The Flat Earth Society
Flat Earth Discussion Boards => Flat Earth Q&A => Topic started by: cmdshft on January 31, 2007, 07:22:54 PM
-
(http://i42.photobucket.com/albums/e305/flying_leaf/model.jpg)
Ok, so can someone please explain to me what causes the sun to fluctuate to create the seasons in this model?
If we all agree on the same basic aspects of physics, then there should be something that both keeps the sun in it's relative "orbit", and also from flying off due to Centripetal Force.
Also, due to Centripetal Force, the Sun shouldn't be able to fluctuate towards the north pole.
So, someone (other than Tom) please explain the mechanism which holds the sun in place, and also allows it to move towards the Northern Pole during the year.
-
Ok, so can someone please explain to me what causes the sun to fluctuate to create the seasons in this model?
The sun slowly wobbles in place while the flat earth spins one rotation every 24 hours. This spin can be detected with a Foucault pendulum.
From our point of view the sun is circling the earth.
If we all agree on the same basic aspects of physics, then there should be something that both keeps the sun in it's relative "orbit", and also from flying off due to Centripetal Force.
The sun is accelerating with the earth via the Universal Accelerator.
Also, due to Centripetal Force, the Sun shouldn't be able to fluctuate towards the north pole.
Centripetal force does not exist.
Please explain the mechanism which holds the sun in place, and also allows it to move towards the Northern Pole during the year.
The Universal Accelerator holds the sun in place from our viewpoint. The sun slowly wobbles towards and away from North Pole during the year due to instability.
-
that doesnt make sense, in that picture, it works because the sun has that little cicle where it "shines down", but if that were real, the whole earth would be illuminated at least in part, and the sun would be visiable at all times everywhere, just in different parts of the sky. You loose.
-
that doesnt make sense, in that picture, it works because the sun has that little cicle where it "shines down", but if that were real, the whole earth would be illuminated at least in part, and the sun would be visiable at all times everywhere, just in different parts of the sky. You loose.
Hold a penlight one foot over a circular dinner table. Notice how the entire dinner table does not light up.
-
yeah, good job, but you're missing two things. 1. anywhere on the table, no matter the size of the table, the light would be visable. 2. The sun doesnt shine down. Its a ball. It shines everywhere. Also, its not right down against the earth like that. Its kind of far away, plus its bigger than the earth, so its not really an accurate way to test that at all. How about you take dime (the earth) get about 100 feet away, then shine a 10,000,000 candle power spot light on it. Thats a much better test of what it would be like. Go look at the quarter. The whole thing is lit up believe it or not. Then replace the quarter with a marble (or anything round). Turn it in a circle. Wow, look! thats kind of what reality is like.
-
1. anywhere on the table, no matter the size of the table, the light would be visable.
The flat earth is a pretty big. And the sun is rather small.
2. The sun doesn't shine down. Its a ball. It shines everywhere.
That's debatable. Light may be affected by the sun's relativistic acceleration in such a way to limit its spread.
Also, its not right down against the earth like that.
I say it is.
-
Tom, you missed the argument. Again.
I'm not asking what keeps it up there, I'm asking what keeps it from flying off due to centripetal force, which is a real force. Don't confuse yourself with "centrifugal".
I'm also asking that due to centripetal force, how can it move towards the northern pole?
Neither question you answered.
-
I've already told you, the sun isn't spinning around the earth. The sun stays in place while the earth spins.
The sun stays in place and slowly wobbles back and fourth, simulating the seasons.
-
Gee well, that's certainly not how it looks according to the model.
So is that the 34th or the 35th time you changed your story?
-
Of course from the viewpoint of someone on earth, the sun would seem to circumnavigate the equator.
It works both ways. The FE model still holds.
The map you posted simply charts the sun's path across the sky from a terrestrial viewpoint.
-
Also, due to Centripetal Force, the Sun shouldn't be able to fluctuate towards the north pole.
Centripetal force does not exist (http://www.newton.dep.anl.gov/askasci/phy05/phy05074.htm).
Had you read that article to which you linked, you would have realized that it said (in inertial reference frames) Centrifugal force doesn't exist. Centripetal force does (in inertial reference frames).
(Don't kill me, Erasmus! I'm not framist, I swear!)
