Why does the speed of light NOT change when the velocity of the object is changing, what is the scientific proof behind this. I know you can't go faster than the speed of light - in a vacuum. But what is the actual proof behind the speed of light not changing relative to the changing of the velocity of the object that is giving off the light.
>>7972129
Measurments
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speed_of_light
not that hard,anon.
This is probably a dumb question but do we know why light can't travel faster than c? What makes c a barrier?
>>7972136
Because c is the speed of light.
>>7972139
best answer
>>7972139
Thanks, "Loren". But seriously why can't things go faster
>>7972136
when you incresse your speed your mass incresses too.
so when you acelerate more to reach c your mass is also increasing which makes more and more energy to acelerate you.
pic related
rel -> relativistic
class -> classical
>>7972146
>makes more and more energy
sorry,i meant need
you need more and more energy to accelerate yourself.
>>7972146
but why is it that it doesn't increase when an object giving off the light goes faster.
Eg if a flash light is travelling at near speed of light wouldn't it affect the speed at which the flash light's light is projected onto a surface, note how i said near speed of light
>>7972152
Because if you take into account time dilation then light is moving instantaneously from its own point of view. It can't move faster than instantaneous.
I dont see how the speed of light works with relativity
if an object is moving away at c and im also moving myself away from it at c, isnt we moving relative to eachother at 2c?
Or is c the max speed considerinf all relative velocity?
>>7972129
The "speed of light" really is a deceptive term relative to us. Relative to light (or anything moving at c), there is no acceleration or time passage.
>>7972164
Do you know what relativity is? What you just described is a problem for Newtonian physics not relativity. Except Newtonian physics technically allowed for speeds faster than c. Relativity on the other hand posits that speeds are not actually additive. The dilation factor means that two objects moving away from a center point will see the other moving away at a slightly lower speed than the sum of the speeds they are moving away from the center point. The faster you are moving, the higher the dilation factor is, and two objects moving away from a center point at the speed of light will see the other moving away at the same speed.
>>7972152
>travelling at near speed of light
There is no such thing, since all velocity is relative. The flashlight has a velocity of zero relative to itself, and that is just as valid as whatever frame of reference you are using.
>>7972172
no i dont sorry
thx for explaining
Things without mass travel at a certain speed in a vacuum.
Photons do not have mass.
Photons travel at this speed.
Photons are what we call "light".
We call the speed at which photons travel "the speed of light".
I am no scientist, but i think, how the light is a wave, will travel to a constant velocity.
the same thing happens with the sound.
You can go faster than mach 1 and the sound will not change its speed.
no?
>>7972193
Ever heard of a sonic boom?
>>7972129
There is no proof. It is a fact from observation.
>>7972129
Shadow travels faster than light.
>>7972185
Photons have mass. It's just hard to get them to sit still on a scale to be weighed.
>this thread
What the hell.
OP, if you got a torch and you are moving forward at 0.5c. The light emited by your torch moves at c; the relative movement of the source (you) doesn't affect the light's trajectory nor its speed.
However, if there is someone moving towards you at x m/s, then he detects yo momma pussy with his peeny weeny.
>>7972204
elaborate
>>7972206
Scuse me layman here but I was told anything with mass travelin at or near speed of light gets near infinite mass, thus if photons have mass they should obliterate everything
>>7972200
yes.
why?
so?
>>7972344
Photons dont have mass, they sort of get some due to momentum but its weird. Mass dilates as you approach c, until at c it becomes infinite, and time stops. You cant actually reach c, though the math works if you start off going faster
>>7972129
We fundamentally can't know.
We set forth axioms of Relativity. They work. Believing is optional.
>>7972200
The boom propagates at the speed of sound in air which depends on temperature.
