How bizarre, how bizarre.

[A Weary Exile]

if you stack multyplying bacteria on eatch other, the distance thay will have traveld in 24 hours, would be further than the distance that a lightbeam would have traveld

There's no way that's true. Do you have a source?

 

[lwm3398]

Oh, I know. Don't think I didn't.

Well, you're just new and all...

Actually, not all that new.

 

[Lukeje]

The speed of light is not the fastest possible speed in the universe. There exists a whole new level about the speed of light. This is Tacheyon (spelling) speed. It is simply proven by the conjunction of two proofs. 1. Light has mass. This is true since light is part particle. Also, it slows down in dense matter rather than speeds up, as a waves normally does. Having proved light has a mass, we can assume that there is a mass smaller, from the proof that there is no largest number, which implies there is no smallest fraction.

Thus, something will always be faster than light.

Your "proof" depends on not being "Reductio ad Absurdum". The Planck scale [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planck_units] may be where everything goes from nice continuous units to discrete units. Thus there is a Planck mass [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planck_mass] (which may or may not be the discrete unit of mass), and thus your hypothesis is untestable.

...also, light only has rest-mass. This is the mass that it would have if it were stationary (which the Uncertainty Principle [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uncertainty_principle] tells us can never happen). And just because it behaves 'like a particle' sometimes, doesn't mean it always will; the result depends on how you observe the light.

Light is confined to C. As are a few other things. Gravitons. Also, the theories state, so braydon can be accelerated to the speed of light. It does not say anything about units traveling at the speed of light.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superbradyon
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tachyon
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Massless_particle

Your originally postulated that light has mass (because it's part particle, which is a gross misapplication of QM), then gave a link that shows that it is massless? It has rest-mass, but that's irrelevant. Tachyons effectively have imaginary masses. Superbradyons are simply what is postulated what may happen at around the Planck length. None of these are in any way related to your 'proof'.

 

[GrinningManiac]

Henry VIII only had four wives technically, and though he founded the English Church and was head of it, he was still a Practicing Catholic

How?

Divorced, beheaded, died, divorced, beheaded, survived, right? Nope, those were ANNULLMENTS, which mean that, legally, the marriage was void, not broken. Therefore, he had four wives.

He was always a Catholic, but he didn't like the Pope bossing him about, so he formed his own Protestant religion to counter it. He hated Protestantism

 

[microwaviblerabbit]

The speed of light is not the fastest possible speed in the universe. There exists a whole new level about the speed of light. This is Tacheyon (spelling) speed. It is simply proven by the conjunction of two proofs. 1. Light has mass. This is true since light is part particle. Also, it slows down in dense matter rather than speeds up, as a waves normally does. Having proved light has a mass, we can assume that there is a mass smaller, from the proof that there is no largest number, which implies there is no smallest fraction.

Thus, something will always be faster than light.

Your "proof" depends on not being "Reductio ad Absurdum". The Planck scale [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planck_units] may be where everything goes from nice continuous units to discrete units. Thus there is a Planck mass [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planck_mass] (which may or may not be the discrete unit of mass), and thus your hypothesis is untestable.

...also, light only has rest-mass. This is the mass that it would have if it were stationary (which the Uncertainty Principle [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uncertainty_principle] tells us can never happen). And just because it behaves 'like a particle' sometimes, doesn't mean it always will; the result depends on how you observe the light.

Light is confined to C. As are a few other things. Gravitons. Also, the theories state, so braydon can be accelerated to the speed of light. It does not say anything about units traveling at the speed of light.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superbradyon
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tachyon
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Massless_particle

Your originally postulated that light has mass (because it's part particle, which is a gross misapplication of QM), then give a link that shows that it is massless? It has rest-mass, but that's irrelevant. Tachyons effectively have imaginary masses. Superbradyons are simply what is postulated what may happen at around the Planck length. None of these are in any way related to your 'proof'.

Proof.
As you said light has rest mass. This is when all matter is at perfect rest, an impossibility due to the fact the universe exists. If nothing moved, then there would be no energy, and thus no mass. This is due to the relational aspects of energy and mass from a theory of Albert Einstein.

However. In this case we will suppose that the entirety of the universe has been converted into a mass only based form. From this we can derive the value of objects unto each other. In this form, Light has a mass. (Though it can be postulated that it does normally from the equation E=M(C^2). ) Thus we end up with a scale upon which everything can be measured.