-
It doesnt matter. Say that the light is not powerful enough to shine all over the whole earth, thats acceptable to a point, but it would still be visable everywhere. Its not. Why? Becasue it sets. If your theory were correct, what would happen would be you would see a tiny dot, coming toward you from the north east, it would pass over, then you would see it get smaller into the north west, and inbetween that cycle, you would be able to see it all the way between, straight north. Infact, if you were in the north pole, you would be able to watch the sun do circles forever. Is that what you are saying? please explain your nonsense
-
You're the only one who has said that the sun doesn't go "around" in it's "orbit".
And it only works if the earth rotates and the sun is stationary. If it's actually the other way (which has been pretty much stated by many FE's), then the model falls apart.
But then, what about the moon? The question remains for it as well.
-
Had you read that article to which you linked, you would have realized that it said (in inertial reference frames) Centrifugal force doesn't exist. Centripetal force does (in inertial reference frames).
(Don't kill me, Erasmus! I'm not framist, I swear!)
You're correct, I got the two mixed up. My mistake.
It doesnt matter. Say that the light is not powerful enough to shine all over the whole earth, thats acceptable to a point, but it would still be visable everywhere. Its not. Why?
The Sun's relativistic speed affects the spread of its light. In effect it acts as a spotlight on the earth.
if you were in the north pole, you would be able to watch the sun do circles forever
That's correct. At the north pole daylight can actually persists for many months until the sun wobbles back towards the southern hemidisk. Thereafter the north pole exists in perpetual night for many months. This effect is well documented.
You're the only one who has said that the sun doesn't go "around" in it's "orbit".
It's a matter of perception. The sun is circling us and we're circling the sun.
(which has been pretty much stated by many FE's)
Incorrect.
But then, what about the moon? The question remains for it as well.
The moon moves in a different fashion. But that's for another thread.
-
as a serious FE believer, I'd have to say because the moon and the sun aren't real.
-
and I love how you still havent answered the question of why the sun acts as it does. It should, according to this model, act as I have stated in my previous post (not the N. Pole part, the watching it go around, never "setting" from where you are). If the sun is above the earth as insisted here, the sun would never set.
-
The Sun's relativistic speed affects the spread of its light. In effect it acts as a spotlight on the earth.
Relativity doesn't affect light. It's light that defines relativity.
It's a matter of perception. The sun is circling around us and we're circling around the sun.
My perception from the models given is that the earth is in fact stationary, and the sun is the one that does the moving.
The moon moves in a different fashion. But that's for another thread.
I'd prefer it be explained in this thread.
-
and I love how you still havent answered the question of why the sun acts as it does. It should, according to this model, act as I have stated in my previous post (not the N. Pole part, the watching it go around, never "setting" from where you are). If the sun is above the earth as insisted here, the sun would never set.
Again. The light is warped due to the sun's acceleration. This creates the spotlight effect.
Relativity doesn't affect light.
If one were to take a picture of a plane traveling at a speed close to the speed of light, the plane would look warped across the picture. Don't you agree? If you were to take a picture from behind the plane might look like a pinprick of light.
My perception from the models given is that the earth is in fact stationary, and the sun is the one that does the moving.
The earth must be spinning. Take a trip to your local museum and watch a Foucault Pendulum sometime. Only the spinning of the earth could describe its movements.
I'd prefer it be explained in this thread.
Lets try not to go off topic.
-
The earth must be spinning. Take a trip to your local museum and watch a Foucault pendulum sometime.
The explain how it works the closer to the ice wall you get. Due to the earth spinning faster at the edge then the pole, the distortion of it's own cycle will be greater. Yet it is less. Explain.
Look here, if you are lost: http://theflatearthsociety.org/forums/viewtopic.php?t=6189
Lets try not to go off topic.
It isn't. It's completely relevant.
-
The explain how it works the closer to the ice wall you get. Due to the earth spinning faster at the edge then the pole, the distortion of it's own cycle will be greater. Yet it is less. Explain.
Distortion of the pendulum would indeed be greater at Antarctica. But at which Antarctic museum could we verify this?
It isn't. It's completely relevant.
The path of the moon across the sky from a terrestrial viewpoint is exactly as it is in the map you've linked.
-
Distortion of the pendulum would indeed be greater at Antarctica.
But it isn't in reality.
But which Antarctic museum could we verify this at?
