Klaynos Posted March 21, 2009 Posted March 21, 2009 There are two frames here. In your rest frame there is nothing to disreguard, you are not moving, velocities are not absolute they are relative, you are not moving relative to yourself. You will observe the light moving at c. Light does not accelerate, it is created travelling at c, relative to ALL rest frames. E=mc2 cannot be allied to photons. You need to use the full form of the equation: E2=(mc2)2+p2c2 Although I'm not sure how you're trying to apply that here. You are still frame mixing, in the emitters rest frame it is not moving the light is emmitted travelling at c relative to the emitter, In another rest frame in which the emitter is observed to be travelling at 0.5c, the light will be observed to be travelling at c. This can be found by the relativistic velocity summation equation and is explained at the link I gave above.
Duration Posted March 21, 2009 Posted March 21, 2009 (edited) There are two frames here. In your rest frame there is nothing to disreguard, you are not moving, velocities are not absolute they are relative, you are not moving relative to yourself. You will observe the light moving at c. Light does not accelerate, it is created travelling at c, relative to ALL rest frames. E=mc2 cannot be allied to photons. You need to use the full form of the equation: E2=(mc2)2+p2c2 Although I'm not sure how you're trying to apply that here. You are still frame mixing, in the emitters rest frame it is not moving the light is emmitted travelling at c relative to the emitter, In another rest frame in which the emitter is observed to be travelling at 0.5c, the light will be observed to be travelling at c. This can be found by the relativistic velocity summation equation and is explained at the link I gave above. I am going to test the acceleration of light, like I would test the acceleration of a car, or a rock, or a planet, or a helium balloon rising above the Earth. I start the timer and observe the distance traveled for one second and stop the timer. I measure the distance the object traveled in that one second. The light traveled 186,000 miles. A quick calculation tells me the acceleration of the light. The math tells me the light accelerated at 372,000 mi/sec^2, because it traveled 186,000 miles in one second, from an initial velocity of 0 mi/sec. Show me the math of the acceleration of the light, please. Thank you. Edited March 21, 2009 by Duration
Sisyphus Posted March 21, 2009 Posted March 21, 2009 The initial velocity is 186,000 miles per second. The velocity after 1 second (or 2 seconds, or 5 minutes, or 10 billion years) is 186,000 miles per second. 186,000 - 186,000 = 0 miles per second per second Your math is only applicable for objects that start out at rest and undergo a constant acceleration. That isn't the case here.
Duration Posted March 21, 2009 Posted March 21, 2009 The initial velocity is 186,000 miles per second. The velocity after 1 second (or 2 seconds, or 5 minutes, or 10 billion years) is 186,000 miles per second. 186,000 - 186,000 = 0 miles per second per second Your math is only applicable for objects that start out at rest and undergo a constant acceleration. That isn't the case here. The initial velocity is 186,000 mi/sec? How could that be, as there is no light before I turn it on. We are measuring the distance the light travels in one second.
Sisyphus Posted March 21, 2009 Posted March 21, 2009 The initial velocity is 186,000 mi/sec? How could that be, as there is no light before I turn it on. We are measuring the distance the light travels in one second. I'm not sure what you mean by "how" it's possible, but it is an observed fact that light only exists traveling at exactly C. It is true that there is no light before you turn it on. It is not "at rest," it just doesn't exist.
Duration Posted March 21, 2009 Posted March 21, 2009 I'm not sure what you mean by "how" it's possible, but it is an observed fact that light only exists traveling at exactly C. It is true that there is no light before you turn it on. It is not "at rest," it just doesn't exist. If it doesn't exist the velocity is zero miles per second. If I turn it on, and the light is 186,000 miles away one second later, the light accelerated at a rate of 372,000 mi/sec^2.
Sisyphus Posted March 21, 2009 Posted March 21, 2009 Think about what you're saying. If it accelerated at a rate of 372,000 miles per second, then its velocity at the end of that second is 372,000 miles per second. But one second later it has only moved another 186,000 miles. And a second after that it has moved only another 186,000 miles (where by your calculations, it would have been moving at 1,116,000 miles per second by that time). Clearly, it is not accelerating, and it is certainly not accelerating at a constant rate. "If it doesn't exist the velocity is zero miles per second." No, if it doesn't exist, it doesn't exist.
Duration Posted March 21, 2009 Posted March 21, 2009 (edited) Think about what you're saying. If it accelerated at a rate of 372,000 miles per second, then its velocity at the end of that second is 372,000 miles per second. No, its velocity is not 372,000 mi/sec after one second, it's velocity after one second is 186,000 mi/sec. During the tested one second duration, the light traveled 186,000 miles. But one second later it has only moved another 186,000 miles. True, but the timer already stopped at one second, so the distance traveled after the timer stops is irrelevent. And a second after that it has moved only another 186,000 miles (where by your calculations, it would have been moving at 1,116,000 miles per second by that time). Clearly, it is not accelerating, and it is certainly not accelerating at a constant rate. I didn't say it keeps accelerating, I said it is 186,000 miles away after one second. You want to redo the test and measure a 2 second duration, fine, the light is 372,000 miles away in two seconds. Merged post follows: Consecutive posts mergedNo, if it doesn't exist, it doesn't exist. Which means a zero velocity. Is your math failing you? Edited March 21, 2009 by Duration Consecutive posts merged.
iNow Posted March 21, 2009 Posted March 21, 2009 Duration - Quit trolling. You've ben here for like two days and have already derailed 3 threads and ignored multiple corrections of the erroneous claims you repeatedly make, most of which are off topic anyway. STAFF: You know this isn't going to end well. Just stop feeding him, toss him out, and move on. My two cents, anyway.
insane_alien Posted March 21, 2009 Posted March 21, 2009 if light takes a whole second to accelerate to c then why do lab experiments (much smaller than the distance it would need to travel at to reach c) measure the speed as c? also, something that doesn't exist cannot have a velocity, even a zero velocity.
