Science a GoGo's Home Page Forums General Discussion General Science Discussion Forum light speed

quick question to all you smart science people out there. if a vessel was traveling at the speed of light exactly, and had "head lights" on. Would you be able to see the light in front of you??

A vessel cannot travel with the speed of light relative to another reference frame; however, it can travel at a very high speed that approaches the speed of light relative to your reference frame. Within the reference frame of the vessel the speed of light will still be c, so that the light from its headlights will still move away with light speed and will thus still be observed as usual for light within any reference frame. The speed of light does not depend on the speed of the light source; i.e. you cannot catch up with light ever. It does not matter how fast you move relative to another reference frame, the speed of light you observe will alwyas be c relative to the reference frame moving along with you.

Lightspeed is identical for all inertial observers. It is a mathematically unavoidable consequence of Lorentz Invariance. Massed particles cannot travel at lightspeed. The point of view of a photon is not an inertial frame of reference.

what has mass got to do with light?

even if a flashlight is traveling at 1 mph or slower , its light if pointed in the direction of travel would be faster than the speed of light.

mass can be illuminated by a light source but that is about it.

and just because the web site has the word science in it does not mean that these
people are smart?

some of the stupidest people I've ever talked to
held phds.

you determine smart not them and not the piece of paper they have.

ponder this:

the flashlight is already traveling very close to the speed of light.

if the light were switched on would the beam only be a inch or two long?

and would the beam travel any distance should the
flashlight be traveling at the speed of light?
if of course it were possible.

reminds me of a physics instructor that once told me that water would not flow through a pipe of given lenght , I asked him if I crawled inside the pipe if there would be a wall of water that I could stick my finger into.

this made him upset because all of his math told him differently.

always try to use common sence.

Mass has a lot to do with light. Mass is inertia. If light had mass it would have been able to be stationary relative to an inertial reference frame. Because it has not got mass it always move with light speed relative to an inertial reference frame. A vehicle (with mass) moving with a speed v is stationary within the inertial reference frame moving with it. For this reason the light from its headlights will still move with the speed of light away from the vehicle. Galileo's statement of relativity, subsequently incorporated into Newton's first law, implies that any body with mass has an inertial reference frame within which it is stationary (i.e. both its position and momentum are known at the same time). Heisenberg did not appreciate this scientific fact and interpreted his uncertainty relationship, involving position and momentum, incorrectly. This has led to the farce called the Copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics, and to the quaqmire called quantum field theory.

http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/analysis.png
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/sunshine.png

You've both handily disproven all of physics and all of science with it. What literally hundreds of thousands of physics graduate students have overlooked during the past 70 years you have trivially stumbled upon.

All solid state devices have vanished, GPS quit, and electric power distribution is no more. MRI machines disappeared along with their superconducting magnets. Batavia, IL is exposed as a giant conspiracy of lies. No more double slit diffraction, no more Poisson spots, no more Airy circles. No more Mie scattering as the inverse fourth power of wavelength - no more blue skies.

No more refrigerator magnets.

physics is a tool box not a stop sign or speed limit sign.

I have not disproven physics I think it is a great
collection of tools.

sort of like a large collection of pieces of peoples minds and thoughts and experimental results.

after all people made these tools.

Being in possession of a fully equipped toolbox is no guarantee against DIY disasters.

quick question to all you smart science people out there. if a vessel was traveling at the speed of light exactly, and had "head lights" on. Would you be able to see the light in front of you??
REP: Wonder why such a question can arise if you are told that you can not travel at the speed of light.;-0

I really cannot understand how you come to all these bizarre conclusions. Why must the Heisenberg uncertainty relationship describe an "uncertain particle" to have all these effects manifest? Can you be bit more scientifically rigorous please? Please derive your conclusions from what I supposedly said incorrectly!

Johnny Boy asks:
"Please derive your conclusions from what I supposedly said incorrectly!"

You said: "Mass is inertia"

And your source of this is?

No doubt your answer will be most enlighteng.

What mass implies is that the body will "resist" from being accelerated; i.e. it will resist from being moved from its position of rest (an equilibrium position) within its proper inertial reference frame (i.e. the inertial reference frame moving along with it). In fact this is where the term "inertial reference frame" comes from. I have read this interpretation many times in different handbooks and treatises when I studied classical mechanics.

Now applying this concept in a lateral way; resistance of an entity from being moved from equilibrium implies the presence of a restoring force. Thus modelling the free electron in its proper reference frame as experiencing a restoring force when an attempt is made to move it, gives a time-independent harmonic Gaussian wave whose quantum mechanical energy must correspond to the rest mass of the electron. Where does the restoring force come from? By assuming the manifestation of a virtual positive charge, Coulomb's law can be used to derive an expression that models the electron charge within the field of an equal positive charge situated over a fourth dimension.

This model indicates that matter and anti-matter could be separated over a three-dimensional interface (our three dimensional space). It also shows that an electron could have excited states (muon and tau?). It also gives a solution when applying a magnetic field along a z-axis. Using spherical coordinates it is found that the angle with the z-axis must be either 0 or pi for the electron mass-energy not to incease. This can be interpreted as a re-orientation of the axis along the fourth dimension relative to the three-dimensional space axes. etc. I think that this model opens up so many novel possibilities that it should be objectively analysed by the scientific community.

Read what you wrote:

1. "What mass implies is that"
2. "applying this concept in a lateral way"
3. "This model indicates"

Is this science? Not where I teach.

I am glad you are not my teacher. Go to the texts on classical mechanics (probably not the ones you use when you teach) and find out what mass implies. There is nothing wrong in physics to extrapolate from one concept to another: read the Feynman lectures. There is no fault to extrapolate and to speculate on a new proposed model; as far as I know this is done every day.If new models are not proposed and analysed on a daily basis science will stagnate. Is this the case where you teach? I will not be surprised. I cannot understand your beef!

Johnny Boy wrote:
"There is nothing wrong in physics to extrapolate from one concept to another"

I agree. But you are drawing conclusions from your extrapolations that violate known physics.

Please refer back to what Uncle Al wrote.

What Uncle Al wrote has not been derived by any logical reasoning. In fact I really do not understand how he reached such absurd and bizarre conclusions. What I write does not violate well-proven known physics in any way; only the interpretation of known physics. Please be more specific; what am I violating?

Uncle Al may lead with his attitude ... but he is generally quite good with his facts.

Al ... rather than giving my impression of what you intended to communicate might I ask you to jump in and spell it out? Thanks.

Thank you Einstein and DKV:

If I told you there were 200 tombs in Egypt?s Valley of the Kings you might reasonably ask me how I derived that result. Many things in science have fixed results derived by mathematics, physics or even common sense.

How did we arrive at a speed of light at 186,281 miles a second? What is there about our Sun light that musters out instantaneously at that speed and never changes? What happens to that blast off that inhibits the speed to stay forever the same and why do we think that this scenario is logical?

I think this question is on topic with the posting. Whose going to give us an answer?
jjw

XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
violate known physics
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX

laser beam --> container of cessium

known physics violated !!

Paul, could you provide a bit more explanation of this claim? Not all of us are on the same wavelength that you are.

Amaranth, moderator