Who said that you needed a museum to do it? Make your own, or have one of our aussie friends here on the forums verify the results of the expiriment, and then compare at the similar latitude in the north. If they match, then the earth isn't flat. Simple.
The path of the moon across the sky from a terrestrial viewpoint is exactly as it is in the FE maps.
So then answer the question. What keeps it in that motion and not from flying off due to centripetal force?
-
But it isn't in reality.
I'm not a fan of fiction.
Who said that you needed a museum to do it? Make your own, or have one of our aussie friends here on the forums verify the results of the expiriment, and then compare at the similar latitude in the north. If they match, then the earth isn't flat. Simple.
I already know that they won't match. I don't require further proof of a flat earth. I've already ran my own observations, proofs, and experiments.
So then answer the question. What keeps it in that motion and not from flying off due to centripetal force?
It's exactly like the sun. The moon is stationary, but it also wobbles. Only this time it wobbles in a different direction. Sometimes it wobbles into the light, which is why you can often see the moon during the day.
-
I'm not a fan of fiction.
You're just afraid to be wrong.
The moon is stationary, but it also wobbles. Sometimes it wobbles into the light, which is why you can often see the moon during the day.
Um, really? Model how that works, please.
-
But it isn't in reality.
I'm not a fan of fiction.
LOL
FLAT EARTH IS FICTION
-
So, someone (other than Tom) please explain the mechanism which holds the sun in place, and also allows it to move towards the Northern Pole during the year.
Nothing like the mechanism Tom explained is illustrated in the image in my first post, so using the model shown, which has become a standard map in FE, someone SANE please explain my dilemma outlined in the first post.
-
About the Foucault Pendulum...
On a spheroid Earth, wouldn't the pendulum rotate clockwise in one hemisphere, and counter-clockwise in the other? Or am I missing something? Seems to me that if this were the case, it would be easy enough to verify by having someone north of the equator and someone south of the equator visit local museums and observe the pendulums.
If this is found to be the case, how can FET explain this phenomenon?
-
Tom, what do you believe the speed of light to be?
Explain what you mean that the suns speed (or is it movement) doesn't allow all persons of the earth to see the sun at once.
-
don't argue with tom, just ignore him please. I just hope there are other FErs willing to answer BESIDES TOM
-
if the earth is rotating as Tom suggests, then there is no possibility for life on th outer surfaces. centripetal force=M*V^2/R. V being tangential velocity. This means that the centripetal force needed to remain stationary on earth would be SIGNIFICANT. for ANY model witha 24 hour day and a reasonably sized earth, the equator (FE velocities will vary) has to be traveling at just around 1000 mi/h. (I'm using 24k miles, a reasonable circumnavigation by airplane, it's slightly smaller on the ground but you do get the point). This means that standing here on earth we would readily be able to feel which way south is because we would constantly be pulled that way. The only livable place on earth would be the north pole.
I figure the response you would give, barring this bit is that 'centripetal force doesn't exist in an inertial frame' or that I'm talking about centrifugal force not centripetal force, so I'll address the problem first. A centripetal force would be needed to remain stationary on a spinning disk, because of the radial acceleration (acceleration due to a change in direction as supposed to a change in speed). I can also prove that centripetal force exists in the reference frame of earth, inertial or not. when a car corners too fast, it either slides out, flips, or simply understeers, not taking the path desired. This is absolutely due to centripetal force induced by changing the direction of travel.
-
And one more thing. Relativity is irrelevant between the sun and Earth in the FE model. This is because they are in the same reference frame, and have no velocity relative to one another (in the vertical sense). Hence light would propagate as normal between the sun and earth. if this were not the case, EVERY LIGHTSOURCE ON EARTH would be 'limited' the way Tom explains the sun to be.
Of course, maybe every lightsource on earth is limited relativistically in a manner only consistent with the ether theory of EM propogation. and, if Tom or any other FE'r believes in the ETHER moving to cause the effect he describes, it can be quickly disproved with a michelson interferometer test. ONE OF WHICH I DID ON MY OWN. Any body taking E&M in college would do this test, and everyone always gets the same result, either the ether isn't moving, or there is no ether. FE THEORY DISPROVED. DONE (original FE theory is based on the existence of an ether)
-
You're just afraid to be wrong.
Perhaps you're just afraid of learning the truth.
Um, really? Model how that works, please.
I've already told you how it works.
