# 7Ghz barrier and Fibre Optics.



## tomprice43

While talking with a IT specialist from IBM i found out that appartently that 7Ghz cannot be broken with todays CPU's. Its got something to with the fact that 7Ghz is the speed of light and unless we use fibre optic cables we cant pass 7ghz.

someone correct me if this is wrong.


----------



## PC Technology INC.

Apparently When the next Windows will come out, which codename is Longhorn the specs will be as follow:

4-6GHZ CPU
1TB HDD or higher
6-12GB RAM

That's what Bill Gates expects


----------



## Bobo

PC Technology INC. said:
			
		

> Apparently When the next Windows will come out, which codename is Longhorn the specs will be as follow:
> 
> 4-6GHZ CPU
> 1TB HDD or higher
> 6-12GB RAM
> 
> That's what Bill Gates expects



Bill gates is a stupid rich guy, who doesn't know the future any more than my cat does


----------



## Bobo

news.google.com/news?q=windows+long...g.mozilla:en-US:official&sa=N&tab=nn&oi=newsr

Look at that


----------



## Cromewell

> 4-6GHZ CPU
> 1TB HDD or higher
> 6-12GB RAM


 Doubt it.  Especially since 4GHz CPUs aren't in Intel or AMDs roadmap, it's all about dual cores for the next year


> 7Ghz is the speed of light and unless we use fibre optic cables we cant pass 7ghz.


 Not to get picky but we can barely pass 4GHz and thats only with watercooling (I know you can hit upwards of 6 with liquid N2 but that doesn't count)


----------



## Praetor

> While talking with a IT specialist from IBM I found out that appartently that 7Ghz cannot be broken with todays CPU's. Its got something to with the fact that 7Ghz is the speed of light and unless we use fibre optic cables we cant pass 7ghz.


Sources? References?



> That's what Bill Gates expects


Sources? References?



> 7Ghz is the speed of light


Quick lesson in pre-physics:
1. Frequency. Defined as _the rate at which something oscillates_. I'm not sure if there is an implied requirement for a periodic property but im not gonna get into those details as they are outside of scope.
2. Speed. Defined as _Δdistance/Δtime_. There is an implied/defined understanding that this is a scalar quantity.

1. Frequency is measured in Hertz (Hz) or equivalently, cps (short for cycles-per-second)
2. Speed is measured in metres-per-second (m/s)

I think the conclusion is self-evident 



> Bill gates is a stupid rich guy, who doesn't know the future any more than my cat does


I know we'd all like that kinda money but let's cut the immaturity


----------



## jeamourt3

so...when's window LongHorn coming out??


----------



## Praetor

1. Much later
2. New topic = new thread


----------



## PC Technology INC.

jeamourt3 said:
			
		

> so...when's window LongHorn coming out??



It will not be named Longhorn. It will come out near the end of 2006.


----------



## PC Technology INC.

Bobo said:
			
		

> Bill gates is a stupid rich guy, who doesn't know the future any more than my cat does



my. I gave it a good laugh. I think thit's why he got creamed by flying cream pie


----------



## Greg J.

tomprice43 said:
			
		

> While talking with a IT specialist from IBM i found out that appartently that 7Ghz cannot be broken with todays CPU's. Its got something to with the fact that 7Ghz is the speed of light and unless we use fibre optic cables we cant pass 7ghz.
> 
> someone correct me if this is wrong.



Uh, what are you talking about?  Since Intel is focusing on dual cores, why not have a  motherboard that can support dual processors so the user can have a nice double 4Ghz?  4Ghz has already been reached through watercooling.  Water cooling?  What about a menthol/water solution liquid cooling system that is made with known techology;  a tight network of micro pipes.  That makes it cooler than just using water, since the metal micro pipes can reach closer to components than ever before.  Anyone ever hear about this technology?  Man, the government uses the nicest stuff before we know about it and put it on the market.  This type of liquid cooling that uses well-known technology was developed for the government for use in extreme heat conditions.  It should be out in a few years for the mainstream market.  That way, people can overclock even more than now.  Liquid nitrogen?  Man, that's huge overclocking!

http://www.tomshardware.com/cpu/20031230/

Now only if Tom and his buddies had used two processors.


----------



## Echo_

7ghz barrier.. well meet this guy

http://www.xtremesystems.org/forums/showthread.php?t=53037


----------



## Praetor

@PC Technology INC:
Not a good idea to continue hijacking a thread - especially after an Admin suggested thats not the most brilliant of things to do



> I think thit's why he got creamed by flying cream pie


Again with the thread topic relevance



> Uh, what are you talking about? Since Intel is focusing on dual cores, why not have a motherboard that can support dual processors so the user can have a nice double 4Ghz? 4Ghz has already been reached through watercooling. Water cooling? What about a menthol/water solution liquid cooling system that is made with known techology; a tight network of micro pipes. That makes it cooler than just using water, since the metal micro pipes can reach closer to components than ever before. Anyone ever hear about this technology? Man, the government uses the nicest stuff before we know about it and put it on the market. This type of liquid cooling that uses well-known technology was developed for the government for use in extreme heat conditions. It should be out in a few years for the mainstream market. That way, people can overclock even more than now. Liquid nitrogen? Man, that's huge overclocking!


