The Speed of Light



M

[email protected]

Guest
The very first time I went up Ertouling I timed myself. I wanted to
see how fast I could go. I wasn't really setting my baseline since
I'd done 140 km the day before and was travelling with luggage but it
seemed to be a good start.

The next time I went up Ertouling (significantly more rested and
luggage free) I cut 9 minutes off of my time.

This prompted a friend of mine to ask me how much weight I'd need to
lose before I could travel up the mountain at light speed. And
because it's raining outside I have nothing much better to do than to
actually attempt to figure out that answer.

Light travels at 299,792.458 km/s

At 9.2 kilometers meters It would take light .0000306878967 seconds to
go the same distance. Rounding that to six signifcant digits gives us
..000031 seconds.

My first trip up the mountain took 61 minutes.
At 95 kilos + perhaps 4 kilo in luggage and 12 kilo in bike I'm
clearly not very light.

The second trip up the mountain took 52 minutes.
This was 95 kilos + 12 kilos in bike, no luggage.

96.4% of the weight = 85.3% of the time

Let's assume a linear progression. There are a number of different
ways the equation can be run but I'm going to assume linear weight
loss = linear time loss.

The first time I run the equation I get 103.1 kilo and 44 minutes 18
seconds. We'll ignore the inconvenient part of reality where I now
know I can do the mountain in 46 minutes and small change because
that's well, inconvenient, and doesn't have "useful" data points
regarding removal of weight from the bike + rider combo.

The second time I run the equation I get 99.4 kilo and 37 minutes 51
seconds. Since the regulations regarding stupid expensive uber light
race bikes are hovering around 7 kilo _obviously_ all I need to do is
lose 3 kilo and buy a new bike and I can chop 15 minutes off my time.

Round three gets me 95.9 kilo and 32 minutes 17 seconds. My actual
target weight is around 85 kilo so if I could get there I ought to be
able to ride my current bike to the top of the mountain at about the
same speed as some of the better of the local men, right?

At 92.4 kilo combined bike and rider the equation produces 27 minutes
31 seconds. Target weight + uber wonder bike and it logically follows
that I should be beating the best of local men.

Another round gives me 89.1 kilo and 23 minutes 30 seconds. That's
better than the time some of the professional riders did in the Tour
de Hainan. Wow.

Following this tortured train of logic and bad math we see that by the
time I get down to 61.7 kilo I should be able to go up the mountain in
4 minutes 47 seconds.

At a skeletal 42.8 kilo using a bike made out of spiderwebs, spun
glass, and lots of drilled components I break the one minute mark.

By the time I reach 16.5 kilo I should be able to go up the mountain
in under 1 second. But I'm still not fast enough. I'm still not
light enough.

At 7.6 kilo it should take a mere 33 thousandths of a second. That's
the margin by which Ah Ling beat me in our improbable photo finish at
the Guangzhou Bikers' Festival in July. Still not entirely sure how
those little radio transponders calculated thousandths of a second or
why they didn't just declare us a tie.

By the time I reach 5.7 kilo I will finally break the hundredth of a
second mark. And at 3.3 kilo I'll break the thousandth of a second
mark.

But it isn't until 2.5 kilos that I finally break the laws of physics
and manage to go up Ertouling faster than the speed of light.

-M
 
<[email protected]> wrote: (clip) But it isn't until 2.5 kilos
that I finally break the laws of physics and manage to go up Ertouling
faster than the speed of light.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
That's what Albert Einstein was trying to figure out when that famous
picture of him wobbling on a bicycle was taken. He obviously got it wrong
since he claimed it couldn't be done. Well, what do you expect? He was an
old man.
 