On a spheroid Earth, wouldn't the pendulum rotate clockwise in one hemisphere, and counter-clockwise in the other?
Yes.
Seems to me that if this were the case, it would be easy enough to verify by having someone north of the equator and someone south of the equator visit local museums and observe the pendulums.
Feel free.
Tom, what do you believe the speed of light to be?
The same as in RE.
Explain what you mean that the suns speed (or is it movement) doesn't allow all persons of the earth to see the sun at once.
The sun is low to the earth and acts as a spotlight.
if the earth is rotating as Tom suggests, then there is no possibility for life on th outer surfaces. centripetal force=M*V^2/R. V being tangential velocity. This means that the centripetal force needed to remain stationary on earth would be SIGNIFICANT. for ANY model witha 24 hour day and a reasonably sized earth, the equator (FE velocities will vary) has to be traveling at just around 1000 mi/h. (I'm using 24k miles, a reasonable circumnavigation by airplane, it's slightly smaller on the ground but you do get the point). This means that standing here on earth we would readily be able to feel which way south is because we would constantly be pulled that way.
The Round Earth model is also rotating at 1000 miles per hour at the equator. Yet we are not being thrown off the face of the planet due to centripetal forces, are we?
Additionally the Round Earth model is orbiting the sun at a speed greater than 10,000 miles per hour. By your logic we should be pancaked into the earth during the day, and be pulled off into space at night.
And one more thing. Relativity is irrelevant between the sun and Earth in the FE model. This is because they are in the same reference frame, and have no velocity relative to one another (in the vertical sense).
Once light leaves the sun it is in a reference frame parallel to the speed of light. Since the sun and earth are not traveling at the speed of light the light from the sun will seem to curve over a distance from a terrestrial viewpoint. This curvature is so slight that one would not be able to see the effect from a regular light bulb in the kitchen.
This curvature of light over long distance may also explain the sinking boat over the horizon effect.
-
if the earth is rotating as Tom suggests, then there is no possibility for life on th outer surfaces. centripetal force=M*V^2/R. V being tangential velocity. This means that the centripetal force needed to remain stationary on earth would be SIGNIFICANT. for ANY model witha 24 hour day and a reasonably sized earth, the equator (FE velocities will vary) has to be traveling at just around 1000 mi/h. (I'm using 24k miles, a reasonable circumnavigation by airplane, it's slightly smaller on the ground but you do get the point). This means that standing here on earth we would readily be able to feel which way south is because we would constantly be pulled that way.
The Round Earth model is also rotating at 1000 mile per hour at the equator. Yet we are not being thrown off the face of the planet, are we?
And one more thing. Relativity is irrelevant between the sun and Earth in the FE model. This is because they are in the same reference frame, and have no velocity relative to one another (in the vertical sense).
Once light leaves the sun it is in a reference frame parallel to the speed of light. Since the sun and earth are not traveling at the speed of light it will seem to curve over a long distance from a terrestrial viewpoint. This curvature is so slight that one would not be able to see the effect from a regular light bulb.
This curvature of light over long distance may also explain the sinking boat over the horizon effect.
[/quote]
Yes, the spherical earth is rotating at 1000 mi/hr, but gravity is a much stronger force than the centripetal acceleration needed to hold down a human. the radial acceleration in both cases is .0477883 ft/sec^2. The difference is that in the spherical case, gravity opposes this force, and so it isn't an issue. However, on a FE, it results in an unopposed force that would have to be accounted for in all buildings, and even our daily lives. Everything would have to lean north to accommodate the constant southward acceleration.
As for what you're stating about relativity, it's just plain wrong. light always travels at the speed of light relative to the viewer. PERIOD. NO EXCEPTIONS.
-
Yes, the spherical earth is rotating at 1000 mi/hr, but gravity is a much stronger force than the centripetal acceleration needed to hold down a human.
Gravity may be an acceptable answer. But it does not explain why we do not feel the centripetal force while the earth orbits the sun at over 10,000 miles per hour. We should be pancaked into the earth during the day and pulled off of it at night.
As for what you're stating about relativity, it's just plain wrong. light always travels at the speed of light relative to the viewer. PERIOD. NO EXCEPTIONS.
I doubt anyone has traveled at relativistic speeds to study the curvature of light from other objects traveling at relativistic speeds.
-
Tom, do us all a favour and shut up.
