okay, so there is an ahole brit with the camera...the moron brit that got stuck in the first place because he did not measure the trailer width and the alley wideth and then, for some reason there is a brit hanging out on the street with a pint in hand...oh wait NM, that is nromal for brits ins`t it!

I am so, so happy that someone was smart enough to whip out their camera when it looked like something wonderful was about to happen, just so they could share it with the rest of the world and bring us joy and song and happiness at someone else`s expense.

LOLÂ² maybe it expanded after temperature changes. Maybe he parked it in there at night, during cold temperature. And in the sunny day it expanded a bit.

It only needed to expand a little bit to get stuck, really.

If we consider the walls also expanded, then not only the trailer got wider, but the alley got narrower.

so how did they get the caravan in there in the first place? two entrances? therefore why take it out of the small one? oh, and i nearly pmsl over that.

> wolfguy423 > there are just as many bad women drivers as men

Statistically, many MORE than men. But then you can argue that its because there are more women driving around doing their stuff while more men are busy at work, so of course more women will have accidents... but then that would only ruin our `women drivers` rant so we`ll ignore that bit.

actually isnt it the other way around? as we approach the speed of light we get bigger or something?

I think you might be confusing size with mass/energy.

The faster an object travels, the more energy it has.

Energy and mass are different forms of the same thing.

Therefore the faster an object travels, the more mass it has.

That`s a very simplified explanation, but it might be what you`re thinking of.

If you want to look into relativity without needing years of higher education in physics, I recommend this book:

Why Does E=mc^2 (and why should we care)? by Brian Cox and Jeff Forshaw.

It does a good job of explaining relativity, starting from the earliest relevant discoveries and explaining them and their implications, gradually building up to the general theory of relativity and how to derive E=mc^2 from first principles. It`s hard going because so much of it is counter-intuitive, but the book does

Incidentally, this also means that we don`t need a warp drive or wormhole for interstellar travel. All we need is enough speed. If you get in a ship with an unfeasibly powerful drive and some means of nullifying the forces of acceleration (so you can accelerate vey hard without being squashed by he g-forces), then you could rapidly get up to a high percentage of the speed of light. As a result, the distance between you and your destination would be significantly reduced for you. A star hundreds of light-years away would become far closer and you could fly there in days. Or even seconds if you`re really close to the speed of light.

The real elephant in the room for a society with such wide-ranging travel is time dilation.

"A star hundreds of light-years away would become far closer and you could fly there in days. Or even seconds if you`re really close to the speed of light. "

LOL.

No. A light year is the distance that light travels in a vacuum in a year. If a star is six light years away, it will take six years at the speed of light to get there.

To get there in less than six years, one would have to travel at multiples of the speed of light - six times as fast as light to get there in a year, 52 times faster than light to get there in 6 weeks, 2190 times fast than light to get there in a day, and 189,216,000 faster than light (approx. 35,194,176,000,000 per second) to get there in one second.

Additionally, as wikipedia put it "it would take an infinite amount of energy to accelerate an object with mass to the speed of light."

You`ve really made yourself look silly now, Heureux.

If you had simply said I was wrong, you`d just not understand relativity. That would be fine - most people don`t.

But you laughed at me because you thought I was wrong. In fact, you are wrong. So you look silly.

Would you like me to explain it to you? It will take half a dozen posts, but I could do it.

You are making the mistake of assuming that space and time are invariant. They are not. In day to day life we can pretend they are, but they aren`t really. This has been confirmed by experiment over and over again. Every second of every day, actually - the effects are measureable in the GPS system.

Time and space are both affected by relative velocity. The faster you go, the bigger the effects. You`re the only person talking about going faster than the speed of light, which is impossible therefore irrelavant.

An example. The numbers are approximate but correct enough.

Say you had a spaceship that could maintain a 1g acceleration for decades.

You crank it up and accelerate off at 1g away from Earth for 10 years. You then rotate the ship and accelerate towards Earth at 1g for 10 years. You will, of course, simply be slowing down - it took 10 years at 1g to get to that speed, it will take 10 years at 1g in the opposite direction to stop. You continue for another 10 years, then rotate the ship again and accelerate for 10 years away from Earth.

You will then stop back at Earth. 20 years out (10 speeding up, 10 slowing down), 20 years back (ditto).

40 years have passed, right?

For you, yes.

For Earth, 59,000 years have passed.

Time dilation - it`s real.

Space is similarly affected - it gets smaller as you go faster. So wherever you`re going becomes closer relative to you.

Angilion, I have something bugging me and you seem smart.

let`s say object A travels at the speed of light away from earth, object B does exactly the same but in the opposite direction. The problem here is, B is now going twice the speed of light away from A, while the maximum is the speed of light. How does this work?