1. They are working on such chipsets
2. Why liquid when vapor phase exchange is available?


----------



## Greg J.

1.  Yes, new chipsets are being developed constantly.
2.  Liquid form is the most recognizable to older people (old school).  Not to mention that's how the guys at Tom's Hardware did the overclock.


----------



## dave597

*actually 7 Ghz isnt that fast.*

If we increase the speed of our current computers by 1000 times, then the maximum size of N, for which a polynomial time algorithm of order 2^n is solvable in one second will only increase by 9.97. Not a lot, is it? (reference: www.claymath.org)

Also, the OP makes no sense at all.


----------



## Yeti

> What about a menthol/water solution liquid cooling system


I'm going to assume you meant methanol.  Also, even with that micropipe system you can't reach temps lower than room temp


----------



## Praetor

> Im going to assume you meant methanol. Also, even with that micropipe system you can't reach temps lower than room temp


What about antifreeze?  Huh? Huh? Huh? 



> for which a polynomial time algorithm of order 2^n


Now there's a good reason to take Algorithms .... O² is very ... um... bad.


----------



## Yeti

> What about antifreeze?  Huh? Huh? Huh?


  I don't understand


----------



## fultz

Well, 7GHz is not the speed of light, because theres nothing in the world with mass that can run at the speed of light. Approaching the speed of light, time slows down, at the speed of light, time stops. At speeds faster than the speed of light, time goes in reverse. Your computer would basically be a time machine if you had a processor that could go faster than the speed of light.


----------



## Praetor

> I don't understand


Heehe just messin around 



> because theres nothing in the world with mass that can run at the speed of light


But, but, but, photons have mass..... and they can travel at the speed of light


----------



## fultz

Praetor said:
			
		

> Heehe just messin around
> 
> 
> But, but, but, photons have mass..... and they can travel at the speed of light



You are right, photons have mass, they have zero mass.   Therefore, they have no mass so they can travel at the speed of light, they don't apply to the rule.


----------



## Praetor

> photons have mass





> they have no mass


LOL i'm just playin on words


----------



## fultz

Nice computer, holy balls at your storage.


----------



## robina_80

technology now days are getting so advanced they will trust me


----------



## dave597

Coool....

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/4271825.stm


----------



## fultz

They don't mean that the data itself will be moving at 186,000 Miles Per Second. The way computer chips work is not the same as actual stuff moving. They find ways to skip and the stuff is processed on seperate areas and combined as a whole. There is no way anything can move the speed of light on earth because it would be traveling backwards in time. It sounds to me like they are using lasers to morph light in order to process things more quickly. If I took 1,011,480 airplanes and flew them at 662 Miles Per Second I wouldn't be traveling at the speed of light, this is the way CPU's work, as a team, not all at once. If you however, have 1,011,480 people processing 662 Documents then the work still gets done in the same amount of time without moving as fast as one person would have to in order to get the job done.

Im not saying it will never be done in the future. But we are a long ways from that. We will probably have time travel machines someday but I doubt we will live to see anything that goes the speed of light.


----------



## dave597

fultz said:
			
		

> Im not saying it will never be done in the future. But we are a long ways from that. We will probably have time travel machines someday but I doubt we will live to see anything that goes the speed of light.




Light itself?


----------



## Yeti

> There is no way anything can move the speed of light on earth because it would be traveling backwards in time


Backwards in time, huh?


----------



## fultz

Yes, Light is the fastest thing in existance, it moves at 186,000 Miles Per Hour, Light is how we see, If we were moving faster than light everything around you would slow down, time itself would pass slower for you than the people around you because while you are moving at 186,000 Miles Per Hour everybody else is moving much slower than the speed of light. Think of a simple phenomenon such as the Sonic Boom. When the sound barrier is broken, the given object is moving so fast that sound has to catch up to it. Thus a person from outside of the given object breaking the sound barrier hears a sonic boom. When a sonic boom is heard, it is heard after the object in question has already created the sound. Imagine this with light and you have a scientific playground.


----------



## Yeti

Backwards in time is a bit of misleading statement.  And I've read many books on the general and special theories of relativity, string theory, and quantum mechanics so I do know a little on that subject


----------



## fultz

Perhaps misleading, think of it more as an ANTI-Time, you wouldn't go to a time of the dinosaurs or anything, but in a sense you would be because time would be passing slower for you than the people around you thus you would be farther back in time than everybody else, for example you could travel at the speed of light for 1 day and get back to regular speed and realize everybody around you is 50 years older than you.


