7Ghz barrier and Fibre Optics.

[Yeti]

Quick question...How off topic is this thread? LOL

True, but it wasn't a very serious thread topic to begin with

And to input my own remarks, i think all the stuff about travelling slower than time by moving faster than light is just theories, because there's no way to prove it because as of now, scientists can't make anything except light itself go that fast. LOL

It has be "proven." Cesium clocks (now the standard in keeping time,9,192,631,770 beats= 1 second) have be put in different places, going different relative speeds and they show very small, but consistant differences in agreement with the theory of relativity.

Oh, and for the coolant/water mixture, you CAN do that, but it should be noted that a mixture of mostly 90% water and 10% coolant is the most effective for most desktops:

Yes, its water cooling. But like I said, you can't get colder than room temp with passive cooling (well, there's evaporative if you want to call that passive, but thats beside the point)

 

[Praetor]

If you underclocked your GeForce 6800GT to 2MHz would that make my onboard video faster? Not technically.

Lol technically if the onboard was clocked faster than 2MHz than yes

 

[fultz]

Lol technically if the onboard was clocked faster than 2MHz than yes

You missed the point (or just felt like making a joke out of it) that slowing something down doesn't make something at optimum speed faster. If we were running a race and I broke your legs and you had to run it on your hands would that make me faster? No.

 

[Cromewell]

reaching the speed of light by slowing light's speed down doesn't count

sure it does, slowing light down has the same effect as traveling faster than it. In fact slowing light down and using an Einstien wormhole near a dense neutron star to slow light down (not a pulsar as I originally posted, couldn't remember what kind of star it was) is a perfectly plausable time travel mechanism.

 

[fultz]

sure it does, slowing light down has the same effect as traveling faster than it. In fact slowing light down and using an Einstien wormhole near a dense neutron star to slow light down (not a pulsar as I originally posted, couldn't remember what kind of star it was) is a perfectly plausable time travel mechanism.

No it doesn't. If you slow light down to 8MPS and you travel 9MPS you would be faster than light relative to the light that you slowed down but not faster than light relative to it's default speed. My post was directed to the guy who said an IBM Technition said the reason we haven't reached beyond 7GHz is because our lines can't travel faster than the speed of light, judging from that comment im assuming the speed of light he was talking about is the default speed of light at 186,000MPS, if we needed to reach the speed of light in order to get our processors faster than 7GHz (which we don't) then we would be screwed because in order to invent something that can travel at the speed of light (without splitting the job between multiple sources) you would have to break einstein's theory of relativity which has never been done and is not even questionable between the best scientists in the world.

 

[Cromewell]

If you slow light down to 8MPS and you travel 9MPS you would be faster than light relative to the light that you slowed down but not faster than light relative to it's default speed.

when all the light around you is slowed down (such as that near a dense neutron star) time outside travels faster than the time inside there by creating time travel (in a sense, you need the wormhole to make it viable). You don't need to travel faster than light to travel faster than light.

 

[fultz]

when all the light around you is slowed down (such as that near a dense neutron star) time outside travels faster than the time inside there by creating time travel (in a sense, you need the wormhole to make it viable). You don't need to travel faster than light to travel faster than light.

I can see it now Wormhole Inside . SWEET.

 

[Praetor]

If we were running a race and I broke your legs and you had to run it on your hands would that make me faster?

Uh yes it would. Whether its fair or optimal is inconsequential ... consider for instance the ASUS V9999GE and the XFX 6800GT. They both have the same clock speed yet one of them is crippled. Would you suggest that the crippled card is faster? Hardly.

If you slow light down to 8MPS and you travel 9MPS you would be faster than light relative to the light that you slowed down but not faster than light relative to it's default speed

Default??? WTH is this "default" stuff? Light is light. Just because we like to measure it in a vaccuum to 299792239.something m/s (yes, science => SI units) doesnt mean that thats "the" speed of light always. Take for instance, a 6800GT clocked at 350MHz .... if I decide to run that at 300MHz, it doesnt change the fact that its still a 6800GT.

