Posted: 7/21/2012 5:04:11 PM EDT
| So objects cannot move faster than the speed of light. What is the speed of light measured relative to? |
|
Light exibits properties of both particle and wave so technically matter HAS reached the speed of light.
The speed of light has best been calculated by aiming lasers at mirrors placed on the moon during the landings (HAH we DID land on the moon). We know the distance, and we have really expensive, nuclear powered watches, so the rest is just math. |
|
Quoted: Light travels at 299,792,458 meters/second relative to wherever you're measuring it from. If you're going 2000 m/s, or 299,792,457m/s, light will still move towards or away from you at 299,792,458 m/s. What if the light is on a tread mill? (so sorry, but I just had to post it....I really did) |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Light travels at 299,792,458 meters/second relative to wherever you're measuring it from. If you're going 2000 m/s, or 299,792,457m/s, light will still move towards or away from you at 299,792,458 m/s. What if the light is on a tread mill? (so sorry, but I just had to post it....I really did) That depends on how long the treadmill is, and the relative location of the 747. |
|
Quoted: As you will see in the moving train paradox, it doesn't matter what the measured speed of light is relative to. It is always the same regardless of the position or speed of its observer. That is unless CERN has officially proved this wrong... The CERN results were shown to be a fluke caused by wiring problems. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2105353/Faulty-wires-CERN-test-results-debunked-Einsteins-theory-relativity.html OP, light relative to any frame of reference will always be measured to be moving 300000kms.  |
|
Neutrinos move faster than the speed of light. CERN will probably discover more faster than light objects as time goes on. The universe is far more mysterious than scientists originally imagined. As an example, I fed a fish to a pelican at Frisco bay. It tried to eat my cell phone, he ran away. |
|
Quoted: Neutrinos move faster than the speed of light. CERN will probably discover more faster than light objects as time goes on. The universe is far more mysterious than scientists originally imagined. As an example, I fed a fish to a pelican at Frisco bay. It tried to eat my cell phone, he ran away. No, the neutrino results were found to be a fluke caused by faulty wiring... http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-17139635 http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2012/feb/23/faster-light-neutrinos-faulty-connection NOTHING has been found and CONFIRMED to move faster than light. This is why results must be duplicated. It ended up being bad wiring giving screwy results. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
so could an object (spaceship) be accelerated faster than light relative to another object (a planet)? No. From the point of view of those on the planet, light would still be emitting from/reflecting off of the spaceship at the speed of light. the light from the spaceship would be traveling at the speed of light. My question was could the spaceship be traveling faster than the speed of light. Kind of like if something is traveling faster than the speed of sound the sound reaches you after the object. |
|
Quoted: No, and you're still thinking like Classical Newtonian Motion. That is what is tripping you up. Every different observer has a different frame of motion through time. so could an object (spaceship) be accelerated faster than light relative to another object (a planet)? |
|
Quoted: Quoted: Neutrinos move faster than the speed of light. CERN will probably discover more faster than light objects as time goes on. The universe is far more mysterious than scientists originally imagined. As an example, I fed a fish to a pelican at Frisco bay. It tried to eat my cell phone, he ran away. No, the neutrino results were found to be a fluke caused by faulty wiring... http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-17139635 http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2012/feb/23/faster-light-neutrinos-faulty-connection NOTHING has been found and CONFIRMED to move faster than light. This is why results must be duplicated. It ended up being bad wiring giving screwy results. So they say now. They just realized that they had opened a can of Pandora's worms and panicked. Scientists. Y'all motherfuckers lying, and getting me pissed. |
|
Quoted: Light exibits properties of both particle and wave so technically matter HAS reached the speed of light. The speed of light has best been calculated by aiming lasers at mirrors placed on the moon during the landings (HAH we DID land on the moon). We know the distance, and we have really expensive, nuclear powered watches, so the rest is just math. It's OK to say "I don't know". |
|
Quoted: That will never happen. Even if you are moving at 299999kms (relative to an object), you will measure the light moving away from you at 300000kms. Now from the objects vantage, you will be moving just behind the light (1kms less) but time will for you be running very slowly. If they could see clocks on your ship, it would appear to tick by extremely slow. This is why you will still see light move away at normal speed, but the object outside will see you moving nearly the speed of light. Quoted: Quoted: so could an object (spaceship) be accelerated faster than light relative to another object (a planet)? No. From the point of view of those on the planet, light would still be emitting from/reflecting off of the spaceship at the speed of light. the light from the spaceship would be traveling at the speed of light. My question was could the spaceship be traveling faster than the speed of light. Kind of like if something is traveling faster than the speed of sound the sound reaches you after the object. You will never reach the speed of light, because at that point your clock would stop moving. |
|
Quoted:
As you will see in the moving train paradox, it doesn't matter what the measured speed of light is relative to. It is always the same regardless of the position or speed of its observer. That is unless CERN has officially proved this wrong... This, its the universal constant. |