----------



## Yeti

Hence the name theory of relativity, time is relative.


----------



## fultz

Yes but there is nothing that can reach those speeds that is anywhere near existance...


----------



## Yeti

It happens anytime a body is in motion relative to another body.  Its just easy to see when the relative speed is closer to the speed of light.  But this is getting a bit off topic, I recommend Elegant Universe by Brian Greene, About Time by Paul Davies, or for a lighter read A Bried History of Time by Shephen Hawking for anyone interested in this topic


----------



## fultz

The only way it happens is if you approach the barrier, if you want to get technical, I guess yes if you are moving and something else isn't you are "time traveling" but not in any way measureable by the time we keep. What Im trying to say I guess, is that there is nothing that can move as fast as the speed of light, if not for the fact that you would be going "backwards in time" then for the fact that according to einstein, it's impossible.


----------



## Cromewell

> Yes but there is nothing that can reach those speeds that is anywhere near existance...





> there is nothing that can move as fast as the speed of light


 You don't need to reach those speeds, you only need to slow light down which is quite easy.  Electorns in a heavy water nuclear reactor travel faster than the speed of light which is what causes that blue glow in the core.  Alternatively, mass gravity wells (such as those found near pulsars or black holes) slow light down making it quite easy to distort time.
Even flying on a plane can distort your time perspective (albiet fractions of fractions of fractions of a fraction of a second)


----------



## Greg J.

You can go faster than the speed of light.  http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=dn2796

And
http://www.ebtx.com/cgi-local/yabb/YaBB.pl?board=mech;action=display;num=1084849366

Hmmm...perhaps a black hole that is already faster?

Oh, and for the coolant/water mixture, you CAN do that, but it should be noted that a mixture of mostly 90% water and 10% coolant is the most effective for most desktops:
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=Antifreeze+water+cooled+computer&spell=1


----------



## fultz

Cromewell said:
			
		

> You don't need to reach those speeds, you only need to slow light down which is quite easy.  Electorns in a heavy water nuclear reactor travel faster than the speed of light which is what causes that blue glow in the core.  Alternatively, mass gravity wells (such as those found near pulsars or black holes) slow light down making it quite easy to distort time.
> Even flying on a plane can distort your time perspective (albiet fractions of fractions of fractions of a fraction of a second)



I didn't mean it like that. I meant the speed of light at it's default speed of 186,000 MPS cannot be reached. Light travels 186,000 MPS in a vaccum, reaching the speed of light by slowing light's speed down doesn't count. If you underclocked your GeForce 6800GT to 2MHz would that make my onboard video faster? Not technically.



			
				Greg J. said:
			
		

> You can go faster than the speed of light. http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=dn2796
> 
> And
> http://www.ebtx.com/cgi-local/yabb/...;num=1084849366
> 
> Hmmm...perhaps a black hole that is already faster?



I already know black holes move faster than the speed of light, why do you think you can't see them? Because the mass of the black hole is so great it's gravity pulls light into it so fast it is not able to be seen, you can only see the light around it's outsides.

As far as that article, those people did send data at faster than the speed of light but they cheated to do it, they combined multiple pipes and split the data into pieces, which just goes back to my statement of "You can have several people do the same job" but you can't have one pipe move something by itself at the speed of light without slowing down. The only way to do that would be to break einstein's theory of relativity. Direct quote from that article "While the peak moves faster than light speed, the total energy of the pulse does not. This means Einstein's relativity is preserved, so do not expect super-fast starships or time machines anytime soon."

There are things in this universe that move faster than the speed of light. There are photons and space matter, tons of phenomenon going on in space involve faster-than-light speeds.

Another direct quote from that article:
"Signals also get weaker and more distorted the faster they go, so in theory no useful information can get transmitted at faster-than-light speeds."

There are many ways they could actually send data at faster than light speeds, but the data itself as an object would not be traveling at the speed of light or anywhere near faster than it, it would be split into parts and sent along quad or more pipes and reassembled to be transmitted at the speed of light, which we will no doubt see in the future.

In fact, in the future, there may be faster than light travel and time travel, but it's so far into our future we won't live to see it.


----------



## Kboy

Quick question...How off topic is this thread? LOL
And to input my own remarks, i think all the stuff about travelling slower than time by moving faster than light is just theories, because there's no way to prove it because as of now, scientists can't make anything except light itself go that fast. LOL


----------



## fultz

Kboy said:
			
		

> Quick question...How off topic is this thread? LOL
> And to input my own remarks, i think all the stuff about travelling slower than time by moving faster than light is just theories, because there's no way to prove it because as of now, scientists can't make anything except light itself go that fast. LOL



That's kind of true, but the theories are very good ones based on the rules of the universe. They believe that black holes exist and have observed matter moving around areas of black which are supposibly the black holes, if they are right then the gravity is so great it absorbs light!