Leo Lichtman wrote:
> <[email protected]> wrote: (clip) But it isn't until 2.5 kilos
> that I finally break the laws of physics and manage to go up Ertouling
> faster than the speed of light.
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> That's what Albert Einstein was trying to figure out when that famous
> picture of him wobbling on a bicycle was taken. He obviously got it wrong
> since he claimed it couldn't be done. Well, what do you expect? He was an
> old man.
>
>
Maybe he just needed a haircut to take a load off his mind.
Bill Baka
 
On Apr 7, 9:26 am, "[email protected]"
<[email protected]> wrote:
> The very first time I went up Ertouling I timed myself. I wanted to
> see how fast I could go. I wasn't really setting my baseline since
> I'd done 140 km the day before and was travelling with luggage but it
> seemed to be a good start.
>
> The next time I went up Ertouling (significantly more rested and
> luggage free) I cut 9 minutes off of my time.
>
> This prompted a friend of mine to ask me how much weight I'd need to
> lose before I could travel up the mountain at light speed. And
> because it's raining outside I have nothing much better to do than to
> actually attempt to figure out that answer.
>
> Light travels at 299,792.458 km/s
>
> At 9.2 kilometers meters It would take light .0000306878967 seconds to
> go the same distance. Rounding that to six signifcant digits gives us
> .000031 seconds.
>
> My first trip up the mountain took 61 minutes.
> At 95 kilos + perhaps 4 kilo in luggage and 12 kilo in bike I'm
> clearly not very light.
>
> The second trip up the mountain took 52 minutes.
> This was 95 kilos + 12 kilos in bike, no luggage.
>
> 96.4% of the weight = 85.3% of the time
>
> Let's assume a linear progression. There are a number of different
> ways the equation can be run but I'm going to assume linear weight
> loss = linear time loss.
>
> The first time I run the equation I get 103.1 kilo and 44 minutes 18
> seconds. We'll ignore the inconvenient part of reality where I now
> know I can do the mountain in 46 minutes and small change because
> that's well, inconvenient, and doesn't have "useful" data points
> regarding removal of weight from the bike + rider combo.
>
> The second time I run the equation I get 99.4 kilo and 37 minutes 51
> seconds. Since the regulations regarding stupid expensive uber light
> race bikes are hovering around 7 kilo _obviously_ all I need to do is
> lose 3 kilo and buy a new bike and I can chop 15 minutes off my time.
>
> Round three gets me 95.9 kilo and 32 minutes 17 seconds. My actual
> target weight is around 85 kilo so if I could get there I ought to be
> able to ride my current bike to the top of the mountain at about the
> same speed as some of the better of the local men, right?
>
> At 92.4 kilo combined bike and rider the equation produces 27 minutes
> 31 seconds. Target weight + uber wonder bike and it logically follows
> that I should be beating the best of local men.
>
> Another round gives me 89.1 kilo and 23 minutes 30 seconds. That's
> better than the time some of the professional riders did in the Tour
> de Hainan. Wow.
>
> Following this tortured train of logic and bad math we see that by the
> time I get down to 61.7 kilo I should be able to go up the mountain in
> 4 minutes 47 seconds.
>
> At a skeletal 42.8 kilo using a bike made out of spiderwebs, spun
> glass, and lots of drilled components I break the one minute mark.
>
> By the time I reach 16.5 kilo I should be able to go up the mountain
> in under 1 second. But I'm still not fast enough. I'm still not
> light enough.
>
> At 7.6 kilo it should take a mere 33 thousandths of a second. That's
> the margin by which Ah Ling beat me in our improbable photo finish at
> the Guangzhou Bikers' Festival in July. Still not entirely sure how
> those little radio transponders calculated thousandths of a second or
> why they didn't just declare us a tie.
>
> By the time I reach 5.7 kilo I will finally break the hundredth of a
> second mark. And at 3.3 kilo I'll break the thousandth of a second
> mark.
>
> But it isn't until 2.5 kilos that I finally break the laws of physics
> and manage to go up Ertouling faster than the speed of light.
>
> -M

Except that as you approach the speed of light your mass increases,
approaching infinity. But at least time will pass more slowly for you,
so it may seem like a leisurely ride to you, but an observer will not
even notice your presence (or is that the other way around... been a
while since I read _The_Elegant_Universe_
 
We have a radio program in Dallas where people call in questions every
Friday and other callers will provide answers. Imagine my astonishment when
a man called in and wanted to know the "speed of dark." The host said his
version of "huh"? and the man said, "Well, we are always being told about
the speed of light, so I figured why don't we ever hear about the speed of
dark?" The host replied, "but, dark is the absence of light." and the man
said, "So how fast is it?"