|
Quoted:
Neutrinos move faster than the speed of light. CERN will probably discover more faster than light objects as time goes on. The universe is far more mysterious than scientists originally imagined. As an example, I fed a fish to a pelican at Frisco bay. It tried to eat my cell phone, he ran away. Considering the CERN collider hasn't yet been powered up past 40% (IIRC) of capacity, there's definitely more room for discovery. |
|
Quoted: One more time... CERN has its self said that those results were in error. I've linked 3 articles about.Quoted: Neutrinos move faster than the speed of light. CERN will probably discover more faster than light objects as time goes on. The universe is far more mysterious than scientists originally imagined. As an example, I fed a fish to a pelican at Frisco bay. It tried to eat my cell phone, he ran away. Considering the CERN collider hasn't yet been powered up past 40% (IIRC) of capacity, there's definitely more room for discovery. Neutrinos do not move faster than light. It was bad wiring. No one in the physics community ever had any doubt, and most from the get go assumed it would be shown to be in error, media hype to the contrary notwithstanding. And lo-and-behold, it was an error. |
|
Quoted: From who's point of reference?What would happen if I was in a space ship traveling at .9999999999999999999999999999999999999999999% the speed of light and I fired an AR15 in the direction of movement? From your point of reference, the light it still moving away from you at 300000kms, so it would appear to move relative to light the exact same as it does here on earth. From the point of view of an outside observer it would appear to leave the gun barrel very slowly and only inch out in front of you at a very low speed. Its that whole clocks moving slowly thing. No point of view is going to see it move faster than light, sorry... |
|
Light always moves at the speed of light relative to you. That don’t make no sense, but it is what has been repeatedly observed in experiment after experiment.
Imagine that you get on a spaceship and accelerate to 90% of the speed of light. Then, if you measure the speed that light travels in every direction, you discover that it traveling the same speed in every direction. How is that possible? Because your perception of space and time get altered as you accelerate. In relativity, any measurements you make are only true in your frame of reference. You can measure something as being a meter long and someone in a different reference frame might measure it as having a different length. |
|
Quoted: What would happen if I was in a space ship traveling at .9999999999999999999999999999999999999999999% the speed of light and I fired an AR15 in the direction of movement? The bullet will move away from you a little bit faster than the ship is traveling, but not quite as fast as light travels. |
|
While the speed of light may or may not be constant, our perception of it varies as we are not viewing it in a time/space vacuum. There are a myriad of factors affecting our perception of light relative to ourselves. Hot lava, snow, rain and fog. Long neck giraffes, and pet cats and dogs. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
So objects cannot move faster than the speed of light. What is the speed of light measured relative to? Your frame of reference. Object one and Object two are at a static distance relative to each other. Lets say 10 light years. can a spacecraft launch from object one and accelerate to .75 the speed of light towards object two...while at the same time an object from object two launches at .75 the speed of light at object one. it seems when they reached relative to each other they would be traveling at 1.5 light speed? |
|
Quoted:
Light travels at 299,792,458 meters/second relative to wherever you're measuring it from. If you're going 2000 m/s, or 299,792,457m/s, light will still move towards or away from you at 299,792,458 m/s. But only in a vacuum. If you are measuring the speed in water, or glass, or some other clear substance, the speed will be slower. Oh, BTW particles have been observed moving faster than the speed of light through water, but not through a vacuum. |
|
Quoted:
So objects cannot move faster than the speed of light. What is the speed of light measured relative to? The speed of light is always measured to be the same regardless of reference frame. So, however far apart two points appear in your reference frame, the time for a light pulse to transit between those two points will always be d/C where d is the distance measured in your frame of reference. Even though someone in another reference frame (i.e. someone with a different relative velocity to you) may measure a different distance between those same points, but they too will see a light pulse transit those two points in time d/C (though their measured "d" and your measured "d" may be different). In other words, C is constant regardless of reference frame. It is measured by timing the transit time of a light pulse between two points separated by a know distance (and this distance is dependent on frame of reference). |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
So objects cannot move faster than the speed of light. What is the speed of light measured relative to? Your frame of reference. Object one and Object two are at a static distance relative to each other. Lets say 10 light years. can a spacecraft launch from object one and accelerate to .75 the speed of light towards object two...while at the same time an object from object two launches at .75 the speed of light at object one. it seems when they reached relative to each other they would be traveling at 1.5 light speed? Do you mean relative to an observer on object one that object two would be traveling at 1.5 times the speed of light? IIRC, the answer would be no, because object two is incapable of observation by the observer because the light reflected image of object two cannot be observed until the object has actually arrived. IOW, you can see a tennis ball thrown at you before it hits you because the light reflecting off it arrives at your eye long before the ball ever does, but if it were traveling at the speed of light you couldn't see it until it hit you in the face and vaporized your skull. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
