So, if you were in a plane going 100 mph right above the ground and a person on the ground shot a bullet going 100mph parallel to the plane. To the person on the ground the bullet would appear to move at 100mph, while to the person driving the plane the bullet would not appear to move at all correct?
I have a question. We know that the speed of light is 300,000,000 m/s and nothing can surpass it. If i'm travelling at 299,999,999 m/s in a plane, and i fire a gun. what will be the speed of the bullet relative to an observer who is not on the plane? Will it exceed the speed of light?
@JinGwee No, the bullet will not exceed the speed of light. The observer you speak of will see the bullet barely moving at all relative to gun. Everything on the traveling spaceship would be moving very very slowly relative to ship. Just like clocks on spaceship would be ticking very very slowly. (Time dilation).
I'm sorry, but how the hell is light any different from any other thing in concern for its speed? How is the speed of light different from the speed of a truck?
if There's a truck moving at 100 Mph in a straight line, and, parallel to it, there's a bike rider going in the same direction at 50 Mph, then, relative to the bike rider, the truck's going at exactly 50 Mph.
@magichristo If I have a laser beam going at the speed of light, and let's just say that the speed of light was 100 mph, which is silly but just hypothetical! There's a spaceship going parallel to the laser beam in the same direction at 50 mph. How THE HELL, would the laser beam be going at 100 mph relative to the spaceship? That would most certainly require that the laser beam is going at exactly 150 mph, it's simple...
@magichristo The relativistic equations for adding velocities answers your question. Your example of the truck and bike is ever so slightly incorrect. The relative velocity in your example is actually a tiny tiny bit different from 50Mph. And as the truck's speed increases, a simple addition of the two speeds gets more and more incorrect.
@cassiopeiaproject Also, in my previous example, I was hypothetically referring to a truck moving at ALWAYS and EXACTLY 100 mph, and the bike at also EXACTLY 50 mph.
@magichristo You can have your truck and your bike moving at EXACTLY the speeds you mention in only one reference frame. In any other reference frame that is in motion relative to that one, neither will be moving at those speeds, AND in the new reference frame the difference between the speed of the truck and the speed of the bike will NOT be EXACTLY 50mph.
@cassiopeiaproject Alright then, but I still don't understand how one can twist simple logic and say that light travels always at the speed of light relative to everything.
@magichristo Therein is the brilliance of Einstein. He realized that what appears to be simple logic is simply wrong. Many highly accurate tests have been done testing the constancy of the speed of light, and every one shows the same thing -- Einstein is right.
@magichristo (cont.) If the truck is traveling at the speed of light ( and is therefore a massless particle like a photon) then the relative velocity is simply the speed of the truck (light) and equals the speed of light. It is the classical addition of velocities that is incorrect.
But if I have a bike parallel to it, at light speed, as a massless object, and it is said that the truck moves at light speed relative to the bike, it only makes sense if the truck is moving at lightspeed x2, how can simple maths be denied here. If both objects were moving at light speed, and parallel and next to eachother, then both should remain that way eternally.
The time has come for Free energy to be revealed ,But the Establishment doesn't want ppl to know this,Find a motor that needs no fuel or input at LT-MAGNET-MOTORdotCOM ,Be the revolution!
I'm confused about what happens in the following scenario:
Let's have a truck moving at 50 mph and on it is the pitcher with a ball. Both the pitcher and the ball are moving at 0 mph relative to the truck right? But if the pitcher just simple drops the ball, it is moving down with the acceleration of gravity but still 0 mph forward or backward relative to the truck? Wouldn't that mean that it should still be traveling forward at 50 mph?
Yes. It is exactly as you said. The ball will fall straight down as far as the pitcher is concerned and hit the truck bed at a a point at his feet. To an observer standing by the road, the pitcher's hand and that point on the truck and the ball are all moving together at 50 mph down the road. In different frames of reference, the ball has different forward speeds.
Doesn't that only work if all the members are inside of the truck? In the animation they are on top of the back of the truck, which would mean that air resistance would cause the ball to fall directly off the truck while the truck is still moving forward, right?
Depending on friction and the elasticity of the ball and ground, some of its energy will be converted to rotational energy, some of it will go into heating both the ball and the ground, some of it will cause the ball to bounce some distance back up... and the cycle will repeat. Both its forward motion and its vertical motion will eventually succumb to friction and all of that energy will dissipate as heat energy.
@XPator Because the animated women appear "Hotter" than any other woman they could have found. Check out Video # 1 of this series, and look at Sarah. Then you will see why they used these "chessy" characters. So you see , it doesn't matter what the subject we are talking about (relativity, light, velocity, who cares) As long as we can get some hot chick in the video , is all that matters.
Someone tell me at 3:07, what is he saying "SoftWood Camels" ?
Velvet4U 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
So, if you were in a plane going 100 mph right above the ground and a person on the ground shot a bullet going 100mph parallel to the plane. To the person on the ground the bullet would appear to move at 100mph, while to the person driving the plane the bullet would not appear to move at all correct?
lattask8er 6 months ago
1 person dosn't understand relativity lmao
Mystro1989 10 months ago
I have a question. We know that the speed of light is 300,000,000 m/s and nothing can surpass it. If i'm travelling at 299,999,999 m/s in a plane, and i fire a gun. what will be the speed of the bullet relative to an observer who is not on the plane? Will it exceed the speed of light?