My post was directed to the guy who said an IBM Technition said the reason we haven't reached beyond 7GHz is because our lines can't travel faster than the speed of light, judging from that comment im assuming the speed of light he was talking about is the default speed of light at 186,000MPS, if we needed to reach the speed of light in order to get our processors faster than 7GHz (which we don't)

If you've not noticed this is mostly a general chat-ish type of thread and if there is the desire to go into the deep end of theoretical physics then so be it.

you would have to break einstein's theory of relativity which has never been done and is not even questionable between the best scientists in the world.

Perhaps but that doesnt mean its absolutely true.


I figure this thread has a bit more life to it before it comes to a deathly demise by gravitational compression

 

[fultz]

Uh yes it would. Whether its fair or optimal is inconsequential ... consider for instance the ASUS V9999GE and the XFX 6800GT. They both have the same clock speed yet one of them is crippled. Would you suggest that the crippled card is faster? Hardly.


Default??? WTH is this "default" stuff? Light is light. Just because we like to measure it in a vaccuum to 299792239.something m/s (yes, science => SI units) doesnt mean that thats "the" speed of light always. Take for instance, a 6800GT clocked at 350MHz .... if I decide to run that at 300MHz, it doesnt change the fact that its still a 6800GT.


If you've not noticed this is mostly a general chat-ish type of thread and if there is the desire to go into the deep end of theoretical physics then so be it.


Perhaps but that doesnt mean its absolutely true.


I figure this thread has a bit more life to it before it comes to a deathly demise by gravitational compression

You guys aren't following the rules though, light speed at it's real speed is 186,000 mps, if you slow it down you are not going at light speed because there will still be light that travels at 186,000mps! If you look at it this way, you could slow anything down and travel at any speed, if this was the case we would be able to time travel right now and the theory of relativity may as well be junk!

Slowing something down and then comparing it with our maximum speeds is hardly going the speed of light. The speed of light will always be 186,000mps, you can alter it with science but that doesn't change the fact that light travels at 186,000mps!

Your example of how a 6800GT clocked at 300MHz will still be a 6800GT is true but if you are running a 6800GT at 300MHz when it is capable of 350MHz that doesn't mean that a card that is only capable of 320MHz Beats the card that is capable of 350MHz!

It's true that this thread is just a bunch of theories and unrelated garbage but you can't just alter things to make something faster than the other. It's similar to cheating, light doesn't classify as light speed if you reduce the speed of light! If a GeForce 6800GT is clocked @ 350Mhz and you reduce the speed to 300MHz you can't clock a 6600GT to 300MHz and say you are running the 6600GT at 6800GT speeds!!!

 

[Cromewell]

You guys aren't following the rules though, light speed at it's real speed is 186,000 mps, if you slow it down you are not going at light speed because there will still be light that travels at 186,000mps!

no, we are following the rules, electorons travel faster than light all the time. As I already stated (but seems to have been forgotten) in heavy water nuclear reactors electrons travel faster than light in the same medium (its what creates that cool looking blue glow). As long as you are comparing relative speeds, which I am, it doesn't matter what speed something is 'supposed' to be.

 

[fultz]

no, we are following the rules, electorons travel faster than light all the time. As I already stated (but seems to have been forgotten) in heavy water nuclear reactors electrons travel faster than light in the same medium (its what creates that cool looking blue glow). As long as you are comparing relative speeds, which I am, it doesn't matter what speed something is 'supposed' to be.

Electrons don't travel faster than the speed of light, electrons can travel extremely fast with the right force pushing them but the fastest they can travel is 90% the speed of light. Electrons have been pushed to 99.9992% the speed of light but that's still a world away in terms of breaking the barrier.

Photons, do travel at, or faster, than the speed of light but since they have no mass they do not apply to the theory of relativity.

