Re: C - Constant?
ande452_at_attglobal.net
Date: 02/17/05
- Next message: Androcles: "Re: Are the 'Laws of Physics' Wrong?"
- Previous message: Randy Poe: "Re: Androcles asks for Derivation of LT"
- In reply to: Adieu: "Re: C - Constant?"
- Next in thread: Adieu: "Re: C - Constant?"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Date: Wed, 16 Feb 2005 21:19:28 -0800
Adieu wrote:
>
> ande452@attglobal.net wrote:
>
> > Adieu wrote:
> >>
> >> Hi, they say a little bit of knowledge is a dangerous thing... Well I've
> >> just been reading a few articles on relativity am curious about a couple of
> >> things (had a look for a FAQ).
> >>
> >> Say I'm traveling at the speed of light and am being followed by a huge
> >> ball of light at the same speed, would I illuminated?
> >>
> >
> > No. Not if the "ball of light" left after you did.
> > But you're not going to be travelling at the speed of light
> > unless your invariant mass is zero. In that case, the light
> > would overtake you.
> >
> >> My apologies if this is a *very* common question, any links to a FAQ that
> >> covers this sort of stuff would be welcome as a reply.
> >
> > It's not a common question since the answer is pretty obvious
> > if the speed of light is invariant. The point is that SR
> > predicts that you can't be travelling at the speed of light
> > unless your invariant mass is zero.
>
> I love the way some folk assume weve all studied physics. What's obvious?
You won't be illuminated unless you're travelling at the speed of
light.
That should be clear.
You won't be travelling at the speed of light unless you are
massless. That's less clear but that's what relativity predicts.
John Anderson
- Next message: Androcles: "Re: Are the 'Laws of Physics' Wrong?"
- Previous message: Randy Poe: "Re: Androcles asks for Derivation of LT"
- In reply to: Adieu: "Re: C - Constant?"
- Next in thread: Adieu: "Re: C - Constant?"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Relevant Pages
|
