/sci/ - Science & Math

If light has the speed of light, then if you turn the lights on at lets say 100km/h,
then the light must travel lightspeed+100km/h??

conclusion: cars are timetravel machines

the light stays at the side of the car intill you go faster than the speed of light then the light will be behind you.

/thread

>>1135852
invalid

relativity, of course

it's not possible to travel at the speed of light

my high school teacher said you would still see the lights in front of you.

never explained why.

It goes the speed of light RELATIVE to the car, even though from an observer on the outside it would be double the speed.
Y/N?

>>1135852
pretty sure that's not how to works.

The light always goes at the speed of light relative to the observer i thought. Though I could very well be mistaken.

>>1135852
Way to copy/pasta from the other threat, douchebag.

>>1135852
No. No, it doesn't.
Now, please stop these threads. We had them often enough already.

>>1135845

correct

>>1135866 that would be if this: >>1135845 is incorrect, which isnt the case

>>1135837
To the one inside the car: Light is c faster than himself.
To an observer: Speed of light is c.
>>1135845
Same thing.
>>1135852
No.
>>1135866
>even though from an observer on the outside it would be double the speed.
No.

It travels away at speed of light for lightspeed car guy. For still guy, car appears to go slower than c, and light still goes at c.

>the light stays at the side of the car intill you go faster than the speed of light then the light will be behind you.

this is true but when you travel at the same speed of light, the light disappears

>>1135836

tinyurl dot com/3ye3cob you WILL take down the illegal clone ad52ef7155e4c2736c79fb566010b71d

>>1135880
>To an observer: Speed of light is c.
And speed of car < c

>>1135865
>my high school teacher said you would still see the lights in front of you.
>never explained why.

somehow it sounds correct

>>1135837
The second you turn your lights on is the second your car crushes into a singularity negating the relevance of your question and in the process killing you, this chain of events creates a better universe for the rest of us to live in.

>>1135889
And this is one of the reasons the car can't reach c, just approach to it.

>>1135845
>>1135878
>>1135880
>>1135889
Only 4 people seem to understand
/sci/, I am disappoint.

>>1135837

You see what light really is when 'not moving' which is Liam Neeson

then light travels at 2 * 300 000 000 m/s

For all faggots to understand:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V7vpw4AH8QQ

>>1135909

Holy shit. This is one of the few times I just felt like clicking on /sci/ and you guys have already blown my fucking mind. This and the Monty Hall problem. I should come back here more.

>>1135931
If those are the kind of things that blow your mind, maybe you will like it here.

>>1135909
Nice vid; I like the way it's explained for idiots. Will save this url to post in other relativity/time travel threads.

but what if the car was built from photons?

look you ignorant (high school) faggots:
If you walk with a flashlight and you turn it on does it means that the light coming out of it travels at 300.000.005 m/s???

The same happens with OP's example. The car can never reach the speed of light so light coming from the headlights would go faster (speed = c) and would 'get away' from the car with a speed of c - speed of the car.

>>1135948
You cannot make photons create other photons.

>>1135938
>>1135940

Thanks. I couldn't be any more of a retard when it comes to science.

>>1135834

tinyurl dot com/3ye3cob you WILL take down the illegal clone 759ca1d45e9f470813babb26b4ae7561

FUCK you cant go any faster than c DAMMIT DONT YOU PEOPLE KNOW ANYTHING

I MAD

>>1135967
A photon can go faster than c; c is it's average speed.

i like turtles

God could just alter the world, idiots.

>car travels at the speed of light
that's right: give it infinite energy to accelerate it's infinite mass
>hurr contradiction
>durr i can prove anything
/sci/, I am disappointed....

>>1135984

What?

>>1135984

>implying sage works

>>1135987
go back to your homework kid
>>1135995
It doesn't bump the thread and that's exactly what I want.
Also, please come back when you have learned proper English.

>>1136000

You're an idiot.

So if I was in the car, the headlights would illuminate the objects around me.

But if someone was observing from the outside, the objects would not be illuminated?

>go back to your homework kid

I'm 24, what you said didn't make sense. Try again?

>>1136025
It doesn't make any sense to think about time passing when you travel at light speed; you wouldn't have time to do anything at all.