-
On a spheroid Earth, wouldn't the pendulum rotate clockwise in one hemisphere, and counter-clockwise in the other?
Yes.
Seems to me that if this were the case, it would be easy enough to verify by having someone north of the equator and someone south of the equator visit local museums and observe the pendulums.
Feel free.
I like how you completely evaded
If this is found to be the case, how can FET explain this phenomenon?
Oh, that's right. It can't. Best to just forget I even brought that bit up... :roll:
(http://foutware.ath.cx/public/owned.jpg)
-
Once light leaves the sun it is in a reference frame parallel to the speed of light. Since the sun and earth are not traveling at the speed of light the light from the sun will seem to curve over a distance from a terrestrial viewpoint. This curvature is so slight that one would not be able to see the effect from a regular light bulb in the kitchen.
This curvature of light over long distance may also explain the sinking boat over the horizon effect.
Dude...exactly how stoned are you?
-
Yes, the spherical earth is rotating at 1000 mi/hr, but gravity is a much stronger force than the centripetal acceleration needed to hold down a human.
Gravity may be an acceptable answer. But it does not explain why we do not feel the centripetal force while the earth orbits the sun at over 10,000 miles per hour. We should be pancaked into the earth during the day and pulled off of it at night.
As for what you're stating about relativity, it's just plain wrong. light always travels at the speed of light relative to the viewer. PERIOD. NO EXCEPTIONS.
I doubt anyone has traveled at relativistic speeds to study the curvature of light from other objects traveling at relativistic speeds.
Man, you just don't get it, do you????? M V^2/R the radius of our path is 1 AU. that's HUGE. 93,000,000 miles to be exact. the acceleration due to Earth's orbit around the sun is Roughly 4.38*10^-4 ft/sec^2 gravity is 32.2 ft/sec^2. That's about 1/100,000 g. You couldn't notice that except with the best of measurements.
And, are you aware of the fundamental principle of the theory of relativity? Light goes the same speed in ALL reference frames. hence the term RELATIVITY. ALL LIGHT everywhere right now is ALL traveling at c relative to your frame. some at you, some away, some at all sorts of angles, but all at c. If you argue this you're arguing with Einstein and ALL OF MODERN PHYSICS. (hint: you're wrong)
-
Oh, that's right. It can't. Best to just forget I even brought that bit up...
On my next trip to Antarctica I'll be sure to bring a Foucault Pendulum.
Man, you just don't get it, do you????? M V^2/R the radius of our path is 1 AU. that's HUGE. 93,000,000 miles to be exact.
The round earth is traveling at 10,000+ miles per hour around the sun any way you look at it. 10,000+ miles per hour is pretty fast, if you haven't realized.
I don't feel as if I'm being pulled off the earth at 10,000+ miles per hour at night. Do you?
And, are you aware of the fundamental principle of the theory of relativity? Light goes the same speed in ALL reference frames. hence the term RELATIVITY. ALL LIGHT everywhere right now is ALL traveling at c relative to your frame. some at you, some away, some at all sorts of angles, but all at c. If you argue this you're arguing with Einstein and ALL OF MODERN PHYSICS.
Incorrect. Light can seem warped and curved for all sorts of reasons.
-
Oh, that's right. It can't. Best to just forget I even brought that bit up...
On my next trip to Antarctica I'll be sure to bring a Foucault Pendulum.
Man, you just don't get it, do you????? M V^2/R the radius of our path is 1 AU. that's HUGE. 93,000,000 miles to be exact.
365 days in a year times 24 hours in a day = 8,760 hours in a year.
93,000,000 miles around the sun divided by 8,760 hours = 10,615 miles per hour
The earth is traveling at 10,615 miles per hour any way you look at it. 10,615 miles per hour is pretty fast, if you haven't realized.
I don't feel as if I'm being pushed into the earth at 10,615 miles per hour during the day. Do you?
And, are you aware of the fundamental principle of the theory of relativity? Light goes the same speed in ALL reference frames. hence the term RELATIVITY. ALL LIGHT everywhere right now is ALL traveling at c relative to your frame. some at you, some away, some at all sorts of angles, but all at c. If you argue this you're arguing with Einstein and ALL OF MODERN PHYSICS.
Incorrect. Light is warped around you when traveling at relativistic speeds.