E=mc² means energy= Mass x The Speed of Light (186,000MPS) squared. This rule means that anything with MASS can not travel faster than the speed of light, anything without mass does NOT apply to the rule, this includes any sub-atomic particles that don't have mass, light itself (which can actually travel faster than light, yes, that's right, light has traveled faster than light before), or anything that has no mass!

If you still need me to explain this for you, go on and I will try my best.

 

[Praetor]

You guys aren't following the rules though, light speed at it's real speed is 186,000 mps, if you slow it down you are not going at light speed because there will still be light that travels at 186,000mps! If you look at it this way, you could slow anything down and travel at any speed, if this was the case we would be able to time travel right now and the theory of relativity may as well be junk!

1. In light of stuff like string theory [http://superstringtheory.com/] your comments on time-travel (where time is a state rather than an tangible property like say speed or mass) is somewhat diminished
2. The speed of light in a vaccuum is accepted as 299 792 458 m/s. If you want to get technical (as we should to be somewhat accurate), lets use the proper terminology
3. Given photon P[1] with V[1]=Vc[vacuum] it is accepted that photon P[1] is travelling at 299792458m/s
4. Given photon P[2] with V[2]=Vc[water] it is accepted that photon P[2] is travelling at 224900569 m/s
5. Given that P[1] and P[2] (and streams of such) are elements of this "light", light has two known speeds, notably V[1] and V[2]. In simple terms -- just because the 6800GT is default clocked at 350MHz doesnt mean it runs at 350MHz day-in-day-out-24x7 ... it we consider that possibility and extend it ... then momentum would pose a problem (not to mention air resistance).
6. If you are really insistant on light being Vc[vaccuum] then you should consider that you've not personally (i dont think so at least, correct me if im wrong), light travelling at its "proper" (and ill get to that momentarily) speed. This is because the light that you are interacting with travels at, for the most part, Vc[air] = 299702547 m/s. The point of this? Not all light is equal -- and any light that you and I might encounter with respect to tubing or whatnot -- believe it or not, it wont be travelling at this so-called "proper" speed
7. Given the two photon streams P[1] and P[2] as described above, I sincerely hope you dont suggest that P[2] isnt a photon stream because it doesnt travel at the speed of P[1]. For all intents and purposes, light is a "photon stream" so the speed of the photon stream is the speed of light.
8. Speed is the time derivative of position. Period. Just because we calculate the time derivative to something other than Vc[vaccuum] doesnt mean that "this calculated/observed speed of light is wrong" THe only conclusion you can draw from that is that "the observed/calculated speed is less than the accepted maximum speed". Now if you want to attempt a corrollary of that, "that the time derivative of any photon stream should/can be equal to Vc[vaccuum]" then you'll find yourself up for a lot of dissapointment. A realworld analogy would be that we should all write to nVidia saying that they got the speed of the 6800 wrong because the ASUS V9999GE is clocked faster.

Slowing something down and then comparing it with our maximum speeds is hardly going the speed of light

So I guess we should all complain to nVidia because they obviously dont know the speed of the 6800

The speed of light will always be 186,000mps

Then Im sorry to break it to you, you've not encountered this wonderful bliss. You've only encountered Vc[air] ... hey -- just like the rest of us

you can alter it with science but that doesn't change the fact that light travels at 186,000mps!

Ok lemme get this straight:
1. This supposed "only" speed of light is 299 792 458 m/s and photon streams will always and only travel at this speed.
2. We can change this speed of light.
You do realize this is a contradiction right?

Your example of how a 6800GT clocked at 300MHz will still be a 6800GT is true but if you are running a 6800GT at 300MHz when it is capable of 350MHz that doesn't mean that a card that is only capable of 320MHz Beats the card that is capable of 350MHz!

