[ 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: 49 KB, 670x1238, whatisitslashscislash.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
1065648 No.1065648 [Reply] [Original]

What will happen /sci/?

>> No.1065661

I SAID, you won't run at the speed of light, motherfucker!

>> No.1065669

Option B

>> No.1065670

>>1065661
Okay, 1 meter less than a light second. It would have the same effect.

>> No.1065677

>>1065669
It would produce twice as much light?

>> No.1065679

Option A

>> No.1065680

>>1065670
1 meter less than a light second relative to what?

>> No.1065684

gonna go with A, bob

>> No.1065688

>>1065680
0, do you see the line underneath?

Also, I mean 300M meters not miles.

>> No.1065689
File: 15 KB, 443x356, 1262216318752.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
1065689

>Travelling at the speed of light

>> No.1065707

One light second is 3*10^8 m = 3*10^5 km. That is 300 thousand km. You are not only a nigger for using miles you got the order of magnitude wrong by quite a lot.
But I'm sure nobody is this stupid so it's probably a troll... for some unforeseen reason.

>> No.1065708

As you go back it should still send out x light waves per second, however as you go back you will be giving off half as many per meter so I would have to go with C.

>> No.1065710

I like B. The speed of light is a CONSTANT. So if you run at .9 the speed of light and turn a flashlight on, it doesn't move at 1.9 the speed of light. So it's not going to slow down because you're running in the opposite direction.

Never mind about actually moving at the speed of light, the infinite energy it'd require, and that whole time dilation thing.

>> No.1065714

>>1065661
This.
OR: B

>> No.1065726

B

/thread

>> No.1065721

>>1065707
Which is why I said 300M m not 300K km

>> No.1065735
File: 10 KB, 290x324, speed of light.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
1065735

>> No.1065741

Wouldn't you have twice as much light? It has to be A or C.

>> No.1065742

From who's reference frame?

>> No.1065750

d

>> No.1065755

>>1065742
A man who's vision is perpendicular to the flashlight guys path?

>> No.1065766

It has to be C...

>> No.1065770

Would there be Doppler shift here?

>> No.1065772

>>1065770
oya it would get red and shit

>> No.1065783

>>1065770
OP here, reguardless, where would the light stream start and end at after one second.

>> No.1065791

Closer to D, because the photons will be negated energy wise. :D

>> No.1065801

option E, no light

>> No.1065830

OP here, you /sci/entists are so indecisive.

>> No.1065873

>>1065783

Again, the speed of light is a CONSTANT... for instance, if you turned the flashlight around, you'd have the classic "I'm driving at the speed of light and turn on my headlights" question.

>> No.1065879

C is the closest. The light is still moving to the left at speed c even though the emitter is moving at c in the opposite direction.

Thought the "light half as bright" part is probably wrong. It's too loose a description as it depends on the frame of reference and you'd have to calculate the relative luminosity.

>> No.1065895

What happens is that as you travel faster and approach the speed of light, distances shorten and time slows down so that light still travels at 300000 km/s relative to you. This is not just a theory... these effects have been observed in experiments. According to Einstein's equations, it is impossible for anything with mass to reach the speed of light. So you couldn't be traveling at the speed of light, but even if you were traveling at close to the speed of light, you would still be able to illuminate anything in front of you or behind you NORMALLY.

>> No.1065908

B

>> No.1065917

Option B
When you run back with a flashlight, the light still travels at the speed of light
When you run back at the speed of light it still travels at the speed of light

>> No.1065936

The "brightness" of the light is relative to the viewer. Just think of a car passing you at night on a dark road and you're taking a picture. From the perspective of people in the cars, their tail lights/head lights would be the same brightness. But to the film, a car that goes twice as fast would expose the film half as much.

>> No.1065991

If a light source is moving with respect to an observer (or the other way around) strangely enough the Speed of the light being emitted doesn't change but the Frequency and Wavelength do.

Luminosity is a function of wavelength.

But to a third party observer, your time and their time would be different. Google Relativistic Contraction. Space (in this case DISTANCE) and time would not be constant.

>> No.1065993

You would fucking die

>> No.1066004

>>1065917
this

>> No.1066027

HINT: Switch out the word "light" for "sound."

Suddenly, everything makes a lot more sense.

>> No.1066051

>>1066027
Doppler effect for light?

>> No.1066084

1. Cannot do c, you have broken the universe.
2. Have not specified reference frame, question is not defined.

>> No.1066104

>>1066027
>>1066027

light behaves differently.. speed of light in any reference frame is always c

>> No.1066120

Option E. It's like option B, but the light is properly redshifted.

>> No.1066136

>>1066051
On the right track.

>>1066120
Ding. If option B were red shifted (assuming the reference frame is an observer looking perpendicular to the light's path) then it would be correct.

>> No.1066150

It's certainly either B or C.

I am going to guess C, as the same number of waves will be spread out over twice the length. Although I am only an 18 year old who is isn't even at university yet so this is based on logic alone and no knowledge.

>> No.1066153

if frame of reference is the stick man then a)
if frame is perpendicular to stick man then b)

/thread

>> No.1066156

>>1066150
It's not C. The light doesn't get dimmer, it changes wavelength.

>> No.1066164

>>1066051

In a sense. It's called red/blue shift.

The waves compress just as sound waves would. Except instead of pitch it would be color, I imagine.

>> No.1066170

>>1066153
FUCKING this^

>> No.1066190
File: 8 KB, 188x251, 1272238704812.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
1066190

>>1066084
Broke yo shit

>> No.1066238

something like a mix between B, C, and D.

>> No.1066259

>>1066153
Pretty close, but I have a couple of quibbles. First, you don't define a reference frame using directions ("perpendicular"), you define it using relative speeds. So what I think you're referring to as a "perpendicular" reference frame might be better defined as "the reference frame in which the stick man is moving at c in the opposite direction from the beam."

Second, assuming the person in this other reference frame is facing the flashlight (the only way they could see the beam, since you can't see a light beam from the side), they would see the light redshifted relative to the observations of the stick figure man.

(PS I'm assuming that OP means "close to the speed of light" because everything goes to shit if stick figure man actually moves at c)

>> No.1066262
File: 3 KB, 209x215, 1272762464582.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
1066262

>>1066238
>implying loss of light

>> No.1066332

>>1065648

is it a quick flash of light or does the light stay on the entire 1 second