@Puddingbrood I believe I can answer that. If you were to travel at the speed of light, you would normally observe a stationary person as though they weren`t moving. The reason why light is the "universal speed limit"gets into perception and reality, a bunch of mumbo-jumbo which will bore you. A simple way to think about it is that our eyes perceive stuff b/c of the light reflecting off objects, so if the object goes away from you at the speed of light and you are also going the speed of light, the object will not be registered as existent to you, because its image after it goes past you never reach. Hope that made some sense.

Angilion, I have something bugging me and you seem smart.

let`s say object A travels at the speed of light away from earth, object B does exactly the same but in the opposite direction. The problem here is, B is now going twice the speed of light away from A, while the maximum is the speed of light. How does this work?

My understanding of relativistic physics is shakey, so I`m not the best person to explain it to you. It`s counter-intuitive and just plain weird and I find it hard to get a grasp on it.

But I`ll give it a go...speed is distance travelled over time and the rate at which time passes varies by enough to ensure that nothing is moving faster than the speed of light relative to anything else. So A is moving at the speed of light relative to Earth *and* at the speed of light relative to B.

Doesn`t make sense, does it? Yet it appears to be true.

If anyone wants to read a relatively (every pun intended!) accessible intro to relativity, I recommend this book:

"Why does E=mc^2? (and why should we care?)" by Brian Cox and Jeff Forshaw.

It explains relativity from first principles and with all the underlying discoveries over centuries that led to it.

It`s not an easy read, but it doesn`t require prior knowledge of maths or physics and it does explain relativity. I`m reading through it now. I`ll probably start at the beginning again when I get to the end. The maths and the logic involved are straightforward enough, but the results of them are strange. I`m not getting a solid grasp of the idea that time and space are not invariant. I understand that 1m doesn`t have to be 1m and 1s doesn`t have to be 1s and that it all depends on your frame of reference...but I don`t really *get it*. All my experience tells me that time and space are invariant.

The universal speed limit isn`t really the speed of light. It`s somewhat misleading to think of it that way, although we all do. It`s looking at it the wrong way around.

That speed limit is a constant. It is not simply a measurement of the speed of light in a vacuum. It`s an underlying property of the universe. Light happens to be one of the things that *can* travel at that speed.

Light is *the* thing that *always* travels at *that* speed regardless of the reference frame.

It can`t go at any other speed...

Light can be slowed down a lot. Its speed depends on the material it is passing through. Physicists have been deliberately slowing it down more than naturally occurs for some time now and a few years ago one of them (Lene Vestergaard Hau) managed to slow it to zero.

Light only travels at c when there is nothing to slow it down, i.e. in a vacuum.

I`ll beg to differ on that one, you`re talking about speed of propogation - not the actual speed of the light. You`ve taken into account the absorption, re-radiation and refraction effects. The actual light is still going at c between the atoms.... Semantics maybe, but light does not go at any other speed. We just perceive the effects as slower.

To be clearer - the photons are going at the speed of light. The light seen by an observer (not the original photon that entered the material) propogates more slowly.

The freaky thing is, from the photons frame of reference, it gets at where it has been instantly, regardless of the distance. Nanometer or 1000 light years, all just the same to the photon..

- Everyone knows that one physics law: Going faster makes objects smaller.
that was awesome!

There are so many good people in the world!

thank god someone was smart enough to whip out their camera when something awesome was about to happen. LOL.

how DID he get it in there?

looks like an oldie camper anyway. still awesome, though!

Man, this is one good thing about having most of your roadways built AFTER vehicles were invented like here in most of America, I feel lucky.

It only needed to expand a little bit to get stuck, really.

If we consider the walls also expanded, then not only the trailer got wider, but the alley got narrower.

"Typical dumb male driver."

there are just as many bad women drivers as men. :-|

I find myself agreeing with stardagger.

Although the caravan would get shorter, not narrower, due to the direction of velocity relative to the walls.

Damn you for nailing that comment before me...

> there are just as many bad women drivers as men

Statistically, many MORE than men. But then you can argue that its because there are more women driving around doing their stuff while more men are busy at work, so of course more women will have accidents... but then that would only ruin our `women drivers` rant so we`ll ignore that bit.

I think you might be confusing size with mass/energy.

The faster an object travels, the more energy it has.

Energy and mass are different forms of the same thing.

Therefore the faster an object travels, the more mass it has.

That`s a very simplified explanation, but it might be what you`re thinking of.

If you want to look into relativity without needing years of higher education in physics, I recommend this book:

Why Does E=mc^2 (and why should we care)? by Brian Cox and Jeff Forshaw.

It does a good job of explaining relativity, starting from the earliest relevant discoveries and explaining them and their implications, gradually building up to the general theory of relativity and how to derive E=mc^2 from first principles. It`s hard going because so much of it is counter-intuitive, but the book does

The real elephant in the room for a society with such wide-ranging travel is time dilation.

