My theory on beating the speed of light

xoxyx

I apologise in advance because I'm sure this will have physically minded people (or right minded people in general) clutching their heads at my stupidity, but I just want to understand why this doesn't make sense.
I'll try to keep this brief.
So - for example, I have my very own Concorde and it's flying through the air at its maximum speed of 1,600 odd miles per hour. It's the fastest thing in the sky right?
Well no, because, trailing along behind my Concorde, attached to it with some really strong rope, is Chuck Norris. He's travelling at the same speed of the Concorde by virtue of being tied to it, but he's also pulling himself forward on the rope, hand over hand, inch by inch. So, as far as I can tell, he's going at the speed of my Concorde, plus the speed that he's pulling himself forward at. So he's the fastest thing in the sky!?!
Not so. Because, tied to Chuck Norris, is, Super-Batman. He's like regular Batman, only better. And he's also pulling himself forward on his rope - this guy is strong! Is he not going as fast as my Concorde, plus Chuck's extra speed, plus Batman's own extra speed, thus making him faster than both of them? Looks like my Concorde is going to have to settle for the bronze!
So, my wondering is, if I could, set up such a situation with some sort of mechanical group of Chuck Norrises and Super-Batmen, each tied behind another and all of them pulling themselves forward (and there's no issue with running out of rope), then surely there is no limit to how fast I could get one of my little mech-heroes to go.
I'm sure my logic is deeply flawed, and I can live with that. I just want to know why!
Any suggestions/comments/patent requests very welcome!

browner85

Wtf??? you need to get out more pal!! ha

xoxyx

It keeps me awake at nights.
That and insomnia.

jhegarty

I'm going to say no , that wouldn't work.

docmol

Read this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Length_contraction

xoxyx

jhegarty wrote: »

I'm going to say no , that wouldn't work.

I could say that. It's the why that gets me.

Morbert

Velocities don't add linearly at high speeds.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Relativistic_addition_of_velocities_formula

So even when you add up all the Chuck Norrises' and Batmans' velocities, you'll get a velocity below the speed of light.

To convince yourself, consider any two sub-lightspeed velocities, v and u, and add them together to get a new velocity s using the formula



(c is the speed of light in a vacuum). No matter how close to the speed of light u and v are, they will never add to more than the speed of light.

xoxyx

Morbert wrote: »

No matter how close to the speed of light u and v are, they will never add to more than the speed of light.

That seems grossly unfair.

docmol

relativity is a harsh mistress!

del88

Chuck norris doesnt go at the speed of light, he goes at the speed of Norris......everyone knows NOTHING is faster then chuck norris.....but what would happen if chuck norris did a round house kick while going faster then what ever chuck norris wanted to go faster then???how fast would the round house go????would the universe be destroyed??

So many questions...

ChocolateSauce

docmol wrote: »

relativity is a harsh mistress!

It really makes me take a heed of the direction my life is going in.

xoxyx

ChocolateSauce wrote: »

It really makes me take a heed of the direction my life is going in.

Don't mind the direction - what's your speed?

xoxyx

docmol wrote: »

relativity is a harsh mistress!

And she knows how to throw a mean curve ball.

c-note

the faster you're going the heavier you get (your MASS increases, making it infinately more difficult to pull yourself along the rope at near light speeds)

but as you said superduper man is probably infinately strong, so this isnt a problem,

but what he'll end up doing is pulling your concord bacwards instead of pulling himself forward.

bummer

Carawaystick

z_topaz wrote: »

Don't mind the direction - what's your speed?

don't mind the speed, what's your velocity?