I was kinda hoping you'd take me up on this
1. At no point in time did I suggest the card was not capable of 320MHz or 350MHz (or even more as many have pleasently found)
2. Coming back to reality (away from this theoretical mumbo jumbo for just a sec), people look for end-results (stocks, politics, day to day expenses, report cards etc) ... the simple fact that we say have 6800GT @ 300MHz and a 6800GT @ 350MHz ... whether or not the card is capable of 350MHz is quite inconsequential to the end-user... they just want results
3. Going right back to pseudo-semi-theory land, suppose I do indulge you .... we take an XFX 6800 and compare it to an ASUS V9999GE .... by your logic, the XFX6800 is not a 6800 even though it features a 6800GPU and runs at 300/350 and as such we should be dissapointed since the V9999GE features a 6800 running at 350/500.

It's true that this thread is just a bunch of theories and unrelated garbage but you can't just alter things to make something faster than the other. It's similar to cheating, light doesn't classify as light speed if you reduce the speed of light! If a GeForce 6800GT is clocked @ 350Mhz and you reduce the speed to 300MHz you can't clock a 6600GT to 300MHz and say you are running the 6600GT at 6800GT speeds!!!

1. You bring up a very good word: cheating. Yes. Perhaps it is "cheating" (both in the light and video card cases) but the bottom line is that it doesnt matter HOW you get whatever speed you get it. What matters is that it IS that way. Analogy 1: Suppose we were all wrong this time and Vc[vaccuum]=299 892 458 m/s, does this mean that the proof that this is the new speed of light in a vaccuum is wrong? No. Analogy 2: We have the ASUS V9999GE running at 350/500 ... does this mean that the card is obviously a fraud? No.

Heehee on with the debate

 

[Cromewell]

E=mc² means energy= Mass x The Speed of Light (186,000MPS) squared. This rule means that anything with MASS can not travel faster than the speed of light

wow man, I didn't know that . Einstiens equations are flawed, electrons DO travel faster than the speed of light in a heavywater reactor

In the process of nuclear fission, a nuclear reactor produces a lot of highly-radioactive fission products, many of which release highly-energetic electrons (beta decay).
These electrons are travelling faster than the speed of light in the water surrounding the reactor core, so they generate light. It just so happens that the light they produce is in the ultraviolet and the blue part of the spectrum for visible light - so you see blue light.

it makes this colour (I think it looks eerily cool )

 

[fultz]

wow man, I didn't know that . Einstiens equations are flawed, electrons DO travel faster than the speed of light in a heavywater reactor

Again you are slowing light down to achieve the speeds though. Light is a pinpoint used to define the speed of 186,000MPS you seem to be getting confused and thinking light itself is a speed. The only reason it's referred to as light speed is because light travels at 186,000 miles per second and nothing can surpass the speed of light if it has mass because energy=mass x the speed of light squared, this means that if something having any mass is pushed at the speed of light it will gain weight and not reach the speed, if something having mass did reach the speed of light then einsteins theory of relativity would be thrown out the window.

YOU CAN NOT SLOW LIGHT DOWN TO REACH LIGHT SPEED! You may be reaching the speed of the particular light you are slowing down but the rule doesn't apply unless the speed of light is unchanged. Instead of thinking of it as the speed of light think of it as 186,000 miles per second.

The milestone is not the speed of light, it is 186,000 miles per second. The only acception to this rule is the photon which has REST mass which is explained in einstein's theory of special relativity that since it is accelerated so fast it has a mass of 0 which is also not having any mass so it applies to both rules!

 

[Praetor]

Again you are slowing light down to achieve the speeds though. Light is a pinpoint used to define the speed of 186,000MPS you seem to be getting confused and thinking light itself is a speed.

- Given: The car travels at 100m/s
- Proposed: I travel at 100m/s
- Conclusion: I travel at the speed of the car -- regardless of whether that is the maximum speed of the car or not

The only reason it's referred to as light speed is because light travels at 186,000 miles per second

No it's not. It's called the speed of light because it is the speed of the photon stream which coincidentally 299 792 458 m/s in a vaccuum. If we define it the way you did, then light would not travel at the speed of light because it has numerous speeds based on indices of refraction and exciting stuff like that

then einsteins theory of relativity would be thrown out the window.