LOL.

No. A light year is the distance that light travels in a vacuum in a year. If a star is six light years away, it will take six years at the speed of light to get there.

To get there in less than six years, one would have to travel at multiples of the speed of light - six times as fast as light to get there in a year, 52 times faster than light to get there in 6 weeks, 2190 times fast than light to get there in a day, and 189,216,000 faster than light (approx. 35,194,176,000,000 per second) to get there in one second.

Additionally, as wikipedia put it "it would take an infinite amount of energy to accelerate an object with mass to the speed of light."

If you had simply said I was wrong, you`d just not understand relativity. That would be fine - most people don`t.

But you laughed at me because you thought I was wrong. In fact, you are wrong. So you look silly.

Would you like me to explain it to you? It will take half a dozen posts, but I could do it.

You are making the mistake of assuming that space and time are invariant. They are not. In day to day life we can pretend they are, but they aren`t really. This has been confirmed by experiment over and over again. Every second of every day, actually - the effects are measureable in the GPS system.

Time and space are both affected by relative velocity. The faster you go, the bigger the effects. You`re the only person talking about going faster than the speed of light, which is impossible therefore irrelavant.

Say you had a spaceship that could maintain a 1g acceleration for decades.

You crank it up and accelerate off at 1g away from Earth for 10 years. You then rotate the ship and accelerate towards Earth at 1g for 10 years. You will, of course, simply be slowing down - it took 10 years at 1g to get to that speed, it will take 10 years at 1g in the opposite direction to stop. You continue for another 10 years, then rotate the ship again and accelerate for 10 years away from Earth.

You will then stop back at Earth. 20 years out (10 speeding up, 10 slowing down), 20 years back (ditto).

40 years have passed, right?

For you, yes.

For Earth, 59,000 years have passed.

Time dilation - it`s real.

Space is similarly affected - it gets smaller as you go faster. So wherever you`re going becomes closer relative to you.

Length contraction - also real.

THEORY SPAM!

let`s say object A travels at the speed of light away from earth, object B does exactly the same but in the opposite direction. The problem here is, B is now going twice the speed of light away from A, while the maximum is the speed of light. How does this work?

I believe I can answer that. If you were to travel at the speed of light, you would normally observe a stationary person as though they weren`t moving. The reason why light is the "universal speed limit"gets into perception and reality, a bunch of mumbo-jumbo which will bore you. A simple way to think about it is that our eyes perceive stuff b/c of the light reflecting off objects, so if the object goes away from you at the speed of light and you are also going the speed of light, the object will not be registered as existent to you, because its image after it goes past you never reach. Hope that made some sense.

let`s say object A travels at the speed of light away from earth, object B does exactly the same but in the opposite direction. The problem here is, B is now going twice the speed of light away from A, while the maximum is the speed of light. How does this work?

My understanding of relativistic physics is shakey, so I`m not the best person to explain it to you. It`s counter-intuitive and just plain weird and I find it hard to get a grasp on it.

But I`ll give it a go...speed is distance travelled over time and the rate at which time passes varies by enough to ensure that nothing is moving faster than the speed of light relative to anything else. So A is moving at the speed of light relative to Earth *and* at the speed of light relative to B.

Doesn`t make sense, does it? Yet it appears to be true.

"Why does E=mc^2? (and why should we care?)" by Brian Cox and Jeff Forshaw.

It explains relativity from first principles and with all the underlying discoveries over centuries that led to it.

It`s not an easy read, but it doesn`t require prior knowledge of maths or physics and it does explain relativity. I`m reading through it now. I`ll probably start at the beginning again when I get to the end. The maths and the logic involved are straightforward enough, but the results of them are strange. I`m not getting a solid grasp of the idea that time and space are not invariant. I understand that 1m doesn`t have to be 1m and 1s doesn`t have to be 1s and that it all depends on your frame of reference...but I don`t really *get it*. All my experience tells me that time and space are invariant.

That speed limit is a constant. It is not simply a measurement of the speed of light in a vacuum. It`s an underlying property of the universe. Light happens to be one of the things that *can* travel at that speed.

That`s a bit misleading Angillion..

Light is *the* thing that *always* travels at *that* speed regardless of the reference frame.

It can`t go at any other speed...

It can`t go at any other speed...

Light can be slowed down a lot. Its speed depends on the material it is passing through. Physicists have been deliberately slowing it down more than naturally occurs for some time now and a few years ago one of them (Lene Vestergaard Hau) managed to slow it to zero.

Light only travels at c when there is nothing to slow it down, i.e. in a vacuum.

c is a constant, not dependent on anything.

The freaky thing is, from the photons frame of reference, it gets at where it has been instantly, regardless of the distance. Nanometer or 1000 light years, all just the same to the photon..