tech hypothetical

[johl]

im not sure if this is the right section for this but its kinda a techo question. its been drivin me nuts for nearly a year and want eveyones opinion... here it goes- your driving in a pitch black tunnel, at the speed of light and you turn your head lights on... what happens? can you c the light or are you going so fast by the time the light beams away from your car you have caught up to it? i'm not that much of a noob not to realise u cant drive that fast but i was just wonderin on ur thoughts.
-johl

[rthy]

it would have the light eqivolent of a sonic boom, the light would never leave the lense and end up keep going foward or light up the sides of the reflector. Anyone unlucky enough to look at your lights just as you were slowing down would cop the equivolent of a few million watts of lighting power

[Akury]

Light doesnt suffer the doppler effect like sound does. Say you're travelling at half the speed of light in that tunnel, and you turn your lights on, what you'll see is the lights leaving you at the speed of light, and not half the speed. I dont think anyone knows what would theoretically happen if you were to travel at the speed of light because it is impossible to get there if you have any mass.

Think of it this way: The faster you're travelling, the greater your mass becomes, so the force required to make you accelerate increases. As you get closer and closer to the speed of light, this increases exponentially, and at the speed of light your mass would be infinite so the force required to get you there would be infinite, making it a theoretical impossibility.

[Gilly]

i'm pretty sure my carby turbo gemini traveled at the speed of light once. it had to have, i had new tyres on the chrome 17's and i removed the sub box.

my god we have some smarty pants in here, props to Sam and Akury for being intellectual

negative props to Gilly for such a ghey post, it has easily damaged the credability of this thread

[wooley]

i'm pretty sure my carby turbo gemini traveled at the speed of light once. it had to have, i had new tyres on the chrome 17's and i removed the sub box.

my god we have some smarty pants in here, props to Sam and Akury for being intellectual

negative props to Gilly for such a ghey post, it has easily damaged the credability of this thread[/b]

wow. you really put into practice the advice you gave me on spamming the other day. rofl.

and sams and akurys posts are awesome. +1

[ke70dave]

same Question as: if your on a train doing speed of light, and you walk forward, are you going faster than speed of light?

im pretty sure its been proven that you cant go the speed of light anyway

it was something like the closer to speed of light, the heavier you get...or something....and thus you slow down...or something....ark i don't remember

we did relativity at university last year, biggest load of crap i ever done.....

best part is it doesn't matter, cause when were you planning on going the speed of light http://www.ae86drivingclub.com.au/forums/emoticons/tongue.gif

[jono86]

^^^ next time i fire the ke up

[hilux08]

hahaha ke70dave yeah it has been proven that you can go the speed of light if you are light http://www.ae86drivingclub.com.au/forums/emoticons/2thumbs.gif other than that no joy

[Gilly]

<{POST_SNAPBACK}> (index.php?act=findpost&pid=334559)

i'm pretty sure my carby turbo gemini traveled at the speed of light once. it had to have, i had new tyres on the chrome 17's and i removed the sub box.

my god we have some smarty pants in here, props to Sam and Akury for being intellectual

negative props to Gilly for such a ghey post, it has easily damaged the credability of this thread[/b]

wow. you really put into practice the advice you gave me on spamming the other day. rofl.

and sams and akurys posts are awesome. +1
[/b]

pfft that was good spam

read the next 3 posts they are what i normally see from you

[Gilly]

LOL

[Gilly]

rofl.

[Gilly]

LMAO

[Joel-AE86]

GDM Sux.

[rthy]

is that the GDM admin spec postwhore spam?

+1
+1
+1

[Gilly]

no thats the wooley spec spam

if only you could see the trashcan (you can't its a mod thing http://www.ae86drivingclub.com.au/forums/emoticons/tongue.gif)

Joel , WORD GDM sux

please spread the word...

[flamingheads]

I bet that in 100 years we figure out how to go the speed of light and laugh at ourselves 100 years ago for doubting we could.
All we need is a new really powerful engine to push us through space.
Imagine being pushed through space by a rotary engine at the speed of light. It'd be the smoothest way to travel known to mankind.


same Question as: if your on a train doing speed of light, and you walk forward, are you going faster than speed of light?[/b]

No. If you're on a train doing 100kmph and walk fowards technically your doing like 5kmph because your moving through the atmosphere at like 5kmph. Thats my thoughts.

[johl]

i cant believe my thread lasted this long in the tech section... lol. but yeah i thought the same as akury but im to dumb to word it properly http://www.ae86drivingclub.com.au/forums/emoticons/blink.gif restecp

[RobertoX]

Light doesnt suffer the doppler effect like sound does. Say you're travelling at half the speed of light in that tunnel, and you turn your lights on, what you'll see is the lights leaving you at the speed of light, and not half the speed. I dont think anyone knows what would theoretically happen if you were to travel at the speed of light because it is impossible to get there if you have any mass.

