Quote:
|
As I understand your post, the reason why we can't travel at the speed of light, is because we could not (cannot) measure the distance we are traveling. Hence the closer we get to that point, the farther we are from it (since the faster it gets, the slower time gets for it)
|
I think you misunderstood what I was saying. We can measure distances, it's just that distances actually get shorter as we get faster. A consquence of this is that, for example, if you constantly accelerate at 10m/s for 1 year and then constantly decelerate at 10m/s for 1 year, you can go anywhere in the universe. However, don't try to go home, because if you do, millions or even billions of years would have passed on Earth, even though you only experienced 4 years. To Earth you were travelling slower than the speed of light, since to them you took millions of years to get to your destination. To you, you were travelling slower than the speed of light since the distance travelled seemed very short, even though to Earth it was a great distance.
Quote:
|
so if "Moving at a constant velocity is the SAME as being at 'rest.' ", does that mean that light is at rest?...I mean it has a constant velocity...
|
This is an interesting thought problem. What does the universe look like to a light beam? Relativity says that at the speed of light, all distances are 0, and time is frozen. How do you define speed if all distances are 0? It's, however, slightly irrelevent since light has no mass, and we can never match its speed, so we will always see it going at a constant velocity. You can't really use light as a frame of reference.
Quote:
|
Light can break its own speed limit, researchers say.
|
I skimmed the article, and I think it's a bit misleading (those CNN reporters do love mangle science). I believe what is happening is they are shining light at a vapor, and then there is some kind of quantum mechanics phenomina is happening that causes the vapor to create light at the other end, but it takes less time than it would take light to travel that distance. Other things, such as quantum entanglement, have already shown that information can be *instantly* transmitted between two non-touching particals, though, so I don't see this as any kind of major breakthrough.