If an object is moving at the speed of light away from you, how can you see light being emitted from that object?

If an object is moving at the speed of light away from you, how can you see light being emitted from that object?

Other urls found in this thread:

youtube.com/watch?v=ACUuFg9Y9dY
sasuke.econ.hc.keio.ac.jp/~ken/physics-faq/velocity.html
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Relative_velocity
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lorentz_transformation
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minkowski_space#Minkowski_metric
youtu.be/BLuI118nhzc?t=26
youtube.com/watch?v=F4AcHwGKK2w
twitter.com/NSFWRedditVideo

do you even relativity? noob

your eyesight travels faster and catches it

Pro tip, only light can move the speed of light away from you.

Not at all

fuck you

Well I was thinking, since the universe supposedly expands at a rate faster than the speed of light (my brain is too beta to visualize)

Relatively speaking. OP is a faggot.

Thank you based user

.

Bernd you should not really open this topic. You are young, playful, everything's easy for you. This is an another thing. It's not quantum physics and not even secret services archives. Better not to get into that. Seriously, any of you would deeply regret. Close the topic and forget what was written here. I full. I fully understand that this post incites additional interest, but I far the curious - stop. The rest will just not see it.

Speed of light is a constant, but will be shifted to a much lower frequency toward the red end of the spectrum. user should look up 'red shift'

If I am on a spaceship that travels at The speed of light and I throw a dildo. Will The dildo travel faster then the speed of light?

But science

youtube.com/watch?v=ACUuFg9Y9dY

yes because momentum of speed of light + momentum of throw = more momentum = more speed

Yes, wait... Yes

Has Anyone Really Been Far Even as Decided to Use Even Go Want to do Look More Like?

Your spaceship won't traveling at light speed; no physical object with a rest mass can.

Is this how autism spreads?

do you all retards know how vision works? there is no such thing as relativity here. if a photon manages to "hit" that object and reach your eye, you will see the object.

its hypothetical you fucking moran

An object with mass can't move at the speed of light though.

>implying you can
pro tip: you can't. Ever heard of the observable universe?

*won't be traveling

Objects are not able to move at the speed of light. What object do you have in mind?

This

this is why y'all sould listen to this nigga

Massive matter can't travel at the speed of light

...

No. If you travel at (nearly) the speed of light you have to be travelling relatively to something else (e.g. the earth), to you the dildo travels at the speed you threw it, but from earth it simply looks like it's travelling slightly slightly faster than you. Even if you are travelling at (nearly) the speed of light, the dildo will not seem to travel faster than the speed of light to any observer. Relativity is weird.

It's a hypothetical based on scientific truths, one of which prevents the first part of this argument from making sense. Shit with rest mass can speed up but never hit light speed. If you were in a ship traveling at 99.999...% the speed of light, and threw anything forward, it would be traveling at 99.999...% the speed of light and would be in a different reference frame during its motion. You're asking what infinity + 1 is, otherwise.
You fucking moron.

This nigga knows his shit

Why not? How fast can an object move?

tl;dr but ur a moran

...

1st: Relativity
2nd: What is light made of? Is it objects? Waves? Both?

Objects can move at literally any velocity between 0 and 3 x 10^8 m/s

Relatively to something else, the maximum velocity a physical object can reach is nearly the speed of light. You can get infinitely close to the speed of light, but the closer you get the more energy it will take, closing in on infinity (Which means, theoretically it would take an infinite amount of energy to travel at the speed of light).

non-inclusive with respect to the upper bounds, btw

No, because in order for an object to go at the speed of light it requires to not have any mass. It might get close to the speed of light but may never reach it.

I can confidently say that the answer to this scientific inquiry is Yes. Yes, someone has been far even as decided to use even go want to do look more like.

By the way, this is part of the conclusion of Einsteins special theory of relativity. The formula he derives would essentially require you to divide by 0 if you want to travel at the speed of light.

>Has Anyone Really Been Far Even as Decided to Use Even Go Want to do Look More Like?
>mfw tachyons
>mfw dark matter
>mfw quantum teleportation

Does your object have mass? It can't travel at the speed of light. Does it have no mass? It can travel at the speed of light. No "whys". The speed at which the object can move is entirely dependant on the mass it carries.

