Comments on: How to Travel Faster Than Light Without Really Trying

By: Turbo Cayman

Turbo Cayman — Sat, 08 Sep 2018 00:01:23 +0000

I love it… using stuff we don’t understand to explain things we can’t do. Perfect!

By: Lance

Lance — Sat, 01 Jul 2017 23:22:43 +0000

There may be areas in space, inner or outer than contain something other than a vacuum if so could a object travel in that space faster than light? All of space may not be a vacuum.

By: Nimke

Nimke — Fri, 02 Dec 2016 17:31:39 +0000

But there is energy that does travel FTL light is only a baseline measurement cause it never changes it doesn’t speed up or slow down but there are forms of energy that exceed it briefly but can’t sustain it in my opinion light is the only observable proof of a top speed for all we know there are other things that travel faster that we don’t know about such as tachyons or forms of dark energy

By: Nimke

Nimke — Fri, 02 Dec 2016 17:25:59 +0000

In my opinion no cause the light bouncing off the object or person could not reach your eyes cause u can’t add onto the speed of light

By: Steve Dice

Steve Dice — Sat, 29 Aug 2015 15:31:19 +0000

The energy required to accelerate something is proportional to its mass. According to Einstein, to accelerate something with even minimum mass (like an electron) to c you’d need infinite energy. Being photons the only thing with no mass, they’re also the only thing that gets to travel at c. Hope I helped.
Also, if I’m wrong somewhere, please correct me.

By: Frank Glover

Frank Glover — Mon, 24 Aug 2015 00:04:09 +0000

If you’re made of stuff with a non-zero rest mass, then ‘*at* the speed of light’ is an unattainable condition…

By: Alan Mindbender

Alan Mindbender — Fri, 21 Aug 2015 17:51:50 +0000

Spot on, the only explanation of quantum entanglement that I didn’t have to slow down and digest for so long, I begin to lose interest in the subject, haha.

By: Renae Stenger Kerrigan

Renae Stenger Kerrigan — Fri, 21 Aug 2015 16:13:44 +0000

You are always blowing my mind, Brian.

By: Neil Dickson

Neil Dickson — Fri, 21 Aug 2015 02:21:59 +0000

Relative to each other, they’re not moving at all, so they’d look to each other the same as if they’re not moving at all. Relativity only makes a difference in reference frames that are moving relative to each other.

The principle of relativity is that there is no one true reference frame, that the laws of physics should be the same in any reference frame, so as far as relativity’s concerned, it also doesn’t even make sense to say “2 people are travelling at [some] speed” devoid of context. What are they moving at that speed relative to? Some city? Some planet? Some star? Some galaxy? Some arbitrary other frame of reference that isn’t associated with a large mass?

To give an example, you are currently moving at the speed of light relative to the reference frame of the light entering your eyes right now, but so is everything around you, so there isn’t any issue observing those items around you.

By: Gary Rudd

Gary Rudd — Thu, 20 Aug 2015 22:52:28 +0000

Rookie alert! I was always baffled at why light was responsible for setting the ultimate speed in the universe until I realized that perhaps the ultimate speed itself is set by laws of nature and light just happens to be the only “thing” capable of maxing out the law. Is that a correct way to understand the ultimate speed limit? It’s not really a function of light itself rather light is simply the only measurable thing that hits up against the limit?

By: j0h

j0h — Thu, 20 Aug 2015 20:16:27 +0000

The article states :”What it really forbids is the transfer of information or objects through space at a speed greater than that of light in a vacuum.”

So. Do you think that the situation you discribe is possible ?

By: Eugene

Eugene — Thu, 20 Aug 2015 14:01:45 +0000

Hmmm, say 2 people are travelling at the speed of light, one standing 10 m. ahead of the other. Would the one in front be able to see the other?