----------



## Yeti

> Quick question...How off topic is this thread? LOL


True, but it wasn't a very serious thread topic to begin with 


> And to input my own remarks, i think all the stuff about travelling slower than time by moving faster than light is just theories, because there's no way to prove it because as of now, scientists can't make anything except light itself go that fast. LOL


It has be "proven." Cesium clocks (now the standard in keeping time,9,192,631,770 beats= 1 second) have be put in different places, going different relative speeds and they show very small, but consistant differences in agreement with the theory of relativity.


> Oh, and for the coolant/water mixture, you CAN do that, but it should be noted that a mixture of mostly 90% water and 10% coolant is the most effective for most desktops:


Yes, its water cooling.  But like I said, you can't get colder than room temp with passive cooling (well, there's evaporative if you want to call that passive, but thats beside the point)


----------



## Praetor

> If you underclocked your GeForce 6800GT to 2MHz would that make my onboard video faster? Not technically.


Lol technically if the onboard was clocked faster than 2MHz than yes


----------



## fultz

Praetor said:
			
		

> Lol technically if the onboard was clocked faster than 2MHz than yes



You missed the point (or just felt like making a joke out of it) that slowing something down doesn't make something at optimum speed faster. If we were running a race and I broke your legs and you had to run it on your hands would that make me faster? No.


----------



## Cromewell

> reaching the speed of light by slowing light's speed down doesn't count


 sure it does, slowing light down has the same effect as traveling faster than it.  In fact slowing light down and using an Einstien wormhole near a dense neutron star to slow light down (not a pulsar as I originally posted, couldn't remember what kind of star it was) is a perfectly plausable time travel mechanism.


----------



## fultz

Cromewell said:
			
		

> sure it does, slowing light down has the same effect as traveling faster than it.  In fact slowing light down and using an Einstien wormhole near a dense neutron star to slow light down (not a pulsar as I originally posted, couldn't remember what kind of star it was) is a perfectly plausable time travel mechanism.



No it doesn't. If you slow light down to 8MPS and you travel 9MPS you would be faster than light relative to the light that you slowed down but not faster than light relative to it's default speed. My post was directed to the guy who said an IBM Technition said the reason we haven't reached beyond 7GHz is because our lines can't travel faster than the speed of light, judging from that comment im assuming the speed of light he was talking about is the default speed of light at 186,000MPS, if we needed to reach the speed of light in order to get our processors faster than 7GHz (which we don't) then we would be screwed because in order to invent something that can travel at the speed of light (without splitting the job between multiple sources) you would have to break einstein's theory of relativity which has never been done and is not even questionable between the best scientists in the world.


----------



## Cromewell

> If you slow light down to 8MPS and you travel 9MPS you would be faster than light relative to the light that you slowed down but not faster than light relative to it's default speed.


  when all the light around you is slowed down (such as that near a dense neutron star) time outside travels faster than the time inside there by creating time travel (in a sense, you need the wormhole to make it viable).  You don't need to travel faster than light to travel faster than light.


----------



## fultz

Cromewell said:
			
		

> when all the light around you is slowed down (such as that near a dense neutron star) time outside travels faster than the time inside there by creating time travel (in a sense, you need the wormhole to make it viable).  You don't need to travel faster than light to travel faster than light.



I can see it now Wormhole Inside . SWEET.


----------



## Praetor

> If we were running a race and I broke your legs and you had to run it on your hands would that make me faster?


Uh yes it would. Whether its fair or optimal is inconsequential ... consider for instance the ASUS V9999GE and the XFX 6800GT. They both have the same clock speed yet one of them is crippled. Would you suggest that the crippled card is faster? Hardly.



> If you slow light down to 8MPS and you travel 9MPS you would be faster than light relative to the light that you slowed down but not faster than light relative to it's default speed


Default??? WTH is this "default" stuff? Light is light. Just because we like to measure it in a vaccuum to 299792239.something m/s (yes, science => SI units) doesnt mean that thats "the" speed of light always. Take for instance, a 6800GT clocked at 350MHz .... if I decide to run that at 300MHz, it doesnt change the fact that its still a 6800GT.



> My post was directed to the guy who said an IBM Technition said the reason we haven't reached beyond 7GHz is because our lines can't travel faster than the speed of light, judging from that comment im assuming the speed of light he was talking about is the default speed of light at 186,000MPS, if we needed to reach the speed of light in order to get our processors faster than 7GHz (which we don't)


If you've not noticed this is mostly a general chat-ish type of thread and if there is the desire to go into the deep end of theoretical physics then so be it.



> you would have to break einstein's theory of relativity which has never been done and is not even questionable between the best scientists in the world.


Perhaps but that doesnt mean its absolutely true.