>tachyons are theoretical
>dark matter doesn't travel faster than light. what?
>quantum teleportation is probability approximation of a particle's location at any given time, not actual teleportation

Forgot to mention, but you can slow down objects without mass. They don't have to always travel at the speed of light. For instance, light can be slowed down, and by slowed down I don't mean to pass through a different medium, but quite literally "slow down".

And objects that theoretically move at the speed of light will be compressed to unrecognizability. And for that to happen all and every other object would have to be still relative to the one object moving at the speed of light...

Ah long time no see user. Thanks for that

This. The speed of light isn't some special benchmark, it's just the speed at which things without mass MUST be traveling in a vacuum.

It doesn't. It just seems that way since it expands in more dimensions than three.

What said.
Also, I'm just going by the theory of relativity. The phenomena you described are purely theoretical...

It carry an dildo

According to the theory of special relativity, any object moving faster than light could break causality, which makes perfect sense if you take your time and read through it.

no, it actually does. A thing traveling 0.75c from another also traveling 0.75c in the opposite direction causes expansion greater than the speed of light

>all these retards ITT pretending to know how relativity actually works
Do you faggots realize it takes months to PhD students to even grasp relativity at an even remotely basic level? Quit talking like you know what you're talking about.

You mean because space expands in both + and - directions for all orientations? Yes, but this is only true at the photohorizon for the universe at a particular time. For every other location, space expands at less than c.

you would still be able to see it because the speed of light emitted from a source is not dependent on the speed of the source

Nope.
sasuke.econ.hc.keio.ac.jp/~ken/physics-faq/velocity.html

Hint: You can hear objects moving faster than the speed of sound.

You're assuming expansion occurs perfectly radially. If 2 objects traveling at different speeds were placed on opposite "ends" of the universe, the end with the faster of the 2 objects would be expanding at a faster speed.

Special relativity is actually quite easy to grasp at a basic level. Einstein wrote a book himself on both theories meant for people not familiar with high level physics. Most high school students would be able to learn it by themselves.

>tachyons are theoretical
Most of contemporary physics started with theoretical models. Also, both the existence of quarks or almost entire QM is currently only theoretical - we have a 2nd hand evidence, yet we have no direct observation nor any viable explanation.

Relativistic mechanics are also, guess what? - A THEORY. One with many faults, shortcomings and loopholes. A. Einstein was well aware of it. Most of the physicists are aware of that. Why ain't you?

>dark matter doesn't travel faster than light. what?

You don't know that, because, DUH, nobody knows WHAT THE FUCK IS DARK MATTER, HOW IT BEHAVES, OR EVEN IF IT EXISTS ETC. It may as well move FTL for what anybody currently knows. Since that theory is not falsifiable, you can't, by definition, reject it. Simple as that.

>quantum teleportation is probability approximation of a particle's location at any given time, not actual teleportation

Nope. It's a transfer of the quantum state. Because information is limited by c, quantum teleportation can happen at c. Also, if it doesn't convey any actual information to any observer, it can happen FTL. Only information is restricted to c; processes with no information can happen FTL. Still, if you use light in vacuum or EM wave as a medium of data transmission - you can achieve QT with c speed.

that is correct. The velocities of the objects can be calculated as such, though the expansion of space is still greater, due to dark energy between the objects, which obviously increases in strength the more the objects travel

Then it's a good thing he's not asking about things of actual complexity like Einstein's field equations or the associated tensors. This topic and the math involved have been generalized down to really simple algebraic expression.

yes. But i the space between the objects is still increasing at greater than the speed of light

time, as a physical value, most probably doesn't exist. It's been discussed countless times in numerous places; both conventional, relativistic, quantum and relativistic quantum mechanics can easily work without the faulty assumption that time exists by itself.

google "time doesn't exist". Time is needed only as a descriptor of the process's state, not as a "real" physical value.

You are technically correct, but it doesn't have anything to do with relativity or travelling at light speed.