Pat in TX
 
"Pat" wrote: (clip) a man called in and wanted to know the "speed of dark."
(clip)
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Does dark matter? Or should I ask, "Does dark matter exist?"

"Do not leave the door to the photolab open, or the dark will escape."
 
Eric wrote:
>
> Except that as you approach the speed of light your mass increases,
> approaching infinity. But at least time will pass more slowly for you,
> so it may seem like a leisurely ride to you, but an observer will not
> even notice your presence (or is that the other way around... been a
> while since I read _The_Elegant_Universe_
>
It may not be a brick wall. 60 years ago the sound barrier was thought
to be unbreakable, yet Chuck Yeager broke it.
I think we would need a fusion powered space ship to get that fast.
The speed of light may be breakable, but not in even our grandchildrens'
lifetime.
Bill Baka
 
Pat wrote:
> We have a radio program in Dallas where people call in questions every
> Friday and other callers will provide answers. Imagine my astonishment when
> a man called in and wanted to know the "speed of dark." The host said his
> version of "huh"? and the man said, "Well, we are always being told about
> the speed of light, so I figured why don't we ever hear about the speed of
> dark?" The host replied, "but, dark is the absence of light." and the man
> said, "So how fast is it?"
>
> Pat in TX
>
>
How about the speed of gravity, or magnetism?
Tough problems all.
The caller in Dallas was an obvious troll since the answer is so easy.
Bill Baka
 
"Bill" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Pat wrote:
>> We have a radio program in Dallas where people call in questions every
>> Friday and other callers will provide answers. Imagine my astonishment
>> when a man called in and wanted to know the "speed of dark." The host
>> said his version of "huh"? and the man said, "Well, we are always being
>> told about the speed of light, so I figured why don't we ever hear about
>> the speed of dark?" The host replied, "but, dark is the absence of
>> light." and the man said, "So how fast is it?"
>>
>> Pat in TX
> How about the speed of gravity, or magnetism?
> Tough problems all.
> The caller in Dallas was an obvious troll since the answer is so easy.
> Bill Baka

If it takes 50 years for a stars light to hit Earth. Then it takes 50 years
for the last part of ray to hit and be gone. Comes and goes at the same
speed.
 
Bill wrote:
> Pat wrote:
>> We have a radio program in Dallas where people call in questions
>> every Friday and other callers will provide answers. Imagine my
>> astonishment when a man called in and wanted to know the "speed of
>> dark."
> How about the speed of gravity, or magnetism?
> Tough problems all.
> The caller in Dallas was an obvious troll since the answer is so easy.
> Bill Baka

Yes, trolling is almost a certainty. It's like calling up and asking "Do you
have Prince Albert in a can?" or "Is your refrigerator running?"

--
Mike Kruger
The speed of sound is about 770 mph. What's the speed of quiet?
 
"Bill" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:p[email protected]...
> Pat wrote:
> >> How about the speed of gravity, or magnetism?
> >> Tough problems all.
> >> The caller in Dallas was an obvious troll since the answer is so easy.
> >> Bill Baka
> >
> > That's the scary part of it. I don't think he was a troll. He sounded
like
> > an older, rural-type of person. You want to get a laugh, try
> > www.conservapedia.com They don't believe in gravity. That's a site put
out
> > there by the son of Phyllis Schlafly....evolution is a theory? so is
> > gravity!
> >
> > Pat in TX
> >
> >
> You mean there are people more isolated than Paris Hilton, the dumb
> blond personified? The only way I could not believe in gravity was if
> time was running in reverse and things were really repelling each other.
> That would make the 'Big bang' the big ending.
> Chew on that bit of reverse logic and it could make sense.
> Bill Baka

Reverse logic? Is that a sexual position? (shaking blond hair from side to
side)
 

> How about the speed of gravity, or magnetism?
> Tough problems all.
> The caller in Dallas was an obvious troll since the answer is so easy.
> Bill Baka

That's the scary part of it. I don't think he was a troll. He sounded like
an older, rural-type of person. You want to get a laugh, try
www.conservapedia.com They don't believe in gravity. That's a site put out
there by the son of Phyllis Schlafly....evolution is a theory? so is
gravity!