Now. The original proof. Let P be the statement: Light has a mass. Let Q be the statement: There is no smallest positive number.

P and Q imply that there is a mass smaller than the mass of light.

Since we know that acceleration is a function of Force and mass. Then we know Velocity is a function of Force mass and time. If Force and Time are constants, the velocity is proportional to the mass.

Therefore, a smaller mass will travel faster than a larger one. Since Mass(light)>Mass(Unknown) then Unknown will travel faster than light.

Therefore, something is faster than light.

(This is an addition.)
Light itself is in fact not considered to be massless. Its mass is currently considered to be insignificant. This can be conjectured as such. Light travels at C in a vacuum. Light travels at less than C in matter. Energy or Work, Is F and distance. Force is a mass and acceleration. Etc. Since Light is going less than C there are 2 possibilites.

1. Light lost energy. It would have to transfer this energy to lose it. Transfer of energy requires mass. Thus light must have mass.

2. Light converted its energy. This means it gained mass. Therefore it has mass.

Therefore light has mass in non-perfect rest situations.

I would like to finish with two statements. Statement one: We can detect only a tiny part of electromagnetic radiation, even with all our technology.

Secondly. Kurt Godel proved all mathematical based models are incomplete. Our postulating may be able to obtain models that work most of the time, but a true and complete model is not a model anymore, but the object that the model was based on.

 

[Lukeje]

Proof.
As you said light has rest mass. This is when all matter is at perfect rest, an impossibility due to the fact the universe exists. If nothing moved, then there would be no energy, and thus no mass. This is due to the relational aspects of energy and mass from a theory of Albert Einstein.

It's an impossibility because of Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uncertainty_principle].

However. In this case we will suppose that the entirety of the universe has been converted into a mass only based form. From this we can derive the value of objects unto each other. In this form, Light has a mass. (Though it can be postulated that it does normally from the equation E=M(C^2). ) Thus we end up with a scale upon which everything can be measured.

...and thus obtain results that can only be confirmed in this particular system.

Now. The original proof. Let P be the statement: Light has a mass. Let Q be the statement: There is no smallest positive number.

P and Q imply that there is a mass smaller than the mass of light.

As I stated above, the fact there is no smallest positive number does not imply that there is no smallest mass. You might want to look into why Quantum Mechanics is called Quantum Mechanics (hint: it's to do with quantisation).

Since we know that acceleration is a function of Force and mass. Then we know Velocity is a function of Force mass and time. If Force and Time are constants, the velocity is proportional to the mass.

...in Newtonian mechanics, which is an approximation which may only be used for large bodies (i.e. not photons). And also in a Universe where such concepts as 'acceleration' and 'velocity' are meaningful.

Therefore, a smaller mass will travel faster than a larger one. Since Mass(light)>Mass(Unknown) then Unknown will travel faster than light.

How is it supposed to travel if it is defined as stationary?

Therefore, something is faster than light.

(This is an addition.)
Light itself is in fact not considered to be massless. Its mass is currently considered to be insignificant. This can be conjectured as such. Light travels at C in a vacuum. Light travels at less than C in matter. Energy or Work, Is F and distance. Force is a mass and acceleration. Etc. Since Light is going less than C there are 2 possibilites.

1. Light lost energy. It would have to transfer this energy to lose it. Transfer of energy requires mass. Thus light must have mass.

2. Light converted its energy. This means it gained mass. Therefore it has mass.

Therefore light has mass in non-perfect rest situations.

Or alternatively it's explained perfectly by quantum mechanics. The photons interact with the atoms in the solid through interactions not requiring mass. The momentum of a photon is dependent on its wavelength; p =/= mv in quantum mechanics.

I would like to finish with two statements. Statement one: We can detect only a tiny part of electromagnetic radiation, even with all our technology.

Secondly. Kurt Godel proved all mathematical based models are incomplete. Our postulating may be able to obtain models that work most of the time, but a true and complete model is not a model anymore, but the object that the model was based on.

What does Gödel's incompleteness theorem have to do with anything? No one was proposing that are system was complete (or even self-consistent...).

 

[Jurassic Rob]

So, do you know any little interesting tidbits no one else knows? I'm on a quest for stupid knowledge, have you any?

