how fast does light think light travels?(physics question)

[NUKE]

Originally posted by Holden McGroin
One of the truely bizarre consequenses, is that if I am travelling with a constant velocity through interstellar space and pass by  you who is stationary, it is just as valid for you to believe you are the one with high velocity and I am standing still.

I can understand that completely, however what does one measure stationary by? What actually is stationary? It's all relative to something else.

I love the kind of thinking this type of debate brings forward.

[Eagler]

that is the great thing, we all do!

Bodhi/Nash

[AKIron]

Originally posted by mietla
Sure. Optical systems have well defined resolution barrier, so do any other systems bases on other principles.

But if you could design a system with a resolution high enough for the current radius of the Universe curvature, you could see a fat butt of someone looking into a fancy telescope away from you.

And that would be .... YOU.

Hehe, well, I'd have to stand there and look for a looong time before seeing myself looking at my own fat ass. Wondering how widely dispersed photons become after a few trips around the block. How many would it take to define an image we might recognize?

[AKIron]

Just realized that perhaps I could instantly see myself at the far side of the universe if I had the optics for it. Time being curved along with space and all.

[mietla]

Originally posted by NUKE
I can understand that completely, however what does one measure stationary by? What actually is stationary? It's all relative to something else.

I love the kind of thinking this type of debate brings forward.

You got it dude! No one can, You can have a gazzillion of moving dudes and as long as none of them accelerates (changes the velocity tangentially or radially), NONE OF THEM will be able to tell who is moving and who is at rest.

Every one of them will perceive himself at rest, and the other dudes flying by.

That is a principle of Special Relativity.

[AKS\/\/ulfe]

Wasn't there a test using an atomic clock at a fixed point, and an atomic clock on an airplane that flew around the world? I remember hearing about it, and I remember that the plane's clock was a few seconds behind the fixed point's clock.
-SW

[NUKE]

Originally posted by AKS\/\/ulfe
Wasn't there a test using an atomic clock at a fixed point, and an atomic clock on an airplane that flew around the world? I remember hearing about it, and I remember that the plane's clock was a few seconds behind the fixed point's clock.
-SW

yes, was true.

I don't know if I buy into all the space/time theory stuff though.

[AKIron]

There was a test using the method you described. I think the difference was only millionths of a second but measureable nonetheless.

[AKS\/\/ulfe]

Thanks for the confirmation, I had only heard about it so wasn't sure on the exact details. Its interesting to say the least, its probable something could have interfered with the test (air density/pressure, temperature)

One thing that is interesting, to me anyway, is that if you head east on the equator at 1500mph (think thats it) - you don't actually move in relation to the point you started at respective to the universe. Heading west, OTOH, and you travel in a circle twice as fast.
-SW

[NUKE]

Originally posted by AKS\/\/ulfe

One thing that is interesting, to me anyway, is that if you head east on the equator at 1500mph (think thats it) - you don't actually move in relation to the point you started at respective to the universe. Heading west, OTOH, and you travel in a circle twice as fast.
-SW

Perspective of the universe? Nah.

[AKIron]

I just looked that up. Actually it was a test done in the 70's where an atomic clock was flown at high altitude for 50 hours. It was then compared with a clock on the ground and there found to be a difference of a few hundred nano seconds. The same article states that on Earth a clock will run approx 20 milliseconds slower per year than a clock in space. This was a test of General Relativity rather than Special though. Mass warps space/time.

Btw, have there been actual tests to prove that matter/mass does the warping rather than perhaps warps in space/time simply collecting matter?


Now that I think about it, it's obvious that mass has this intrinsic quality. Surely we've observed celestial objects phsically interact.

[mietla]

Originally posted by NUKE
yes, was true.

I don't know if I buy into all the space/time theory stuff though.

Think again.

Since it was published in 1905, the Special Relativity Theory not only explained a boat load of the contemporary weird and totally bogus (at the time) phenomena like utterly "failed" attempt by Michealson and Morley to measure the speed of light, but it made another boat load of "ridiculous" predictions for future experiments. Einstein's not only predicted that a certain star behind the Sun will appear late after a Sun Eclipse, but he calculate by how much. Guess who was wrong and who was right.

Since 1905, there was tons (let's say more than one) experiments to test (confirm/disprove) SRT, all of them confirm it.

SRT and QED are probably the two most solid foundations of physics.

Just prove them wrong, and you are an instant Nobel price winner.

[mietla]

Addendum to previous post. The star appeared early not late. The light bends around mass (the Sun in this case), thus an early "apparent" arrival.

[NUKE]

Originally posted by mietla
Think again.

 Einstein's not only predicted that a certain star behind the Sun will appear late after a Sun Eclipse, but he calculate by how much. Guess who was wrong and who was right.

Since 1905, there was tons (let's say more than one) experiments to test (confirm/disprove) SRT, all of them confirm it.

SRT and QED are probably the two most solid foundations of physics.

Just prove them wrong, and you are an instant Nobel price winner.

Think again about what? That I don't buy all the space/time theory stuff? When Einstein proved that a star's light could be visible from behind an eclipse, it proved that light was effected by gravity I thought.

[AKIron]

I think Einstein was saying that gravity is curved space, so the shortest distance between point a and b wasn't a straight line hence light appeared to curve.