/sci/ - Science & Math

>If you were traveling at the speed of light in a car...
confirmed for retard

>>4164303

go back to /b/

Yeah i knew you wouldn't be able to answer it, /sci/. Bunch of know-nothing faggots.

Google Einstein's 2 postulates then you figure it out from there

you would divide by zero and doom us all.

Hold on idiots, OP is posing a valid thought experiment. Subatomic particles with mass were measured as moving the speed of light. (OH, that's right, neutrinos!) Don't be so quick to call people out for being wrong when you don't have a clue what you're talking about. The truth: IDFK OP. For you other wankers, 0/10.

>>4164319
>>4164325
get the fuck out of here you cancerous tumors

>>4164325
>>4164319

a silly question followed by abuse, on My /sci/? Really, a silly question deserves a silly answer.

>>4164337
Your missing a sage there. So many other threads could've done with a bump there instead.

>>4164334
>>4164337

>Didn't qualify your assertion that OP was retarded

>Didn't provide counter-argument that I proved your groundless assertion was incorrect

Leave /sci/, you're clearly not a scientist, and if you are a scientist you should an hero and save the rest of us face.

>2012
>Thinking Einstein's relativity equation is accurate

>>4164337
Silly questions are what leads to discovery. Imagine life if no one asked questions other people thought were wrong, where would we be right now?

>>4164348

Abuse, on My /sci/? Really, a silly post deserves a silly answer.

>>4164348
lurk more

how can you guys argue over this? this is a legitimate question...

>>4164362
It may be a legitimate question, but damned if I'm not going to give silly answers.

would the light then travel at twice the speed of light?

>>4164362
>traveling at the speed of light in a car

Occasional browser here, let's analyze this thread:

>OP poses a theoretical situation
>/sci/ regulars see the thread, and because it's not actually plausible start bashing
>mfw your insecurities are showing, /sci/.
>just because something isn't possible doesn't mean the thought can't be entertained, have you ever taken a philosophy course?

In sum:
lighten the fuck up.

>>4164377
>Op asks a question that is from a troll picture and is reposted every week
>doesn't look it up himself on google or offer his own insight
>uses a reddit picture
ftfy

>>4164377
I think OP's intent was well and fully realized with the outcomes of this thread.

>>4164325
we need a /phil/ board for this shit.

>>4164377
>Occasional browser here, let's analyze this thread:
>OP posts a theoretical question which breaks all of physics
>/sci/ regulars see the thread, and because it's not actually plausible start bashing, for not math/science
>just because something isn't possible doesn't mean the thought can't be entertained, have you ever taken a philosophy course? Because if you have then you should leave as Philosophy isn't Science or Math

FTFY

>>4164389
>uses a reddit picture
Hold the fuck up, are you saying the PS3 NOGAEMS face is from reddit?
Maybe you should get the fuck out.
Made by /v/, a few years ago in one of the first PS3 has no gaems pictures.

>>4164442
>implying I care about the origin of memes or /v/
>implying people use it on 4chan anymore and it hasn't been popularized on shit like funnyjunk 9gag and reddit.

>>4164389
>reddit picture

>>4164431
What we need is for /sci/ to stop hating philosophy. Is it impossible for you guys to major in a science and minor in philosophy? Why would you not want to learn about new (or at least different) ways of thinking to become a more well rounded scientist? I've never understood all the hate for philosophy, unless it's just hate for psuedointellectuals attempting philosophy that is expanded to hate for the entire subject through ignorance.

>>4164455
well, then don't claim to know it's origin in the first place duhh

>>4164465
>implying I did

>>4164471
I'll respond just because you are a stupid edgy little sager + you use "implying" as a from of counterargument

>implying you won't suck my cock if you ever came closer than 5 metres to my 10 inch cock

when you turn on the headlights, the light away from you at the speed of light. stop it.

>>4164303
the light would accumulate as an ever-intensifying ultraviolet (or shorter wavelength) shockwave travelling with you at its source.

>>4164500
bingo.

OP

instead of pretending youre moving at the speed of light since that probably breaks half a dozen formulas, pretend youre moving at 0.9c.

You turn on the headlights and the light coming out of them moves away from you at the speed of light. However to an outside observer the light is moving at 0.95C while you are moving at 0.9C

Just discuss op's question you chucklefucks.

Holy shit, I thought you guys liked thinking about things like this.
Or is it all
>DURR NOT A HARD SCIENCE HURF

>>4164558
>However to an outside observer the light is moving at 0.95C
0/10

>>4164570
It's not possible. That is all there is to discuss.

Not OP, but another question I though a few days ago:

If you have a 1000km bar that don't deform, spinning around the km 2, with the velocity of 0,99c, what will be the velocity of the other edge?

>>4164573
I'll never understand peoples aversion to hypothetical situations. Why would you not want to analyze the impossible and potentially gain better insight as to how you approach the subject, not necessarily the subject itself? Do they simply not understand that that is the point of hypothetical discussion or are they just afraid of expressing how they think because of what that says about them as a person?

Can god create a stone so heavy that not even he could lift?

>>4164600
That is an interesting question anon.

But what if the car was like made of light? And the headlights were made out of light that shoots light?

>>4164593
Alright consider OP's hypothetical situation.

>If you were traveling at the speed of light in a car...

According to relativity this cannot happen in our universe.

There. I discussed the hypothetical situation to the extent that it is possible to discuss it.

>>4164603

>>4164579
Depends on your reference frame. If you are on the bar it would probably appear to not be moving at all. Try holding something and spinning, it doesn't look like it is moving. This may be wrong because of special relativity, but because you are in the same inertial frame as the bar it will be moving the same speed as you are.

>>4164579
>bar that don't deform, spinning
A bar spinning without deformation in one reference frame will be spinning with deformation in another.

>>4164604
The intent of the if at the beginning of the statement is to initiate the hypothetical, where you will be temporarily accepting an assumption that is not true as true. This is what makes the situation a hypothetical situation and therefore cannot be the endpoint of its discussion. I understand that we may interpret the word hypothetical differently but I believe that I have made clear what I intend when using that word. That being said would you be more capable of discussing the question at hand if I said "If a massless light source was traveling at the speed of light, what would happen if the light source began to emit photons?"

>>4164604
... Neutrinos.

A certain particle would like to have a word with you...

>>4164649

You can't make a car out of neutrinos. Cars have to be made of baryonic matter or antimatter.

>>4164622
Thanks, but nope.

Pic related

>>4164642
Not sure if that answer my question.
Let's assume the bar don't deform in the reference that I'd drawn.

(canv.as would be a awesome place for /sci/)

you would never see your headlights turn on. an observer moving at the same speed in the same direction would never see them either. if you were moving towards a motionless observer he would see the headlights. if you were moving away from a motionless observer he would never see the headlights.

The speed of light is constant in all frames of reference.

That means if you could have a frame of reference, you would see the photons from your headlights flying away from you at the speed of light, just as you would if you were going ANY other speed below the speed of light.

The problem lies in the fact that a photon is *generally accepted* to have no frame of reference, thus the speed of light is meaningless when there cannot exist a frame of reference for it to be measured in.

If you accept further implications of Einstein's relativity, you would accept that only photons can go the speed of light for any measurable distance, therefore by the previous implication that photons have no frame of reference, you would have to accept that there cannot be a frame that travels at the speed of light and thus you cannot pose the question. however, that is all speculatory, it only applies as far as Relativity is valid.

That's the long answer to your question.

>>4164652
According to your assumptions, the other end of the bar will move faster than light. That indicates your assumptions are bullshit.