Traveling faster than C(yes i screwed the name up so i made a new one) (2 Viewers)

[Samuel Shergold]

Hey
Well I asked my teacher this Question and i got a confused look, so read carefully.

We all know that the speed of light is constant to the frame of reference, According to relativity.
Therefore If i took 2 partical accelerators and placed one inside the other, and accelerated the inner accelerator to just Below C and then Accelerated a partical to just below C then therefore wouldn't it be going faster than C, in reference to the first frame of reference(outside both accelerators?

 

[the-derivative]

Hey
Well I asked my teacher this Question and i got a confused look, so read carefully.

We all know that the speed of light is constant to the frame of reference, According to relativity.
Therefore If i took 2 partical accelerators and placed one inside the other, and accelerated the inner accelerator to just Below C and then Accelerated a partical to just below C then therefore wouldn't it be going faster than C, in reference to the first frame of reference(outside both accelerators?

From what I know, no.

Einstein stated that NOTHING can go beyond the speed of light. According to mass dilation, the object would continue to increase in mass as it accelerated, therefore always stopping it from reaching and exceeding the speed of light.

Take c as the infinite value. An object can approach c, however will never actually reach the speed of light.

 

[youngminii]

Hey
Well I asked my teacher this Question and i got a confused look, so read carefully.

We all know that the speed of light is constant to the frame of reference, According to relativity.
Therefore If i took 2 partical accelerators and placed one inside the other, and accelerated the inner accelerator to just Below C and then Accelerated a partical to just below C then therefore wouldn't it be going faster than C, in reference to the first frame of reference(outside both accelerators?

Well for one thing, they're not in an inertial frame of reference (they're spinning around) so that MIGHT screw it up (l2general relativity)
But anyway, particles are not light rays.
The end.

 

[tommykins]

read something along the lines of 'to be quicker than c you have to be initially faster than c' on an article once

 

[Aerath]

Shergold, I say this in the nicest possible way - do you spend your spare time thinking up of these relativity questions? =P If not, where did you get them from? =P

 

[Samuel Shergold]

Well Acorting to the different frames of reference you are not going faster than the speed of light so therefore the first frame would be going twice as slow as the second, if the observer was in the third frame of reference.

Aerath. No not really, although i do enjoy the mind equations.

 

[Pwnage101]

aha, OP you'd be wrong to think that

i'll give u a simpler example, if i travel in a car going north at 10km/hr and someone goes south at 10km/hr, to me, the other guy is travelling at 20km/hr, right?

now imagine 2 spaceships, each travelling in opposite directions, each at 0.8c - using normal adding ot velocities, you would think one spaceship is going at 1.6c relative to the other one - but you'd be wrong to do so, because adding velocities at near relativistic speeds is not straight addition

the jacaranda book has a simple formula of how to add velocities when travelling at relativistic speed s - its not just a simple addition because, as you see in my example, that would defiy einstein's theory

here is a more complicated explanation, ill try and type up the simple form from jacaranda this arvo: Velocity-addition formula - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[Samuel Shergold]

your talking about velocity and speed, but I'm talking about relativity. there two different things. because its not about addition its about the frames of reference.
For instance if we accelerated two chambers next to each other with a crew inside both. Chamber A was accelerated to .5C and the other(Chamber B) to .9C. According to relativity in our frame of reference (C), A is traveling at .5C and B at .9C.
But if we change the point of reference to Chamber B, Chamber A is traveling at .4C relative to them.
Can you see where I'm coming from. Its about the Frame of reference rather than the Velocity. Because light is constant in all frames of reference C=3x10^8

 

[Pwnage101]

your talking about velocity and speed, but I'm talking about relativity. there two different things. because its not about addition its about the frames of reference.
For instance if we accelerated two chambers next to each other with a crew inside both. Chamber A was accelerated to .5C and the other(Chamber B) to .9C. According to relativity in our frame of reference (C), A is traveling at .5C and B at .9C.
But if we change the point of reference to Chamber B, Chamber A is traveling at .4C relative to them.
Can you see where I'm coming from. Its about the Frame of reference rather than the Velocity. Because light is constant in all frames of reference C=3x10^8

okay then, i'm not quite sure what your asking.....

the Original Post says "Therefore If i took 2 partical accelerators and placed one inside the other, and accelerated the inner accelerator to just Below C and then Accelerated a partical to just below C then therefore wouldn't it be going faster than C, in reference to the first frame of reference(outside both accelerators? ", and i think i answered that..

but before you go on, think whether or not you are going to prove wrong what the worlds leading physicists have accpeted for 100 years...