Do not forget that it just that -- a theory

YOU CAN NOT SLOW LIGHT DOWN TO REACH LIGHT SPEED!

Yes you can. The "speed of light", is the "speed of the photon stream" ... if we slow down the photon stream then we slow down the speed of light. At least for me, I'm not at any point suggesting (other than the mild comment about string theory) about anything affecting the maximum-speed-of-light-in-a-vaccuum

Instead of thinking of it as the speed of light think of it as 186,000 miles per second.

No. That is NOT the defintion of speed. Speed is simply the time derivative of position. 299 792 458 m/s just happens to be the accepted value.

The milestone is not the speed of light, it is 186,000 miles per second.

Again, a midefinition of speed. Speed-of-light-in-a-vaccuum may imply 299 792 458 m/s however this is not an equivalence and as such 299 792 458 m/s does not imply Vc[always].




(the subscript that may be a bit hard to read says vaccuum)

 

[fultz]

- Given: The car travels at 100m/s
- Proposed: I travel at 100m/s
- Conclusion: I travel at the speed of the car -- regardless of whether that is the maximum speed of the car or not


No it's not. It's called the speed of light because it is the speed of the photon stream which coincidentally 299 792 458 m/s in a vaccuum. If we define it the way you did, then light would not travel at the speed of light because it has numerous speeds based on indices of refraction and exciting stuff like that


Do not forget that it just that -- a theory


Yes you can. The "speed of light", is the "speed of the photon stream" ... if we slow down the photon stream then we slow down the speed of light. At least for me, I'm not at any point suggesting (other than the mild comment about string theory) about anything affecting the maximum-speed-of-light-in-a-vaccuum


No. That is NOT the defintion of speed. Speed is simply the time derivative of position. 299 792 458 m/s just happens to be the accepted value.


Again, a midefinition of speed. Speed-of-light-in-a-vaccuum may imply 299 792 458 m/s however this is not an equivalence and as such 299 792 458 m/s does not imply Vc[always].




(the subscript that may be a bit hard to read says vaccuum)

Your big scary numbers don't scare me.

When I was referring to the reason the speed of light is called the speed of light I was referring to the reason it was called the speed of light when referring to the fact that it is impossible to travel at the speed of light.

The speed of light is the maximum speed that anything can travel, the maximum speed that light travels without modification is 186,000 miles per second, if you tamper with the speeds the rule doesn't apply because light is not traveling it's maximum speed.

If you want to get technical and if we looked at things the way YOU did then there is no speed limit and everything can be faster than the next. You can always slow something down and catch up to the speeds but you can't always accelerate to the maximum speeds possible given the speed that light travels. If you dive to the depths of the ocean light doesn't travel at 186,000 miles per seconds because the water slows it down but that doesn't mean that light travels at any speed less than 186,000 miles per second just because it travels slower than that under water, to say anything else would be insane.

The theory of relativity is just a theory but it's also a theory, that over the period of well over 100 years, has never been proven wrong by the smartest people in the world. Scientists rethink their IDEAS on this theory.

The highest speed anything can travel is 186,000 Miles per second and the only thing that can travel at that speed are objects without mass. The whole point of this arguement was that something can travel faster than 186,000 miles per second which it can't unless it has Rest Mass or NO mass, if you want to argue with einstein's theory of relativity you can be my guest but im done posting on the subject, im almost up to 100 posts, my god you people are stubborn!

I'll tell you what, you show me an object that has mass that travels 186,000 miles per second or faster and I will shut up. PHOTONS don't count because they have REST MASS of zero so they apply to both the special theory of relativity and the theory of relativity.

 

[Praetor]

Your big scary numbers don't scare me.

