We've Moved! Visit our NEW FORUM to join the latest discussions. This is an archive of our previous conversations...

You can find the login page for the old forum here.
CHATPRIVACYDONATELOGINREGISTER
DMT-Nexus
FAQWIKIHEALTH & SAFETYARTATTITUDEACTIVE TOPICS
12NEXT
quick light speed question Options
 
Cheeto
#1 Posted : 11/20/2010 4:43:44 PM
DMT-Nexus member


Posts: 646
Joined: 21-Nov-2008
Last visit: 02-Dec-2011
Location: Georgia

Say i had a flashlight moving NSOL(Near speed of light), and shot a light beam forward at the SOL(Turn flash light on). From my reffrence point, a set point in space...x, y, z.... If i could use a radar gun to clock those photos from my point of view, will they be moving faster than light....The speed of the flash light + the speed of light?
They say that shit floats, but mine sinks....why?? I guess i'm just into some heavy shit!
 

STS is a community for people interested in growing, preserving and researching botanical species, particularly those with remarkable therapeutic and/or psychoactive properties.
 
endlessness
#2 Posted : 11/20/2010 5:04:37 PM

DMT-Nexus member

Moderator

Posts: 14191
Joined: 19-Feb-2008
Last visit: 06-May-2024
Location: Jungle
I guess they would just be going slightly faster than you, so from your point of view just a few kms/hour, and from the point of view of another stopped observer, you would be at NSOL and the light would be at SOL. Also because of course the speed of light (supposedly) cant be violated, so a photon couldnt be moving at faster than SOL.

(This is just what came to my mind, but im not a physicist. Experts please correct me if im wrong Pleased )
 
polytrip
#3 Posted : 11/20/2010 7:47:06 PM
DMT-Nexus member

Senior Member

Posts: 4639
Joined: 16-May-2008
Last visit: 24-Dec-2012
Location: A speck of dust in endless space, like everyone else.
The speed of light would always be measured as going at the speed of light. Both from the moving flashlight as from the outside observer.

I guess nobody knows exactly whether this is only because the laws of nature dictate our observation of light, or whether it is because light itself is doing something that defies our observation of space and time.
Relativity says that space and time are relative and thus, when the speed of light is always the same, part of the whole complex that makes the observation.

Nobody knows though, what exactly the nature IS of space and time. As long as we don't know the answer to that question, we'll only have our observations.
 
fraterS.O.L.
#4 Posted : 11/20/2010 7:59:46 PM

Bill Nye


Posts: 289
Joined: 04-Aug-2010
Last visit: 08-Oct-2018
Location: the lab
I recently heard that not all light moves at the same speed. Some photons moving slower/faster than others. Because of this I think the only reason we still have the constant is because nobody has figured out how this effects the laws of physics
"Then he looked right through me
With somniferous almond eyes
Don't even know what that means
Must remember to write it down,
This is so real
Like the time Dave floated away
See my heart is pounding
'Cause this **** never happens to me!"
Tool - Rosetta Stoned


ANYTHING I POST ONLY TOOK PLACE IN REALMS OF PURE IDEA AND THOUGHT, ANY PICTURES I POST ARE STRAIGHT FROM GOOGLE IMAGES. ANY AND ALL PROCESSES I CLAIM TO CARRY OUT HAVE NOT ACTUALLY OCCURRED IN PHYSICAL REALITY, AND THEREFORE VIOLATE NO PHYSICAL LAW. WHEN SUCH THINGS ARE BANNED FROM THOUGHT I WILL CEASE TO CARRY THEM OUT EVEN IN THE ETHER.
 
pau
#5 Posted : 11/20/2010 8:01:17 PM

DMT-Nexus member


Posts: 690
Joined: 14-Mar-2010
Last visit: 16-Feb-2024
Location: sur la mer
you'd think there would be a kind of Doppler Efffect happening with the lightbeam, that would be experienced differently by observers in front of or besides the beam. ????
Come to think of it, wouldn't the performance of the "radar gun" depend on it's position in this experiment?
WHOA!
 
