[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / ic / jp / lit / sci / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports ] [ become a patron ] [ status ]
2023-11: Warosu is now out of extended maintenance.

/sci/ - Science & Math


View post   

File: 478 KB, 500x348, 1528775361145.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
10489441 No.10489441 [Reply] [Original]

>speed is relative
>a universal speed limit (the speed of light) exists
Aren't these mutually exclusive?

>> No.10489449

Who said it’s relative?

>> No.10489459

>>10489441
no they're not retart
you cannot exceed the speed of light relative to anything ever

>> No.10489470

>>10489459
so anything moving at least half the speed of light pulls everything in the universe with it?

>> No.10489477

>>10489470
no!
if you went 0.5c in one direction and something went 0.5c in the other direction you would see each other going at 0.8c due to time dilation

>> No.10489505

>>10489441
No, instead the rate of passage of time capitulates and changes. Time traveling to the future is more feasible than reaching the speed of light.

>> No.10489826
File: 45 KB, 500x333, 1534108540185.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
10489826

>>10489505
I wanted to ask what OP asks for a while actually. The way Newton's 'speed is relative' thing is explained it would mean that say, say you're in a completely empty universe object A traveling at 0% speed of light is in fact traveling at the same speed as object B traveling at 100% the speed of light.

While if you talk about relativity theres a difference in time perception so object B is cleary the '+' part or the higher part and A the - / lower part.
If. Does this make any sense?

>> No.10489912

>>10489441
The speed of an object, say a ball, depends on the reference frame you see it in. You could witness a plane flying overhead, at say 600mph. But to someone on that plane they are at rest. We just tend to think of things moving with respect to us or the earth but there's no universal frame of reference. That's why the say speed is relative.

The universal speed limit is actually required so that the laws of physics are consistent in all frames of reference. The speed of light, causality, information whatever is denoted c. Instead of space and time being the being absolute quantities, it is this speed c which is absolute in all frames. This was discovered experimentally in the early 20th century, that the speed of light is constant in all frames. The only way this works is with the Lortentz factor, which in a way scales distance and time in order for the speed of light to be constant.

>> No.10489979

>>10489826
Not sure what you mean when you say object A is stationary and object B, which is moving at the same speed as A, is moving at c. That doesn’t make sense in any version of relativity. If they’re moving with the same velocity then everybody will agree about that, no matter what they’re reference frame is. Your second paragraph is also incomprehensible

>> No.10490173

>>10489441
Yes you are correct. But: speed is not the best way to describe motion in a hyperbolic spacetime. Use rapidity instead and all your worries will disappear.

>> No.10490179

that universal speed limit is relative to you, the fastest you'll ever see something moving is the speed of light

>> No.10491969

>>10489441
relative to the observer

>> No.10492014

>>10489470
>half the speed of light
relative to what?

>> No.10493112

>>10489470
Space compresses when you move fast, yes.

>> No.10493175

>>10489441
This is why relativism is always bullshit. It always implyies absolutism

>> No.10493180

>>10489826
>The way Newton's 'speed is relative' thing is explained

no one has used newton outside of estimates in 400 years my man

>> No.10493202

>>10489441
YES. That is why I've been calling bullshit on physics for decades.

>> No.10494367

>>10489441
>being this gullible
Physics doesn’t exist, schizo.