So I was thinking, as I tend to do, when I realized something. If we sent a satellite probe out into space at 1/2 the speed of light, then in 2 years, it would be one light-year away. But, if it's one light year away, then it would take us a year to see it there, and by then it would have traveled a whole 'nother 1/2 light-year. So, I made a simple equation for figuring it out:
X = Y + (Y x Z)
X = Distance object actually is.
Y = Distance object appears to be.
Z = How fast the object is going, where 1 equals the speed of light, and .5 would equal half the speed of light.
Is my math sound, or am I just retarded?
Bumping again because I want an answer to this.
I mean, if it's right, it would be a handy equation for figuring out the location of objects irregardless of where they APPEAR to be.
yes, you're right
>>8129176
K, good.
Was a little worried.
Felt way too simple.
I've some to expect a level of over-complicatedness from the universe.
Aren't you worried about relativity? .5c is fucking booking man you got some gamma to deal with and since this isn't idealized you gotta bust out the gen relativity yeah??
>>8129202
Put that in normie terms for me.
I don't speak Asian.
>>8129208
Shit anon I can't explain relativity on here and especially general relativity which even I don't get fully but the clock on the probe is going to run slower than the clock on earth and at that speed it will be noticeable.
>>8129270
Also anon depending on how far you take this idea you should account for gravitational effects on the traveling light. For info on this (and relativity) lookup articles on the orbit of Mercury and how/why it confused scientists for so long.
>>8129144
Special Relativity is over 100 years old by now, there's no excuse for what you wrote.
>>8129306
I don't mean that we would see something different from what is there, I know that, I was just wondering if I could use that little equation I made to calculate where distant objects would actually be, rather than where they look like they are.
Like the difference between knowing what goes up must come down, and calculating WHEN it will come down.
>>8129388
Sorry anon I think you are over your head. I also worry you aren't thinking about the uncertainty principle. Sounds like you know the probes exact velocity so you won't know the probes position.
>>8129144
>>8129144
Restrict the speed to be at most 0.1 the speed of light, and your equation is a decent estimate. Above that, relativistic effects are just too big to ignore.
So in 10 years, the probe travels one lightyear. It sends out some EM signal saying it has gone one lightyear, and it takes a year for us to receive it, by which point, it will be 1.1 lightyears away.
Also, simplify your equation a bit.
X = Y(1+Z), with Z<0.1