They're not supposed to. If you want to have a proper discussion -- use the proper numbers and units.

The speed of light is the maximum speed that anything can travel, the maximum speed that light travels without modification is 186,000 miles per second, if you tamper with the speeds the rule doesn't apply because light is not traveling it's maximum speed.

At no point did I suggest that it is possible to travel faster than 299 792 458 m/s. This does not mean it is impossible to travel faster than the speed of light.

If you want to get technical and if we looked at things the way YOU did then there is no speed limit and everything can be faster than the next.

Quite correct.

If you dive to the depths of the ocean light doesn't travel at 186,000 miles per seconds because the water slows it down but that doesn't mean that light travels at any speed less than 186,000 miles per second just because it travels slower than that under water, to say anything else would be insane.

Well at the surface light doesnt travel at the glorious 299 792 458 m/s anyways. It travels at 299702547 m/s

The theory of relativity is just a theory but it's also a theory, that over the period of well over 100 years, has never been proven wrong by the smartest people in the world. Scientists rethink their IDEAS on this theory.

Inconsequential. Im not challenging the theory -- just noting that it is just that - a theory.

im almost up to 100 posts, my god you people are stubborn!

No need to get prissy ... doing so will get you a really quick promotion

I'll tell you what, you show me an object that has mass that travels 186,000 miles per second or faster and I will shut up

if you took the time to read my post rather than exhibit an argumentative attitude then you'd realize that at no point did i suggest that anything could exceed (without stringing of course but thats a whole nother animal) 299 792 458 m/s. At no point did i suggest the speed of light in a vaccume was slower or faster than 299 792 458 m/s. I simply noted that you incorrectly established an equivalence between Vc[vaccume] and Vc where in reality (and theory) it is an implication.

 

[fultz]

They're not supposed to. If you want to have a proper discussion -- use the proper numbers and units.


At no point did I suggest that it is possible to travel faster than 299 792 458 m/s. This does not mean it is impossible to travel faster than the speed of light.


Quite correct.


Well at the surface light doesnt travel at the glorious 299 792 458 m/s anyways. It travels at 299702547 m/s


Inconsequential. Im not challenging the theory -- just noting that it is just that - a theory.


No need to get prissy ... doing so will get you a really quick promotion


if you took the time to read my post rather than exhibit an argumentative attitude then you'd realize that at no point did i suggest that anything could exceed (without stringing of course but thats a whole nother animal) 299 792 458 m/s. At no point did i suggest the speed of light in a vaccume was slower or faster than 299 792 458 m/s. I simply noted that you incorrectly established an equivalence between Vc[vaccume] and Vc where in reality (and theory) it is an implication.

You are toying with my point that nothing could exceed the speed of light yet you know that i was using the speed of light as a benchmark for 186,000mps and it made me angry. This whole thing has been a waste of time, it is impossible for anything to exceed 186,000mps unless it has no mass - In theory. I wasn't getting prissy, but im up to 83posts on this one topic and two others alone.

 

[Praetor]

You are toying with my point that nothing could exceed the speed of light yet you know that I was using the speed of light as a benchmark for 186,000mps and it made me angry

No im not. Im correcting a serious logical flaw -- you simply cannot imply Vc=>Vc[Vacuum] -- by your own admission even. The simple fact that we both know that light can be slowed by adjusting the medium through which it flows means that light does not always travel at Vc[vacuum] -- which means you cannot unequivocally say "the speed of light is <blah>" but rather you need to qualify it in a manner similar to "the speed of light in <medium> is <blah>".

and it made me angry

That's nice. Control it.

This whole thing has been a waste of time, it is impossible for anything to exceed 186,000mps unless it has no mass - In theory

Congratulations. Do note that not once did i challenge this other than the play on words.

I wasn't getting prissy, but im up to 83posts on this one topic and two others alone.

That's nice. Keep that anger in check or the promotion will come a lot sooner than you'd expect.


This discussion is terminated.