You will observe the bullet to fly away from you at 1000 mi/h, and a stationary observer on the trackside will (hypothetically) watch as if a bullet were dropped from rest in front of them. This is nearly impossible to reproduce because it is very difficult to ensure these precise velocities.
This is correct and obvious to anyone with basic physics knowledge. A similar comparison: The Earth travels around the sun at 29.8 km/sec, and has a rotational velocity of .47km/s, yet these velocities have little or no effect on how objects move on the earth. Once again, this is obvious.
It's interesting to understand how fast we're all traveling through space right now. If an object with a size comparable to Earth collided with it, we would be sent into space or into the Earth at 30km/s (67000 mph). Ouch.
None.
It's impossible to define which one is standing still, and which one is moving no matter how much data you have.
You can tell by using a force-meter and determining which one accelerated to .6c, it's not impossible.
None.
Perhaps The light would travel at twice the speed of light because the two velocities (That of the light and of the car) would add together.
None.
It's impossible to define which one is standing still, and which one is moving no matter how much data you have.
You can tell by using a force-meter and determining which one accelerated to .6c, it's not impossible.
Also Norm, please read the thread before replying. Also you're wrong.
None.
Sound travels at 768 mph. If you go 100 mph and release a sound, the sound isn't going forwards at 868 mph. It's still traveling at 768 mph.
"Parliamentary inquiry, Mr. Chairman - do we have to call the Gentleman a gentleman if he's not one?"
It's impossible to define which one is standing still, and which one is moving no matter how much data you have.
You can tell by using a force-meter and determining which one accelerated to .6c, it's not impossible.
Also Norm, please read the thread before replying. Also you're wrong.
Yeah that's why this got moved out of SD lol. Norm could be right though, we don't really know because it's impossible!
But how do you mean to tell me that you can't tell who is moving at .6c and who is standing still? If both a person and a super duper rocket ship are floating in space with an accelerometer at rest, and one accelerometer begins to get a non-zero reading for some amount of time until the person or ship reaches .6c, then you can definitely say that the one who got a reading on his/her accelerometer is the one who is moving, and the other one remained at rest.
None.
But how do you mean to tell me that you can't tell who is moving at .6c and who is standing still? If both a person and a super duper rocket ship are floating in space with an accelerometer at rest, and one accelerometer begins to get a non-zero reading for some amount of time until the person or ship reaches .6c, then you can definitely say that the one who got a reading on his/her accelerometer is the one who is moving, and the other one remained at rest.
Only if it's accelerating by means of some part of the ship being pushed on, rather than the entire mass somehow gaining the energy.
I think the point that people are talking about, though, is that if you look at two things which are
already in motion, relative to each other, trying to define which is still and which is not is rather arbitrary.
None.
It's impossible to define which one is standing still, and which one is moving no matter how much data you have.
You can tell by using a force-meter and determining which one accelerated to .6c, it's not impossible.
Also Norm, please read the thread before replying. Also you're wrong.
You mean to tell me that the light from a headlight of parked car would reach somebody at the same split nanosecond as the light from a headlight of a car moving toward somebody at a very high speed?
None.
It's impossible to define which one is standing still, and which one is moving no matter how much data you have.
You can tell by using a force-meter and determining which one accelerated to .6c, it's not impossible.
Also Norm, please read the thread before replying. Also you're wrong.
You mean to tell me that the light from a headlight of parked car would reach somebody at the same split nanosecond as the light from a headlight of a car moving toward somebody at a very high speed?
If the origin was the same, then yes.
The second postulate is: Light propagates through empty space with a definite speed c independent of the speed of the source or observer.
None.
Everybody in this thread except scwizard needs to read this article:
Special relativity
None.
It's impossible to define which one is standing still, and which one is moving no matter how much data you have.
You can tell by using a force-meter and determining which one accelerated to .6c, it's not impossible.
Also Norm, please read the thread before replying. Also you're wrong.
You mean to tell me that the light from a headlight of parked car would reach somebody at the same split nanosecond as the light from a headlight of a car moving toward somebody at a very high speed?
If the origin was the same, then yes.
The second postulate is: Light propagates through empty space with a definite speed c independent of the speed of the source or observer.
Think of it this way Norm....
The origins are represented by the -'s. The observers are represented by the ^'s. .'s will represent the light moving. Extended -'s will show the source of the light also moving toward an observer. It should be plain to see that no matter how fast the source of light is moving, the light is moving at c from that origin, and is independent of the fact that it was already moving. The light doesn't start with the base speed that the light source had and then add c onto it.
-. ^
-. ^
then:
--. ^
-.. ^
then:
---.^
-...^
Whether or not the source is moving, the light from that original source is chasing far out ahead of it. It is independent of it, no matter how fast it is traveling.
None.
Yes, I realize now that this is the case. I didn't think of it too well before I made my first post.
None.
Norm could be right though, we don't really know because it's impossible!
Nobody can be right because the question is wrong, which is why it is useless to talk about it.
None.
Quote from name:Dark_Marine
If (hypothetically), someone managed to create a vehicle that travels EXACTLY at the speed of light, (not one m/s more or one m/s less) and they turned the headlights on, what would happen to the light? Would it never come out of the light bulbs, or slowly shoot out of the vehicle?
If you were going 1 mph above it, the light would go back inside the light bulb almost like it never even happened. However if you are going 1mph slower, your headlights would eventually come out in front of you.
But just going at the same speed, youd see a faint light and the reflection of it in the back of it, just not infront of it
Why would it do that?
Anyway, you guys don't really seem to know any of this crap, if you knew the laws of relativity, you'd know the answer.
"The special theory of relativity says that the speed of light is the same for all inertial observers regardless of the movement of the light source." -Wikipedia
Basically the headlight would look like a headlight to you.
But what I'm reading now is showing me this is a repost, buggrit.
Also, in relation to thread title.
"I wanna make a supersonic woman of you!"
None.
DT_Battlekruser
