INVENTIONS THAT NEED INVENTING...

[pjholybloke]

If the spacecraft went backwards at the speed of light then the headlights would not appear to be on

They would be on without doubt, but there would be no "beam" discernible from inside the spacecraft.

Also they would appear on if you were stood there watching it reverse away, and would still appear on into infinity (provided that they weren't turned off and you had a telescope powerful enough.

 

[wanabechippie]

So I've just seen a bleedin spaceship?

Reversing at the speed of light?

What do I do?

Ring the police?

The Airforce?

Mulder and/or Scully?

No.

I comment on the fact that it's got headlamps and my surprise that I can/cannot see a beam of light!




PS; Bob: The light-drive of which you speak does exist. I own the patent. Got it from a bloke down the pub.

If you want, you could buy it from me. Cash up front - no refunds.

 

[BOB D.O.L.E]

PS; Bob: The light-drive of which you speak does exist. I own the patent. Got it from a bloke down the pub.

If you want, you could buy it from me. Cash up front - no refunds.


Very funny pugwash but i can prove mine works but im just letting all the fursty cars drain away the Texes Tea and i will be in there and then yea will be addressing me as God.

 

[Trazor]

Also they would appear on if you were stood there watching it reverse away, and would still appear on into infinity (provided that they weren't turned off and you had a telescope powerful enough.

You would not need a telescope, the light would still come towards you at the speed of light.
Light travels at 186,000 miles per second, irrespective of the speed of its source.

 

[BOB D.O.L.E]

Also they would appear on if you were stood there watching it reverse away, and would still appear on into infinity (provided that they weren't turned off and you had a telescope powerful enough.

You would not need a telescope, the light would still come towards you at the speed of light.
Light travels at 186,000 miles per second, irrespective of the speed of its source.

Stop trying to be clever trazor im sure there is monkeys out there who can give us all a better discription that this dribble you write GET YOUR FACTS RIGHT BOY BEFORE A COMING ON HERE AND GIVING US THIS DRIBBLE.

 

[Steve]

Also they would appear on if you were stood there watching it reverse away, and would still appear on into infinity (provided that they weren't turned off and you had a telescope powerful enough.

You would not need a telescope, the light would still come towards you at the speed of light.
Light travels at 186,000 miles per second, irrespective of the speed of its source.

NO! If the light, which travels at 186,000 miles per second is emitted from an object travelling at -186,000 miles per second, its net speed is zero and therefore the light will never reach you.

 

[pjholybloke]

Also they would appear on if you were stood there watching it reverse away, and would still appear on into infinity (provided that they weren't turned off and you had a telescope powerful enough.

You would not need a telescope, the light would still come towards you at the speed of light.
Light travels at 186,000 miles per second, irrespective of the speed of its source.

Errr, not if it's travelling away from you at the speed of light whilst strapped to the front of our imaginary spacecraft. It would render itself as a light point or pure light source as opposed to a stream/beam and therefore you would need a telescope to track it's vector into the distance.

If the naked eye can detect a matchlight from about 5 miles in perfect darkness, I would guess that the headlights would disappear to the naked eye in around 4 nanoseconds, it would of course reappear later, but there would be an interim waiting period of errr 295 years, 14 hours, 36 minutes and 17.4 seconds. Ample time to get your telescope, but somewhat beyond my sphere of attention (advances in medical science re-expected lifespan excepted).

 

[Trazor]

NO! If the light, which travels at 186,000 miles per second is emitted from an object travelling at -186,000 miles per second, its net speed is zero and therefore the light will never reach you.

Wrong.........you can not increase or decrease the speed of light, it is fixed relative to to the universe.

 

[pjholybloke]

NO! If the light, which travels at 186,000 miles per second is emitted from an object travelling at -186,000 miles per second, its net speed is zero and therefore the light will never reach you.

Wrong.........you can not increase or decrease the speed of light, it is fixed relative to to the universe.

I think you'll find that Einstein's theory of relativity was based on exactly the opposite of this assumption; that is to say that although in theory the speed of light is attainable (his original datum based on account of the fact that it has to be attainable for light to attain it in the first place), it is unlikely to be attained by anything attempting to replicate it, as the faster something that isn't light travels - the heavier it gets, therefore the more propulsion is required, therefore by increasing speed (and by default - mass), one requires more propulsion etc. etc. ad nauseum to the point of infinity, but not quite, and therefore not quite attaining the speed of light.

