/sci/ - Science & Math

I'd like to see someone run 0.99c, stupid asshole

>wouldn't that means that they're running at speeds 1.98c relative to eachother?

Nope.

Relativity does not work that way.

>>3796815
>/sci/
>Cannot into hypothetical
Don't browse /sci/.

>>3796799
no, time will slow down relative to each other in such a way that it appears that they are running away at less than c, for a third person standing in the middel it will apear that they are running away from each other at 1.98c if he does not account for the change in time, but if you use the correct equations, he can work out it is actualy less that c.

>>3796820
Why? If you replace 0.99c with 10m/s they would run at 20m/s relative to eachother. So why does it change just because we increase the velocity? IF you don't think c, if you just think of it as 299792458 m/s, it works that way. Doesn't it? Why not?
>>3796829
So what you're saying is something can move at speeds >c RELATIVE TO SOMETHING, but it's not "really" running at speeds >c? But it can LOOK like someone does?

>>3796834
it can look from a third perspective that 2 things are moving > c relative to each other. put those 2 things will see each other go < c relative to each other.

>>3796869
Oh okay. But that answers the question "Can x go at speed > c relative to y?" with "yes". Thanks

>>3796820
What
Yes they can you idiot

0.99+0.99=1.98

>>3796877

They're running at 0.99c, not 1.01c

0.99c is smaller than 1c

>>3796888
0.999=1

Is this a troll thread? ._.

>>3796883
>tripfags
>understanding science in any way

Pick 1

Here's the problem with your theory.

The answer to your question Can things go faster than the speed of light?

They can run at 0.99c, but they can't run faster than 1c

Who the fuck cares about how fast they are moving away from eachother? THEY ARE BOTH RUNNING AT SLOWER THAN THE SPEED OF LIGHT

>>3796898
I pick the seocnd, because I'm a tripfriend

But seriously, if John runs left at 0.999c and Katy runs right at 0.999c, they'll see each other moving away at 1.98c

>>3796888
No, because x runs at 1.98c relative to y from an outside observer, z. For z, x is running at 1.98c relative to y.

>>3796911

How the fuck can they look at eachother if they are running away from eachother?
Eyes in the back of their heads?

>>3796877
>Can x go at speed > c relative to y?
does not state a reference frame,

> x can go at speed > c relative to y in frame z?
is correct

>x can go at speed > c relative to y in frame y or x?
is incorrect

>>3796922
See
>>3796822

> you can't travel at the speed of light
> only a fraction of it, 0.999...
> 0.999... = 1
> you can travel at the speed of light

>>3796911
zero understanding of relativity or even rounding
I am dissapoint teacup

>>3796911
No. And this is because the universe does not work the way you think it works from your every day experience. When things get really fast relative to you, they increase greatly in mass, their time gets dilated, and they stretch.

>>3796927
>0.999...
>fraction
>2010.999...

>>3796931
I've heard people say that so many times that it's lost all meaning. What's wrong with my post?

>>3796944
>Blahblahblah
If a blue car goes at 100 KM and a red car goes in the opposite directions at 100 KM, it looks like 200 KM.

>>3796944
*shrink

>>3796931
Example one:
A and B run away from echother, both at 10m/s relative to the ground. A is running at 20m/s relative to B. No questions.
Example two:
A and B are running away from eachother, both at 299492666 m/s relative to the ground. A is running at speed 598985332 m/s relative to B.
598985332/c = 1.9980000030554
Why all of a sudden, you start saying shit about this not being correct? You're getting confused becasue of the usage of the variable c. Just think of it as m/s and it makes sense.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Velocity-addition_formula#Special_theory_of_relativity

>>3796949
It looks like. It actually isn't. The correct formula for adding two speeds v and u is not s = v + u.
It is the one shown in the picture. Notice what happens when v and u are very small as a fraction of the speed of light. The vu/c^2 term becomes close to 0, and then the equation is almost equal to s = v + u.

>>3796959
>>3796949
if A is going 100km/h to the left and B 100km/h to the right, they are going not at 200km/h but 199.99999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999975448751 relative to each other.

>>3796949

You fail to understand that, how things "LOOK" change massively as you close in to the speed of light.

