[ 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: 160 KB, 1600x955, Infinity-Time1.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
6485329 No.6485329[DELETED]  [Reply] [Original]

Question.

If you throw a bucket of water on the ground, and you film this with two cameras equal distance at opposites direction. You can get an image of the same event right?

Now consider that the faster you move the slower time goes. At the speed of light time and mass are infinitive. So basically light doesn't move, because at the speed of light there is no time. And that moment contains every particle because it's mass is infinitive.

Now back to the two camera's, how come they can both see the same image, even though light isn't moving. Does this mean time isn't constant? And how does this relate to multiple universes?

My brain hurts thinking about this.

>> No.6485344

The light is moving you idiot, there are multiple light sources.

>> No.6485359

>>6485344

How does light move, if something that moves at the speed of light stops time?

>> No.6485365

>>6485359
Moving at the speed of light just stops time for the object/particle's reference frame.

>> No.6485369

>>6485365

Yeah so what I'm saying is that that frame is at two different places at the same time.

>> No.6485388

>>6485369
only in the reference frame of the light.
this is why we don't take reference frames of light

>> No.6485418

>>6485388

Sound like circular reasoning.

>> No.6485444

>>6485369

Particles that move at the speed of light do not have a concept frame/the concept is undefined. It's not that time doesn't move for light, it's doesn't even exist.

>> No.6485446

>>6485444

*reference frame

>> No.6485450

>>6485418
Both statements are derived from the principle "the speed of light is the same in every reference frame".

>> No.6485453

>>6485444

Well maybe a proton moving at the speed of light is than a collapsed universe we see a long long time before it slowed down completely and became infinitive mass. Or am I too high right now?

>> No.6485457

>>6485453
a proton can't travel at the speed of light.

>> No.6485458

>>6485453
>Well maybe a proton moving at the speed of light

Protons cannot move at the speed of light, as they have mass.

>Or am I too high right now?

I hope so

>> No.6485488

>>6485458


So a camera catches an image slower than with the speed of light? And why is it called traveling at the speed of light if light doesn't move at that speed?

>> No.6485501

>>6485488
> So a camera catches an image slower than with the speed of light?
wat
photons hit a CCD.
This produces a voltage difference that is captured.
this happens very slow with respect to the speed of light.
Many many photons hit each part of the CCD while the picture is being taken.

>And why is it called traveling at the speed of light if light doesn't move at that speed?
protons aren't light

>> No.6485507

>>6485501

Yeah ok I don't know much about physics. But I don't get how these details falsify the idea.

Let's say there is one photon in the middle of a room, and it is being observed at two independent spots. Won't the same photon be observed as long as the distance is equal? And most importantly doesn't this happen at the speed of light?

>> No.6485589

>>6485507
you dont observe the photon till it enters your pupil or is recorded and then displayed by the camera. you cannot observe a photon at a distance, intercepting photons is how you see other things at a distance.

>> No.6485592

Op time is just relative, it's really just that simple

>> No.6485608

transmission of light in vacuo is constant
c is a limiting number in some equation such that it is undefined when speed = c. (lorentz transformations?)

>> No.6488040

<span class="math">\bf{\underline{asdf}}\ \varphi\bf{adsf}[/spoiler]