Why do they limit top end speed of S4 in North Ame

[dotorg]

enpassant said:

As speed increases, time slows down.  That is why because I drive an S4, I act like an 18 y.o.(immature) even thought chronologically, I’m 55.

Einstein said if you ever hit the speed of light you will turn into energy, thing about it, it makes no sense for energy to turn into matter, if that was the case light would be solid.

Dr. No, in answer to your ? I am a chess player, how about you?

No, Einstein didn't say that at all. In fact most things attributed to Einstein around the special and general relativity weren't actually things said by him. As a material object approaches the speed of light, a lot of things happen. Every other object in the universe, from that objects perspective starts to experience a sped up flow of time.  The rate of increase of speed slows as well, because the majority of the energy is getting converted into mass.  As an object with any intrinsic mass approaches the speed of light, its mass approaches infinity.

In terms of why light in a vacuum can travel at the speed of light, keep in mind Einstein's theory is a hundred years old, and while the key points of it are still generally held to be true, much of the reasoning behind why its true (the actual mechanics that lead to the theory) are known to be wrong, because they aren't compatible with quantum mechanics.

[AluminouS4]

You guys are like smart and stuff  

[Brian]

Since S4s in no way shape or form approach the speed of light I have a hard time relating to this. And, even if they could they're still "electronically limited" to 142 mph.  

[enpassant]

Most theoretical physicsts agree there are still many flaws in quantum physics, that is why they are now exploring "string" theory and "unifying Force" theories.
You are correct the theory is: that as matter approaches the speed of light, it's mass approaches infinity,  it may not have been Einstein but one of his proponents said if it exceeded the speed of light, it would change from matter to energy.  Some feel that if you exceed the speed of light you will have negative time=go back in time as in quarks.   A logical extrapolation being that time slows down as speed increases.

[dotorg]

enpassant said:

Most theoretical physicsts agree there are still many flaws in quantum physics, that is why they are now exploring "string" theory and "unifying Force" theories.
You are correct the theory is: that as matter approaches the speed of light, it's mass approaches infinity,  it may not have been Einstein but one of his proponents said if it exceeded the speed of light, it would change from matter to energy.  Some feel that if you exceed the speed of light you will have negative time=go back in time as in quarks.   A logical extrapolation being that time slows down as speed increases.

Damn, I just typed a freakin dissertation in reply, and hit the reset button accidentally.  

I'll boil it down, because I don't want to retype it all. Sorry if its a little sparse:  

I'm not sure what you've been reading, but "now exploring" above is talking about things that are very fringe now. String theory hasn't been seriously researched in twenty years. Is fixes some problems in the standard equations of quantum mechanics, but it also predicts things that either can't be tested, or just don't happen, depending on which of the dozens of published string theories you look at.

Also, you meant tachyons, not quarks. But that whole tachyon thing is bad pop-science. The theory isn't that things going faster than light go back in time, it says one thing and one thing only: there is no way to differentiate between a particle moving faster than light backwards in time and a particle going slower than light forwards in time. Superman, Star Trek, and other bastians of pop sci fi have so ingrained that misinterpretation in our culture that lots of people take it to be the truth.

FWIW, the bleeding edge of theoretical physics, among the top people in the field, actually has been focusing lately on removing the concept of time from quantum mechanics -- turns out things work better without it. The thought now is that we perceive the universe has having a distinct flow through one of its dimensions (time) because of something about the nature of our conciousness that we don't understand. Thats the real problem today with quantum mechanics -- since observation is the only factor in the collapse of the wave function that leads to the events that we observe and are trying to figure out, we need to understand how our perception works to be able to really work back to what is actually happening.

(ie, even if we build a machine that accurately measures a series of events, of cause and effect, if our conciousness is biased for whatever reason towards a certain ordering of those events, then what we detect, even through another measuring device, is automatically biased the same way...)

Believe me, as weird as quantum mechanics comes across in things like Hawkings books for the general public (or for that matter in most universities), thats the most watered down tip of the iceburg.

[enpassant]

My background is in science so I try and keep up with these things, but it sounds like you deal with it on a regular basis and you know what you're talking about so I defer to you.  The books I've read on string theory and unifying field theory are new.  I realize the theory has been revised, but from my understanding still plausable.  

Now back to Audis.  Any thoughts on breakin period for new S4.  I've heard no breakin necessary all the way up to 10kmi.  Any suggestions?
Thanks

[Ringo]

enpassant said:

Now back to Audis.  Any thoughts on breakin period for new S4.  I've heard no breakin necessary all the way up to 10kmi.  Any suggestions?
Thanks

Thank God that is over.  I was about to jump over to AW for some good old fashion my car is faster than your car BS.

I've heard varying estimates but I would think keeping it under 5Krpm until 3K miles then gradually stepping up to red line over the next 2K miles would be more than safe enough.  

Or you can be like some of these guys, no names, and mod the hell out of it before you get to 1000 miles then start to race anybody who is silly enough to play with you.

[dotorg]

enpassant said:

My background is in science so I try and keep up with these things, but it sounds like you deal with it on a regular basis and you know what you're talking about so I defer to you.  The books I've read on string theory and unifying field theory are new.  I realize the theory has been revised, but from my understanding still plausable.  

Now back to Audis.  Any thoughts on breakin period for new S4.  I've heard no breakin necessary all the way up to 10kmi.  Any suggestions?
Thanks

Plausable is true, its just that the particular theories that "work" aren't testable, so its considered sort of a dead area of research for the next century or so, until we have better technologies for generating extreme energy levels. My background is film, but I changed majors a lot in school and physics was one of them. I used to subscribe to a number of journals until more expensive hobbies like cars sapped the money. That reminds me, my Nature subscription just expired...

I was told with both of my S4's that the engine is broken in from the factory, but its a good idea to really baby it the first 100 miles, and avoid lugging the engine or running at high RPMS (over 4 to 5k) for the first 1000. Not sure if there's any truth to it, but following those guidelines, I've had two S4's that never burned a drop of oil between changes.

[mike@bostonaudi]

For some reason the only thing that comes to mind is the quote from The Simpsons:

Lisa, you will not violate the laws of physics!

in respect to her perpetual motion machine. Good times...