Newfound_wonder
#6 Posted : 11/21/2010 2:00:32 AM

Harvie Krumpet


Posts: 123
Joined: 06-Sep-2010
Last visit: 20-Nov-2015
Location: Cherub Rock
From what I was told, assuming you shot that beam of light out in the vacuum of space, then that light will travel at speed c in the direction you point regardless of your initial velocity. If one flashlight was traveling NSOL going north and another flashlight was traveling NSOL going south and they both shone their lights facing north, the light from both flashlights would still travel north at the same speed. If I remember correctly, the speed of light has to do with the permittivity constant and permeability constant.

But I could be wrong.
Every tool is dangerous when misused. That is no reason not to use tools.
Isn't it strange that a gift can be an enemy?
 
alzabo
#7 Posted : 11/21/2010 4:44:21 AM

DMT-Nexus member


Posts: 258
Joined: 23-May-2010
Last visit: 20-Jul-2022
Location: staticvoid
fraterS.O.L. wrote:
I recently heard that not all light moves at the same speed. Some photons moving slower/faster than others. Because of this I think the only reason we still have the constant is because nobody has figured out how this effects the laws of physics


My own theory is that not even light goes as fast as "the speed of light". This is because it would take infinite energy to accelerate anything to the speed of light and photons do not have infinite energy.

It's also worth noting that nothing can reach or exceed the speed of light in a vacuum but particles can exceed the speed of light in other mediums such as in water, electrons can move faster than light for example.
These aren't the droids you're looking for.
 
Trickster
#8 Posted : 11/21/2010 12:25:04 PM

DMT-Nexus member

Chemical expert

Posts: 764
Joined: 18-Jan-2008
Last visit: 20-Mar-2023
alzabo wrote:
fraterS.O.L. wrote:
I recently heard that not all light moves at the same speed. Some photons moving slower/faster than others. Because of this I think the only reason we still have the constant is because nobody has figured out how this effects the laws of physics


My own theory is that not even light goes as fast as "the speed of light". This is because it would take infinite energy to accelerate anything to the speed of light and photons do not have infinite energy.

It's also worth noting that nothing can reach or exceed the speed of light in a vacuum but particles can exceed the speed of light in other mediums such as in water, electrons can move faster than light for example.


Photons always move at the speed of light because photons ARE light. Photons are basic units of light and all other forms of electromagnetic radiation.

SOL may vary depending on the medium. The denser the medium the slower SOL in it. SOL is highest in vacuum.

Photon's mass is exactly zero, that's why it cannot stay put and ALWAYS moves at the speed of light.
Do not seek the truth, just drop your opinions.
 
vovin
#9 Posted : 11/21/2010 1:17:21 PM

DMT-Nexus member

Senior Member | Skills: Prototype and Design Engineer amongst other things, Craftsman

Posts: 1072
Joined: 12-Feb-2009
Last visit: 18-Dec-2021
Location: Here with you but living in florida
Trickster isnt tricking you he's right photons have no mass and thus why they move at the speed of light. Anything with mass cannot reach the speed of light because the closer you get to it the more energy you need till the point to where it becomes infinite. The LHC gets close but even it cannot speed particles to the speed of light. There have been debates that some other things can move faster than light like neutrinos but they also have 0 mass.
If you don't sin, Jesus died for nothing.
 
Trickster
#10 Posted : 11/21/2010 2:47:09 PM

DMT-Nexus member

Chemical expert

Posts: 764
Joined: 18-Jan-2008
Last visit: 20-Mar-2023
vovin wrote:
Trickster isnt tricking you...


Yep. 10 years of hard science is no jokeSmile.
Do not seek the truth, just drop your opinions.
 
zubidlo
#11 Posted : 11/21/2010 4:28:05 PM

DMT-Nexus member


Posts: 265
Joined: 05-Jan-2010
Last visit: 19-Jun-2018
Location: New Crobuzon, Bas-Lag
This relativity theory is quite interesting. If I remember it properly from university way back, in higher speed reality is not so real anymore. Time is not so timeish, space is not so spaceish as in slower speed. Like you sent photon(or any particle) to travel for one year at very high speed and when he comes back he is only few days older. But his slow lazy twin brother is really one year older. Than speedy photon traveled close to one light year distance in few days from his point of view. Does it mean he traveled much faster that light? Probably not, because during his trip length at his speed was really lengthish. And because he doesn't have any mass and lenght is longer and time is slower he was able to fool scientists by having the same properties as a wave. And they are still not actually sure what he really is. Is photon a wave or a particle?