You might just be the dumbest person I've ever heard of. Velocity exerts NO FORCE on the body. Accelerations are caused by an exerted force. You can go 10,000 mph for as long as you want and never feel any effects as long as you aren't speeding up or slowing down. the radial acceleration due to our circling the earth is what I stated above. DO THE MATH. I used a speed even higher than yours because you don't even know what the circumference of a circle is!!!!!!!! We're traveling 66,705 mph. HOWEVER the only acceleration going on is that which maintains the orbit. remember that space is a VACUUM. btw, my number was slightly off earlier, accurate acceleration due to solar orbit, THE FORCE THAT YOU FEEL is only .0195 ft/s^2. gravity is 32.2 ft/s
just so you know something: the circumference of a circle is 2*pi*radius
here you go: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/astronomical_unit
-
It's been proven that light travels at the speed of light in all reference frames.
If you are traveling through space at the speed of light, and you shine a flashlight in front of you, that light will travel at the speed of light, relative to you, and would appear the exact same speed as if you were standing still.
Light is the only "object" we know of that is not affected by relativity, and time, since time is also a relativistic attribute.
-
You might just be the dumbest person I've ever heard of. Velocity exerts NO FORCE on the body. Accelerations are caused by an exerted force. You can go 10,000 mph for as long as you want and never feel any effects as long as you aren't speeding up or slowing down.
That would be correct if you were going in a straight line. But the round earth is traveling in a circle around the sun. Thus, centripetal applies
We're traveling 66,705 mph.
Then RE Theory is even more absurd.
It's been proven that light travels at the speed of light in all reference frames.
The speed of light travels at the speed of light in the FE model. No FE proponent ever said that it didn't. It just curves due to acceleration.
If you are traveling through space at the speed of light.
I must have been on vacation when they invented vehicles that travel at the speed of light.
-
You might just be the dumbest person I've ever heard of. Velocity exerts NO FORCE on the body. Accelerations are caused by an exerted force. You can go 10,000 mph for as long as you want and never feel any effects as long as you aren't speeding up or slowing down.
That would be correct if you were going in a straight line. But the round earth is traveling in a circle around the sun. Thus, centripetal force should apply.
We're traveling 66,705 mph.
Then RE Theory is more absurd than I imagined.
CAN YOU READ?????????????????????? I calculated the centripetal force exerted on you SEE it? I calculated it!!!! IT's a NUMBER It's SMALL.....READ IT .0195 ft/s^2. STOP IGNORING THAT PART OF THE POST.
(in case you missed it: .0195 ft/s^2)
the V in V^2/R is tangential velocity.
-
And, are you aware of the fundamental principle of the theory of relativity? Light goes the same speed in ALL reference frames. hence the term RELATIVITY. ALL LIGHT everywhere right now is ALL traveling at c relative to your frame. some at you, some away, some at all sorts of angles, but all at c. If you argue this you're arguing with Einstein and ALL OF MODERN PHYSICS.
Incorrect. Light can seem warped and curved for all sorts of reasons.
Reading comprehension. He didn't say light always traveled in a straight line. He said it always travels at c. Jeebus.
-
But you see, Tom, Centripetal Force does apply.
The gravitic force that we have on earth is strong enough to hold exerting on it, because of our size in relation to it, referencing back to the cavandish experiment. So we don't feel that force.
We also don't feel the earth hurtling through space due to inertia. Our bodies are "at rest" relative to the earth. We've simply caught up to it in a sense. (Think of sitting in an accelerating car and then staying steady at a certain speed, you no longer feel the yourself getting smushed into your seat.)
Mercury, according to FE, is a sphere, as well as all the planets with the exception of earth apparently. It travels around the sun at 107,107.56MPH. Venus travels at 78,339.74MPH. The earth travels at a more accurate 66,640.23MPH. So how is it more absurd?
Also, If the sun is so close to the earth to act as a spotlight, how do the other planets orbit the sun? Does FE deny them orbiting it?
-
The speed of light travels at the speed of light in the FE model. No FE proponent ever said that it didn't. It just curves due to acceleration.
It cannot curve due to acceleration. It can only curve due to gravity. Unless that acceleration you are referring to is the AU.
I must have been on vacation when they invented vehicles that travel at the speed of light.
1) Sarcasm makes you look ignorant and helps to discredit you.
2) Anything can be a vehicle. Light itself can be a vehicle of information.
