>Imagine you are on a perfectly smooth speeding train, moving at a uniform speed (not accelerating or turning), in a car with no windows. You would have no way of knowing how fast you are going (or if you were moving at all). If you throw a ball straight up in the air, it will come straight back down whether the train is sitting still or going 1,000 mph. Since you and the ball are already moving at the same speed as the train, the only forces acting on the ball are your hand and gravity. So the ball behaves exactly as it would if you were standing on the ground and not moving.
>So what does this mean for our gun? If the gun shoots bullets at 1,000 mph, then the bullet will always move away from the gun at 1,000 mph. If you go to the front of a train that is moving at 1,000 mph and shoot the gun forward, the bullet will move away from you and the train at 1,000 mph, just as it would if the train were stopped. But, relative to the ground, the bullet will travel at 2,000 mph, the speed of the bullet plus the speed of the train. So if the bullet hits something on the ground, it will hit it going 2,000 mph.
>If you shoot the bullet off the back of the train, the bullet will still be moving away from you and the gun at 1,000 mph, but now the speed of the train will subtract from the speed of the bullet. Relative to the ground, the bullet will not be moving at all, and it will drop straight to the ground.
I get the bullet being shot forward = still going forward, but I don't get bullet shot backwards = stops and falls immediately to the ground. How the fuck does the train "steal" 1000 mph from a projectile being powered by a primer/combustion?
>>7693238
If you get the moving forward, you get the moving backwards. Draw a force diagram and realize they're exactly the same.
>>7693238
I know it sounds crazy but that's literally what happens.
Here's real life footage of a soccer ball, rather than a bullet.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BLuI118nhzc
underage fucking ban this kid
>>7693268
>I fucking love science guise!!!! Go mythbusters!!!
No but really that is a good test.
Things like this make me wonder why people try to say relativity is false it makes real and verifiable predictions.
>>7693330
>Things like this make me wonder why people try to say relativity is false it makes real and verifiable predictions.
Everything in science that's accepted at all makes real and verifiable predicts, otherwise it wouldn't have become accepted in the first place. But that doesn't mean it won't eventually be found inadequate to explain certain things and be replaced by a new theory.
>>7693238
The bullet is still going 1,000 miles per hour relative to the gun. However, since the gun is moving backwards at 1,000 mph (relative to the ground) with the train, the speed of the bullet relative to the ground is:
1000 mph (speed of bullet relative to gun) + -1000 mph (speed of gun relative to ground) = 0 mph.
The bullet is still fired as normal from the gun's perspective, but its actual velocity relative to the ground is 0. And it won't fall any faster than a normal shot, it still decelerates downward at the usual 9.81 m/s/s.
>>7693364
True, and already there's things we know relativity can't explain like the behavior of sub atomic particles but that doesn't make it wrong.
Most likely whatever new theory replaces it will build on it. Like Einstein didn't come along and say "Newtons laws of motion are shit! Its all a lie!" He said that's not the full picture, his laws of motion are basically true but we need to define the reference frame.
So yea I can see a theory coming about some day that builds on relativity, that's says hey this was basically right but incomplete, I sincerely doubt however that its ever going to be disproven in the "its all a lie!!!" Sense. I'm saying I don't understand the people who want to say its a lie.
>>7693464
Does bother me how many people tweet about relativity being a lie, on their cellphones, that use satellites, that fucking rely on it.
What Einstein didn't have to deal with in his day is this new wave of rampant anti-intellectualism that just seems to be gaining more and more steam, largely for political reasons.
We're literally breeding ignorance in order to maintain power, and it's kinda frightening to watch, because what one generation sells as a lie, the next tends to believe as god given truth.
>>7693238
>stops and falls immediately to the ground
Remember that a fired bullet falls down at the same speed as a dropped one. The fired one just tends to hit something so quickly that you don't consider it to be falling.
>>7693238
wow for a second i thought you were gonna say that the train was moving at the speed of light and you were shooting forward
Pretend that all the power of the gunpowder is going into make the bullet slow down really really fast. Gunpowder brakes sound awesome.
Dunno OP, but if you threw the ball in the air and encapsulated it in a stasis field - 225 million years later you would be in the exact same position in which to catch it after our solar system rotated once around the galactic core.
