[ 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: 15 KB, 265x257, haeltdifr.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
4424847 No.4424847 [Reply] [Original]

Does speed of light and speed of sound (both in air!) change with adverse winds?

>> No.4424849

not noticeably

>> No.4424852

>>4424849
what if the head wind was really really strong?

>> No.4424855

>>4424852
It can fuck up the efficiency of sound conduction. It can also change the total propagation speed relative to the ground, but that's only a big deal if the wind is a good fraction of the speed of sound (hurricanes, etc.)

Light wouldn't be affected much (wind speed much lower than speed of light in air).

>> No.4424857

lol not sure if troll
anyways
for sound: yes
for light: no

>> No.4424863

>>4424857
>for light: no
Why not?
The speed of light through different mediums is different, surely the air being moving would make a (tiny)difference?

>> No.4424864
File: 1.90 MB, 250x187, homers brain escapes 1314664719534.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
4424864

Thank you for the answers.

Is the speed of light in a cloud higher or lower than in clean air?

>> No.4424866

>>4424857
>for light: no
>implying strong winds don't cause lower pressures, hence differences in density, hence differences in the refraction index of air

>> No.4424867

>>4424863
the speed of light is a constant, no matter the medium it is travelling through.

>> No.4424870

oh gawd guise

the speed of light is always the same. It doesn't matter where it is. it's the same. it is always.. the same

>> No.4424873

>>4424867
No.

>>4424863
Emphasis on tiny. That's all I'm saying.

>> No.4424874

>>4424867
Explain refraction then.
>>4424870
you too

>> No.4424871

>>4424867
Nope.

>> No.4424875
File: 13 KB, 300x300, facepalm.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
4424875

>>4424867
>>4424870

>> No.4424876

>>4424870

Goddamn it... you hear something about relativity, and you spout that half-baked nonsense to everyone.

Keep that shit to yourself.

>> No.4424879

Oh I'll explain. The speed of light doesn't change when it travels through a medium, sure the photons cause electrons to excite or whatever it's called in english, which takes some time, but inbetween the atoms: same speed.

>> No.4424882

>>4424864
Lower, almost certain. You could look up refractive indices, that tells you the speed of light in the material too (if you know how refraction works).

>> No.4424885

>>4424876
>>4424875
>>4424874
>>4424873
ITT:
>people hear about refraction indices
>think they change the speed of light
>don't know about photons being 'absorbed' by atoms which obviously takes time but the photon doesn't travel in that time, hence it has no speed
>2012

>> No.4424886

>>4424879
Sure. But at the macroscopic level where you talk about waves and refraction, the effective speed is lower than c. And that's what people generally mean when they say "speed of light in the material".

>> No.4424887

>>4424885
>implying we didn't all know that
See
>>4424879
>>4424886

>> No.4424894

The speed of sound is made of sonics, in other words= sound waves.
The speed of ligh is made of bosons, in other words= light waves

Speed of light is affected by wind very rarely because the interaction is very weak.

Also there is a speed limit, for the sound is about 1000m/h for light is 3000m/h
So i guess light should be faster, but in some cases you can slow down light.
But you can't do the same for the wind.

>> No.4424897

>>4424894
>Also there is a speed limit, for the sound is about 1000m/h for light is 3000m/h
what

>> No.4424898

>>4424886
Sure the effective speed is different, just pointing out that the actual speed doesn't change, something that OP should probably bear in mind.

>> No.4424900

>>4424885
ITT: some HS kid who just learned about how the mechanism that governs the change in speed of light in a medium feels the need to show off to everyone
>doesn't realise that his definition of speed of light has no practical application and is hence wrong

>> No.4424902

>>4424897
really? The speed bothered you?
Get out of /sci/

>> No.4424908

>>4424902
The rest wast incoherent too, but I thought I'd highlight something that was more likely to get the guy to notice he's a retard.

But I guess I've been trolled. Are you the same guy?

>> No.4424911

>>4424898
thankyou

>> No.4424921

>>4424908
am not sure, am i?
Be honest, how long have you been on /sci/

>> No.4424924

>>4424921
two weeks

>> No.4424926

>>4424924
>another guy answering for me
LOL you guys

>> No.4424931

>>4424924
I would've said 1-2 month to be on the safe side but it was pretty much how i predicted.

>> No.4424934

Itt people who don't think light changes speed as it changes mediums.
Why would the definition of c be the speed of light in a vacuum?
Protip its because it travels slightly slower in air

>> No.4424989

>>4424900
>doesn't realise that his definition of speed of light has no practical application
I seriously hope you're trolling

>> No.4424993

>>4424989
>OLOLOL THE SPEED OF LIGHT IS NOT THE SPEED AT WHICH LIGHT ACTUALLY TRAVELS IN A MEDIUM, BUT THE SPEED OF PHOTONS IN A VACUUM!!!!! I'M SO SMART!

>> No.4424998

>>4424993
why yes, you are!

>> No.4425029

OP here. That was an important information for me. I appreciate the scientific content of the debate.

>> No.4425143

>>4425029
If this was Facebook, I would "like" this post: you seemed mature and actually somewhat grateful for the information. However, this is actually 4chan, and so I will instead call you a faggot. Faggot.