[Tycho?]

Ok. Maybe lightspeed cannot be achieved, maybe it can. Good, thread over.

You mean that when we look at a star 20 light years away we are seeing the light that existed 20 years ago? Well yeah, so what? I'm not sure what you meant by "The lightspeed have nothing to do with time."

The speed of sound has nothing to do with it. The closer you get to c the slower time passes for you relative to a "stationary" observer. edit: I did not learn at a university. I'm just a high school student by the way.

That is not an explanation. It is nothing. It is you saying that you think photons can go faster than c. You provide no evidence, nor compelling ideas to back this up. Nobody has any reason to give this a second thought.

Do you have a link to this magazine? I've never heard anything like this. Spiral galaxies are very common.

Crouching on a bike does indeed make a difference. Generally you would do this while going downhill or at a large speed on a straight away. It becomes awkard to do it if you are really peddling (like going uphill).

It should not effect the structural integrity of the ship itself, unless the ship used pressure from the air inside the ship to maintain its shape. Things inside the ship not tied down would be moved, the air rushing out of the ship would be moving quite quickly, so a large hole could suck out even pretty heavy objects as long as there was enough air inside to push it out. In a lot of sci-fi movies and tv shows, a big hole gets torn in the side of the ship, and the crew members valiantly hold on to something while the air is sucked out. If say an entire wall of a room was ripped out, all the air in the room would be gone in a couple seconds, and you could not be able to hold on with muscle alone. As for the effects on the objects inside the ship, depends on what they are. Organic things would not fare too well, plants or animals dont do well in close to zero pressure and temperatures in the tripple digits below zero. As for the objects outside the airlock being propelled, well yes they would. If a large hole opens in the ship a big chunk of atmosphere would quickly rush out. It hits the objects inside, which sucks them out. Say a person right outside the door would be pushed back as the air hit him. The air would not however turn into ice cystals. Any water in the air would, but the air itself would not. It would escape from the ship, and very quickly disperese to a very very low density. If you need more detail or have more questions feel free to ask. Oh right i almost forgot. When air is escaping from the vessle, remember that the vessle would be pushed back. Probably not a lot since the vessle would be signifigantly more massive than all the air contained within it, but it would be enough for at least a minor course correction.

Do you have a link to that article?

lol

Well I think at this point he couldn't have been completely wrong. His theories have been endlessly tested, but have really held up, with important practical implications. Einstien will probably be "wrong" in the same way Newton was wrong. His theories were very accurate in every way measurable at the time, but there are exceptions where the theories were not accurate, which is why relativity was developed. Relativity will probably turn out to be not totally correct at some point in the future, but that doesn't make Einstien or Newton "wrong".

So did they get light to go faster than c in that experiment? The way I read it it seemed like the speed difference was because one wavelenght of the light was slowed by the material it was passing through and the other wavelenght was able to travel through it more quickly. Unless I read it totally wrong.

You arn't going to win this Flak. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chandrasekhar_limit

No, we have produces plenty of positrons and anti-protons, even combining them to form anit-hydrogen. A positron for example is just as stable as an electron as far as I know, I was under the impression that mass and such properties were identical.

See, I did not intend to insult you earlier, although it probably came off that way. You ARE uneducated on the subject of relativity, this is very evident by the things you are saying. I've been posting on this forum for about 2 months. In that time like 15 people have come up with problems with relativity, problems with lightspeed barier, c as a constant, time dilation etc etc etc. Einstien came up with this theory. It has been examined by the best physicsts in the world for coming close to a century. These arguments that are so often brought up are extremely obvious ones, and have been brought up countless times before. Yet the theory remains. For example you said "For me, pure energy cannot be affected by gravity, unless they are "attached" to mass." Where did you get this? This is just something you thought up because it seemed like it made sense. And I guess it sort of does. But physical theories are not always intuitive. This is explained in general relativity VERY well. This is just an opinion of yours that is not backed up by anything at all, which is why we say you are uneducated on the subject. To make critisims about relativity you must first understand it. I dont understand relativity, you dont, I'm not sure if anyone here can claim to.

I recently heard about a study done in one of the extremely remote tribal areas. I dont know where, but one of those areas that has had almost no contact with the outside world. In that language that they spoke, they had 3 words used in counting. They were "one" "two" and "many". They then tested members of the tribe with some basic math. They found that even with numbers as small as 4 and 5, they had a large amount of difficult dealing with them, while using only 1 and 2 they found very easy. They did not have the language to deal with them. Obviosuly the concept of "three" is not difficult, it can be easily visualized. But this shows that language does indeed play a very very large role in though processes and problem solving.

Thats about the gist of it yeah. Pluto and its moon are way bigger than any other kuiper belt objects, but then they are really far our, wierd orbit, very small etc. There are some other moderately sized kuiper belt objects, and the question is where does one draw the line between planet and.... not planet. I guess.

Depends on what your definition of "noticable" is. There have been far far FAR bigger impacts than the one in siberia. Saying that a worm hole would facilitate travel to Alpha Centauri is pure science fiction.

These are good questions, but you might want to make a seperate thread for them, so more people will answer them. Ill take a shot at the light thing. Yes, there are many many photons emitted, and they do reflect off surfaces. However, not all of them reflect. Many of them are also absorbed into the materiel. For example, a black fabric absorbs a lot of light, while white fabric does not absorb as much. A mirror reflects a very large amount. A room gets dark when you turn off the light because light moves at such a high speed, and large amounts of the light is absorbed compared to that reflected. There isn't enough light still bouncing around to be detected, if it exists at all. A good question though to someone who knows more on the subject, if you have a very very good mirror, would you be able to keep the light bouncing around for a resonable amount of time?

Umm... 10^6km? Something wrong there I think. Also, the kiuper belt stats beyond Neptunes orbit, Pluto is sometimes considered a kuiper belt object instead of a proper planet. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kuiper_belt

Yeah I guess I should have specified that. The galaxy could be ripe with earth sized planets, but at the moment we can generally only see very large planets that create a detectable wobble in the star they orbit.

misconception: Black holes have infinite mass.