Think of it this way: The faster you're travelling, the greater your mass becomes, so the force required to make you accelerate increases. As you get closer and closer to the speed of light, this increases exponentially, and at the speed of light your mass would be infinite so the force required to get you there would be infinite, making it a theoretical impossibility.[/b]

Actually light does exhibit the doppler effect, that is why we observe red-shift in far away stars and hence know that the universe is expanding.

the reason why light from your headlights travels away from you at the speed of light, even if you are travelling at close to the speed of light is that your time has slowed down. If someone was standing by the side of the road and you were going say .99 times the speed of light they would see the light beam creeping away from the car at 0.1 times the speed of light (assuming that they had that quick vision lol). You would see it going in front of you at the speed of light because your time has slowed down.
So if you took your car for a fang at .99 the speed of light for a couple of years you would come back the world would have aged much longer even though you have only aged 2 years!
This is all true if the theory of relativity holds true http://www.ae86drivingclub.com.au/forums/emoticons/smile.gif

[xolent]

^^ wow that sounds like dragon ball stuff

the hyperbolic chamber FTW!!

[Driftspec]

Its already kind of been answered... but...

We can't go faster than the speed of light (unless proven otherwise by people working on the Grand Unified Theory).

RobertoX answered the question pretty well, talking about relative speeds (thats why its called the theory of relativity). Thus, in a train (assuming its doing 100kmh), if you walk at 5kmh towards the front of the train (your speed), you will in actual fact be doing 105kmh, of course only to the outside observer.

Obviously it gets tricker at the speed of light, but the same principle applies. If you were able to travel at the speed of light, the light would not actually leave the light bulb but run along with the source. Of course that poses the question whether it actually exists because it doesn't eminate from the source, and the fact that no one can observe it. Thats probably why (in theory) we can't travel at the speed of light, there are too many complications...

Also, either at the speed of light or at a standstill, GDM sucks. Gilly told us this, not Einstein...

All that came from when I decided to learn relativity in Grade 10 for a project in Advanced Science. Except the GDM thing. Found that out a few hours ago...

[Beserker99]

We all know this is bull..cus if we add takumi and bunta into the equation, we know they can beat anything, light, physics, mathematics and science can throw at them.

BTW...this is prolly literally the smartest thread in this entire forum!

[Gilly]

Of course that poses the question whether it actually exists because it doesn't eminate from the source, and the fact that no one can observe it.[/b]

hmmm if a tree falls in the woods and no one is there to hear it, does it make a sound?

also why we are at it. What did come first? the chicken or the egg?

[Driftspec]

hmmm if a tree falls in the woods and no one is there to hear it, does it make a sound?[/b]

There was a theory, proven true, that the implications of an event don't actually exist if they are not observed by something. Sounds all metaphysical, and I can't remember who proposed it, but it was to do with electrons in an atom being in one place and all places in their orbit around an atom's nucleus, simply we cannot see where they are at any one time, but we know they are there.

It can be expanded to prove that the tree that has fallen has made a sound if (and only if) something was there to observe it falling, and producing a sound. I just can't be fcuked to do it right now, especially as I don't know who's theory it was...

This is turning out to be a good science/physics lesson now, isn't it kiddies?

Sry Gilly, I can't tell you what came first. Odds are in favour of the egg, but. http://www.ae86drivingclub.com.au/forums/emoticons/biggrin.gif

[Gilly]

who laid said egg?

this was a song on a sesame street when i was a kid and it seriously head fucked me. i asked every teacher i ever had. stopped in year 5 to prevent embarassment and looking stupid in front of girls.

HOWEVER i asked the question in a yr 11 Biology class. chicks thought it was hilarious and i contribute the question to at least 2 "female encounters" of an overly friendly nature

[Driftspec]

who laid said egg?

this was a song on a sesame street when i was a kid and it seriously head fucked me. i asked every teacher i ever had. stopped in year 5 to prevent embarassment and looking stupid in front of girls.

HOWEVER i asked the question in a yr 11 Biology class. chicks thought it was hilarious and i contribute the question to at least 2 "female encounters" of an overly friendly nature[/b]

Wow, and all you say is "Who said laid egg"? Picking up, Gilly Style! (not GDM, mind you http://www.ae86drivingclub.com.au/forums/emoticons/tongue.gif )

I guess you can say the egg means one of two things, depending on how you view the subject...

One is that the egg was the thing created by a god, to create said chicken. The other way, is that the egg is the symbol of evolution, in that the chicken came after its ancestors, which were slightly different but created the chicken nonetheless.

Of course you could argue that in the whole evolution of the universe, going back all the way to the start, that the 'primordial soup' or whatever it was that started it, was the chicken. So it could well be the chicken before the egg.