Pat in TX
 
nash wrote:
> "Bill" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>> Pat wrote:
>>> We have a radio program in Dallas where people call in questions every
>>> Friday and other callers will provide answers. Imagine my astonishment
>>> when a man called in and wanted to know the "speed of dark." The host
>>> said his version of "huh"? and the man said, "Well, we are always being
>>> told about the speed of light, so I figured why don't we ever hear about
>>> the speed of dark?" The host replied, "but, dark is the absence of
>>> light." and the man said, "So how fast is it?"
>>>
>>> Pat in TX
>> How about the speed of gravity, or magnetism?
>> Tough problems all.
>> The caller in Dallas was an obvious troll since the answer is so easy.
>> Bill Baka
>
> If it takes 50 years for a stars light to hit Earth. Then it takes 50 years
> for the last part of ray to hit and be gone. Comes and goes at the same
> speed.
>
>
Even with my different take on things....HUH?
Are you talking about time distortion or another side effect of going
the speed of light?
Bill Baka
 
Pat wrote:
>> How about the speed of gravity, or magnetism?
>> Tough problems all.
>> The caller in Dallas was an obvious troll since the answer is so easy.
>> Bill Baka
>
> That's the scary part of it. I don't think he was a troll. He sounded like
> an older, rural-type of person. You want to get a laugh, try
> www.conservapedia.com They don't believe in gravity. That's a site put out
> there by the son of Phyllis Schlafly....evolution is a theory? so is
> gravity!
>
> Pat in TX
>
>
You mean there are people more isolated than Paris Hilton, the dumb
blond personified? The only way I could not believe in gravity was if
time was running in reverse and things were really repelling each other.
That would make the 'Big bang' the big ending.
Chew on that bit of reverse logic and it could make sense.
Bill Baka
 
Bill wrote:
> Eric wrote:
>>
>> Except that as you approach the speed of light your mass increases,
>> approaching infinity. But at least time will pass more slowly for you,
>> so it may seem like a leisurely ride to you, but an observer will not
>> even notice your presence (or is that the other way around... been a
>> while since I read _The_Elegant_Universe_
>>
> It may not be a brick wall. 60 years ago the sound barrier was thought
> to be unbreakable, yet Chuck Yeager broke it.
> I think we would need a fusion powered space ship to get that fast.
> The speed of light may be breakable, but not in even our grandchildrens'
> lifetime.
> Bill Baka
Bill-
60 years ago aircraft designers were well aware that their was no
physical limitation that prevented objects from traveling faster that
the speed of sound. It was well known that rifle bullets and many type
of artillery shells traveled at speeds well in excess of Mach 1. All
that was needed to get an aircraft to travel faster the the speed of
sound was to add enough horsepower (and get rid of the propellers).

The big problem was that it was believed that an aircraft would become
uncontrollable as speeds approached Mach 1. Aircraft designers had
strong anecdotal evidence that this was indeed the case. Many pilots had
reported that they had trouble pulling out of high speed dives. It
seemed that their control surfaces were not working at high very high
speeds.

It turned out that there were were several ways to overcome these
control problems and aircraft designers and test pilots later showed
that so-called "sound barrier" was not a barrier at all.

Paul O.

--

Paul D Oosterhout
I work for SAIC (but I don't speak for SAIC)
 
"Bill" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> nash wrote:
>> "Bill" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> news:[email protected]...
>>> Pat wrote:
>>>> We have a radio program in Dallas where people call in questions every
>>>> Friday and other callers will provide answers. Imagine my astonishment
>>>> when a man called in and wanted to know the "speed of dark." The host
>>>> said his version of "huh"? and the man said, "Well, we are always being
>>>> told about the speed of light, so I figured why don't we ever hear
>>>> about the speed of dark?" The host replied, "but, dark is the absence
>>>> of light." and the man said, "So how fast is it?"
>>>>
>>>> Pat in TX
>>> How about the speed of gravity, or magnetism?
>>> Tough problems all.
>>> The caller in Dallas was an obvious troll since the answer is so easy.
>>> Bill Baka
>>
>> If it takes 50 years for a stars light to hit Earth. Then it takes 50
>> years for the last part of ray to hit and be gone. Comes and goes at the
>> same speed.
> Even with my different take on things....HUH?
> Are you talking about time distortion or another side effect of going the
> speed of light?
> Bill Baka

