That someone travelled a very short distance (maybe thirty feet) at an extremely high speed (around .99C)...
Would they appear to travel slower than they're actually travelling, thus arriving after a person travelling at a slower speed would arrive?

-Relativity, Logic: Mutual Exlcusives 4eva!

Uhm, no. Why?

You just wouldn't see them move.

Well, they'd probably catch fire, or something.

They would, however, appear to compress (Though it wouldn't be noticable over such a short distance)

That someone should screw walking and GODDAMN INVENT THAT TELEPORT ALREADY

No, seriously. A person who travels at .9 the speed of light from one planet to another will arrive there believing the trip took very little time. To everyone else, YEARS HAVE PASSED.

-Oh, relativity. You whore.

And? What would make them appear to traveling slower?

Well if they gett there after the oter person, who was travelling at, say 5 miles per hour, it would certainly be noteworthy.

But they don't.

Explain.

I always enjoyed the relativity of a black hole - as an object approaches the event horizon, the object (assuming it could stand the compression) would think it was moving faster and faster.

However, to an outside observer, the object would appear to slow down until it almost came to a halt near the event horizon.

.99C is a rather cold speed

In such a short distance, the time it would take to travel would seem instantaneous to the person travelling and to any person watching. Einstein's theory says that the person going at .99C would age slower during that instant of motion (which is where I think you're getting the slower motion idea), but since the distance is so small there shouldn't be any noticable difference to either person.

I'm probably completly wrong, I havn't looked at physics studies for 6 months or so.
*braces for flames, bashing, and bit of cheese projectiles*

Hypothetically, lets say I understood that question.

Would I care?

Depends on where you're stood. If you're in the way you might care.

As it happens, you'd more likely than not be in a different frame of reference, perhaps having a bite to eat or maybe even a cheeky pint. Then you wouldn't care.

Better Question.
2 projectiles moving at .99E-99C hit an object that is stationary. Would the debry move then faster then light? I ask because an objject goind about 3000KMH hit a stationary peice of glass and the debry went MUCH! faster.

I know if I didn't understand the question, you don't understand any of the elements involved well enough to ask a question related to it.


Why don't you go get a "how to count on your fingers" book for pre-schoolers or something?

What i love is how hes on Ignore.

But he's still right. You have no idea what you're talking about.

Yes i do believe that i do.
At a NASA test facilty a ball bearing was shot at 7000 FT per second into a replica of glass from a shuttle. The glass debry went well over 8000 FPS. So what if a near light object does the same thing? Will it go past light speed? If so what happens? Wil it dissapear altogether as the molecules are moving to fast for the bonds to contain them?

I traveled at the speed of light AND divided by zero at the same time and all I got was this lousy haircut.

D:

Weight and friction. If the object was light weight and shaped in a way that it received little air friction, then yes it will move much faster (again IF it is hit correctly, and sent in the correct direction, yaw and pitch).

Probably 100% wrong, but I'm still in 9th grade.

Simple example. Get two sheets of paper. With one make a paper airplane, with the other make a paper ball. Launch them using the same amount of strength. Which goes farther and faster?

Let's leave Tiberium_Empire and SF_GoldG_01 to figure out physics together.

I want to see.

Agreed with the above poster.

*grabs the popcorn*

No.


Uh, sure, if you wanna believe that.

This is wierd, ive just come from this thread...
http://boards.rivals.net/default.asp?sid=939&p=16&style=2&forumId=3196&action=1&replytoid=531284925

omg time paradox?

Some math to explain. Essentially no. The relativistic length contraction will make it seem from the person's POV that the 30 ft trip became a ~7 foot trip. Similarily, from our reference frame, the bloke would stretch out. But since it's such a short distance, it would appear as if he instantaneously jumped points. Or rather, he stretched himself out 30 ft.

Amount of energy required to get a 60 kg man to 0.99c: E=γmc[sup]2[/sup]

E = (7.08)(60)(89,875,517,873,681,764) = 38,179,119,992,740,013,347.2 J or about 2.38x10[sup]32[/sup] MeV

Relativity is fun!

Reminds me of Modern Physics. I'd rather forget about the whole affair.

This all comes down to what kind of answer/discussion you want.

A Positive Discussion would yeld text book answers.

A Nomitive Discussion would yeld an expanded view which may or may not be accurate.



According to Relativity? No. Then again, Relativity was designed from the perspective of the observer (which can not observe anything faster then the speed of light). This is where the Science Community has started to debate wheather reality is limited to observation or something greater. Since Relativity, the growing trend is that reality is limited to observation. I disagree.



It depends on where the object is being accelerated from. Given that, most objects are 'Pushed' during the acceleration process, this means that the molecules in the object compress (because the molecules in the rear of the object begin moving a fraction of time before the molecules in the front. The time-interval would depend largely on the temperature, density, and elasticity of the object). If, however, this object was tied to another object such that the object it was tied to was being 'pulled' through the acceleration process, then yes, the object being pulled would most likely have it's molecules spread apart long before it even reached light-speed (though the molecules themselves would stay intact).

Evidence of this can be tested and proven at much lower speeds using objects that have a low density and elasticity (with low tension (bonds) between molecules). Semi-liquids work best at lower speeds.