Okay science fags, explain this:

Okay science fags, explain this:
They say it's impossible to travel faster than the speed of light. Well then, explain cars. Cars have headlights. A car driving at 60 mph with its headlights on will have the light traveling at 60mph faster than the speed of light.
Checkmate atheists.

Other urls found in this thread:

youtube.com/watch?v=DXkmc2p_Zio
youtube.com/watch?v=ACUuFg9Y9dY
twitter.com/NSFWRedditVideo

Never even. Thought of this. But checkmate atheists? Nah, unlike religions, science doesn't claim to be the absolute truth

Second postulate of special relativity tells us that the speed of light is constant in all inertial reference frames

False. Light travels at a constant speed, it has no mass, therefore it cannot be affected by inertia.

I don't know why I'm bothering to explain this, but the idea that a car somehow pushes light down the road is too absurd to not immediately correct.

*blinks twice* The light still only goes at around 3.00x10^8 m/s. That's the reason why it's a constant. No matter what you do, that light will still be travelling at it's own speed

It's own speed +60mph

See

...

Correct

in relation to you and your speed, the light slows with the speed of the car, in the opposite direction of that which it is traveling. Similarly, the closer you get to the speed of light, the slower time will go for you in relation to that around you.

Wrong, even in een Newtonian worldview light would have no mass but that still wouldn't explain the MIchelson Morley experiment.
It's not about begin massless its about having the same value in all inertial reference frames.

The speed of light IS constant.
If you're in a space shuttle traveling at exactly the speed of light and your headlights are on, the photons will be travelling at the same rate as the shuttle, thus no visible illumination would occur. (you would have much more significant problems to worry about if you were traveling at light speed).

Headlights don't "project" photons outward, they just direct the flow of photons. Light will always move freely, so it will always travel at a fixed rate in the given direction; the car is not moving photons with it, it just allows electron flow to the lamp & the lamp sends the photons out.

Fifth graders use Mythbusters in class to learn physics. A fifth grader is more intelligible than you. youtube.com/watch?v=DXkmc2p_Zio

>but the idea that a car somehow pushes light down the road is too absurd to not immediately correct.

Don't think I could have put this any better

>If you're in a space shuttle traveling at exactly the speed of light and your headlights are on, the photons will be travelling at the same rate as the shuttle, thus no visible illumination would occur.
And which reference frame are you refering to?
No illumination would occur in the frame of the space shuttle or earths frame?

Relative to an onlooker on Earth, light would appear exactly as the shuttle appears, as light is still traveling normally. Illumination would not be seen from the perspective of crewmates within the shuttle, because the particles are traveling at the same rate as them.
Helpful vsauce video:
youtube.com/watch?v=ACUuFg9Y9dY

Newp. Look into special relativity, the math is simple enough, mostly conceptual. Has to do with space and time dilation. Say a particle traveling at 0.99c releases a photon. Relative to the particle, the photon moves away at c. In newtonian mechanics, the photon, relative to a bystander moving at "0.00c" relative to the particle and photon should see the photon moving at 1.99c. In fact, it's actually moving at c. And the particle moves at 0.99c. Both hit a detector that confirms it.

This was done years ago when particle acceleraters were built

Don't need Vsauce videos. Just wanted to know what you where talking about.

>Bet Einstein didnt think of this
This gotta be the stupidest question ive read in a long time.

C being the speed of light
C1 is the speed of the car
C2 is the speed of the light from headlights.

The formula is thus
Ct = ((c1+c2)/(1+(c1c2))/1
But first, we must calculate 60mph = 8.960573476702509e-8 % of C
So now we have
((8.960573476702509e-8+1)/(1+(8.960573476702509e-8*1))/1
((9.960573476702509e-8)/(9.960573476702509e-8)/1
which is
1/1
which is 1C
The speed of light.

The crewmates would see a beam of light. or else SR would fail, which it doesn;t

It's wonky space time shit. If you've ever had calc 3, you've heard of "K" the curvature of a function, vector, whatever. This stuff is what lead into Einstein's relativity work. Turns out, the curvature of objects, such as earth, and all their mass curve space/time, this phenomenon is experienced as 'gravity'. This is similar to dilation of spacetime as velocities reach insane points

The headlights are trying to propel the car backwards, but because there's so little mass going at the speed of light, the speed reversal is very slight

Actually it are not vectors but tensors.

So cars travel faster with headlights off?

Unmeasurably so.

Tail lights make up for that. With headlights on and tail lights off, the car will only travel backwards.

Yee, vectors are linear, it was just an example

Fucking kek, the light is moving independent of the car. Light will have the same speed it always has. Just because it's moving doesn't change that. It means that the light is just moving.

this is why cops pull you over when your tail lights are out

>Second postulate of special relativity tells us that the speed of light is constant in all inertial reference frames

Correct. It's one of the hardest bits of special relativity to wrap your noggin around.

tail lights don't have as many photons as headlights, and the colored glass inhibits the propulsion.
Next time your breaks fail and you're having trouble stopping, be sure to put on your high beams.

Really? I found the fact that simultaneity is dependent on the observer was initially hard to grasp, but after dfrawing minkowski space diagrams, it all clicked.

Let's be honest with ourselves - there's always a kernel of truth in Troll Science. OP might be on to something.

Light through water vs through air vs through a vacuum is different though.

Light also exerts pressure, so an oncoming car's headlights exert pressure on your car. It's immeasurably small though.

I meant it's counter-intuitive to consider if you have no background with this sort of stuff.

That's for sure. Physics is stuffed with those things. Like the hydrostatic paradox.