Light that is 50 years away from a star to earth would not be seen as a dead
star until 50 years later. Hypothetically speaking. Maybe smaller numbers
would help.
 
nash wrote:
> "Bill" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>> nash wrote:
>>> "Bill" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>> news:[email protected]...
>>>> Pat wrote:
>>>>> We have a radio program in Dallas where people call in questions every
>>>>> Friday and other callers will provide answers. Imagine my astonishment
>>>>> when a man called in and wanted to know the "speed of dark." The host
>>>>> said his version of "huh"? and the man said, "Well, we are always being
>>>>> told about the speed of light, so I figured why don't we ever hear
>>>>> about the speed of dark?" The host replied, "but, dark is the absence
>>>>> of light." and the man said, "So how fast is it?"
>>>>>
>>>>> Pat in TX
>>>> How about the speed of gravity, or magnetism?
>>>> Tough problems all.
>>>> The caller in Dallas was an obvious troll since the answer is so easy.
>>>> Bill Baka
>>> If it takes 50 years for a stars light to hit Earth. Then it takes 50
>>> years for the last part of ray to hit and be gone. Comes and goes at the
>>> same speed.
>> Even with my different take on things....HUH?
>> Are you talking about time distortion or another side effect of going the
>> speed of light?
>> Bill Baka
>
> Light that is 50 years away from a star to earth would not be seen as a dead
> star until 50 years later. Hypothetically speaking. Maybe smaller numbers
> would help.
>
>
Christ, I know THAT!!! You made it sound as though one burst of light
would be visible for 50 years due to differences in propagation speed.
Bill Baka
 
"Bill" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> nash wrote:
>> "Bill" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> news:[email protected]...
>>> nash wrote:
>>>> "Bill" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>>> news:[email protected]...
>>>>> Pat wrote:
>>>>>> We have a radio program in Dallas where people call in questions
>>>>>> every Friday and other callers will provide answers. Imagine my
>>>>>> astonishment when a man called in and wanted to know the "speed of
>>>>>> dark." The host said his version of "huh"? and the man said, "Well,
>>>>>> we are always being told about the speed of light, so I figured why
>>>>>> don't we ever hear about the speed of dark?" The host replied, "but,
>>>>>> dark is the absence of light." and the man said, "So how fast is it?"
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Pat in TX
>>>>> How about the speed of gravity, or magnetism?
>>>>> Tough problems all.
>>>>> The caller in Dallas was an obvious troll since the answer is so easy.
>>>>> Bill Baka
>>>> If it takes 50 years for a stars light to hit Earth. Then it takes 50
>>>> years for the last part of ray to hit and be gone. Comes and goes at
>>>> the same speed.
>>> Even with my different take on things....HUH?
>>> Are you talking about time distortion or another side effect of going
>>> the speed of light?
>>> Bill Baka
>>
>> Light that is 50 years away from a star to earth would not be seen as a
>> dead star until 50 years later. Hypothetically speaking. Maybe smaller
>> numbers would help.
> Christ, I know THAT!!! You made it sound as though one burst of light
> would be visible for 50 years due to differences in propagation speed.
> Bill Baka

Huh? I did not mention speed in the equation.
You are getting too complicated for me now.
Did just not know the term for the end of transmission/emission of light.
So, light comes and goes at the same speed right? Or is that just dumb?
 
