The Speed of Light

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

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:
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, "
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" wrote in message
t...
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?