Update on Flight 718/June 16, 2011 (PHL‐FCO)

[Piedmont1984]

The light from the headlights would speed away from you at...wait for it...the speed of light, illuminating your path as always. You can thank Al for explaining that.

Jim

Wouldn't that mean it was travelling at twice the speed of light, in relation to a stationary object?

 

[yoyodyne]

Wouldn't that mean it was travelling at twice the speed of light, in relation to a stationary object?

That is what happens when you think you live in a Newtonian universe...


Time dilation my friend..

 

[Piedmont1984]

That is what happens when you think you live in a Newtonian universe...


Time dilation my friend..

That's either an assault on my intellect, or a disparaging comment on my age, or both 🙂

 

[signals]

Since I haven't read the entire thread, and I have issues with FCO, I am going to err on the side of caution over any union matters in the case. Just to clarify, on an International flight like that caution overrides union disputes and any petty finger pointing. If flying to FCO, detain me forever for all I care!

 

[BoeingBoy]

Wouldn't that mean it was travelling at twice the speed of light, in relation to a stationary object?

Nope. Einstein, in his theory of general relatively, said that light has a constant speed relative to an observer. So it you're in a spaceship going the speed of light and shine a light ahead of you along your "flight" path that light is going the speed of light relative to you and also relative to an observer that's stationary relative to you. That's assuming that there is no gravity affecting one of you to alter the apparent speed of light and you and the observer are in a vacuum.

Of course, the whole discussion is somewhat pointless to ordinary people like us. To accelerate a spaceship to the speed of light takes increasing amounts of power as you get closer to the speed of light and to go the speed of light takes infinite power. That's why nothing can exceed the speed of light - it would take more than infinite power to break the "light barrier".

Jim

 

[nycbusdriver]

Nope. Einstein, in his theory of general relatively, said that light has a constant speed relative to an observer. So it you're in a spaceship going the speed of light and shine a light ahead of you along your "flight" path that light is going the speed of light relative to you and also relative to an observer that's stationary relative to you. That's assuming that there is no gravity affecting one of you to alter the apparent speed of light and you and the observer are in a vacuum.

Of course, the whole discussion is somewhat pointless to ordinary people like us. To accelerate a spaceship to the speed of light takes increasing amounts of power as you get closer to the speed of light and to go the speed of light takes infinite power. That's why nothing can exceed the speed of light - it would take more than infinite power to break the "light barrier".

Jim

They said similar things about the speed of sound. Until they figured out a way to go faster.

Just because the human intellect today cannot figure it out, it does't mean it won't be possible forever.

 

[Piedmont1984]

Nope. Einstein, in his theory of general relatively, said that light has a constant speed relative to an observer. So it you're in a spaceship going the speed of light and shine a light ahead of you along your "flight" path that light is going the speed of light relative to you and also relative to an observer that's stationary relative to you. That's assuming that there is no gravity affecting one of you to alter the apparent speed of light and you and the observer are in a vacuum.

Of course, the whole discussion is somewhat pointless to ordinary people like us. To accelerate a spaceship to the speed of light takes increasing amounts of power as you get closer to the speed of light and to go the speed of light takes infinite power. That's why nothing can exceed the speed of light - it would take more than infinite power to break the "light barrier".

Jim

You are in a spaceship travelling at light speed. I am on a planet, sitiing in a chair, having a single malt (which I am) just as you pass abeam my position.

We both shine a flashlight toward a common point in space, say an asteroid.

Whose flashlight beam gets there first?

 

[Iclubbabyseals]

They said similar things about the speed of sound. Until they figured out a way to go faster.

Just because the human intellect today cannot figure it out, it does't mean it won't be possible forever.

Man of the cloth? Well said. and, I mean it. There is evidence of faster than light (instantaneous communication between daughter particles), in several cases exploited by migratory animals to sense direction, something we cannot yet duplicate (from a lecture at MIT).

Life is much more interesting (to me) than what we see on "the news".

 

[Iclubbabyseals]

You are in a spaceship travelling at light speed. I am on a planet, sitiing in a chair, having a single malt (which I am) just as you pass abeam my position.

We both shine a flashlight toward a common point in space, say an asteroid.

Whose flashlight beam gets there first?

