- #1
Researcher X
- 93
- 0
What evidence is there that at light speed things such as time dilation, and mass/energy, actually reach infinity?
No, it isn't. Particle accelerators have tested the theory to an extremely high energy, getting extremely close to C. The equation holds.Researcher X said:Maybe I'm misreading it, but it's a paradox to think of something moving at the speed of light, because of time dilation curving to infinity.
Is it not possible that the speed of light actually makes this effect just ridiculously large instead of infinite?
Researcher X said:Is it not possible that the speed of light actually makes this effect just ridiculously large instead of infinite?
Yes, although I would use the word "nonsense" or "non-physical" rather than "paradox".Researcher X said:Maybe I'm misreading it, but it's a paradox to think of something moving at the speed of light, because of time dilation curving to infinity.
that is why it is nonsense. You cannot "reach the infinity point". It is not even a point, let alone a reachable one.Researcher X said:you "reach" the infinity point
Researcher X said:What evidence is there that at light speed things such as time dilation, and mass/energy, actually reach infinity?
Researcher X said:What evidence is there that at light speed things such as time dilation, and mass/energy, actually reach infinity?
Yes, which means that it can't happen. Far from being "evidence is there that at light speed things such as time dilation, and mass/energy, actually reach infinity" What you just quoted means it can't happen. The can't be "evidence" of something that can't happen! There is, on the other hand, plenty of evidence for time dilation, mass increase, etc. for objects moving at a very high relative speed.Researcher X said:Maybe I'm misreading it, but it's a paradox to think of something moving at the speed of light, because of time dilation curving to infinity.
jtbell said:Sure, but all experimental data so far has fit curves which go off to infinity as v --> c. We go by the data that we have in hand. If someone finds something different, then theorists will go off and look for a new theory that either modifies or fundamentally replaces relativity.
HallsofIvy said:Yes, which means that it can't happen. Far from being "evidence is there that at light speed things such as time dilation, and mass/energy, actually reach infinity" What you just quoted means it can't happen. The can't be "evidence" of something that can't happen! There is, on the other hand, plenty of evidence for time dilation, mass increase, etc. for objects moving at a very high relative speed.
Rebel said:I see more probable that theorists would look at this supossed new findings and study what is wrong with the experiment.
Rebel said:I see more probable that theorists would look at this supossed new findings and study what is wrong with the experiment.
markonline said:ok...
lets say that time dilation increases as an exponential rate as velocity increases. now to reach the speed of light, time dilation must equal infinite. while infinity may not be a real number a possible very very large number that goes on forever could take its place
DaveC426913 said:What is the point in this line of thought? Is there some reason you find our current understanding of the universe to be too consistent for your liking?
We have a theory, we have a formula and we have a preponderance of evidence that points to a very consistent universe in the context of SR, where all the puzzle pieces fit together beautifully. Is there some reason why you think that it should be only mostly consistent? Why you think a single puzzle piece should have a tab that sticks out like a flap of dead skin?
Well that's just a misunderstanding of how math works. Yes, infinity is not a number, so that does mean that - if the equation is correct - traveling at C isn't possible.markonline said:lets say that time dilation increases as an exponential rate as velocity increases. now to reach the speed of light, time dilation must equal infinite. while infinity may not be a real number a possible very very large number that goes on forever could take its place
russ_watters said:Well that's just a misunderstanding of how math works. Yes, infinity is not a number, so that does mean that - if the equation is correct - traveling at C isn't possible.
What you're talkinig about is nothing more than wishful thinking.
These sentences do not string together into a cohesive thought. Can you try again?markonline said:to my liking, hmm. the question being what is the evidence of infinite. that was my answer. and yes i believe it to be consistently inconsistent. why don't you just put everything on the forum about SR. and you can just leave it at that.
These are not sentences. It is extremely difficult to figure out what you're saying.markonline said:correctamondo. it would take forever to reach the speed of light unless the boundaries of physics are somehow changed with physics. but light having no mass. being a proton that travels in only direction with no force keeping it at bay does reach the speed of light.
DaveC426913 said:These sentences do not string together into a cohesive thought. Can you try again?
These are not sentences. It is extremely difficult to figure out what you're saying. In that last one it almost sdounds like you think that protons accelerate of their own accord for some unknown reason and will then reach c. This is bith nonsensical and factually incorrect.
Then could could it possibly, as you say "reach the speed of light"?markonline said:i never said accelerate, i mearly mean travel in one direction as fast as something can possibly be
DaveC426913 said:Then could could it possibly, as you say "reach the speed of light"?
russ_watters said:Probably misspoke "proton" for "photon"...
No, there really aren't.markonline said:i meant that with SR there are some inconsistancies.
"Propagate"? "Mear"? C'mon, are you for real?i propagate that the are mear indescressions that have been overlooked by the larger community.
Huh? SR is high school level math. It is very simple and completely "developed" (whatever that really means).one inconsistancy being a lack of proper mathematical development with time dilation matematics. ever hear the term kiss. regardless of how good something might sound sometimes psychology has a big part in all subjects.
I don't think that's true, but even if it was, so what? It would be fundamentally different than it was today.even Einstein died trying to do more with SR.
russ_watters said:No, there really aren't. "Propagate"? "Mear"? C'mon, are you for real? Huh? SR is high school level math. It is very simple and completely "developed" (whatever that really means). I don't think that's true, but even if it was, so what? It would be fundamentally different than it was today.
Beyond wishful thinking, you have a hostility toward accepting a reality that you don't like.
This is rediculous. Stop being so hostile toward reality. You have no hope of ever learning with an attitude like that.markonline said:thanks for being perfect and never overlooking anything.
There are several pieces of evidence that suggest the existence of infinites at light speed. One of the most well-known is the phenomenon of redshift, where the light from distant galaxies appears to be stretched and shifted towards the red end of the spectrum. This is consistent with the idea that the universe is expanding at a rate faster than the speed of light.
According to Einstein's theory of relativity, the speed of light is the maximum speed at which anything can travel. This means that if the universe is expanding faster than the speed of light, it must be infinite in size. Additionally, the theory of relativity also predicts that time and space can be distorted, which allows for the possibility of infinite distances.
Yes, there is observational evidence that supports the concept of infinites at light speed. In addition to redshift, scientists have also observed the cosmic microwave background radiation, which is a remnant of the Big Bang and is consistent with the idea of an infinite and expanding universe.
While the most widely accepted explanation for redshift is the expansion of the universe, there are alternative theories that attempt to explain it without the need for infinites at light speed. For example, some scientists propose that the redshift could be caused by the absorption of light as it travels through interstellar dust and gas.
Scientists continue to gather evidence for infinites at light speed through various methods, such as studying the cosmic microwave background radiation, observing the behavior of distant galaxies, and using advanced telescopes and instruments to measure the properties of light. They also use mathematical models and simulations to test and refine our understanding of the universe and its expansion.