RobinHez:

#siqhs#
Thanks for the sermon

Attaining the speed of light itself is pratically impossible, so I shouldn't bother my brain!

yes yes.
Now you're getting it.

what did you study in school?

prettytasha:
The topic time travel is a very interesting topic that ignites the curiosity of everybody . time travel maybe possible , but am sorry you cannot travel back in time and see how the pyramids were built ,or witness the french revolution , but some scientists like albert einstein and rosen proposed theories that says its possible to travel into th future . These theories were special relativity and quantum mechanics.

NASA Created A Material That Can Heal Itself In Less Than A Second From Hurtling Space Debris
http://sweetnoisenaija.com/nasa-created-a-material-that-can-heal-itself-in-less-than-a-second-from-hurtling-space-debris/

MasterWayne:
what did you study in school?

physics

interesting. what Uni.?

prettytasha:
physics

MasterWayne:
interesting. what Uni.?

nigerian turkish nile university

anyway with time i think the speed of light barrier will be broken

Wait lemme ask Barry Allen

Well, even though I dnt see the benefits of traveling at such speed, it will come with a lot of challenges to make such attempt. There many issues at hand;
-propulsion system with enough energy to accelerate a body to such speed
- mass-energy interaction
- suitable material
- and i think it's only when a body is in form of light tht it can attain such speed. So, when an object travels at such speed it's more or less light.

Time zones pple have been traveling bk in time with out even knowing it

Hav u tot abt d amount of energy generated while traveling at d speed of light.....assuming v= 3*10^8m/s nd using d normal E=1/2 mv^2, nd lets assume mass of d individual to me 50kg.......dats huge

Teempakguy:
oh please. It's not the speed. It's the turning.
Military pilots often have to turn quickly and at sound speed, slight change of direction produces high acceleration.

Ever heard of the concord? It was a commercial airliner which travelled at [b]twice[b] the speed of sound. I don't recall them wearing any special suits.

I fail to understand why you argue with them about speeds when its really relative. You are right, travelling at the speed of light "in a vacuum" will not kill a human. All the forces these other people worry about will exert an approaching nil effect on the craft. The reason fighter pilots experience the "g" force is, wait for it!!!! GRAVITY!!!
current space travel is done at above mach speeds right now and once the gravitational field of planet earth is escaped, g-forces immediately recede.

prettytasha:
physics

I take it when you say time travel, you mean forward and backward travel?
Travelling at the speed of light will only theoretically work in a forward travel sense. It is also the most practical.

gunpoint:

I take it when you say time travel, you mean forward and backward travel?
Travelling at the speed of light will only theoretically work in a forward travel sense. It is also the most practical.

i actually stated it in my post that you cannot travel bk in time

gunpoint:

I fail to understand why you argue with them about speeds when its really relative. You are right, travelling at the speed of light "in a vacuum" will not kill a human. All the forces these other people worry about will exert an approaching nil effect on the craft. The reason fighter pilots experience the "g" force is, wait for it!!!! GRAVITY!!!
current space travel is done at above mach speeds right now and once the gravitational field of planet earth is escaped, g-forces immediately recede.

I have an ego problem. Once I start an argument, I can't stop myself till everyone either agrees with me or goes off.
I'm working on that.

Now, gravity. Yes, of course. The "g" force. Which in itself is a form of acceleration. Countering this produces a net force which compresses the pilot's body and stuff. But I suspect that moving perpendicularly to it, in the way that concord does, does not produce the same effect.

kkash:
Hav u tot abt d amount of energy generated while traveling at d speed of light.....assuming v= 3*10^8m/s nd using d normal E=1/2 mv^2, nd lets assume mass of d individual to me 50kg.......dats huge

I know. Right?
At the speed of light, an infinite amount of energy is required to accelerate any mass. If that doesn't totally suck, I don't know what does.

We have just three solutions.
1. Find a way to remove mass from matter.
2. Find a way to generate infinite energy.
3. Find a way to bend spacetime.


Of everything. The third is the most plausible,

Teempakguy:
I have an ego problem. Once I start an argument, I can't stop myself till everyone either agrees with me or goes off.

Smbh.

RobinHez:



Smbh.

I can't help it.

Teempakguy:
I can't help it.

U better figure out a way...
It can ruin u

Teempakguy:
I have an ego problem. Once I start an argument, I can't stop myself till everyone either agrees with me or goes off.
I'm working on that.

Now, gravity. Yes, of course. The "g" force. Which in itself is a form of acceleration. Countering this produces a net force which compresses the pilot's body and stuff. But I suspect that moving perpendicularly to it, in the way that concord does, does not produce the same effect.

Thanks for simplifying somethings so that others can understand, secondly I hate the word ego, I believe scientific argument are purely for educative purpose and not a thing of bragging.
But if you feel like your brain is all itchy and you are tired of simplifying things, let us go back to that dark matter thread and maybe open a thread on unified field theory, I have being cracking my brain for a long long time

RobinHez:

U better figure out a way...

It can ruin u

yeah . . . I know.
But then, I don't jump into arguments anyhow too. I have excellent restraint before. I only do argue when I feel I am indeed right, and after listening to what the other side has to say.

Which is why I always win.

Seriously . . . I don't think I've ever lost an argument. Persistence is key.

Blakjewelry:

Thanks for simplifying somethings so that others can understand, secondly I hate the word ego, I believe scientific argument are purely for educative purpose and not a thing of bragging.
But if you feel like your brain is all itchy and you are tired of simplifying things, let us go back to that dark matter thread and maybe open a thread on unified field theory, I have being cracking my brain for a long long time

okay.
I already have a thread on dark matter. So, I will leave the unified field theory to you to open.