I don't know. Someone here knows?



Regards.
'Life is an illusion designed to keep your mind occupied while you are digested by God.'
 
alzabo
#12 Posted : 11/21/2010 4:28:29 PM

DMT-Nexus member


Posts: 258
Joined: 23-May-2010
Last visit: 20-Jul-2022
Location: staticvoid
haha
thanks for the clarification. I still have my doubts about the speed of photons yet those doubts may melt away as I study this stuff more.
These aren't the droids you're looking for.
 
Trickster
#13 Posted : 11/21/2010 5:10:12 PM

DMT-Nexus member

Chemical expert

Posts: 764
Joined: 18-Jan-2008
Last visit: 20-Mar-2023
zubidlo wrote:
Like you sent photon(or any particle)


Photons are quite different from most other particles, because their rest mass is zero. So your results will be VERY different if you take a different particle.

zubidlo wrote:
to travel for one year at very high speed and when he comes back he is only few days older. But his slow lazy twin brother


There are no lazy photons. All of them move at the same speed. In vacuum it is = c.

zubidlo wrote:
Is photon a wave or a particle?


Both. This is the beauty and strangeness of quantum physics.
Do not seek the truth, just drop your opinions.
 
alzabo
#14 Posted : 11/21/2010 9:03:06 PM

DMT-Nexus member


Posts: 258
Joined: 23-May-2010
Last visit: 20-Jul-2022
Location: staticvoid
I found this awesome FAQ.
Does light have mass?

Quote:

...
if light is trapped in a box with perfect mirrors so the photons are continually reflected back and forth in the box, then the total momentum is zero in the boxes frame of reference but the energy is not. Therefore the light adds a small contribution to the mass of the box. This could be measured - in principle at least - either by an increase in inertia when the box is slowly accelerated or by an increase in its gravitational pull. You might say that the light in the box has mass but it would be more correct to say that the light contributes to the total mass of the box of light. You should not use this to justify the statement that light has mass in general.
...
These aren't the droids you're looking for.
 
Sublime
#15 Posted : 11/21/2010 10:17:13 PM

Intraterrestrial


Posts: 300
Joined: 25-Oct-2009
Last visit: 21-Jul-2021
Location: Where past, present, and future collapse
zubidlo wrote:
Is a photon a wave or a particle?


It's a wavicle.
"That which I avoid I will become a slave to, that which I confront I will master."
 
olympus mon
#16 Posted : 11/22/2010 2:09:16 AM

DMT-Nexus member

Moderator | Skills: Tattooist specialized in indigenous art, Fine art, medium ink and pen.

Posts: 2635
Joined: 27-Jul-2009
Last visit: 28-May-2018
Location: Pac N.W.
Sublime wrote:
zubidlo wrote:
Is a photon a wave or a particle?


It's a wavicle.

its a wave that behaves like a particle.

question- is it possible to have a particle with zero mass? how is that possible?
I am not gonna lie, shits gonna get weird!
Troubles Breaking Through? Click here.
The Art of Changa. making the perfect blend.
 
Cheeto
#17 Posted : 11/22/2010 1:42:33 PM
DMT-Nexus member


Posts: 646
Joined: 21-Nov-2008
Last visit: 02-Dec-2011
Location: Georgia
Actually its a particle/wave, it has propeties of both a wave and a particle. A particle is not defined as an object of mass, hence the term "massless paritcle".



I have seen(Not first hand) experiments where with electromagnets and absolute zero temp has the ability to stop light in its tracts..the light was barely moving. So right there an observer saw light nearly stop, yet scientists go by a theory that says light will always travel at a constant speed? Am i missing something?


the idea of the radar gun was simply to suggest that i, in some way, am going to measure how fast the photons are moving.