3) The easiest way to think of this is as the following: If your car is traveling at Mach 1 (just pretend ok?), and you turn your headlights on, the light is not traveling Mach 1 slower (700MPH slower), it still traveling at exactly c, relative to all reference frames. That includes the car.
-
The easiest way to think of this is as the following: If your car is traveling at Mach 1 (just pretend ok?), and you turn your headlights on, the light is not traveling Mach 1 slower (700MPH slower), it still traveling at exactly c, relative to all reference frames. That includes the car.
Psssst...I don't think Tom is capable of pretending, otherwise he wouldn't have tried the sarcasum angle. :wink:
Here's something that I've never been able to understand about the speed of light, Hara, and I'm not blowing smoke up your ass or anything like that. I'm honestly asking because I really don't get it, and I'm hoping you can clear this up for me.
If the source of light is traveling at Mach 1, why doesn't the light that comes from the source travel at C+M1? Presuming, of course, that the light source is pointing in the direction of travel.
-
I used to wonder that as well, up until a few days ago actually. I was doing a little research into wormholes, and it mentioned something about light always traveling at c in all reference frames.
In essence, yes, it probably does travel at C+M1. Since the main reference point would be the car, the light will travel at C relative to the car.
If the reference frame becomes outside the car, both car may appear to be stopped, since now relativistic effects come into play. I'm not totally sure what happens at this point, but I think light would continue to travel at C and experience no relativistic effects?
Oh, and I know that Tom is incapable of pretending. Seems he is incapable of anything.
-
I used to wonder that as well, up until a few days ago actually. I was doing a little research into wormholes, and it mentioned something about light always traveling at c in all reference frames.
In essence, yes, it probably does travel at C+M1. Since the main reference point would be the car, the light will travel at C relative to the car.
If the reference frame becomes outside the car, both car may appear to be stopped, since now relativistic effects come into play. I'm not totally sure what happens at this point, but I think light would continue to travel at C and experience no relativistic effects?
Oh, and I know that Tom is incapable of pretending. Seems he is incapable of anything.
Yeah, that's what I meant, C+M1 ralative to that which is outside the car.
That sounds interesting though, you explination, I mean. You don't happen to recall where you read that, do you?
-
I think it was something about wormholes, it was a few days ago actually.
Ah! Found it: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wormhole#Wormholes_and_faster-than-light_travel
Special relativity only applies locally. Wormholes allow superluminal (faster-than-light) travel by ensuring that the speed of light is not exceeded locally at any time. While traveling through a wormhole, subluminal (slower-than-light) speeds are used. If two points are connected by a wormhole, the time taken to traverse it would be less than the time it would take a light beam to make the journey if it took a path through the space outside the wormhole. However, a light beam traveling through the wormhole would always beat the traveler. As an analogy, running around to the opposite side of a mountain at maximum speed may take longer than walking through a tunnel crossing it. You can walk slowly while reaching your destination more quickly because the length of your path is shorter
-
I think it was something about wormholes, it was a few days ago actually.
Ah! Found it: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wormhole#Wormholes_and_faster-than-light_travel
Special relativity only applies locally. Wormholes allow superluminal (faster-than-light) travel by ensuring that the speed of light is not exceeded locally at any time. While traveling through a wormhole, subluminal (slower-than-light) speeds are used. If two points are connected by a wormhole, the time taken to traverse it would be less than the time it would take a light beam to make the journey if it took a path through the space outside the wormhole. However, a light beam traveling through the wormhole would always beat the traveler. As an analogy, running around to the opposite side of a mountain at maximum speed may take longer than walking through a tunnel crossing it. You can walk slowly while reaching your destination more quickly because the length of your path is shorter
So, in essence, the actual speed of light is purely relative to the possition of the observer of said light. Do I get it? :o
-
Sounds about right.
-
Einstein had to be a stoner. :lol: No way could someone who can't do long division come up with that concept without smoking something. :wink:
-
They say that all genius' were crazy at some point.
Shit... we better watch Tom more closely...
-
They say that all genius' were crazy at some point.
Shit... we better watch Tom more closely...
Crazy and stupid aren't the same thing. In fact, it's my understanding that you have to have a certain degree of intellegence to be capable of going insane.
-
Hahaha, pwnt.