>>3796927
>implying you can ever reach 0.9999...c
Yeah okay.

>>3796966
>>3796960
/thread

>>3796959
Example three you travel at 299000km/s and you turn on headlights of your space ship 299000km/s + c = DOUBLE LIGHT SPEED

If I have two velocities, u and v, you cannot just add them together to get the total velocity, w.

The actual formula is:<div class="math">\vec{w}=\frac{\vec{u}+\vec{v}}{1-\frac{\vec{u} \cdot \vec{v}}{c^2}}</div>However, at 'human' speeds, uv/c^2 is so small that w=u+v is accurate. But at near light-speed, you can't just add the velocities.

>>3796966
That's just utter bullshit.

>>3796980
Enjoy wallowing in your own ignorance then.
>>>/x/
>>>/b/

>>3796986
Why do you have to divide things?

>>3796969
or 199.99814644905978628557659335km/h, if you want to be accurate

>>3796988
Because physics

>>3796966

why don't you just post the link, just one pic of it??

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Velocity-addition_formula

>>3796996
Because they wouldn't read it or understand it.

>>3796977
Now that's something else. Light always travels at c through a vacuum, regardless of the observer's position and velocity.

>>3796995
Explain them to me then, I'm a fast-learner

no-one is *actually* answering OPs question.

try this idiots

- galaxies are moving from eachother, we know this due to redshift.

- at some point, these will be so far away from eachother and moving so fast RELATIVE TO EACHOTHER not even light will reach us

- heat death style ending

so in this real-life situation, replace John and Katy with galaxy A and galaxy B and try to answer again

>>3797005
>>3797005

http://www.physicsforidiots.com/relativity.html

>>3797008
...1/10

>be teacup
>don't know what relativity is
>answer relativity questions authoritatively anyway
>call anyone anyone who gives a real answer an idiot

How come none of the tripfags on /sci/ seem to know about science or math?

>>3797009
Please explain it yourself. I could've just googled it as well.

>>3797015
Relatively is about fractions and time.

>>3797019
Then do.

>>3797008
Reference frames. Galaxy A sees B moving faster and faster away from itself, until it approaches something very close to c. B sees the same thing with A.

/sci/: if I got this wrong, please feel free to correct me. But I think that's all there is to it.

>>3797026
But I understand reading what people type better than just googling, you know

>>3797008
but that is caused by the expansion of space, its a special case. if John and Katy where so far away from each other that you have to account for the expansion of space, then they will travel at faster than light relative to each other. but they wont be able to get back together again, thats the main point. if you can travel faster than c and get back together, you will travel back in time. and you cant do that.

>>3797005

That formula, like all of special relativity, is a mathematical consequence of the empirical fact that light has the same speed in every reference frame.

>>3797028
You know that information you find through google? Real people actually typed that.

>>3797014
witty comeback, i applaud your incredible debating ability.

>>3797028
>But I understand reading what people type better than just googling, you know

I doubt it. Asking a question on 4chan is a terrible way to learn the basics of a subject.

>>3797033
What's a reference frame and how do we know light is the same?

>>3797036
No, but I mean that if I don't understand something, people can just explain it in another way. The computer can't.

>>3797037
So the person making this post is seriously proposing that as an answer to the question?
Excuse me while I die laughing.

special realitivity
gama is the 1-delta v over the diference i speed between the two frames of refrence*C^2

use the gama transformation of distance realitve to each to each other to the out side ob server they are both moving very slow and to each other they are each moving further so the speed of light is not broken

>>3797049
This is getting more and more retarded.

>>3797043
/sci/ is actually pretty cool when they're not being rude close-minded gay-loving bastards.

>>3797055
I agree, you're saging, which is retarded.

>>3797049
a reference frame is a set of coordinits where if something stands still, it will continue to stand still.

we assume that physics does not depend on how fast you are going
Maxwells equations say that light goes at c
so light must go at c relative to you

>Read this entire thread
>I'm a fast-learner

I seriously doubt that.

>>3797069
Dude what the fuck?

>>3797061
Fuck you Teacup, we all hate you. Not for taking it up the ass though, that part is cool.