I figure this thread has a bit more life to it before it comes to a deathly demise by gravitational compression


----------



## fultz

Praetor said:
			
		

> Uh yes it would. Whether its fair or optimal is inconsequential ... consider for instance the ASUS V9999GE and the XFX 6800GT. They both have the same clock speed yet one of them is crippled. Would you suggest that the crippled card is faster? Hardly.
> 
> 
> Default??? WTH is this "default" stuff? Light is light. Just because we like to measure it in a vaccuum to 299792239.something m/s (yes, science => SI units) doesnt mean that thats "the" speed of light always. Take for instance, a 6800GT clocked at 350MHz .... if I decide to run that at 300MHz, it doesnt change the fact that its still a 6800GT.
> 
> 
> If you've not noticed this is mostly a general chat-ish type of thread and if there is the desire to go into the deep end of theoretical physics then so be it.
> 
> 
> Perhaps but that doesnt mean its absolutely true.
> 
> 
> I figure this thread has a bit more life to it before it comes to a deathly demise by gravitational compression




You guys aren't following the rules though, light speed at it's real speed is 186,000 mps, if you slow it down you are not going at light speed because there will still be light that travels at 186,000mps! If you look at it this way, you could slow anything down and travel at any speed, if this was the case we would be able to time travel right now and the theory of relativity may as well be junk!

Slowing something down and then comparing it with our maximum speeds is hardly going the speed of light. The speed of light will always be 186,000mps, you can alter it with science but that doesn't change the fact that light travels at 186,000mps!

Your example of how a 6800GT clocked at 300MHz will still be a 6800GT is true but if you are running a 6800GT at 300MHz when it is capable of 350MHz that doesn't mean that a card that is only capable of 320MHz Beats the card that is capable of 350MHz!

It's true that this thread is just a bunch of theories and unrelated garbage but you can't just alter things to make something faster than the other. It's similar to cheating, light doesn't classify as light speed if you reduce the speed of light! If a GeForce 6800GT is clocked @ 350Mhz and you reduce the speed to 300MHz you can't clock a 6600GT to 300MHz and say you are running the 6600GT at 6800GT speeds!!!


----------



## Cromewell

> You guys aren't following the rules though, light speed at it's real speed is 186,000 mps, if you slow it down you are not going at light speed because there will still be light that travels at 186,000mps!


 no, we are following the rules, electorons travel faster than light all the time.  As I already stated (but seems to have been forgotten) in heavy water nuclear reactors electrons travel faster than light in the same medium (its what creates that cool looking blue glow).  As long as you are comparing relative speeds, which I am, it doesn't matter what speed something is 'supposed' to be.


----------



## fultz

Cromewell said:
			
		

> no, we are following the rules, electorons travel faster than light all the time.  As I already stated (but seems to have been forgotten) in heavy water nuclear reactors electrons travel faster than light in the same medium (its what creates that cool looking blue glow).  As long as you are comparing relative speeds, which I am, it doesn't matter what speed something is 'supposed' to be.



Electrons don't travel faster than the speed of light, electrons can travel extremely fast with the right force pushing them but the fastest they can travel is 90% the speed of light. Electrons have been pushed to 99.9992% the speed of light but that's still a world away in terms of breaking the barrier.

Photons, do travel at, or faster, than the speed of light but since they have no mass they do not apply to the theory of relativity. 

E=mc² means energy= Mass x The Speed of Light (186,000MPS) squared. This rule means that anything with MASS can not travel faster than the speed of light, anything without mass does NOT apply to the rule, this includes any sub-atomic particles that don't have mass, light itself (which can actually travel faster than light, yes, that's right, light has traveled faster than light before), or anything that has no mass!

If you still need me to explain this for you, go on and I will try my best.


----------



## Praetor

> You guys aren't following the rules though, light speed at it's real speed is 186,000 mps, if you slow it down you are not going at light speed because there will still be light that travels at 186,000mps! If you look at it this way, you could slow anything down and travel at any speed, if this was the case we would be able to time travel right now and the theory of relativity may as well be junk!