Pick up tips, Keating Style: Never say any of the above to any females of a friendly nature (or really any nature). They will think that you are extremely weird and will proceed to run away from you. Do not chase after them, as they can press charges against you. http://www.ae86drivingclub.com.au/forums/emoticons/biggrin.gif

[Gilly]

i better move this to off topic http://www.ae86drivingclub.com.au/forums/emoticons/laugh.gif

[AE-DarkShadow]

When I pass a Ford I feel as though I am going the speed of light...

does that count?

[reuben]

OK,Answer me this! If an object traveling forwards reverses direction,it must stop first right.So if a bus hits a fly head on why doesent everybody in the bus fall down?

[reuben]

Picture this in your mind.A chicken and an egg are sitting up in bed sharing a smoke.One says to the other,I guess we answerd THAT question!!

[wooley]

Picture this in your mind.A chicken and an egg are sitting up in bed sharing a smoke.One says to the other,I guess we answerd THAT question!![/b]


awww i was about to tell that joke. haha.

and fly... bus... fall over... what you on about? the impact isnt great enough to cause the bus to decellerate in such a way that people feel it.

[reuben]

The fly/bus thing is a question that was posed by my science teacher back in school.The question is if the fly has to stop before changing direction,shouldnt the bus stop too?If so,all the people standing in the bus would fall down on impact with the fly?Why is it so?

[wooley]

The fly/bus thing is a question that was posed by my science teacher back in school.The question is if the fly has to stop before changing direction,shouldnt the bus stop too?If so,all the people standing in the bus would fall down on impact with the fly?Why is it so?[/b]

its call physics. lol.
momentum. transfer of energy all that crap.

[johl]

yeh the fly doesnt have enough mass to affect the bus's enertia thats why u wouldnt feel it. watch a slow motion crash between like a truck and a car(youtube fo sho!) and u will notice that neither car or truck actually stop. if its a head on crash it appears the car stops at the front but the rear of the vehicle is still moving as the front is crumbling and compacting.

[johl]

just out of curiosity... what would happen to the lights on a police car in the same circumstances? i realise they prob wouldnt project forward as previously discussed but when they point backwards would u just see a long streak of blurry light(assuming you could c it that is)?

[outcast350]

"AE86DC's resident nerd" and going by that explaination, he 'aint kidding.

But I bet the Commodore and Falcon forums don't get this high-brow http://www.ae86drivingclub.com.au/forums/emoticons/wink.gif

[Klutch]

"AE86DC's resident nerd" and going by that explaination, he 'aint kidding.

But I bet the Commodore and Falcon forums don't get this high-brow http://www.ae86drivingclub.com.au/forums/emoticons/wink.gif[/b]
They get "I DID LIEK DIZ FULLEH SIK BURNT @ MACCAZ BRO"

[FLT LNR]

lol

[Driftspec]

"AE86DC's resident nerd" and going by that explaination, he 'aint kidding.[/b]

Pffft computer nerd only these days, I gave on on physics/maths after failing 2 maths subjects in first semester university. I did the relativity thing as a grade 10 science project, initially as a joke but I got more interested the more I did it. Its become one of those things where I can remember the implications of the theory, but not the meat (equations etc).

@johl: Do you mean at the police car is travelling at the speed of light? Yes, the light would never come forward from the car, but from the rear, assuming you were standing still behing the cop car) the light wave would become so stretched from the doppler effect that something strange occurs: the wavelength decreases gradually, so you would see it fade into the infra-red spectrum, then into the radio spectrum, until it stretches into a straight line and becomes impossible to see. Its exactly the same thing that happens when you are standing still and you hear a siren from a car going down the road; it starts at a higher pitch, and then as it goes past, the sound becomes stretched into lower and lower pitches.

And for those that only hear sirens as they are being pursued by the cops...

From behind (at the speed of light, assuming you were able to keep up), you would see it normally. Technically speaking, you have the same frame of reference as the car in front, its only the displacement that it different, thus you would see the light exactly as it came away fromt he cop car. The same thing happens when you are behind an emergency vehicle travelling at the same speed; the siren sounds as if you were stationary.

And yeah, the fly one has been answered. That was grade 12 physics, thus I can't remember the equation that describes it.

*whew* thats enough intelligent conversation for a Saturday then...

[johl]

yup..... im pretty sure this hypothetical has been answered... anyone else know of any other crazy hoypotheticals that driftspec can answer for us.... lol he's like our own personal prophet

[AE-DarkShadow]

Why do Drive Thru ATM Machines have Braille?

[wooley]

Why do Drive Thru ATM Machines have Braille?[/b]

you have drive through ATM's?

[Gilly]

only in america would there be drive through ATM's http://www.ae86drivingclub.com.au/forums/emoticons/laugh.gif

[driftke70]

the speed of the lights would be the speed of light in addition to the speed of the car. If you were driving along in a vacuum and threw a ball out the sunroof forwards, just because your moving doesnt mean the balls not going to leave your hand.