>>3797078
go fucking teach yourself and stop making an ass of yourself all over /sci/

>>3797080
1) That's not the original picture, the original had no trollface.
2) It's accurate.
3) I needed that, actually. I erased the original.
4) Taking it up the ass is cool? Holy fuck, are you a gay?
5) You guys don't hate me, you just say that to tease me.

>>3797080
Stopped reading at 'photons are massless'.

>>3797078

Holy shit. Asking 4chan to explain relativity to you from scratch is not going to work. There's too much information, and it's infested with trolls and idiots. Make SOME effort to learn what's going on yourself, then ask about specific things you don't understand.

>>3797098
I hate you.
Not even teasing.

>>3797095
>>3797110
I need help. I ask for help. I ask my friends for help.
You guys are some of my best friends.

Guys
Guys
Let's sing together

>>3797118

Let's join hands for relativity
Guys
Friends
Let's join hands
for relativity

>>3797069
>a reference frame is a set of coordinits where if something stands still, it will continue to stand still.
That's... probably not the best way to describe it, since there is no such thing as a common set of coordinates and nothing ever "stands still". It's all relative, after all.

A reference frame is a place. It can be an observer or an object, no matter where they are or what speed they're traveling. But you can't place coordinates on them or determine their speed EXCEPT in relation to one another or in relation to another object.

>>3797080
Isn't space closer to 3K?

>>3797116
I hate you too you fucking semen loving-namefag

>>3797122
In relatively good terms we are
Like photons we areeeee
In harmonyyyyyy
A thread 404s
A neutrino deletes a threadddddd

>>3797135
We should stop being like virtual particles
stop annihilating each other
peace in the world
let's coalesce together in to a hadron

Guys... Not trying to be rude here, but can we stick to the subject?

>>3797132
>>3797132
holy shit that was a bad explanation of a reference frame, even >>3797069 was more accurate


A frame of reference in physics, refers to a coordinate system or set of axes within which to measure the position, orientation, and other properties of objects in it.

the things stay still thing refers to an Inertial frame of reference:

In physics, an inertial frame of reference is a frame of reference that describes time homogeneously and space homogeneously, isotropically, and in a time-independent manner

>>3797146
Should old friends be forgotten,
and never brought to mind?
Should old friends be forgot,
and old lang syne?

>>3797186
I'm a little teapot
Short and stout
Here is my handle
Here is my spout
When I get all steamed up
Hear me shout
"Tip me over
and pour me out!"

>>3797192
YES
YESSSSSSSSS
YESSSSSSSSSSSSSS

THIS WAS WHAT I WAITED FOR ALL THESE MONTHS
THIS IS WHY I CHOSE MY NAME TO BE TEACUP
SO SOMEONE WOULD SING THIS TO ME ON /SCI/

I LOVE YOU GUYS
I FUCKING LOVE YOU
<3<3<3<3<3<3<3<R525<<Z2Z<342DWEBUW0JV90234QHJY0JG09WJHB640YJHNISOVH
J2A0PT389089432179486\101919210101101010101010110001101101011011011001010101010010110101001010011010
010101

>>3797201
nps man, nps

>>3797167
Sorry bro, I tried. I was trying to frame my basic description with respect to the questions being asked ITT.

The "if something stands still, it will continue to stand still" is pretty incomprehensible, though, if you don't know what he's talking about. It makes more sense to me now, re-reading it, but at first I though he was referring to some universal coordinate system.

>>3797150

3 men of equal composure walk into a restaurant to eat dinner.
Another man unrelated to their party comes in and begins defecating on their table as their food arrives.
Subsequently one of the three men regurgitates onto his plate, right into his soup.
Seeing and smelling this along with the spectacle of the man still defecating in front of them, the second man also relieves his lunch however this time upon himself not wishing to ruin his meal.
Sensitive to the temperature, smell and sight of his own vomit now staining his 3 piece suit, he immediately urinates on himself out of sheer frustration before once more vomiting this time on his pants and shoes. The smell and stains will not wash off.

Now ask yourself, what is the possibility that the last man at the table, the state of which has not been verified yet, can sit there calmly and return to his meal amidst, or even after, all this?