1. In light of stuff like string theory [http://superstringtheory.com/] your comments on time-travel (where time is a state rather than an tangible property like say speed or mass) is somewhat diminished
2. The speed of light in a vaccuum is accepted as 299 792 458 m/s. If you want to get technical (as we should to be somewhat accurate), lets use the proper terminology
3. Given photon P[1] with V[1]=Vc[vacuum] it is accepted that photon P[1] is travelling at 299792458m/s
4. Given photon P[2] with V[2]=Vc[water] it is accepted that photon P[2] is travelling at 224900569 m/s
5. Given that P[1] and P[2] (and streams of such) are elements of this "light", light has two known speeds, notably V[1] and V[2]. In simple terms -- just because the 6800GT is default clocked at 350MHz doesnt mean it runs at 350MHz day-in-day-out-24x7 ... it we consider that possibility and extend it ... then momentum would pose a problem (not to mention air resistance).
6. If you are really insistant on light being Vc[vaccuum] then you should consider that you've not personally (i dont think so at least, correct me if im wrong), light travelling at its "proper" (and ill get to that momentarily) speed. This is because the light that you are interacting with travels at, for the most part, Vc[air] = 299702547 m/s. The point of this? Not all light is equal -- and any light that you and I might encounter with respect to tubing or whatnot -- believe it or not, it wont be travelling at this so-called "proper" speed
7. Given the two photon streams P[1] and P[2] as described above, I sincerely hope you dont suggest that P[2] isnt a photon stream because it doesnt travel at the speed of P[1]. For all intents and purposes, light is a "photon stream" so the speed of the photon stream is the speed of light. 
8. Speed is the time derivative of position. Period. Just because we calculate the time derivative to something other than Vc[vaccuum] doesnt mean that "this calculated/observed speed of light is wrong" THe only conclusion you can draw from that is that "the observed/calculated speed is less than the accepted maximum speed". Now if you want to attempt a corrollary of that, "that the time derivative of any photon stream should/can be equal to Vc[vaccuum]" then you'll find yourself up for a lot of dissapointment. A realworld analogy would be that we should all write to nVidia saying that they got the speed of the 6800 wrong because the ASUS V9999GE is clocked faster.



> Slowing something down and then comparing it with our maximum speeds is hardly going the speed of light


So I guess we should all complain to nVidia because they obviously dont know the speed of the 6800



> The speed of light will always be 186,000mps


Then Im sorry to break it to you, you've not encountered this wonderful bliss. You've only encountered Vc[air] ... hey -- just like the rest of us 



> you can alter it with science but that doesn't change the fact that light travels at 186,000mps!


Ok lemme get this straight:
1. This supposed "only" speed of light is  299 792 458 m/s and photon streams will always and only travel at this speed.
2. We can change this speed of light.
You do realize this is a contradiction right?



> Your example of how a 6800GT clocked at 300MHz will still be a 6800GT is true but if you are running a 6800GT at 300MHz when it is capable of 350MHz that doesn't mean that a card that is only capable of 320MHz Beats the card that is capable of 350MHz!


I was kinda hoping you'd take me up on this
1. At no point in time did I suggest the card was not capable of 320MHz or 350MHz (or even more as many have pleasently found)
2. Coming back to reality (away from this theoretical mumbo jumbo for just a sec), people look for end-results (stocks, politics, day to day expenses, report cards etc) ... the simple fact that we say have 6800GT @ 300MHz  and a 6800GT @ 350MHz ... whether or not the card is capable of 350MHz is quite inconsequential to the end-user... they just want results
3. Going right back to pseudo-semi-theory land, suppose I do indulge you .... we take an XFX 6800 and compare it to an ASUS V9999GE .... by your logic, the XFX6800 is not a 6800 even though it features a 6800GPU and runs at 300/350 and as such we should be dissapointed since the V9999GE features a 6800 running at 350/500.



> It's true that this thread is just a bunch of theories and unrelated garbage but you can't just alter things to make something faster than the other. It's similar to cheating, light doesn't classify as light speed if you reduce the speed of light! If a GeForce 6800GT is clocked @ 350Mhz and you reduce the speed to 300MHz you can't clock a 6600GT to 300MHz and say you are running the 6600GT at 6800GT speeds!!!


1. You bring up a very good word: cheating. Yes. Perhaps it is "cheating" (both in the light and video card cases) but the bottom line is that it doesnt matter HOW you get whatever speed you get it. What matters is that it IS that way. Analogy 1: Suppose we were all wrong this time and Vc[vaccuum]=299 892 458 m/s, does this mean that the proof that this is the new speed of light in a vaccuum is wrong? No. Analogy 2: We have the ASUS V9999GE running at 350/500 ... does this mean that the card is obviously a fraud? No.

Heehee on with the debate


----------



## Cromewell

> E=mc² means energy= Mass x The Speed of Light (186,000MPS) squared. This rule means that anything with MASS can not travel faster than the speed of light


 wow man, I didn't know that .  Einstiens equations are flawed, electrons DO travel faster than the speed of light in a heavywater reactor





			
				Cerenkov Effect said:
			
		

> In the process of nuclear fission, a nuclear reactor produces a lot of highly-radioactive fission products, many of which release highly-energetic electrons (beta decay).
> These electrons are travelling faster than the speed of light in the water surrounding the reactor core, so they generate light. It just so happens that the light they produce is in the ultraviolet and the  blue part of the spectrum for visible light - so you see blue light.


it makes this colour (I think it looks eerily cool )


----------



## fultz

Cromewell said:
			
		

> wow man, I didn't know that .  Einstiens equations are flawed, electrons DO travel faster than the speed of light in a heavywater reactor



Again you are slowing light down to achieve the speeds though. Light is a pinpoint used to define the speed of 186,000MPS you seem to be getting confused and thinking light itself is a speed. The only reason it's referred to as light speed is because light travels at 186,000 miles per second and nothing can surpass the speed of light if it has mass because energy=mass x the speed of light squared, this means that if something having any mass is pushed at the speed of light it will gain weight and not reach the speed, if something having mass  did reach the speed of light then einsteins theory of relativity would be thrown out the window. 