The only major scientific breakthrough in this area of quantum physics occurred in the late nineties when a source of light from a far-off star appeared to bend arround a large mass between us and the star. The question remains.... "If the light was affected by gravity - it must have a mass - if it has a mass, how does it achieve the speed of light?"

Was Einstein right... or is the speed of light entirely non-relative as we understand it?

 

[Trazor]

Errr, not if it's travelling away from you at the speed of light whilst strapped to the front of our imaginary spacecraft. It would render itself as a light point or pure light source as opposed to a stream/beam and therefore you would need a telescope to track it's vector into the distance.

Your telescope is not a magical instrument.
The light has to enter your telescope for you to see it, therefore it must be coming towards you.

And as I said light travels at a FIXED speed irrespective of its source, the moment it leaves the headlight it travels at 186,000 miles per second, relative to a fixed point in space.

It will take longer to reach you, and will be shifted towards the red end of the spectrum. This is the same effect you get when looking at a star which is moving away from us at a very high velocity.

 

[Trazor]

I think you'll find that Einstein's theory of relativity was based on exactly the opposite of this assumption; that is to say that although in theory the speed of light is attainable (his original datum based on account of the fact that it has to be attainable for light to attain it in the first place), it is unlikely to be attained by anything attempting to replicate it, as the faster something that isn't light travels - the heavier it gets, therefore the more propulsion is required, therefore by increasing speed (and by default - mass), one requires more propulsion etc. etc. ad nauseum to the point of infinity, but not quite, and therefore not quite attaining the speed of light.

Agreed.....According to Einstein, for something to achieve the speed of light it would have an infinite mass, which is not possible.
But this has nothing to do with the speed of light relative to a stationary observer, which is what we were discussing.......

The only major scientific breakthrough in this area of quantum physics occurred in the late nineties when a source of light from a far-off star appeared to bend arround a large mass between us and the star. The question remains.... "If the light was affected by gravity - it must have a mass - if it has a mass, how does it achieve the speed of light?"

Was Einstein right... or is the speed of light entirely non-relative as we understand it?

Light speed is the standard by which all Einsteins calculations were made, nowhere will you see any reference to speeding light up or slowing it down, it is not possible.

 

[pjholybloke]

Quite correct, it will enter the telescope, but in order for it to reach there one would have to wait a very long time.

Like the light from a lot of stars we can see now no longer have a source, it's not saying the source isn't there, it's just not there "now" as we know it Jim (I refer you to Einstein's original datum - it can therefore it is sort of thing)

As for whether or not a star is moving away from us, the same thing applies, the only difference here - as I understood the initial hypothetical situation - is that I was looking at it from the point of view that the spaceship was accelerating from zero to the speed of light away from the observer.

Therefore the "shift" would transverse the entire spectrum including those areas of light not visible to the human eye. It would of course still be there but just "momentarily" (in respect of a couple of hundred years) not be visible. Once the time/space relativity stabilised on attaining the speed of light the light would of course become visible again to the human eye but having travelled so far away would take the best part of three-hundred years to become manifest to the telescope, unless it had mythical properties to see beyond seeing.

Anyway, what makes you think my telescope isn't magic? I don't believe I've ever shown any other mortal my telescope,and if they had seen it by accident what makes you think they wouldn't just assume it was a Yucca plant? Eh? Whatdyaknow about my telescope? Answer the question crafty one?

 

[bernardgreen]

NO! If the light, which travels at 186,000 miles per second is emitted from an object travelling at -186,000 miles per second, its net speed is zero and therefore the light will never reach you.

NO NO

I think ( its Saturday so brain on stnd-by only ) the light still travels to you at the speed of light but with a reduced frequency. The doppler shift, red shift if moving away from you, blue shift if moving towards you.

If the object was travelling at the speed of light the frequency would in theory be zero. What that means in practise I can't be bother to work out so I shall remain in the dark on that part of it.

 

[noseall]

the speed of light, as said by Trazor, is constant and will not change relative to moving objects.

this is one of the quirks of Einsteins relativity theory.

time slows down the nearer an object gets to the speed of light.

the passage of time and the speed of light are relative to each other.

 

[Trazor]

Anyway, what makes you think my telescope isn't magic? I don't believe I've ever shown any other mortal my telescope,and if they had seen it by accident what makes you think they wouldn't just assume it was a Yucca plant? Eh? Whatdyaknow about my telescope? Answer the question crafty one?

You got me there.....................................Damn.