 

[Dumbledore]

there is a formula for adding velocities

with 2 objects travelling at velocities v and w:

s = [v+w]/[1+(vw)/c^2] where like the relativity laws, the denominator is insignifcant at low velocites.

as v and w approach c the denominator will approach 2 and the numerator v+w will decrease

yay my first post!

 

[Samuel Shergold]

I think one of the things i should have mentioned was that from the point of reference C the the object inside both accelerators I believe may appear in different way's(because this is only a theory that is untested and i haven't sat down and thought about it)
I'll do that sometime and get an answer for you. because its based on RELATIVITY and THE SPEED OF LIGHT

 

[random-1005]

Hey
Well I asked my teacher this Question and i got a confused look, so read carefully.

We all know that the speed of light is constant to the frame of reference, According to relativity.
Therefore If i took 2 partical accelerators and placed one inside the other, and accelerated the inner accelerator to just Below C and then Accelerated a partical to just below C then therefore wouldn't it be going faster than C, in reference to the first frame of reference(outside both accelerators?

your thinking far to complex and wasting ur time

 

[Aerath]

your thinking far to complex and wasting ur time

I do agree, but nothing wrong with an inquisitive mind. =P

 

[Affinity]

your talking about velocity and speed, but I'm talking about relativity. there two different things. because its not about addition its about the frames of reference.
For instance if we accelerated two chambers next to each other with a crew inside both. Chamber A was accelerated to .5C and the other(Chamber B) to .9C. According to relativity in our frame of reference (C), A is traveling at .5C and B at .9C.
But if we change the point of reference to Chamber B, Chamber A is traveling at .4C relative to them. Not according to the theory
Can you see where I'm coming from. Its about the Frame of reference rather than the Velocity. Because light is constant in all frames of reference C=3x10^8

The above calculation is the precisely type of intuitiion/common sense that is not valid under the theory of relativity.

You should read the recommended information carefully. for this particular example, if you are in chamber B, then chamber A would be travelling at approiximately 0.72c.

 

[Samuel Shergold]

I'm pretty sure you'll find that chamber a is traveling at .4C relative to chamber B.
for instance say we made a car going at .01C(A) and another car traveling at .015C(B).Both are not Accelerating!!
If we made A the point of reference(0) then B is traveling at .005C in reference to them.
This may make no sense but its about the point of reference.
AHAHAHAH!!!!
Its so hard to explain. Because its all about the thought. Just like the space elervater that there planning to build, soon... When they develop the carbon tube enough.

Quote:
Originally Posted by random-1005
your thinking far to complex and wasting ur time


Your full of it, they would of said that to many great scientist who developed what the solar system looked like"espectialy the ones who said that we aren't at the center.

 

[Affinity]

I'm pretty sure you'll find that chamber a is traveling at .4C relative to chamber B.
for instance say we made a car going at .01C(A) and another car traveling at .015C(B).Both are not Accelerating!!
If we made A the point of reference(0) then B is traveling at .005C in reference to them.

Wrong again. You are thinking in terms of absolute reference frames. Though this time the error is about 1/10000

 

[Samuel Shergold]

so whats so wrong about it?

 

[Affinity]

so whats so wrong about it?

You are using intuition from the classical theory which does not apply here.. The whole point of the theory is precisely saying that velocities do not add together like that.

Let's analyse your argument for your original example:

A is moving at 0.5c away from you (U)
B is moving at 0.9c away from U in the same direction, again as seen by you.

then.. seen by you... B is indeed moving away from A at 0.4c.. but the catch is A doesn't see the same thing (And this is exactly where relativistic mechanics differ from classical mechanics).. A sees B travelling at 0.72c, B also sees A moving at 0.72c

 

[Pwnage101]

You are using intuition from the classical theory which does not apply here.. The whole point of the theory is precisely saying that velocities do not add together like that.

Let's analyse your argument for your original example:

A is moving at 0.5c away from you (U)
B is moving at 0.9c away from U in the same direction, again as seen by you.

then.. seen by you... B is indeed moving away from A at 0.4c.. but the catch is A doesn't see the same thing (And this is exactly where relativistic mechanics differ from classical mechanics).. A sees B travelling at 0.72c, B also sees A moving at 0.72c

exactly. you satisfied now OP?

 

[Timothy.Siu]

so whats so wrong about it?

learn to ready buddy, so many people have said that b4 (pwnage) and u just ignored him and said he was wrong,

before u prove the world wrong, make sure u listen to other people first and not just think you are right all the time so as to ignore other people