Klaynos Posted March 21, 2009 Posted March 21, 2009 Duration consider this: Stopping the timer after: 0.5s 0.1s 0.01s 0.000001s plank time... No matter which one you consider the acceleration you calculate will be different, photons are created moving at c, they do not accelerate. There are QM arguments for this, it is well understood.
Duration Posted March 21, 2009 Posted March 21, 2009 Duration consider this: Stopping the timer after: 0.5s 0.1s 0.01s 0.000001s plank time... No matter which one you consider the acceleration you calculate will be different... True, that was my point. What percent of a pie do you have if I cut a pie into four pieces and give you one piece?
Klaynos Posted March 21, 2009 Posted March 21, 2009 True, that was my point. What percent of a pie do you have if I cut a pie into four pieces and give you one piece? Your point was that photons do not accelerate? Well we're agreed then. I would have 1/4 of a pie. If you cut the time you measure the photons speed at to an infinitesimally short time then you would find it's acceleration to be infinite.
Duration Posted March 21, 2009 Posted March 21, 2009 Your point was that photons do not accelerate? Well we're agreed then. No, that's not the quote I posted. I didn't say anything about photons, only the distance and time measured, and the calculated acceleration rate. I would have 1/4 of a pie. If you cut the time you measure the photons speed at to an infinitesimally short time then you would find it's acceleration to be infinite. So you have .25 of the pie, or 25% of the pie? Is that your final answer?
Klaynos Posted March 21, 2009 Posted March 21, 2009 I was making the assumption 4 equally size bits, if that's not the case then you've not provided enough information. If you are going to say "ahha well it's just accelerating in very short time" I'm going to tell you there's QM arguments and then ask you how much maths you know, because the arguments are not easy to follow even with good high level maths.
Duration Posted March 21, 2009 Posted March 21, 2009 I was making the assumption 4 equally size bits, if that's not the case then you've not provided enough information. Assume nothing. I didn't say equal pieces, I said four pieces. Not enough information? I gave you a fact that there is one pie divided into 4 pieces. That is one divided by four (1/4), correct? Is one divided by four .25? Is .25, 25%? Didn't I give you one piece?
Klaynos Posted March 21, 2009 Posted March 21, 2009 Assume nothing. I didn't say equal pieces, I said four pieces. Not enough information? I gave you a fact that there is one pie divided into 4 pieces. That is one divided by four (1/4), correct? Is one divided by four .25? Is .25, 25%? Didn't I give you one piece? You made no statements about how large each slice is, on average they will be 25%, but other than that no other statement can be made. You have provided an incomplete set of information and this would appear to be a strawman tactic.
Duration Posted March 21, 2009 Posted March 21, 2009 You made no statements about how large each slice is, on average they will be 25%, but other than that no other statement can be made. You have provided an incomplete set of information and this would appear to be a strawman tactic. So 1/4 doesn't necessarily mean 25% of the volume or mass of the pie? You could have 1/4 of the pie and have 99% of the mass? BTW, there is not a chance in #$#$ that you could cut a pie into 4 equal pieces, not a chance in ^%^$!
Klaynos Posted March 21, 2009 Posted March 21, 2009 So 1/4 doesn't necessarily mean 25% of the volume or mass of the pie? You could have 1/4 of the pie and have 99% of the mass? You now are now stating you split it into 4 1/4 pieces which means you have equally sized pieces, if done by volume, or pieces of equal mass if done by mass, or both if we assume uniform density. Please get to the point.
Duration Posted March 21, 2009 Posted March 21, 2009 You now are now stating you split it into 4 1/4 pieces which means you have equally sized pieces, if done by volume, or pieces of equal mass if done by mass, or both if we assume uniform density. Please get to the point. No, I said I had a pie and cut it into four pieces (1/4). I gave you one of those pieces.
Duration Posted March 21, 2009 Posted March 21, 2009 1/4 = 25% which would require equal pieces. According to your math, I agree, but, the pieces were not equal, so which is it, do you have 25%, or is the math wrong?
Cap'n Refsmmat Posted March 21, 2009 Posted March 21, 2009 What the hell do pies have to do with light accelerating? Look. You could have a 99% slice and three 0.33% slices. Now, what's your point? Is there even a point to this?
Klaynos Posted March 21, 2009 Posted March 21, 2009 (edited) According to your math, I agree, but, the pieces were not equal, so which is it, do you have 25%, or is the math wrong? Your wording is not exact enough for any conclusions to be made. To clarify if you state you split it into 4 1/4 pieces, that is EXACTLY the same as saying you split it into 4 equal pieces of 25%. Your wording and following comments (saying they are not equally sized) makes it seem as if you fail to see this. Edited March 21, 2009 by Klaynos
Duration Posted March 21, 2009 Posted March 21, 2009 (edited) What the hell do pies have to do with light accelerating? Look. You could have a 99% slice and three 0.33% slices. Now, what's your point? Is there even a point to this? I already told you my point. 1/4 does not mean 25%. Merged post follows: Consecutive posts mergedYour wording is not exact enough for any conclusions to be made. How would you word cutting one pie into four pieces and giving me one of those pieces? Can you show me the math if the pieces were not equal? Edited March 21, 2009 by Duration Consecutive posts merged.
Recommended Posts