Okay, Bill Murray played Peter Venkman in Ghostbusters movies, and Garfield in the live action movie. While the guy who did garfields voice in the cartoon, also did Pete Venkman's voice in the Ghostbusters cartoon series!

Weird no?

 

[microwaviblerabbit]

Proof.
As you said light has rest mass. This is when all matter is at perfect rest, an impossibility due to the fact the universe exists. If nothing moved, then there would be no energy, and thus no mass. This is due to the relational aspects of energy and mass from a theory of Albert Einstein.

It's an impossibility because of Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uncertainty_principle].

However. In this case we will suppose that the entirety of the universe has been converted into a mass only based form. From this we can derive the value of objects unto each other. In this form, Light has a mass. (Though it can be postulated that it does normally from the equation E=M(C^2). ) Thus we end up with a scale upon which everything can be measured.

...and thus obtain results that can only be confirmed in this particular system.

Now. The original proof. Let P be the statement: Light has a mass. Let Q be the statement: There is no smallest positive number.

P and Q imply that there is a mass smaller than the mass of light.

As I stated above, the fact there is no smallest positive number does not imply that there is no smallest mass. You might want to look into why Quantum Mechanics is called Quantum Mechanics (hint: it's to do with quantisation).

Since we know that acceleration is a function of Force and mass. Then we know Velocity is a function of Force mass and time. If Force and Time are constants, the velocity is proportional to the mass.

...in Newtonian mechanics, which is an approximation which may only be used for large bodies (i.e. not photons). And also in a Universe where such concepts as 'acceleration' and 'velocity' are meaningful.

Therefore, a smaller mass will travel faster than a larger one. Since Mass(light)>Mass(Unknown) then Unknown will travel faster than light.

How is it supposed to travel if it is defined as stationary?

Therefore, something is faster than light.

(This is an addition.)
Light itself is in fact not considered to be massless. Its mass is currently considered to be insignificant. This can be conjectured as such. Light travels at C in a vacuum. Light travels at less than C in matter. Energy or Work, Is F and distance. Force is a mass and acceleration. Etc. Since Light is going less than C there are 2 possibilites.

1. Light lost energy. It would have to transfer this energy to lose it. Transfer of energy requires mass. Thus light must have mass.

2. Light converted its energy. This means it gained mass. Therefore it has mass.

Therefore light has mass in non-perfect rest situations.

Or alternatively it's explained perfectly by quantum mechanics. The photons interact with the atoms in the solid through interactions not requiring mass. The momentum of a photon is dependent on its wavelength; p =/= mv in quantum mechanics.

I would like to finish with two statements. Statement one: We can detect only a tiny part of electromagnetic radiation, even with all our technology.

Secondly. Kurt Godel proved all mathematical based models are incomplete. Our postulating may be able to obtain models that work most of the time, but a true and complete model is not a model anymore, but the object that the model was based on.

What does Gödel's incompleteness theorem have to do with anything? No one was proposing that are system was complete (or even self-consistent...).

I shall bow out my previous explanations. I cannot explain the proofs since I lack a degree in Particle Mechanics. However: I will refer you back to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tachyon.
There you will find how tachyons exist within quantum mechanics.
Also: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tachyon_condensation
They exist long enough to be measured, which is the definition in particle physics of existing.

(By the way, what are you studying?)

 

[Gebi10000]

if you stack multyplying bacteria on eatch other, the distance thay will have traveld in 24 hours, would be further than the distance that a lightbeam would have traveld

There's no way that's true. Do you have a source?

thay split in half evry 20 mins.
and thay are 5*10^-7m high. the speed of light is 3*10^8m/s
5*10^-7m*2^(24*3)= 47223664828695m
300000000m*3600*24=25920000000000m

beleve me now?

 

[Lukeje]

I shall bow out my previous explanations. I cannot explain the proofs since I lack a degree in Particle Mechanics. However: I will refer you back to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tachyon.
There you will find how tachyons exist within quantum mechanics.
Also: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tachyon_condensation
They exist long enough to be measured, which is the definition in particle physics of existing.

They rely on a quirk of Einstein's special relativity in that the equation that sets a maximum on the speed of particles can be solved with imaginary masses.

(By the way, what are you studying?)

Chemistry...