So objects cannot move faster than the speed of light. What is the speed of light measured relative to? Your frame of reference. Object one and Object two are at a static distance relative to each other. Lets say 10 light years. can a spacecraft launch from object one and accelerate to .75 the speed of light towards object two...while at the same time an object from object two launches at .75 the speed of light at object one. it seems when they reached relative to each other they would be traveling at 1.5 light speed? Do you mean relative to an observer on object one that object two would be traveling at 1.5 times the speed of light? IIRC, the answer would be no, because object two is incapable of observation by the observer because the light reflected image of object two cannot be observed until the object has actually arrived. IOW, you can see a tennis ball thrown at you before it hits you because the light reflecting off it arrives at your eye long before the ball ever does, but if it were traveling at the speed of light you couldn't see it until it hit you in the face and vaporized your skull. They would NOT measure a closing speed of 1.5C because the measured distances between each of the craft by observers on each craft would be subject to dilation effects. The measured closing speed would be less that C. |
|
Quoted:
Neutrinos move faster than the speed of light. CERN will probably discover more faster than light objects as time goes on. The universe is far more mysterious than scientists originally imagined. As an example, I fed a fish to a pelican at Frisco bay. It tried to eat my cell phone, he ran away. You didn't get the memo ? It was bs.. |
|
Quoted:
Light travels at 299,792,458 meters/second relative to wherever you're measuring it from. If you're going 2000 m/s, or 299,792,457m/s, light will still move towards or away from you at 299,792,458 m/s. Negative. Light moves at a constant speed (in a vacuum), period. If you happen to be moving at 1 m/s less than the speed of light (let's ignore the weird relativistic things that would happen here), light from a laser pointer you were holding would move away from you at 1 m/s. A bullet fired forward (in the same direction) from a moving train would be the normal speed of the bullet, plus the speed of the train. Not so with light. It has a top end. |
|
Quoted:
So objects cannot move faster than the speed of light. What is the speed of light measured relative to? Permittivity and permeability. The speed of light changes while propagating through different materials somewhat like the speed of sound is changes through different media. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
So objects cannot move faster than the speed of light. What is the speed of light measured relative to? Your frame of reference. Object one and Object two are at a static distance relative to each other. Lets say 10 light years. can a spacecraft launch from object one and accelerate to .75 the speed of light towards object two...while at the same time an object from object two launches at .75 the speed of light at object one. it seems when they reached relative to each other they would be traveling at 1.5 light speed? Do you mean relative to an observer on object one that object two would be traveling at 1.5 times the speed of light? IIRC, the answer would be no, because object two is incapable of observation by the observer because the light reflected image of object two cannot be observed until the object has actually arrived. IOW, you can see a tennis ball thrown at you before it hits you because the light reflecting off it arrives at your eye long before the ball ever does, but if it were traveling at the speed of light you couldn't see it until it hit you in the face and vaporized your skull. They would NOT measure a closing speed of 1.5C because the measured distances between each of the craft by observers on each craft would be subject to dilation effects. The measured closing speed would be less that C. I like my answer better even if it isn't right. 
|
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Light travels at 299,792,458 meters/second relative to wherever you're measuring it from. If you're going 2000 m/s, or 299,792,457m/s, light will still move towards or away from you at 299,792,458 m/s. Negative. Light moves at a constant speed (in a vacuum), period. If you happen to be moving at 1 m/s less than the speed of light (let's ignore the weird relativistic things that would happen here), light from a laser pointer you were holding would move away from you at 1 m/s. Not exactly, as measured by you the light from your laser pointer would move at C. As measured by an outside observer with zero relative velocity (we can't actually say a "stationary" observer because it doesn't exit in Einstein's universe, there is no preferred reference frame to be stationary with respect to) the light pulse would indeed be traveling 1 m/s faster than you. You must remember that time and distance measured by observers in each reference frame are not the same, which is why two seemingly contradictory measurements can both be true. A bullet fired forward (in the same direction) from a moving train would be the normal speed of the bullet, plus the speed of the train. Not so with light. It has a top end. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Light travels at 299,792,458 meters/second relative to wherever you're measuring it from. If you're going 2000 m/s, or 299,792,457m/s, light will still move towards or away from you at 299,792,458 m/s. Negative. Light moves at a constant speed (in a vacuum), period. If you happen to be moving at 1 m/s less than the speed of light (let's ignore the weird relativistic things that would happen here), light from a laser pointer you were holding would move away from you at 1 m/s. A bullet fired forward (in the same direction) from a moving train would be the normal speed of the bullet, plus the speed of the train. Not so with light. It has a top end. Quoted:
It's OK to say "I don't know". Nope, the laser light would appear to you to move away at the speed of light. It would appear to a 3rd person to be moving slowly away from you. |