What i would had figured is, me, an observer standing in one non-moving spot, would see the photons traveling near double SOL, Flash light speed + Light Speed. If i where to all of a sudden see light adjusted(slowed to SOL), then the impossible would happen......flash light going near SOL, light going SOL = light slowly climbing out of flashlight.

What i thought was like someone else said, The speed of light limit is only a limit from a starting point, no matter weather the object is already moving or not. Example: We, the milky way are supose to be moving near SOL from other galaxies, our sun shoots light out at the SOL in all directions, despite we are already going near SOL.

So, Trickster, would i get rich if i could , in any situation, meassure the speed of a light beam and come up with a speed a few hundred miles an hour faster than Light Speed? and it not be an error.

Edit:

Im assuming others would have had the same concern in the past....what changed their minds. Could someone point me to an expeirement where they proved light was always a constant speed, lots of scientists do think that for some reason....i want to know why. I want to see where they tried to break the limit by attaching a lazer to a moving object in a vacuum and meassure the speed of the light beam while its already traveling. Or tried to break it in some other fasion, i just want to see for myself, thats to weird to take in without observing it for myself, so far i have not seen it.
They say that shit floats, but mine sinks....why?? I guess i'm just into some heavy shit!
 
jbark
#18 Posted : 11/22/2010 2:02:03 PM

DMT-Nexus member

Senior Member

Posts: 2854
Joined: 16-Mar-2010
Last visit: 01-Dec-2023
Location: montreal
S^2 - T^2


Watch this:
PETER RUSSELL

Beyond it being a very interesting video about consciousness, it touches on almost the exact question posed in the OP.

Skip to THIS, at 3 minutes to 8 minutes, for a succinct explanation if you choose not to watch the whole video.

Curiouser and curiouser,

JBArk
JBArk is a Mandelthought; a non-fiction character in a drama of his own design he calls "LIFE" who partakes in consciousness expanding activities and substances; he should in no way be confused with SWIM, who is an eminently data-mineable and prolific character who has somehow convinced himself the target he wears on his forehead is actually a shield.
 
1664
#19 Posted : 11/22/2010 3:57:29 PM

DMT-Nexus member


Posts: 728
Joined: 09-Oct-2009
Last visit: 01-Jan-2022
Location: London
Cheeto, I think I have recomended it to you before, but you really should read a book called The Elegant Universe by Brian Greene. It explains Special relativity (amongst lots of other concepts) fantastically well.

It takes a fair bit of concentration to get through, but it's worth it. All of the questions I have seen you post on the nexus are answered with a much better explanation than anyone on the nexus can offer. These are not easy concepts to grasp and you are better off reading a book like this for answers than posting here IMO.
Oh great - the world has just been replaced by elf machinery.
Sic transit gloria mundi

 
jbark
#20 Posted : 11/22/2010 4:04:02 PM

DMT-Nexus member

Senior Member

Posts: 2854
Joined: 16-Mar-2010
Last visit: 01-Dec-2023
Location: montreal
1664 wrote:
Cheeto, I think I have recomended it to you before, but you really should read a book called The Elegant Universe by Brian Greene. It explains Special relativity (amongst lots of other concepts) fantastically well.

It takes a fair bit of concentration to get through, but it's worth it. All of the questions I have seen you post on the nexus are answered with a much better explanation than anyone on the nexus can offer. These are not easy concepts to grasp and you are better off reading a book like this for answers than posting here IMO.


There is also a BBC special series based on the book, also entitled "the elegant universe". Great for the layman who likes his science entertaining!
JBArk is a Mandelthought; a non-fiction character in a drama of his own design he calls "LIFE" who partakes in consciousness expanding activities and substances; he should in no way be confused with SWIM, who is an eminently data-mineable and prolific character who has somehow convinced himself the target he wears on his forehead is actually a shield.
 
12NEXT
 
Users browsing this forum
Guest

DMT-Nexus theme created by The Traveler
This page was generated in 0.036 seconds.