly become 0
Distances contract when going near lightspeed, and once you hit lightspeed, all distances suddenly become 0