Mahatma coat

cnote2 wrote: »

the faster you're going the heavier you get (your MASS increases, making it infinately more difficult to pull yourself along the rope at near light speeds)

but as you said superduper man is probably infinately strong, so this isnt a problem,

but what he'll end up doing is pulling your concord bacwards instead of pulling himself forward.

bummer

that makes a lot of sense

Gannicus

Correct me if I'm wrong but:
to reach and/or maintain the speed of light you need an infinite amount of energy. so what about nuclear powered space shuttles. they exert massive amounts of energy. plus in the cold of space you would not need a cooling system to control it. just one sizeable enough to get out into the the vacuum of space. thus exerting faster speeds and shortening travel time between points

Capt'n Midnight

z_topaz wrote: »

So - for example, I have my very own Concorde and it's flying through the air at its maximum speed of 1,600 odd miles per hour. It's the fastest thing in the sky right?

http://www.flickr.com/photos/27417638@N07/3980861146/sizes/l/


Chuck would appear to move just as fast as normal but from the point of view of an outsider your time slows down so they would see him moving.



Also if you travel very fast then you will bump into interstellar atoms. The relative speed difference between them and you will mean that it's like sunbathing at the business end of the LHC

argosy2006

Thats like saying someone on the concorde walking from back of concorde to cockpit is traveling faster than the concorde,

AlmightyCushion

Big Steve wrote: »

Correct me if I'm wrong but:
to reach and/or maintain the speed of light you need an infinite amount of energy. so what about nuclear powered space shuttles. they exert massive amounts of energy. plus in the cold of space you would not need a cooling system to control it. just one sizeable enough to get out into the the vacuum of space. thus exerting faster speeds and shortening travel time between points

The closer you get to the speed of light, the amount of energy required to increase your speed, even slightly, increases exponentially. So, if you're at 99%c to get to 99.0000000000000000000000000000000000001%c will require a ridiculously massive increase in energy. Combine with this, the fact you'll need a ridiculously massive increase in fuel to get that energy which makes you heavier and thus makes it harder to increase your speed.

I could be wrong here but with regards to cooling, it's actually harder to do in space. On earth it isn't the cool air making the warm/hot object colder, it's the hot object making the cool air above it warmer and thus losing some of it's own heat. In space there is nothing there for the hot object to dissipate it's heat to.

Given the energy requirement I doubt nuclear fission can provide enough energy to get us any where even close to light speed. Nuclear fussion would probably do it but unless someone gets cold fusion working we're having to dissipate massive amounts of heat. I remember reading before that we could also harness the hawking radiation from a black hole to give us huge amounts of energy. That requires us to make our own mini black holes but seeing as the LHC is going to be going full whack some time soon we'll be doing that in no time.

xoxyx

argosy2006 wrote: »

Thats like saying someone on the concorde walking from back of concorde to cockpit is traveling faster than the concorde,

Exactly.

Hagar

argosy2006 wrote: »

Thats like saying someone on the concorde walking from back of concorde to cockpit is traveling faster than the concorde,

He is, that's why it's so hard to walk on a plane.

Sound Computers

I assume it has to do with the vectors being additive in relation to each other given a similar reference point.

EX. the concorde is going 1600mph-->. the man walking forward is going 2 mph (according to the concorde)

if the passenger was referencing a reflective point on the ground as his plane approached he would be traveling 1600-->+2-->=1602 mph.

these additive vectors become more and more important as you approach c, but as stated, its really a great theory that cannot be proved in practice, due to energy constraints.

on a sidenote if a concorde is traveling at 1600mph, and the pilot shines a flashlight out the front windshield, how fast is the beam of light traveling in reference to a reflection point on the earth?

Podge_irl

Sound Computers wrote: »

if the passenger was referencing a reflective point on the ground as his plane approached he would be traveling 1600-->+2-->=1602 mph.

At those speeds yes (roughly). If, however, the concorde is going at 0.8c and the person is moving at 0.1c, then the person's overall velocity will most certainly not be 0.9c. Velocities do not add linearly.

on a sidenote if a concorde is traveling at 1600mph, and the pilot shines a flashlight out the front windshield, how fast is the beam of light traveling in reference to a reflection point on the earth?

Light travels at the speed of light in every reference frame.