Oh, and I was doing some quick reading on good ol' Einey, and there's no mention of any of his inabilities aside from a language delay and the inability to be fluent until 9.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Albert_Einstein
-
I'm actually an Aero major, and we have to take some relativity (it's useless, but they want us to know it), so here's the deal, and yes, it's hard to get your head around. light tracels at c. whatever reference frame you view it at, it's going at c, so if you're outside, standing still, and a car goes by at mach 1 with headlights on, the light from the headlights, as measured by you will be going EXACTLY C. However, if someone was out infront of the car going mach one, he, too would measure the light as going C. I know it's weird, and it defies a lot of the logic you've been presented, but it really is the way light and time and space work.
-
pwnt?
I have no idea where I read it that about Einey *snicker*, but what I recall of it was that he had a lot of trouble with the lesser maths when he was in grade school. Basically, it was a case of it being too simple for him to pick up easily. He did learn the lower maths, but they came as a struggle and his teachers thought he was mentally retarded because of it.
-
I'm actually an Aero major, and we have to take some relativity (it's useless, but they want us to know it), so here's the deal, and yes, it's hard to get your head around. light tracels at c. whatever reference frame you view it at, it's going at c, so if you're outside, standing still, and a car goes by at mach 1 with headlights on, the light from the headlights, as measured by you will be going EXACTLY C. However, if someone was out infront of the car going mach one, he, too would measure the light as going C. I know it's weird, and it defies a lot of the logic you've been presented, but it really is the way light and time and space work.
Yeah, I was confused as to whether it was still exactly C to the outside observer or if it was M1+C.
And that would also explain why light from it's point of reference would then never be affected by time.
I have no idea where I read it that about Einey *snicker*, but what I recall of it was that he had a lot of trouble with the lesser maths when he was in grade school. Basically, it was a case of it being too simple for him to pick up easily. He did learn the lower maths, but they came as a struggle and his teachers thought he was mentally retarded because of it.
Ah yeah, I see now. The article outlined that when he took that test at 16, he failed because he didn't comprehend the general knowledge sections, but excelled at the scientific parts.
-
I'm actually an Aero major, and we have to take some relativity (it's useless, but they want us to know it), so here's the deal, and yes, it's hard to get your head around. light tracels at c. whatever reference frame you view it at, it's going at c, so if you're outside, standing still, and a car goes by at mach 1 with headlights on, the light from the headlights, as measured by you will be going EXACTLY C. However, if someone was out infront of the car going mach one, he, too would measure the light as going C. I know it's weird, and it defies a lot of the logic you've been presented, but it really is the way light and time and space work.
Yeesh...my head hurts. It's rather like trying to imagine infinity.
I did have a laugh imagining how incredibly flattened that observer in front of the car would wind up. :lol:
-
We also don't feel the earth hurtling through space due to inertia. Our bodies are "at rest" relative to the earth. We've simply caught up to it in a sense. (Think of sitting in an accelerating car and then staying steady at a certain speed, you no longer feel the yourself getting smushed into your seat.)
But the RE is in constant acceleration, so your example doesn't work.
It cannot curve due to acceleration. It can only curve due to gravity. Unless that acceleration you are referring to is the AU.
Light cannot be affected by gravity. It can only be affected by acceleration.
-
Einstein had to be a stoner. :lol: No way could someone who can't do long division come up with that concept without smoking something. :wink:
Too bad that's a myth; Einstein had mastered both differential and integral calculus by age 16.
-
Einstein had to be a stoner. :lol: No way could someone who can't do long division come up with that concept without smoking something. :wink:
Too bad that's a myth; Einstein had mastered both differential and integral calculus by age 16.
And failed that test because of his lack of understanding "general knowledge" problems, which long division falls under.
-
Einstein had to be a stoner. :lol: No way could someone who can't do long division come up with that concept without smoking something. :wink:
Too bad that's a myth; Einstein had mastered both differential and integral calculus by age 16.
And failed that test because of his lack of understanding "general knowledge" problems, which long division falls under.
Look what you get to read! (http://www.abc.net.au/science/k2/moments/s1115185.htm)
-
I tried.
-
The sun is a conspiracy.
-
No, it's a spotlight. DUH
-
No, it's a spotlight. DUH
WHO MADE IT THEN?!!?! THE ELEPHANTS?!
how did they learn how to make spotlights?
-
I don't know. I'm not a FE. I'm just telling you what they will say.