Spam is acceptable on forums, its what makes a forum special, any old site can have a bunch of pages about how to do this and that and some people to answer questions, it doesnt even really affect anyone or anything, oh no i had to scroll once more. Only time i find its inappropriate is in the for sale section, or in the tech section. People should be smart enough to realise that the pm button is there should they want a conversation with someone, replies should have a portion of relevance.

[Driftspec]

only in america would there be drive through ATM's http://www.ae86drivingclub.com.au/forums/emoticons/laugh.gif[/b]

Nah, we have one here in Morayfield. Gotta be quick though, the drug fiends will get you if you aren't quick enough...

Ahhh, Morayfield. Would you want to live anywhere else?

Actually, yes. Yes I would http://www.ae86drivingclub.com.au/forums/emoticons/fap.gif


BTW beally, the speed of light is a constant, 300,000,000 metres/second, no matter how fast the object is that it projects from. Sorry to kill your fun http://www.ae86drivingclub.com.au/forums/emoticons/blink.gif

[AE-DarkShadow]

only in america would there be drive through ATM's http://www.ae86drivingclub.com.au/forums/emoticons/laugh.gif[/b]

Alas... Yes, we americans have them everywhere -.-;

[driftke70]

driftspec of course light can only travel at a constant speed, i dont doubt that, but it will always be projected at that rate, in addition to the rate you are driving.

[andro0o]

if your on a train doing speed of light, and you walk forward, are you going faster than speed of light?[/b]

no your speed is in no relation to the speed of a train.. think of it as this, if your on a train and u throw a ball up in the air does it come back down and land in your hand or fly towards the end of the carriage because the train is moving so fast?

[andro0o]

of course light can only travel at a constant speed.[/b]

actually light doesnt travel at a constant, they recently proved this wrong.

which actually defeated the whole e=mc^2 theory which was based on light moving at a constant speed.

[Driftspec]

actually light doesnt travel at a constant, they recently proved this wrong.

which actually defeated the whole e=mc^2 theory which was based on light moving at a constant speed.[/b]

Agreed.

But as it isn't really noticeable in everything but special circumstances, and we are talking general cases, we might as well take it as constant. But it does raise another (arguably important) question: if the speed of light was higher in the past, is it possible to travel at the previous speed of light, or only that of the current speed?

My moneys on no http://www.ae86drivingclub.com.au/forums/emoticons/biggrin.gif

I believe that the speed of light is constant from a neutral point of reference (in that, it is a frame of reference moving under its own inertia at a low speed, not moving in relation to everything else), so that when observed from the outside, the light does not project forward at the speed of light plus the speed of the vehicle it came from. It's pretty hard to imagine as light is not carried by any substance (eg sound is carried by air, thus its speed is dynamic according to the object that projects it).

Found the proof:


Most individuals are accustomed to the addition rule of velocities: if two cars approach each other from opposite directions, each travelling at a speed of 50 km/h, relative to the road surface, one expects that each car will perceive the other as approaching at a combined speed of 50 + 50 = 100 km/h to a very high degree of accuracy.

However, at velocities at or approaching the speed of light, this rule does not apply. Two spaceships approaching each other, each travelling at 90% the speed of light relative to some third observer between them, do not perceive each other as approaching at 90% + 90% = 180% the speed of light; instead they each perceive the other as approaching at slightly less than 99.5% the speed of light. This last result is given by the Einstein velocity addition formula:


where v and w are the (positive) speeds of the spaceships as observed by the third observer, and u is the speed of either space ship as observed by the other.[1] From this, we can see how this reduces to u = v + w for sufficiently small values of v and w (such as those typically encountered in common daily experiences), as the term vw / c^2 approaches zero, reducing the denominator to 1.[/b]

Taken from Speed of Light (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speed_of_light#Constant_velocity_from_all_inertial _reference_frames)

I'm not a big fan of quoting Wikipedia for anything, but they put the explanation in the best way possible, even including equations for you to mull over. Some weird shit happens at the speed of light, let me tell you!

[Driftspec]

Here's a good website to get a grip on the enormity of distance and the incredible scale that the universe is based off:

http://www.nikon.co.jp/main/eng/feelnikon/...ale/index_f.htm (http://www.nikon.co.jp/main/eng/feelnikon/discovery/universcale/index_f.htm)

Probably not 56k modem friendly, I should warn. Worth a look.

[johl]

lol i just thought of this then.... was the speed of light faster back in the day compared to now as we have polluted the earth and therefor produced more smog and fkt our o-zone... so wouldnt the light travel slower through the air as it has more molecules? or something? im not smart enough to figure this out so i just throw it out there for u guys