Teempakguy:
yeah . . . I know.
But then, I don't jump into arguments anyhow too. I have excellent restraint before. I only do argue when I feel I am indeed right, and after listening to what the other side has to say.

Which is why I always win.

Seriously . . . I don't think I've ever lost an argument. Persistence is key.

U've never lost?

Maybe because the other party doesn't deem it fit to keep up with the arguement

You know how some people detest noise

RobinHez:


U've never lost?

Maybe because the other party doesn't deem it fit to keep up with the arguement

You know how some people detest noise

Hmn, I actually don't shout during arguments. I'm a naturally quiet person. You should have guessed that by now.

Also, I use an aggressive style. In debates or arguments, or such, I don't raise my own points at all. I instead counter the other person's points. Rendering such a person logically paralyzed. It's a check. He can't think of any other thing to say. He's exhausted his own points and can't counter mine because I never raised them. So, they then resort to insults and the likes, that's when I know I've won.
Some others just walkaway and make it a draw. I hate it when that happens.
And you are the number one person that does that on Nairaland.. I'm tired of you.

Mentally, I imagine breaking the person's bones one by one till he can no longer stand. So cool . . . and kind of addicting.

Teempakguy:
Hmn, I actually don't shout during arguments. I'm a naturally quiet person. You should have guessed that by now.

Also, I use an aggressive style. In debates or arguments, or such, I don't raise my own points at all. I instead counter the other person's points. Rendering such a person logically paralyzed. It's a check. He can't think of any other thing to say. He's exhausted his own points and can't counter mine because I never raised them. So, they then resort to insults and the likes, that's when I know I've won.
Some others just walkaway and make it a draw. I hate it when that happens.
And you are the number one person that does that on Nairaland.. I'm tired of you.

Mentally, I imagine breaking the person's bones one by one till he can no longer stand. So cool . . . and kind of addicting.

You should have known, I was referring to our last arguement about "light of speed can kill humans" here

I backed out, because I've always hated writting right from primary school. I had girlfriends who wrote my notes for me, and then I draw for them in turn...

I detest noise, and typing long epistles about a subject is enough noise to me

There's nothing you can do to me. You know what, I know when I'm wrong about something from the onset ( and sometimes midway through..) The decision I make after that realisation makes me who I am!

And even when I'm wrong, I shouldn't just give in like a kid... A simple "alright..ok" with the "" smiley is enough to drive u or anyother person crazy with fury!
I push to the edge of the cliff and let go!..yeah...that's me

So you may be more intelligent (bookwise ) buh..u can never be smarter!!

Muahahahaha!!!
*laugh fades out*

RobinHez:


You should have known, I was referring to our last arguement about "light of speed can kill humans" here

I backed out, because I've always hated writting right from primary school. I had girlfriends who wrote my notes for me, and then I draw for them in turn...

I detest noise, and typing long epistles about a subject is enough noise to me

There's nothing you can do to me. You know what, I know when I'm wrong about something from the onset ( and sometimes midway through..) The decision I make after that realisation makes me who I am!

And even when I'm wrong, I shouldn't just give in like a kid... A simple "alright..ok" with the "" smiley is enough to drive u or anyother person crazy with fury!
I push to the edge of the cliff and let go!..yeah...that's me

So you may be more intelligent (bookwise ) buh..u can never be smarter!!

Muahahahaha!!!
*laugh fades out*

my face when I read the bolded . . .

Teempakguy:
my face when I read the bolded . . .

See?



Ok...let's take it from the top again!
I believe you saw this post

kkash:
Hav u tot abt d amount of energy generated while traveling at d speed of light.....assuming v= 3*10^8m/s nd using d normal E=1/2 mv^2, nd lets assume mass of d individual to me 50kg.......dats huge

Yh..yh.. U replied. So what?

So what kinda energy is produced?! @bolded

RobinHez:


See?



Ok...let's take it from the top again!
I believe you saw this post

Yh..yh.. U replied. So what?

So what kinda energy is produced?! @bolded

the energy produced is used to increase the mass of the object.
The fast you go, the more energy is generated, and the more your mass increases. It's not heat energy. Just . . . mass.

Teempakguy:
the energy produced is used to increase the mass of the object.
The fast you go, the more energy is generated, and the more your mass increases. It's not heat energy. Just . . . mass.

I asked a simple question. Or didn't u do energy in SS1?


Mass energy?

RobinHez:

I asked a simple question. Or didn't u do energy in SS1?


Mass energy?

see this guy.
Ss1 physics is epic fail when applied to situations like this.

And yes, mass is indeed a form of energy.

Teempakguy:
see this guy. Ss1 physics is epic fail when applied to situations like this.
And yes, mass is indeed a form of energy.

Smh.. Mass is the measure of its energy... Its never a form of energy!

RobinHez:


Smh.. Mass is the measure of its energy... Its never a form of energy!

er . . . okay, well . . . I guess that's . . . kind of right . . .

But consider,

The energy conservation principle dictates that energy cannot be created or other wise destroyed. But may be converted from one form to another.

This follows that if energy in some form is observed spontaneously in a location, some other form of energy MUST have existed.
In nuclear bombs, a blast of heat energy is suddenly created. We know it wasn't created. So, where did it come from? Another from of energy. Which happens to be two radioactive pieces joined together. We also know that after the explosion, some mass is seen to have disappeared.

It then follows that mass was indeed converted into heat energy. And that hence, mass is a form of energy. How much do you weigh? Divide that by 10 to get your mass and multiply it by c². That's how many joules you're worth.

You might wonder why then mass doesn't seem so "energy like"

Welcome to quantum chromodynamics.