>>7693238
Fake and gay. When firing backwards the bullet moves just as it would no matter from where it's shot. It's the trains back wall that's approaching the bullet at the same speed, giving the illusion of the bullet going twice as fast. Relative to the wall the bullet is approaching it 2,000 mph, but the bullet is moving at 1,000 mph, because reality is not relative, it's the whole big picture. Just like when shooting forwards, both objects, bullet and train, move forwards at the same speed. Only the bullet is no-longer being held up nor moving, so it will quickly drop to the floor and move backwards as its speed is decreasing. Relative to the trains front wall the bullet is not moving towards it, but in real life the bullet just has the same speed as the train.
Relativity defeats the point of physics. Physics is supposed to be an exact science that results in objective truths, not in subjective illusions.
>>7694256
Read the post, idiot. I explain in the wall of text following the statement 'fake and gay' what is fake and gay and why it is so.
>>7694272
I did read it and it didn't make any sense, unlike relativity the thing you call fake and gay.
I have always wondered this about the speed of light, is it not said that you can't travel faster than the speed of light from a given reference point? What about a photon travelling the opposite direction that you're travelling? Can you not even move AT ALL because given that reference of the photo you will be moving faster than the speed of light? What? Is there a "universal reference point" that you can't travel faster than the speed of light in reference to? Pls explain
>>7694294
If you were traveling towards a photon at light speed or very near it that light moving towards you would be very blue shifted. The wavelength would appear extremely short and the frequency extremely high.
Someone at rest relative to you would say the distance between you and the photon is closing at twice the speed of light but this does not violate relativity. Closing speeds can be FTL because they cannot be used to transmit any messages FTL nor do they require the movement of any matter FTL.
>Imagine you are on a perfectly smooth speeding train, moving at a uniform speed (not accelerating or turning), in a car with no windows. You would have no way of knowing how fast you are going (or if you were moving at all). If you throw a ball straight up in the air, it will come straight back down whether the train is sitting still or going 1,000 mph. Since you and the ball are already moving at the same speed as the train, the only forces acting on the ball are your hand and gravity. So the ball behaves exactly as it would if you were standing on the ground and not moving.
>So what does this mean for our torch? If the torch shoots light at 3x10^8 m/s, then the light will always move away from the torch at 3x10^8 m/s. If you go to the front of a train that is moving at 3x10^8 m/s and shoot the torch forward, the light will move away from you and the train at 3x10^8 m/s, just as it would if the train were stopped. But, relative to the ground, the light will travel at 3x10^8 m/s, the speed of the light regardless of the speed of the train. So if the light hits something on the ground, it will hit it going 3x10^8 m/s.
>If you shoot the light off the back of the train, the light will still be moving away from you and the torch at 3x10^8 m/s, but now the speed of the train will subtract from the speed of the light. Relative to the ground, the light will be moving at 3x10^8 m/s, and it will not drop straight to the ground.
I get the light being shot forward = still going forward, but I don't get light shot backwards = doesn't stop and fall immediately to the ground. How the fuck does the train "give" 3x10^8 m/s to a projectile being powered by a LED/battery?
>>7694278
2,000mph is the relative speed of a bullet fired towards the back of a train going forwards at 1,000mph, and that speed is relative to the back wall of the train, right? And physics is supposed to be an exact science focusing on the objective rather than the subjective, or relative.
>>7693372
So if you were to shoot somebody on that train facing the opposite direction, relative to the ground, the bullet stays in that same spot and the person moves into the bullet at 1000 mph?
>>7693238
>imagine
Stopped reading here.
>>7694329
>2,000mph is the relative speed of a bullet fired towards the back of a train going forwards at 1,000mph, and that speed is relative to the back wall of the train, right?
No. It would be 1000 mph relative to the back wall of the train. The bullet and the wall are both moving with the train so the train's movement does not add anything to their speed relative to each other. If you were standing on the tracks as the train was coming towards you and fired a bullet into the train then it would be going 2000 mph relative to the train (classically).
>And physics is supposed to be an exact science focusing on the objective rather than the subjective, or relative.
Relativity is an exact science. There is no objective reference frame in the universe and any speed must be calculated according to some reference frame, so relativity is required. Deal with it.
>>7694329
Tell me where this "objective frame" is then. Where do I need to stand to get the absolute measure of the train's speed and why are measurements from anywhere else wrong?
>>7694303
Yeah but what is considered "at rest" if everything is relative?
>>7694452
There is no absolute rest but you can be at rest or in motion relative to something else.
>>7694332
From the perspective of the ground, that is exactly what would happen. But from the perspective of the train car everything would be normal.
