Lowemack

Thought they used a rotating mirror?

Can anybody do the maths for this problem? I believe that the answer will show that we could not measure the speed, of the imaginary particles accurately enough, to show a difference in the relative velocity of the particles, when measured in winter and again, in summer. This is what I believe happens when we measure light speed!

Light speed = 300,000m/sec Earth speed around sun 30m/sec So Michelson-Morley would have been expecting to see speeds of 300,030m/sec in summer and 299,970m/sec in winter. This did not happen and as we know because how relative velocities "happen" because of relativity. But does this mean that light speed is constant, or it is just very close to C and we cant measure the velocity of it accurately enough to detect our motion. For example if we repeated the Michelson-Morley experiment, but tried to measure the speed of some imaginary particles travelling at 299,999.9999999999999999999999999999m/sec, from a distant star. Using relative velocity additions, what speeds would we expect to measure in winter (travelling towards the source @30m/sec) and summer(Travelling away from the source @ 30m/sec)? Would it appear constant just like light speed?

Antartica summer?

40 blue hats

I know, but I got 1,2,3,6,8,9 myself. P.S. I can't see how the answer I found for 10 is correct. Surley its the same. P.P.S. are you enjoying the sun at the moment?

Got 1,2,3,6,8,9 Found the others on the internet but didn't understand or agree with - I lose

But what if the rest mass of a Quark was due to the kinetic energy of IT'S yet unknown constitutional parts. We keep saying, "..the mass of its kinetic energy..". It sounds strange saying that Kinetic energy has mass, but what if thats just what mass is - Kinetic Energy? Totaly interchangable with the formulae E=MC^2. PS Thanks for the Potential energy info in Hydrogen burning calculations.

Why Not? (Not doubting, just interested)

What I meant was, was it because light speed is constant that the Michelson-Morley experiment resulted as it did, or just because of the way reletivistic velocity additions are calculated. What if for example an particle was travelling towards a space ship laboratory at .9999999999999999999999999999C. What speeds would we measure for the particle when for example the lab was (a) travelling towards the particle at 30,000m/s and (b) away from the particle at 30,000m/s. From what I know about relativity, both answers would be very close to C, not C + 30,000m/s and C - 30,000m/s Michelson-Morley would have been expecting Newtonian velocity additions. So is light speed a constant or is it so close to C that we can't measure any relative changes in its velocity accurately enough.

I think that the formulas are correct, but when they say that C is the speed of light, I think it is more accurate to say that it is the maximum relative velocity of a body. In reality the numbers might be exactly the same but on the other hand they may be very very slightly less. I think that light is limited to the velocity C, just like everything else in the universe and for the same reasons. When photons are absorbed by glass molecules, do they decelerate? Do they stop insantly? When Photons are emitted do they Start at velocity C or do they accelerate from 0m/sec to C?

All experiments to measure the speed of light came to the same value, C. So Einstien used this 'fact' to make his Special Theory of Relativity. This then gave us a new way of calculating relative velocities. If you use the formulae to calculate the relative velocity of a light beam when you are travelling towards it at 0.5C, the answer will be still be C, which is what we actually measure. Obvously the formulaes are correct, but what if the speed of light is always measured to be C, because of the formulaes. I believe that C is the maximum possible Relative velocity for everything in the universe INCLUDING light. It is slightly different from saying the "speed of light is a constant" and everything else in the universe has a maximum relative velocity. If an object was travelling towards you at C and you accelerated towards it at 0.5C you would still measure its velocity to be C, just like we do with a light beam. I think that light can reach C (or very close) because it has no mass. Also what happens to light when it is absorbed? Does it stop, slow down? This isn't constant velocity. P.S. I know an object can't travell at C, but hyperthetically.

All I'm trying to ask is, "What is Mass?". As mass increases relative to velocity, due to kinetic energy increases, could it be that "rest mass" is just a product of molecular kinetic energy.

If Mass increases with velocity, is this due to the mass of the additional kinetic energy it possess. If so does this mean that the rest mass of an object is just the sum of the Kinetic energy of its sub-atomic particles. i.e. the mass of a water molecule is the sum of the kinetic energy of all the quarks and electrons in the molecule. Is this where the energy comes from when we burn hydrogen? a water molecule has less kinetic energy than 2 x Hydrogen and 1 Oxygen atom.

I think we are deviating slightly, but what I meant was that everything in the universe has its own uniqueness, but should still follow the laws of phisics. We could for example say that water is different from everything else, because everything else can get wet.

I think it would have a very small (if any) rest mass, and you could in theory catch it up. Not sure what you meen by preferred rest frame but all freely moving frames of reference observe the same laws of physics.

I predict we can calculate C. If we can generate a formula for velocity of particle against the time that a constant force is applied to it (the graph of it would look like the text book, velocity sharply increasing and leveling of at C). If we then diferentiate this and solve for a gradient of 0, this should give C. I think the formula would be very complicated because it would have to include the reletivistic mass additions, and at the moment I think we need to use C to calculate them. Catch 22? Not sure, but interested.

Yes, we see things by light being emitted from them and travelling to our eyes. So really light is the only thing we see. But light still should obey all the laws of physics and not have its own one. It makes more sense, surely.

Grade B 'O' level, and 1 year of 'A' level studies. (20 years ago) Why does it show?

Surley it makes more sense to say that there is a maximum velocity for everything, than say that light is different from everything else in the universe.

Why?