About us
Science Blog was started in August 2002. It lives, breathes and eats press releases from research organizations around the globe. Most of what you read here are press releases from the outfits named in the stories themselves. Got a news story you think belongs here? Let's talk. The other half of the equation is blog posts from readers like you. So if you have an interest in science, please register and join others like you in an ongoing, vibrant dialog about what makes the world tick. Meantime, please take a minute to read our Privacy Policy and Site Disclaimer.Recommended
Andrew Sullivan Dan Sullivan Doug Arellanes Emmanuelle Richard Faith Sullivan Fred Bortz Heather Havrilesky Henry Copeland Kate Sullivan Ken Layne lagreenbean.com LAist.com Maggie Sullivan Matt Welch NewYorkology Opinion L.A. Ron Kaye Slashdot Steve Elzer & Family TheNewsroom.org Thor Garcia Tony Pierce Wonkette OlderThanks CNET for naming Science Blog one of your Blog 100!
One of my personal theories is the theory of infinity and how it applies to light. (This gets a bit thick)
Firstly, I thought of the hyperbola, with the graph extending to the two infinities along each of the two asymptotes. Now if you take a rotated rectangular hyperbola so that the asymptotes lie on the X and Y axes, you get an equation along the lines of Y = K / X, where K is a constant.
This equation should be smooth and continuous based purely on the observation that y = f(x), where f(x) is the sum of terms that consist of k1 * x^k2, where k1 and k2 represent a range of different constants. This is not the case though, since X cannot equal 0. What I proposed was that the graph joins up at positive and negative infinity, and that therefore positive and negative infinity are the same. Since infinity is the reciprocal of 0, which has no sign, it stands to reason that infinity also has no sign.
With this in mind, the speed of light has always been unobtainable, due to the increasing force required to increase the speed of the object. When extrapolated, it has been theorised that an infinite force is required to push an object to the speed of light. I would then hazard a guess (with my little knowledge) that the speed of light is the definition of infinity in our universe in terms of velocity. While speeds greater than the speed of light are possible to put down on paper, infinity is, in reality, much closer.
Enter my theory. If you manage to push past the speed of light (infinity), then it will be travelling backwards at the same speed (negative infinity). If you travel close the speed of light, you may find there is a component of your motion (I'm really just guessing) going backwards faster than the speed of light which is inversely proportional to the forward velocity.