Temporality check

[Chruser]

Anemos tachus.

[-Spector-]

Fast wind?

Speed of light?!

[-Spector-]

Wait..

FASTER THAN THE SPEED OF LIGHT?

[-Spector-]

Wind that's faster than the speed of light?

[D3V]

Anything faster than the speed of light = time travel lulzzz

[!King_Amazon!]

Anything faster than the speed of light = ded

[Asamin]

Anything faster then the speed of light= nothing

[-Spector-]

Anything faster then the speed of light= nothing


Hmm, does the law of conservation of mass apply to the speed of light or faster?

[!King_Amazon!]

I don't think it's even related.

[-Spector-]

I only brought it up because I initially understood Asamin's post as "Anything going faster than the speed of light turns into nothing" AKA is destroyed.

But that was just my mind wandering..

[!King_Amazon!]

Well that's what he said, but that doesn't mean what he said holds any truth.

[-Spector-]

Which was why I was asking about the law. ;)

[Chruser]

Hmm, does the law of conservation of mass apply to the speed of light or faster?


In Newtonian mechanics, it would be possible, but unfortunately, it does not provide a valid description for what happens to massive objects at speeds approaching c.

To define a feasible, closed system in general relativity for massive objects travelling at c wouldn't work as the kinetic energy required would be infinite. Conservation of mass would still apply for objects with speeds exceeding c from some inertial frames (e.g. objects travelling through wormholes, although technically, ripples in spacetime can't normally occur in general relativity either), but you wouldn't be able to travel faster than c, locally.

I haven't read much about string theory, but I'm speculating that conservation of mass could be said to apply to tachyons, even though they have imaginary mass.

[Wed-G]

Chruser ♥ Ecstasy.

[!King_Amazon!]

Which was why I was asking about the law. ;)
I don't get it. Asking if a law applies to something that we haven't even experienced is odd. It's akin to asking if natural selection applies to aliens.

[Chruser]

I don't get it. Asking if a law applies to something that we haven't even experienced is odd. It's akin to asking if natural selection applies to aliens.


The distinguishability between scientific laws and theories is inherently arbitrary in places, e.g. in examples like "Scientific theories are generally more complex than laws". Why should Maxwell's equations (in the form of the Heaviside Four) be representative of a theory, when Newton's "Laws" of motion are no more simple?