nash wrote:
> "Bill" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>> nash wrote:
>>> "Bill" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>> news:[email protected]...
>>>> nash wrote:
>>>>> "Bill" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>>>> news:[email protected]...
>>>>>> Pat wrote:
>>>>>>> We have a radio program in Dallas where people call in questions
>>>>>>> every Friday and other callers will provide answers. Imagine my
>>>>>>> astonishment when a man called in and wanted to know the "speed of
>>>>>>> dark." The host said his version of "huh"? and the man said, "Well,
>>>>>>> we are always being told about the speed of light, so I figured why
>>>>>>> don't we ever hear about the speed of dark?" The host replied, "but,
>>>>>>> dark is the absence of light." and the man said, "So how fast is it?"
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Pat in TX
>>>>>> How about the speed of gravity, or magnetism?
>>>>>> Tough problems all.
>>>>>> The caller in Dallas was an obvious troll since the answer is so easy.
>>>>>> Bill Baka
>>>>> If it takes 50 years for a stars light to hit Earth. Then it takes 50
>>>>> years for the last part of ray to hit and be gone. Comes and goes at
>>>>> the same speed.
>>>> Even with my different take on things....HUH?
>>>> Are you talking about time distortion or another side effect of going
>>>> the speed of light?
>>>> Bill Baka
>>> Light that is 50 years away from a star to earth would not be seen as a
>>> dead star until 50 years later. Hypothetically speaking. Maybe smaller
>>> numbers would help.
>> Christ, I know THAT!!! You made it sound as though one burst of light
>> would be visible for 50 years due to differences in propagation speed.
>> Bill Baka
>
> Huh? I did not mention speed in the equation.
> You are getting too complicated for me now.
> Did just not know the term for the end of transmission/emission of light.
> So, light comes and goes at the same speed right? Or is that just dumb?
>
>
You are correct that light comes and goes at the same speed. If it took
50 years to get here then it would take 50 years to reflect back on the
place where it came from. Of course in 100 years the star would be
somewhere else, left, right, up, down, closer, further....
I only threw that at you because your answer sounded like the typical
wise crack to be found on this group.
Sorry.
Bill Baka
 
Pat <[email protected]> wrote:
> We have a radio program in Dallas where people call in questions every
> Friday and other callers will provide answers. Imagine my astonishment when
> a man called in and wanted to know the "speed of dark." The host said his
> version of "huh"? and the man said, "Well, we are always being told about
> the speed of light, so I figured why don't we ever hear about the speed of
> dark?" The host replied, "but, dark is the absence of light." and the man
> said, "So how fast is it?"

Well, if you take it as a serious question, you can get a real answer.
If you're talking about a typical room, you have lots of light colored
walls that will reflect light, so with reflections and re-reflections
it could actually be a much slower speed to total darkness than strictly
light speed. And it would not necessary be an integer division either,
with incidence angles and multiple reflections. And it would be
different for every environment...

Still it is a silly question.

--
Dane Buson - [email protected]
That money talks,
I'll not deny,
I heard it once,
It said "Good-bye.
-- Richard Armour
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

R
does a light bike equal more speed for a heavy rider?
Replies
47
Views
1K
UK and Europe
Simon Brooke
S
Bigbananabike
Does a light, 10 speed bike really help over an average 9 speed?
Replies
5
Views
1K
Cycling Training
Bigbananabike
Bigbananabike
articlebot
PHILLIPS: A Green Light to Diesel (Speed TV)
Replies
0
Views
283
Cycling News Headlines
articlebot
articlebot
M
Re: Speed of light cycling
Replies
0
Views
310
UK and Europe
Mark Tranchant
M
D
Re: Speed of light cycling
Replies
6
Views
364
UK and Europe
dkahn400
D
A
Re: Speed of light cycling
Replies
4
Views
433
UK and Europe
Trevor Barton
T
A
Polar Power: Cadence light works, no data to monitor (Speed works)
Replies
9
Views
448
Cycling Equipment
Weisse Luft
Weisse Luft
jalabert
Heavy/light rim: Which is the easiest to keep rolling at constant speed
Replies
3
Views
2K
Cycling Equipment
jalabert
jalabert
Sassonian
Overcoming the fear of descending and riding at speed
Replies
12
Views
67
Cycling Training
JumpinThRattler
JumpinThRattler
Wrecker
What are effective interval workouts for improving crit racing speed?
Replies
12
Views
74
Cycling Training
lou_n
lou_n
Top Bottom Back