>>1136025
Watch this, then think for a bit.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V7vpw4AH8QQ

Hint: you're time travelling.

>>1136031
Answer the question brosef

>>1136031
>You're time travelling

I'm travelling time right now. I am moving forwards in time.

What you have said is incorrect

>>1136021
You are using the lowest form of refutation: name calling. Even a 2nd grader would have come with a better reply.
You are basically admitting that I am right and you don't like it. (in your language: U MAD)

Yes everybody,
light does have as many different speeds as it wants at the same time.
also since your car can have different speeds at the same time too we can't really have speeds.
because they're all relative.
so if you work too fast, everybody will see it as you work slow, and it will be true, so don't.

>>1136030
Then you should get some education because you aren't able to understand a perfectly coherent and cohesive statement.

>You are using the lowest form of refutation: name calling. Even a 2nd grader would have come with a better reply.You are basically admitting that I am right and you don't like it. (in your language: U MAD)

Actually I meant you're a bit of an idiot. Everytime you post you prove my point, like magic.

>>1135837
everything is relative to the speed of light which is the limit
so if you are in the car you won't notice any difference
from the point of view of an observer the car won't seem to be with the lights on because they both travel with the same speed

if we have to be real something with mass can never travel with the speed of light
and the faster you go the shorter you seem to everyone else so he'll not be able to see the car in first place :)

If a car was travelling at .9999999999999999999
9999999999999999999999999999999999999
999999999999999999999999999999999999c and it turned its headlights on, they would look normal. The light would appear to be travelling at c.

>>1136064

I'm a doctor, graduated from Oxford, England last year. While maths isn't my strongest ability I can still see your post made little sense.
Perhaps you should get a better education?

>>1136066
>>1136066
I have only posted once in this thread and it seems that you are confusing me with the smart-ass who sages and posts reaction images.
FYY posting doesn't make anyone an idiot and you should be grateful for pointing out your flaws. Also I don't know what is this magic you are talking about, I am a scientist.

Photons can't exist at the speed of light.

/thread

>>1136066
>>1136021
>>1136030
>>1135987
>>1135995
Those guys got so trolled they might wanna sit down...

>Also I don't know what is this magic you are talking about, I am a scientist.

>Also I don't know what is this magic you are talking about, I am a scientist.

>>1136135

Above.

>Also I don't know what is this magic you are talking about, I am a scientist.
This post made my day

>>1136119
> I am a scientist.
cool story, bro

>>1136137

their the ones doing the trolling

>>1136031
I'm watching the documentary that this is associated to and theres so many problems with it.

The commentary is doctor who (hooray).

They've also introduced time in the same way you would explain the 4th spacial dimension.

wtf?

>>1136165
They obviously posted more replies than the funny guy so obviously trolled.
I find it unusual that you defend 'them' (nice try samefag)

ITT blatant misunderstanding of special relativity.

The car would be catching up with the photons as it is releasing them, and thus, whilst the light would be produced, by the time you see it, you will be squashed.


C remains constant for everyone in this case.

>>1136205
trollan

>>1135837
The best orgasm. EVER.

An object with mass cannot be accelerated to the speed of light.

>>1135837
> If a car travels at the speed of light
It doesn't.

Light travels at C for ALL OBSERVERS. This is the basis of relativity. No matter what crazy scenario you come up with, light always travels at C for anybody looking at it, no matter how fast or which direction they travel.

>Thread created 06/08/10(Tue)09:18
>06/08/10(Tue)16:16
I can't believe this shit is still on the first page after 7 hours
You guys are fucking stupid.

Maxwell's equations prove that light always travels at a constant speed irregardless of the source speed.

A sound wave also travels at a constant speed irregardless of the source speed.

>>1138756

So how does Cerenkov radiation occur?

>>1139063
Photons move at C in a vacuum, but less than C in other mediums.

Get something to travel faster than photons in *that* medium, and you get Checknox Radiation. I think. It's something along those lines.

So what happens when you break the "Light-Barrier" ???

>>1139073

So then light doesn't always travel at C since it doesn't always travel in a vacuum?

Relativity broken.

trollface.jpg

>>1139092
dohoho

>what would the laws of physics do if you ignored the laws of physics?

You fart yourself some unicorns, obviously.