Depends on the frame of reference. Could be you, Jim or neither which is a third possibility that a lot people (tea baggers? (trailer trash)) have major problems understanding.

As alluded to earlier, are there masses (heavenly bodies) that might "tinker" with trajectories? Who is "observing" the winner of the race, Jim, you or some other entity? (for instance, depending on the fact that a reflection takes time to occur, therefore, detection, Jim might never ever see a reflection, arriving at the asteroid simultaneously with his flashlight beam.) Also, how does Jim tell you that he has "lit" his flashlight, by speed of light?

I might have said it already, but, Richard Feynman, in his three volume set of lectures (available at all libraries except for red-neck dirt stupid states like Arizona and Texas) explains it much better than I.

 

[BoeingBoy]

Whose flashlight beam gets there first?

Who's closer? Who measured the distances? Are they moving relative to either/both/all of you or I or the asteroid? What is between you, I, the person doing the measuring, and the asteroid? The speed of light being constant is the easy part. The bending of space/time to achieve the effect is the hard part. In fact, a single observer can measure differing values for the speed of light if he's in the presence of a massive object - like a black hole. If you're falling into a black hole, the light that's falling in ahead of you appears to be going faster than the speed of light while light falling in behind you appears to be going slower - both relative to you, a single observer.

What amazes me is not the conclusions people like Einstein or Hawkins come up with but that they come up with them using little but their minds.

Jim

 

[SparrowHawk]

Q: What came first the chicken of the egg?
A: Whichever one lit a cigarette first

 

[Glucose Intolerant]

Second near disaster for the Airbus

Those electronics can be tricky on the BUS

 

[HPearlyretiree]

Depends on the frame of reference. Could be you, Jim or neither which is a third possibility that a lot people (tea baggers? (trailer trash)) have major problems understanding.

As alluded to earlier, are there masses (heavenly bodies) that might "tinker" with trajectories? Who is "observing" the winner of the race, Jim, you or some other entity? (for instance, depending on the fact that a reflection takes time to occur, therefore, detection, Jim might never ever see a reflection, arriving at the asteroid simultaneously with his flashlight beam.) Also, how does Jim tell you that he has "lit" his flashlight, by speed of light?

I might have said it already, but, Richard Feynman, in his three volume set of lectures (available at all libraries except for red-neck dirt stupid states like Arizona and Texas) explains it much better than I.

Texas: NASA Johnson Space Center, where manned missions are run, in Houston
Arizona: Arizona State University runs the Lunar Recon Orbiter, Mars Odyssey, the space robotics program, Hubble studies, etc.
University of Arizona: Phoenix Mars spacecraft program, Osiris-Rex Asteroid sample return mission program

Before you denigrate two states and make silly generalizations, do the barest bit of research so you don't look ignorant. Lots more science and research in AZ and TX, look it up, you know how to use Google.

 

[Piedmont1984]

Ther was a young lady from Bright
Who walked at the speed of light
She went out one day in the usual way
And came back on the previous night.

 

[CallawayGolf]

Who's closer? Who measured the distances? Are they moving relative to either/both/all of you or I or the asteroid? What is between you, I, the person doing the measuring, and the asteroid? The speed of light being constant is the easy part. The bending of space/time to achieve the effect is the hard part. In fact, a single observer can measure differing values for the speed of light if he's in the presence of a massive object - like a black hole. If you're falling into a black hole, the light that's falling in ahead of you appears to be going faster than the speed of light while light falling in behind you appears to be going slower - both relative to you, a single observer.

What amazes me is not the conclusions people like Einstein or Hawkins come up with but that they come up with them using little but their minds.

Jim

You also have to throw in the possibility that the speed of light is not a universal constant as Einstein hypothesized. There is some evidence to suggest that the speed of light, which can be classified a physical property, has been slowing down since the dawn of Creation (or at least since the fall of mankind in the Garden of Eden). If confirmed, this means that the speed of light is also subject to the Second Law of Thermodynamic: Entropy. If the speed of light isn't a universal constant, then a whole host of scientific models and assumptions, including the presumed age of the universe, could become untenable. So, measuring both the actual speed of light and the perceived speed of light as seen by the observer adds even more challenges to this little hypothetical brain exercise.