>"space"
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Relative_velocity

Without a metric, "space" is meaningless. With a relativistic metric, "space" is meaningless without taking into account the relative speed of the object.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lorentz_transformation

1. Right, but the idea of a FTL particle was created to present a result for imaginary mass field calculations, which ended up yielding solutions that imply imaginary mass fields don't actually propogate FTL.
2. The onus is on you to substantiate your claim, not me.
3. Quantum teleportation is literally information transfer without matter transfer. The same-state qualities of the particles involved are what allows them to relay info "instanteneously".

also, en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minkowski_space#Minkowski_metric

>Most of contemporary physics started with theoretical models.

And most of them have not been proven to be true. Tachyons are not even theoretical, they just prepared a name in case they discovered a particle that would move faster than the speed of light.

that's all fine and good, but in practice what I said was true. As galaxies become more redshifted, eventually no light reaches us at all, as the "space" itself, or the distance that the light has to travel is increasing at a speed greater than the speed of light, due to expansion caused by dark energy

1. That's how the idea even appeared, true. Still, see pt. 2
2. I'm not into substantiating it, because I'm not saying *it's true*. I'm saying *it's possible*, that's all. Subatomic particles were rejected for many years, hell, FOR MANY CENTURIES for the very reason we couldn't measure nor observe them, and because "they weren't plausible enough". Thus, if I were living in middle ages and somebody proposed the idea of subatomic particles to me, I'd probably say "it's possible, but how does that help us?".
tl;dr people are always so fcuking sure of what they are taught, and seldom leave space for any possible extensions - as such, I'd strongly encourage any home-grown scientist to be as open-minded as possible.
>mfw superstring theory
3. I am well aware of the fact. Still, ITT people said, quote "nothing other than light can move at c" - that's plainly false; both EM waves and information can (and routinely do) travel at c in vacuum.

"true" as in "backed by some of the currently accepted models"? Yes, obviously. It's still only models and theories - some better and more accurate, some worse. I'm not saying you're wrong - you're saying exactly the things I was supposed to say on my grad exams. I'm just saying you *can* be wrong, that's all.

also, I assume you meant "Quantum teleportation is literally information transfer without any "teleportation" of the matter". QT usually requires transferring *some* matter, because many of the ways in which humans transfer information is actually based on matter (electricity etc.).

pro tip, that's what we think with our current understanding(earth is flat, the sun is rotating around earth and similar things humans believed before)

thinking that OPs faggotry is relative, shows that complex thinking is beyond your capability

Ah, alright. That's fair, then, and I agree with what you're saying here.

but with our current thinking nothing can move faster than light

They actually *were*, and currently still mostly have that status in case, as you pointed out, someone finds something FTL. Still, I never said they *are* "true" in any sense - strictly speaking, if tachyons existed, they probably couldn't have been measured or detected by any currently existing apparatus or scientific methodology. You can't see a virus with an optical microscope... hell, strictly speaking *you can't see it at all*, because they are often smaller than visible light's wavelength. If a massless particle would move at >c and we still require causality to hold, we simply have to assume it's completely undetectable. That's a completely sound and completely unverifiable theory. As such, you can neither prove nor disprove it. As such, you can't say "it's not true". This and only this.

noob

>moran
you should just keep quiet

light has a mass too, just saying, everything does

The distinction is light's lack of rest mass.

there he goes again, some people are just way to stupid
>moran

youtu.be/BLuI118nhzc?t=26

>to
if you're going to criticize, don't make the same stupid mistakes.

This. Light (well, photons) has relativistic mass, AFAIR proportional to wavelength. Nitpicking - when saying "mass" one usually means "rest mass".

If that object is in light place you will see it with delay

*inversely proportional to wavelength; proportional to frequency

if i light speed on fire will it travel faster than if i light Light on fire with a flaming dildo made up of nanites traveling at the speed of diamond?
This is a much better question.

>trying this hard

Nerve gas.

Wtf

youtube.com/watch?v=F4AcHwGKK2w

heres your answer

Exactly! Science isn't really about the truth but the study of how the universe behaves and, to a certain extent, be able to predict certain results. Most accepted theories have just been proven to be 99.999% of a time to be true. It has been observed to make the right predictions but I just don't buy tachyons since imagine the amount of shit we have to throw out the window because of its discovery, most of it would be Einstein's theory. The great thing about Einstein's calculations is that everything has to agree or everything would fall apart. It's both scary and ballsy at the same time.