JinGwee 10 months ago
@JinGwee No, the bullet will not exceed the speed of light. The observer you speak of will see the bullet barely moving at all relative to gun. Everything on the traveling spaceship would be moving very very slowly relative to ship. Just like clocks on spaceship would be ticking very very slowly. (Time dilation).
CassiopeiaMember 10 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
may i just ask, what chapter deals with length contraction, relativistic mass and twin paradox? thank you so much :)
CenaJane 1 year ago
I'm sorry, but how the hell is light any different from any other thing in concern for its speed? How is the speed of light different from the speed of a truck?
if There's a truck moving at 100 Mph in a straight line, and, parallel to it, there's a bike rider going in the same direction at 50 Mph, then, relative to the bike rider, the truck's going at exactly 50 Mph.
How is light any different? Continued next.
magichristo 1 year ago
@magichristo If I have a laser beam going at the speed of light, and let's just say that the speed of light was 100 mph, which is silly but just hypothetical! There's a spaceship going parallel to the laser beam in the same direction at 50 mph. How THE HELL, would the laser beam be going at 100 mph relative to the spaceship? That would most certainly require that the laser beam is going at exactly 150 mph, it's simple...
magichristo 1 year ago
@magichristo The relativistic equations for adding velocities answers your question. Your example of the truck and bike is ever so slightly incorrect. The relative velocity in your example is actually a tiny tiny bit different from 50Mph. And as the truck's speed increases, a simple addition of the two speeds gets more and more incorrect.
cassiopeiaproject 1 year ago
@cassiopeiaproject Also, in my previous example, I was hypothetically referring to a truck moving at ALWAYS and EXACTLY 100 mph, and the bike at also EXACTLY 50 mph.
magichristo 1 year ago
@magichristo You can have your truck and your bike moving at EXACTLY the speeds you mention in only one reference frame. In any other reference frame that is in motion relative to that one, neither will be moving at those speeds, AND in the new reference frame the difference between the speed of the truck and the speed of the bike will NOT be EXACTLY 50mph.
cassiopeiaproject 1 year ago
@cassiopeiaproject Alright then, but I still don't understand how one can twist simple logic and say that light travels always at the speed of light relative to everything.
magichristo 1 year ago
@magichristo Therein is the brilliance of Einstein. He realized that what appears to be simple logic is simply wrong. Many highly accurate tests have been done testing the constancy of the speed of light, and every one shows the same thing -- Einstein is right.
cassiopeiaproject 1 year ago
@magichristo (cont.) If the truck is traveling at the speed of light ( and is therefore a massless particle like a photon) then the relative velocity is simply the speed of the truck (light) and equals the speed of light. It is the classical addition of velocities that is incorrect.
cassiopeiaproject 1 year ago
But if I have a bike parallel to it, at light speed, as a massless object, and it is said that the truck moves at light speed relative to the bike, it only makes sense if the truck is moving at lightspeed x2, how can simple maths be denied here. If both objects were moving at light speed, and parallel and next to eachother, then both should remain that way eternally.
magichristo 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
The time has come for Free energy to be revealed ,But the Establishment doesn't want ppl to know this,Find a motor that needs no fuel or input at LT-MAGNET-MOTORdotCOM ,Be the revolution!
JCrim2398 1 year ago
LOL 4:51
marianiiina 2 years ago
he just came.
TigerSlashX 2 years ago
I'm confused about what happens in the following scenario:
Let's have a truck moving at 50 mph and on it is the pitcher with a ball. Both the pitcher and the ball are moving at 0 mph relative to the truck right? But if the pitcher just simple drops the ball, it is moving down with the acceleration of gravity but still 0 mph forward or backward relative to the truck? Wouldn't that mean that it should still be traveling forward at 50 mph?
BumX10 2 years ago
Yes. It is exactly as you said. The ball will fall straight down as far as the pitcher is concerned and hit the truck bed at a a point at his feet. To an observer standing by the road, the pitcher's hand and that point on the truck and the ball are all moving together at 50 mph down the road. In different frames of reference, the ball has different forward speeds.
cassiopeiaproject 2 years ago
Doesn't that only work if all the members are inside of the truck? In the animation they are on top of the back of the truck, which would mean that air resistance would cause the ball to fall directly off the truck while the truck is still moving forward, right?
BumX10 2 years ago
what will happen if you are walking at 1mph and u drop a ball.....what will happen to the ball after its first bounce on the ground?
yamjayamjabulba 2 years ago
Depending on friction and the elasticity of the ball and ground, some of its energy will be converted to rotational energy, some of it will go into heating both the ball and the ground, some of it will cause the ball to bounce some distance back up... and the cycle will repeat. Both its forward motion and its vertical motion will eventually succumb to friction and all of that energy will dissipate as heat energy.
cassiopeiaproject 2 years ago 2
Why didn't they just put real actors instead of some cheesy 3D characters, I'll never know...
It's definitely not appealing.
XPator 2 years ago 12
@XPator Because the animated women appear "Hotter" than any other woman they could have found. Check out Video # 1 of this series, and look at Sarah. Then you will see why they used these "chessy" characters. So you see , it doesn't matter what the subject we are talking about (relativity, light, velocity, who cares) As long as we can get some hot chick in the video , is all that matters.
Velvet4U 1 month ago
@Velvet4U by "not appealing" I meant distracting how retarded it looks. Thank you for using your brains next time.
XPator 1 month ago
@XPator Gotta pay actors :)
Gotta pay more to talk :)
apricimo 2 weeks ago
@apricimo yeah, guess you're right on that one.
XPator 2 weeks ago
Silly avatars!
snakeguy76 3 years ago 8