Nothing can go faster than twice the speed of light.

[Juvencus]

If movement is relative, then if you have one thing moving the speed of light one way, and another thing moving the speed of light the exact opposite way, than the truth is relativity means that nothing can go faster than TWICE the speed of light, since the gap between those two would be created at twice the speed of light.

The gap isn't "something" and therefore cannot move or be created.

Current evidence shows that the universe expands faster than light. So spacetime moves faster than light but since it has no mass, it's not bound by the physical limits. It's hard to visualise because it's space itself that expands.

Similar to your example. If you put a beacon in a moving car, the light's speed won't be (speed of light+speed of car) because the speed of light is the limit.

Combining the 2 points above: It's the principle by which LIGO works. The gravitational ripples affect space itself but since anything that affects space also affects anything in it, you cannot observe the stretches and compressions of the waves. However, light's speed is constant and therefore will take longer/shorter time to reach the other side of the tube affected by the gravitational wave.

[Tradewind]

Flash only moves like 400ish Mph.

Depends what Flash we're talking about.

Barry Allen could break all 5 speed barriers. The 5th being the Speed Force itself. Light is only the second barrier.

In the current tv show I think his highest has been a little over Mach 2, or 1534mph.

[Deleted]

If you put a beacon in a moving car, the light's speed won't be (speed of light+speed of car) because the speed of light is the limit,

Obviously, if you're able to measure the increase in distance from A to B and therefore come up with the man-made measure of "speed" (as "time" is a man-made construct as well, and "speed" relies on "time"), without having to rely on the speed of light as the measuring device, then of course if A and B are moving away from a starting point C at the speed of light, exactly away from each other, then they are moving away from each other at twice the speed of light, and of course if you add to that the expansion of space between A and B, the true speed at which they're moving away from each other is an ever-increasing speed beyond twice the speed of light.

That much is obvious.

[Shadowferal]

Tachyons?
Just saying.

[sonololo]

Obviously, if you're able to measure the increase in distance from A to B and therefore come up with the man-made measure of "speed" (as "time" is a man-made construct as well, and "speed" relies on "time"), without having to rely on the speed of light as the measuring device, then of course if A and B are moving away from a starting point C at the speed of light, exactly away from each other, then they are moving away from each other at twice the speed of light, and of course if you add to that the expansion of space between A and B, the true speed at which they're moving away from each other is an ever-increasing speed beyond twice the speed of light.

That much is obvious.

It's only correct only when observed from the outside.

When you observe from the point A, point B moves away from you at the speed on light.
And vice versa, when you observe from point B, point A moves away from you at the speed of light.

[Shadowferal]

I repeat "tachyons."
They're supposed to go thousands of times faster than the speed of light.

[sonololo]

I repeat "tachyons."
They're supposed to go thousands of times faster than the speed of light.

They're only hypothesized, and not confirmed yet. And there are arguments against for them existing, like the tachyon shedding energy would continuously accelerate.
And anyway, they also supposed to fly backwards in time, so it isn't relevant for us.

[Ryzael]

Nothing is faster than the speed of light.
"But the nothing is faster than the speed of light!"

Yes. Yes it is.

[May90]

I repeat "tachyons."
They're supposed to go thousands of times faster than the speed of light.

AFAIK, the current stance is that tachyons do not and cannot exist. They arise in some marginal theories in QFT, but they aren't really a part of any widely acceptable theory.

[Deleted]

It's only correct only when observed from the outside.

Right. But that's just an observation error, and an error in relying on "time" which doesn't actually exist.

[Argarock]

I am in the middle of empty space:

I have a laser pointer

I turn it on and spin around 360 degrees while holding the laser pointer straight out from my body, so that the laser also spins 360 degrees while on.

assume there's a ring of paper, that im hitting with the laser, 1 light years away from me. also assume that I spent exactly 1 second spinning 360 degrees


the light from the pointer would hit the paper, and then spin around the entire circumference of the paper in 1 second.

the dot on the paper would move at a speed of

( pi * radius squared ) / time (1 second)

= ( 3.14 * lightyear * lightyear ) / second

= ( 3,14 * 300'000*60*60*24*365*300'000*60*60*24*365 ) / 1 )

which means that this dot would be moving at 936'830'000'000'000'000'000 times the speed of light.


Checkmate!

[May90]

I am in the middle of empty space:

I have a laser pointer

I turn it on and spin around 360 degrees while holding the laser pointer straight out from my body, so that the laser also spins 360 degrees while on.

assume there's a ring of paper, that im hitting with the laser, 1 light years away from me. also assume that I spent exactly 1 second spinning 360 degrees


the light from the pointer would hit the paper, and then spin around the entire circumference of the paper in 1 second.

the dot on the paper would move at a speed of

( pi * radius squared ) / time (1 second)

= ( 3.14 * lightyear * lightyear ) / second

= ( 3,14 * 300'000*60*60*24*365*300'000*60*60*24*365 ) / 1 )

which means that this dot would be moving at 936'830'000'000'000'000'000 times the speed of light.


Checkmate!

The dot is not a physical object though. But yeah, it kind of counters the "nothing" part of the claim.

[wowaccounttom]

darkness travels faster than light...

hence why distances between stars are not bright white/yellow/red or whatever other color the nearest star may be

[Venant]

Why hasn't anyone just explained special relativity to the OP?

[wowaccounttom]

Why hasn't anyone just explained special relativity to the OP?

op,

in the words of eisntein...

you are a retard.

[Gwiez]

If movement is relative, then if you have one thing moving the speed of light one way, and another thing moving the speed of light the exact opposite way, than the truth is relativity means that nothing can go faster than TWICE the speed of light, since the gap between those two would be created at twice the speed of light.

No. That's Newtonian physics. At relativistic speeds, time dilates and length contracts. It's not intuitive, so I can understand your confusion. If I understood it better, I'd explain, but it would probably be easier if you found a professional explanation of special relativity.

[Adam Jensen]

If movement is relative, then if you have one thing moving the speed of light one way, and another thing moving the speed of light the exact opposite way, than the truth is relativity means that nothing can go faster than TWICE the speed of light, since the gap between those two would be created at twice the speed of light.

First of all, the speed of light is always C, no matter the frame of reference. If you're on a light beam and you turn on a flashlight, the beam of your flashlight also goes at the speed of light.

Secondly, space itself is not constrained by the speed of light, it can expand faster than C all it wants.

Thirdly, I'm not entirely sure what you're getting at.

- - - Updated - - -

But the universe had moved faster then the speed of light during the creation of the Universe, or so it's theorized.

As I said, space, not matter or energy, can expand faster than C. Space isn't constrained by C.

[diolock]

its would technically be correct if u say the frame of reference u are using is one in which one particle is stationary while the other is moving therefor the one moving would have to be moving at 2c. however this only serves the purpose of calculation and isnt representative on an actual physical phenomena. in the senario the op has stated the max speed is the speed of light because he is using a frame of reference in which he is a stationary observer.

[Ravingmad]

darkness travels faster than light...

and also why going to the dark side is easier and more powerful then the light side of the force. Science explains everything these days.

[Adam Jensen]

and also why going to the dark side is easier and more powerful then the light side of the force. Science explains everything these days.

False.

The Dark Side isn't stronger. Rewatch The Empire Strikes Back, young padawan. Teach you, Yoda will.