The Speed of Light

kojikun · Post by **kojikun** » 2003-02-04 11:10pm

Yosh, both will also perceive themselves as faster then the other.

Ultra, the universe is fucked up because god had a seizure while making it. -.-

UltraViolence83 · Post by **UltraViolence83** » 2003-02-04 11:15pm

Ok, let's say there's a nearby planet (Earth) they can base their speeds on. One ship is very, very fast, near lightspeed, say 0.9999c , other is much slower, 0.1c or less in velocity. They're also basing their speeds on each other (they are approaching head on.)

Isn't the speed of light an absolute? Couldn't a ship use a light beam or something to measure how fast they are going relative to the speed of light?

Darth Yoshi · Post by **Darth Yoshi** » 2003-02-04 11:52pm

UltraViolence83 wrote:Ok, let's say there's a nearby planet (Earth) they can base their speeds on. One ship is very, very fast, near lightspeed, say 0.9999c , other is much slower, 0.1c or less in velocity. They're also basing their speeds on each other (they are approaching head on.)

Isn't the speed of light an absolute? Couldn't a ship use a light beam or something to measure how fast they are going relative to the speed of light?

If one's at .9999c and one's at .1c, the point is moot, since .9999c is moving to fast to be hit.

Actually, they can't, because they will always measure light to move at c, regardless of their velocity relative to say, the earth.

(EDIT) clarification: Light always moves at c relative to the observer.

kojikun · Post by **kojikun** » 2003-02-04 11:59pm

if the people in the ship shoot the beam of light, from their slowed distorted perspective it will race away at C. The people on earth also see the light racing towards them at C. From both perspectives, the light is moving at C, despite time dilation. Whats more is, even tho the ship is moving at C and it shoots a beam of light, it doesnt GAIN speed because of the ships speed! Yes, its insane. Thats relativity for you.

Durandal · Post by **Durandal** » 2003-02-05 12:44am

Darth Yoshi wrote:
UltraViolence83 wrote:Ok, let's say there's a nearby planet (Earth) they can base their speeds on. One ship is very, very fast, near lightspeed, say 0.9999c , other is much slower, 0.1c or less in velocity. They're also basing their speeds on each other (they are approaching head on.)

Isn't the speed of light an absolute? Couldn't a ship use a light beam or something to measure how fast they are going relative to the speed of light?
If one's at .9999c and one's at .1c, the point is moot, since .9999c is moving to fast to be hit.

Actually, they can't, because they will always measure light to move at c, regardless of their velocity relative to say, the earth.

(EDIT) clarification: Light always moves at c relative to the observer.

If it's traveling at 0.9999c, it'll be almost two-dimensional anyway.

UltraViolence83 · Post by **UltraViolence83** » 2003-02-05 01:22pm

Ugh, I didn't want to use numbers. The ships are travelling head-on, the slower ship could shoot a missile in the path of the faster ship*, and the faster ship would run into it. Ok, if you're going a little faster than the movement of the Earth, and the other ship is high relativistic, wouldn't THEY BE MUCH, MUCH FASTER THAN EITHER YOU OR THE EARTH ON YOUR SCANNER?!? Um...How could you perceice the near-light ship to be slower than you if you're moving incredibly slower than it? Let's say if you two were stationary, it would take you a long time to get to them, while they could get to you in like, a few seconds. Shouldn't THAT be a base for how fast either ship is going? How can the fast ship look slower if it will be closer to you before you'll be closer to it?

*speed based on a single point, Earth.

This is soooo confusing.

UltraViolence83 · Post by **UltraViolence83** » 2003-02-05 02:19pm

By the way, I'm not trying to question you guys' knowledge on relativity, just that I'm trying to make some sense out of it.

Pu-239 · Post by **Pu-239** » 2003-02-05 03:36pm

Would energy being released from the destruction of matter increase if C was increased, and vice versa? What other stuff would be affected if C was changed?

Raoul Duke, Jr. · Post by **Raoul Duke, Jr.** » 2003-02-05 04:23pm

kojikun wrote:nope, not cancelled. both see each other slower then itself. Its almost as confusing as quantum physics

Absolutely... just ask Schroedinger's Cat.

jegs2 · Post by **jegs2** » 2003-02-05 04:43pm

Is the speed of light decreasing?

kojikun · Post by **kojikun** » 2003-02-05 04:50pm

no its increasing, we're just moving in reverse.

Korvan · Post by **Korvan** » 2003-02-05 06:02pm

The speed of light describes the geometry of 4d space/time. Specifically, it is the ratio of space to time. For instance, one second = 1/c metres. If you calculate your age in seconds you can divide by c to find out how old you are in metres. My own age is about 3.31 metres.

Enola Straight · Post by **Enola Straight** » 2003-02-05 07:59pm

Okay, c is like G or h: a Fundamental Constant whose value the universe assigns by a criterion which we cannot break down into simpler reasons.

the speed of light is.

kojikun · Post by **kojikun** » 2003-02-05 09:01pm

No, Korvan, your age is retard.

Korvan · Post by **Korvan** » 2003-02-05 09:28pm

kojikun wrote:No, Korvan, your age is retard.

I see that you're a space time equilvalence unbeliever then. I guess you'll be calling Stephan Hawking a gimp next.

kojikun · Post by **kojikun** » 2003-02-05 09:50pm

Stephans called himself a gimp, moron. He lost a bet about naked singularities. Care to get who he lost it to?

Korvan · Post by **Korvan** » 2003-02-06 01:03am

kojikun wrote:Stephans called himself a gimp, moron. He lost a bet about naked singularities. Care to get who he lost it to?

I have to admit that I'm more curious regarding your hostility than who Hawking lost the bet to, but off hand I'd say Richard Feyman.

EmperorChrostas the Cruel · Post by **EmperorChrostas the Cruel** » 2003-02-06 09:20pm

But why is 2, 2 ? I mean, why couldn't it be 3? Why is blue, blue, and why can't it be red?

xianseeker · Post by **xianseeker** » 2003-02-07 08:36pm

This is in response to

Ugh, I didn't want to use numbers. The ships are travelling head-on, the slower ship could shoot a missile in the path of the faster ship*, and the faster ship would run into it. Ok, if you're going a little faster than the movement of the Earth, and the other ship is high relativistic, wouldn't THEY BE MUCH, MUCH FASTER THAN EITHER YOU OR THE EARTH ON YOUR SCANNER?!? Um...How could you perceice the near-light ship to be slower than you if you're moving incredibly slower than it? Let's say if you two were stationary, it would take you a long time to get to them, while they could get to you in like, a few seconds. Shouldn't THAT be a base for how fast either ship is going? How can the fast ship look slower if it will be closer to you before you'll be closer to it?

*speed based on a single point, Earth.

The velocities of the vessels and the weapons can be calculated using the Lorentz Transformation equations. We did some stuff like this in my physics class.

kojikun · Post by **kojikun** » 2003-02-07 09:40pm

I have to admit that I'm more curious regarding your hostility than who Hawking lost the bet to, but off hand I'd say Richard Feyman.

Kip Thorne.

He had to give a teeshirt "to cover the winners nakedness". Stephen gave a teeshirt with a near naked woman and a sign that said "Nature abhors a naked singularity" or something to that effect. The newest version of the bet has a revised concession prize: a teeshirt of suitably concessionary nature.

StarDestroyer.Net BBS

The Speed of Light

Two vessels at near light speed