Governing The Laws of Relativity?

[bigsplit]

You say this, but then go on to provide quotes and descriptions of an experiment that confirmed this very thing, to about 10% IIRC. There are also measurements from binary pulsar systems that arrive at the same conclusion with higher precision. So "never been proven" is a gross overstatement, unless you are just playing at semantics with the inductive nature of science.

 

 

I think the reason it is said that light travels at c can be visualized by the ball on a rubber sheet visual of gravity. If the sun for instance were to be moved instantly, it would take the same amount of time for the "flattening" of space-time (rubber sheet) to reach us as it would for the light to stop shinning since c is the speed limit even for the bending of spacetime. This is how I make sense of it anyway.

[cpwmatthews]

some argue that darkness is the abscence of light, but if that is so; is light the abscence of dark?

 

Is it not the case that Light requires Energy in order to travel but Darkness needs nothing?

[cpwmatthews]

But gravitity must have decelration as well' date=' as to when an object hits the ground so as the object slows; gravitys properties must change so that it isn't a constant any more is that correct?...us.2u[/quote']

 

As far as I understand the falling object would reach a maximum speed depending on the gravitational force and the matter it was travelling through. I don't believe it slows down on impact rather recoils and stops. Yes I could see it (the object) slow down as it's motion collapses to a halt?

[us.2u]

http://www-gap.dcs.st-and.ac.uk/~history/HistTopics/General_relativity.html

 

This is a good insight...us.2u

[BigMoosie]

The speed of dark is in fact faster than the speed of light, I know this because my kitchen light takes longer to turn on than off.

[us.2u]

I read approx 5-6 months ago that a black hole had rejected a star & threw it so violently, it travelled faster than the speed of light? Can this be possible? If so was the force which was used 'Gravity' & if so how could that speed be measured? or is it possible that this was just a report by some crank bordering on the realms of Sci-fi to make interesting reading? I do not know, meanwhile I will try & dig up the article.

 

I seem to recall this was in a space daily report, also in space.com news however, I will do my best to restore this story if anyone is interested.....us.2u

[us.2u]

[Twothreeten]

But gravitity must have decelration as well, as to when an object hits the ground so as the object slows; gravitys properties must change so that it isn't a constant any more is that correct?

 

I don't think that's correct because a falling object will continue to accelerate under gravity until it reaches its maximum velocity or it collides with something - like the Earth's surface - between it and the centre of gravity. It doesn't decelerate when it hits the ground; the reaction force of the ground stops it falling any further. The reaction on the object opposes gravity which stays constant throughout the fall and when it's on the ground (unless it's fallen a very long way).

[Xyph]

I read approx 5-6 months ago that a black hole had rejected a star & threw it so violently, it travelled faster than the speed of light? Can this be possible? If so was the force which was used 'Gravity' & if so how could that speed be measured? or is it possible that this was just a report by some crank bordering on the realms of Sci-fi to make interesting reading? I do not know, meanwhile I will try & dig up the article.

Not possible. It would take infinite energy.

 

Plus I don't think we can yet observe the sort of black holes massive enough to whirl whole stars around them at speeds approaching c. At least, not with enough detail to watch something like this happening (assuming it was actually happening at slightly less than c).

[swansont]

I read approx 5-6 months ago that a black hole had rejected a star & threw it so violently' date=' it travelled faster than the speed of light? Can this be possible? If so was the force which was used 'Gravity' & if so how could that speed be measured? or is it possible that this was just a report by some crank bordering on the realms of Sci-fi to make interesting reading? I do not know, meanwhile I will try & dig up the article.

 

I seem to recall this was in a space daily report, also in space.com news however, I will do my best to restore this story if anyone is interested.....us.2u[/quote']

 

 

I think it's more likely you misinterpreted the story. Yes, by all means post a link.

[us.2u]

http://www.yotor.com/wiki/en/bl/Black%20hole.htm

 

 

 

more links on this subject to follow...us.2u

[Xyph]

Where in that link does it say anything about travelling faster than light?

[us.2u]

A black hole is a concentration of mass with a gravitational field so strong that the escape velocity from nearby points exceeds the speed of light. This implies that nothing, not even light, can escape its gravity, hence the word "black." The term "black hole" is widespread, even though the theory does not refer to any hole in the usual sense, but rather a region of space from which nothing can return.

 

From the above link....PLEASE READ THE FIRST SENTANCE....us.2u

[swansont]

A black hole is a concentration of mass with a gravitational field so strong that the escape velocity from nearby points exceeds the speed of light. This implies that nothing' date=' not even light, can escape its gravity, hence the word "black." The term "black hole" is widespread, even though the theory does not refer to any hole in the usual sense, but rather a region of space from which nothing can return.

 

From the above link....PLEASE READ THE FIRST SENTANCE....us.2u[/quote']

 

First sentence: This article is about the astronomical body

 

Oh, I suppose you meant this: A black hole is a concentration of mass with a gravitational field so strong that the escape velocity from nearby points exceeds the speed of light.

 

It says the escape velocity exceeds c, not the velocity of any physical object. IOW, in order to escape you would have to travel faster than c, which you can't, so you can't escape.

[us.2u]

My title was 'Exceeding the speed of light?'... with a ? Not once have I said we are, we can, but more so to the effect can we? Which IMHO none of us are sure of yet....maybe light speed can be broken, maybe it cannot, I really do not know; however according to archives reports which I'm researching it has already been done...this is not my reckoning, but space dailys & other IT tabloids which hopefully I will be able to recover & forward their posts...us.2u

[us.2u]

An interesting link more to follow in the near future

 

http://elektro.cmhnet.org/~robert/science.html

[swansont]

My title was 'Exceeding the speed of light?'... with a ? Not once have I said we are, we can, but more so to the effect can we? Which IMHO none of us are sure of yet....maybe light speed can be broken, maybe it cannot, I really do not know; however according to archives reports which I'm researching it has already been done...this is not my reckoning, but space dailys & other IT tabloids which hopefully I will be able to recover & forward their posts...us.2u

 

Then post it already. What was the point of the other link, if not in support of your query? The answer is no, superluminal speeds of massive objects in a local geometry is not something we can achieve, according to relativity. So what you read was either misinterpreted or a crackpot claim. If you got it, post it, but please refrain from the misdirection. With >250 posts you should know that you will be asked to back up unsubstantiated claims.