YOU CAN NOT SLOW LIGHT DOWN TO REACH LIGHT SPEED! You may be reaching the speed of the particular light you are slowing down but the rule doesn't apply unless the speed of light is unchanged. Instead of thinking of it as the speed of light think of it as 186,000 miles per second.

The milestone is not the speed of light, it is 186,000 miles per second. The only acception to this rule is the photon which has REST mass which is explained in einstein's theory of special relativity that since it is accelerated so fast it has a mass of 0 which is also not having any mass so it applies to both rules!


----------



## Praetor

> Again you are slowing light down to achieve the speeds though. Light is a pinpoint used to define the speed of 186,000MPS you seem to be getting confused and thinking light itself is a speed.


- Given: The car travels at 100m/s
- Proposed: I travel at 100m/s
- Conclusion: I travel at the speed of the car -- *regardless of whether that is the maximum speed of the car or not*



> The only reason it's referred to as light speed is because light travels at 186,000 miles per second


No it's not. It's called the speed of light because it is the speed of the photon stream which coincidentally 299 792 458 m/s in a vaccuum. If we define it the way you did, then light would not travel at the speed of light because it has numerous speeds based on indices of refraction and exciting stuff like that



> then einsteins theory of relativity would be thrown out the window.


Do not forget that it just that -- a theory 



> YOU CAN NOT SLOW LIGHT DOWN TO REACH LIGHT SPEED!


Yes you can. The "speed of light", is the "speed of the photon stream" ... if we slow down the photon stream then we slow down the speed of light. At least for me, I'm not at any point suggesting (other than the mild comment about string theory) about anything affecting the maximum-speed-of-light-in-a-vaccuum



> Instead of thinking of it as the speed of light think of it as 186,000 miles per second.


No. That is NOT the defintion of speed. Speed is simply the time derivative of position. 299 792 458 m/s just happens to be the accepted value.



> The milestone is not the speed of light, it is 186,000 miles per second.


Again, a midefinition of speed. Speed-of-light-in-a-vaccuum may *imply* 299 792 458 m/s however this is not an equivalence and as such 299 792 458 m/s does *not* imply Vc[always]. 




(the subscript that may be a bit hard to read says vaccuum)


----------



## fultz

Praetor said:
			
		

> - Given: The car travels at 100m/s
> - Proposed: I travel at 100m/s
> - Conclusion: I travel at the speed of the car -- *regardless of whether that is the maximum speed of the car or not*
> 
> 
> No it's not. It's called the speed of light because it is the speed of the photon stream which coincidentally 299 792 458 m/s in a vaccuum. If we define it the way you did, then light would not travel at the speed of light because it has numerous speeds based on indices of refraction and exciting stuff like that
> 
> 
> Do not forget that it just that -- a theory
> 
> 
> Yes you can. The "speed of light", is the "speed of the photon stream" ... if we slow down the photon stream then we slow down the speed of light. At least for me, I'm not at any point suggesting (other than the mild comment about string theory) about anything affecting the maximum-speed-of-light-in-a-vaccuum
> 
> 
> No. That is NOT the defintion of speed. Speed is simply the time derivative of position. 299 792 458 m/s just happens to be the accepted value.
> 
> 
> Again, a midefinition of speed. Speed-of-light-in-a-vaccuum may *imply* 299 792 458 m/s however this is not an equivalence and as such 299 792 458 m/s does *not* imply Vc[always].
> 
> 
> 
> 
> (the subscript that may be a bit hard to read says vaccuum)




Your big scary numbers don't scare me. 

When I was referring to the reason the speed of light is called the speed of light I was referring to the reason it was called the speed of light when referring to the fact that it is impossible to travel at the speed of light.

The speed of light is the maximum speed that anything can travel, the maximum speed that light travels without modification is 186,000 miles per second, if you tamper with the speeds the rule doesn't apply because light is not traveling it's maximum speed. 

If you want to get technical and if we looked at things the way YOU did then there is no speed limit and everything can be faster than the next. You can always slow something down and catch up to the speeds but you can't always accelerate to the maximum speeds possible given the speed that light travels. If you dive to the depths of the ocean light doesn't travel at 186,000 miles per seconds because the water slows it down but that doesn't mean that light travels at any speed less than 186,000 miles per second just because it travels slower than that under water, to say anything else would be insane.

