0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
quote:Originally posted by thebrain13lets say in the future, the baseball players given the advancement of steroids of course, were able to hit the balls with incredible force. They were able to strike the ball so hard that according to newton the balls should accelerate to an incredible speed of 1000 times the speed of light. However, people in the stadium notice that the balls do not leave the stadium at 1000c but in fact very close to c. Anyways, mark gwiremac is about to break willie ayms alltime season record for home runs at 10,000hr, a home run is to hit a ball out of earths atmosphere in the future. Somebody in the stands, adam, realizes that record breaking balls are worth a lot of money, but he has a dilema because you cant just catch a ball traveling at c, you might break your hand. So he decides to build a spaceship, he figures if he can travel to 99.999 percent the speed of light, the ball might be traveling just slow enough to catch it without breaking his hand. so he figures a spaceship with enough power to accelerate him to 10c according to newton should be sufficient, so he builds the ship and waits for mark to hit the ball. He waits a few innings and finally mark hits the ball, adam eagerly awaits in his very quick moving spaceship, but to adams bewilderment he finds out that although he is traveling at almost c from earth, the ball seems to be traveling at 2c from earth, or approaching him at the speed of light. wtf he says, that didn't work at all. Confused and defeated he heads back to earth, and after a lot of thinking he finally figures it out. The speed of baseballs is constant! Isn't this an inevitable consequence of s.r? and if so what is so unique about the constancy of the speed of light, given baseballs do the same thing?
quote:Originally posted by thebrain13Anyways, the point of my post was to imply that any object with a very high amount of energy applied to it in comparison to its mass, will have a speed just under c, which is independant of the motion of the observer. I was getting at the fact that the motion of light is the same as the motion of any object, granted an object has a very high amount of energy applied to it.
quote:Originally posted by thebrain13But what if now spaceship B accelerates to .97c or roughly 2c according to newton. How fast is he moving according to Spaceship A? Physics today, I believe would say, well spaceship A is moving at .87c, B at .97c, so .97c-.87c=.10c or a tenth the speed of light.
quote:The relative velocity of any two objects never exceeds the velocity of light. Applying the Lorentz transformation to the velocities, expressions are obtained for the relative velocities as seen by the different observers. They are called the Einstein velocity addition relationships.
quote:And lights constant velocity is what people are talking about when they refer to light as being unique.
quote:Originally posted by thebrain13Okay so, if an object were moving at 99.9999999999 percent the speed of light( and I question how we know that light doesnt travel at 99.9999999999999 percent the ultimate speed limit) would be seen as still, traveling 99.9999999999 percent the speed of light, even relative to somebody who just accelerated to 99 percent c. In mathmatical terms, the speed of the accelerated object O, is relative to your velocity. So O=O+v (granted you dont want to knitpick some .00000000000001c difference in velocity) And lights constant velocity is what people are talking about when they refer to light as being unique.
quote:Originally posted by thebrain13the number I gave you was one 3 millionths of a kilometer per second. You think that difference of velocity isn't nitpicking, especially when your comparing that to 300,000 kilometers per second? You think differentiating between 299,999.99999997 km/s and 300,000 km/s (granted c is a perfectly round number, better put that in or else it might get nitpicked) isn't nitpicking? Differences this small are negligible and beyond instumental measurement. c is given with a plus minus well bigger than these numbers. You've brought nitpicking to a new level, you are nitpicking, nitpicking!!!
quote:Originally posted by thebrain13And to your first reply, light would slow slightly, however as the theme of my post still continues, that effect would be very small. But it does seem there would be interesting implications that would arise about trying to catch the speed of light.