If you are going the same direction, and you are traveling in front of and faster than the light emitted you will never meet. If you are traveling behind the light, but faster than light, you will eventually meet it, perceive it, and will be able to perceive it as long as you and that light exist in the same place and the same time.
If you are traveling behind the light, but faster than light, you will eventually meet it, perceive it, and will be able to perceive it as long as you and that light exist in the same place and the same time.
But since you get light that is in front of you, it will appear as if the light is coming from a source in front of you, not from your back.
Well I would think you would, since space is vast you would see black everywhere, and light flashes but very thinned out because when you travel faster your field of vision narrows.
As I've said earlier you would be able to see what is in front of you normally, and off to the sides although peripheral vision would be limited in relation to how much faster than light you were traveling. Also, all around you would be a blue haze called Cherenkov radiation which occurs when particles travel faster than light at a constant speed. Your speed may also have some small red shift effect to your peripheral and forward vision, but this is only a slight possibility.
but i beleive, as enstein theorized, that if you travel faster than light, you travel through time.
In what way... Im curious?
you would be able to see what is in front of you normally
Is this based on the assumption that our brains could handle that much info at once or can it? I get the feeling we simply couldnt process that many photons properly.
Is this based on the assumption that our brains could handle that much info at once or can it? I get the feeling we simply couldnt process that many photons properly.
It's not the capabilities of the brain that matter, but the capabilities of the retina and the ocular nerve, and these would have no issue with the 'added strain' as you put it. Some color perception would be warped, but that's due to the effects of the speed you are traveling at, not any result of the eyes themselves.
It's not the capabilities of the brain that matter, but the capabilities of the retina and the ocular nerve, and these would have no issue with the 'added strain' as you put it. Some color perception would be warped, but that's due to the effects of the speed you are traveling at, not any result of the eyes themselves.
I will have to pick up the discussion tomorow as its 4:20am here... why would the brain not come into the equation. I understand that the eye wouldnt have any problems as it doesnt process anything directly but I meant more as in the way the eye is connected to the brain. Could the brain handle the info from the eye?
Yes, easily. The reason I say that the brain wouldn't come into the equation is because it's like asking if my new PC has the computing power to play an old Tandy version of Pong. The brain is far more capable than would be needed.
well, i never really looked into his theory, but i think we'd be going so fast, we wouldn't age. we;d travel milliions of miles, then when we came back, we;d be maybe a year older and our 40 year old moms would be dead.
The issue that I've run into in reading up on the theories surrounding time travel is that none of them take into account that aging is a byproduct of cell replication, not purely a passage of time. I have yet to find any significant information about the effects of FTL travel on the cellular level. I would think that we would "age" at the same rate, although static time would be passing slower.