The theory of relativity is just a theory but it's also a theory, that over the period of well over 100 years, has never been proven wrong by the smartest people in the world. Scientists rethink their IDEAS on this theory.

The highest speed anything can travel is 186,000 Miles per second and the only thing that can travel at that speed are objects without mass. The whole point of this arguement was that something can travel faster than 186,000 miles per second which it can't unless it has Rest Mass or NO mass, if you want to argue with einstein's theory of relativity you can be my guest but im done posting on the subject, im almost up to 100 posts, my god you people are stubborn!

I'll tell you what, you show me an object that has mass that travels 186,000 miles per second or faster and I will shut up. PHOTONS don't count because they have REST MASS of zero so they apply to both the special theory of relativity and the theory of relativity.


----------



## Praetor

> Your big scary numbers don't scare me.


They're not supposed to. If you want to have a proper discussion -- use the proper numbers and units.



> The speed of light is the maximum speed that anything can travel, the maximum speed that light travels without modification is 186,000 miles per second, if you tamper with the speeds the rule doesn't apply because light is not traveling it's maximum speed.


At no point did I suggest that it is possible to travel faster than 299 792 458 m/s. This does not mean it is impossible to travel faster than the speed of light.



> If you want to get technical and if we looked at things the way YOU did then there is no speed limit and everything can be faster than the next.


Quite correct.



> If you dive to the depths of the ocean light doesn't travel at 186,000 miles per seconds because the water slows it down but that doesn't mean that light travels at any speed less than 186,000 miles per second just because it travels slower than that under water, to say anything else would be insane.


Well at the surface light doesnt travel at the glorious 299 792 458 m/s anyways. It travels at 299702547 m/s



> The theory of relativity is just a theory but it's also a theory, that over the period of well over 100 years, has never been proven wrong by the smartest people in the world. Scientists rethink their IDEAS on this theory.


Inconsequential. Im not challenging the theory -- just noting that it is just that - a theory.



> im almost up to 100 posts, my god you people are stubborn!


No need to get prissy ... doing so will get you a really quick promotion



> I'll tell you what, you show me an object that has mass that travels 186,000 miles per second or faster and I will shut up


if you took the time to read my post rather than exhibit an argumentative attitude then you'd realize that at no point did i suggest that anything could exceed (without stringing of course but thats a whole nother animal) 299 792 458 m/s. At no point did i suggest the speed of light in a vaccume was slower or faster than 299 792 458 m/s. I simply noted that you incorrectly established an equivalence between Vc[vaccume] and Vc where in reality (and theory) it is an implication.


----------



## fultz

Praetor said:
			
		

> They're not supposed to. If you want to have a proper discussion -- use the proper numbers and units.
> 
> 
> At no point did I suggest that it is possible to travel faster than 299 792 458 m/s. This does not mean it is impossible to travel faster than the speed of light.
> 
> 
> Quite correct.
> 
> 
> Well at the surface light doesnt travel at the glorious 299 792 458 m/s anyways. It travels at 299702547 m/s
> 
> 
> Inconsequential. Im not challenging the theory -- just noting that it is just that - a theory.
> 
> 
> No need to get prissy ... doing so will get you a really quick promotion
> 
> 
> if you took the time to read my post rather than exhibit an argumentative attitude then you'd realize that at no point did i suggest that anything could exceed (without stringing of course but thats a whole nother animal) 299 792 458 m/s. At no point did i suggest the speed of light in a vaccume was slower or faster than 299 792 458 m/s. I simply noted that you incorrectly established an equivalence between Vc[vaccume] and Vc where in reality (and theory) it is an implication.



You are toying with my point that nothing could exceed the speed of light yet you know that i was using the speed of light as a benchmark for 186,000mps and it made me angry. This whole thing has been a waste of time, it is impossible for anything to exceed 186,000mps unless it has no mass - In theory.  I wasn't getting prissy, but im up to 83posts on this one topic and two others alone.


----------



## Praetor

> You are toying with my point that nothing could exceed the speed of light yet you know that I was using the speed of light as a benchmark for 186,000mps and it made me angry


No im not. Im correcting a serious logical flaw -- you simply cannot imply Vc=>Vc[Vacuum] -- by your own admission even. The simple fact that we both know that light can be slowed by adjusting the medium through which it flows means that light does not always travel at Vc[vacuum] -- which means you cannot unequivocally say "the speed of light is <blah>" but rather you need to qualify it in a manner similar to "the speed of light in <medium> is <blah>".



> and it made me angry


That's nice. Control it.



> This whole thing has been a waste of time, it is impossible for anything to exceed 186,000mps unless it has no mass - In theory


Congratulations. Do note that not once did i challenge this other than the play on words.



> I wasn't getting prissy, but im up to 83posts on this one topic and two others alone.


That's nice. Keep that anger in check or the promotion will come a lot sooner than you'd expect. 


This discussion is terminated.


----------

