-5

The speed of light C is equal to 299 792 458 m/s at this speed it would take me 3.03 minutes to get to mars at the closest orbit but if I was going the speed of light would I not be at mars instantly

^ a summarize and better-formated version of the question that sums up all my questions in one question sorry for the old version of this post

The current version of this post is completely different than the original sorry to all that read the post at the start as I was very tired and did not know what I was saying.

MonoToast
  • 5
  • 3
    The inability to travel faster than the speed of light is one of the most central and important ideas in all of modern physics, you are definitely misunderstanding something. – Charlie Sep 10 '20 at 12:18
  • 2
    This question is very unclear. Please make some effort to identify one clear question and express it clearly. We do not need irrelevant details like your state of mind, and if you recognize that you are rambling then please realize that for us reading your question it leaves us unable to understand what you are asking – Dale Sep 10 '20 at 12:45
  • What makes you think you would be at Mars "instantly"? You yourself did a calculation in the first part of the sentence that directly contradicts that! – m4r35n357 Sep 10 '20 at 13:09
  • @m4r35n357 C as the constant is 299 792 458 m/s but the second speed of light is relative to its self also in answer your question I just answer my own thanks so much – MonoToast Sep 10 '20 at 13:13
  • @m4r35n357, OP may be comparing the proper-time duration of the trip as experienced by the traveller to the duration that would be measured by an observer stationed on Earth or on Mars. Technically, we should not talk about "proper time" or "frame of reference" for an object that travels at light speed, but it's a reasonable hand-wave since the proper time of a sub-light traveller approaches zero as the traveller's speed approaches light speed. – Solomon Slow Sep 10 '20 at 13:15
  • @MonoToast the elapsed time for light is distance / c, no relativity required. On the other hand you cannot go at c. – m4r35n357 Sep 10 '20 at 13:19
  • @SolomonSlow Summarize this better then I could ever its a frame of reference issue I see that now and this leaves me with so many more question then it answers if someone has a paper or something I could read to get these answers please let me know – MonoToast Sep 10 '20 at 13:21
  • @MonoToast believe me when I say everyone asks these questions to start with. The only real solution is to learn the topic of Special Relativity. There are many resources online to do this. Trying to learn by asking one question at a time is not going to work. – m4r35n357 Sep 10 '20 at 13:24
  • You might be interested in reading about rapidity: https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/547371/why-dont-we-use-rapidity-instead-of-velocity – D. Halsey Sep 10 '20 at 13:33

1 Answers1

1

Hope I understood your question.

About the speed of light, since you can' t see any object travel faster than light, you cannot be observed as faster than light as well. Thus you can' t reach speeds higher than $c$.

About your second question, it is somehow true that Lorentz transformation do not apply to references as fast as light is. We can see what light sees by applying some limit process. It is true that, according to our interpretation of special relativity, light does not see the passing of time, and sees the usiverse as flat. This means, accordingly to what you say, that light reaches every place istantly, with no passing of time. Of course this is just interpretation, we do not really know what' s going on, but the mathematical structure is rather clear, and this is what it tells us.

About your last point, be careful. Taking your time, or the time of someone outside of your "ship" are two different things. Theory of special relativity deals with measurement in one reference frame. If you use your self time, then you have to use your self distance as well. Unfortunately, in your example, you use an accelerating reference frame. Special relativity does not deal with acceleration, only with "inertial" reference frames. For better understanding this point you should refer to some textbook or paper.

SoterX
  • 374