General > Off Topic
Faster than light
PurpleYouko:
--- Quote ---For observer in a box everything is going to look as if he were standing still
--- End quote ---
I know that is what is supposed to happen. I just don't buy it!
for there to be no frequency shift, the distance between the source and detector must remain in the same proportions to the velocity of the light beam.
Oh Crap! :(
I just figured out that the frequency change at the detector will be cancelled out by the frequency change at the source so this won't work anyway.
Still doesn't explain the perpendicular example though.
And yes I have read the information at the site that you linked. I have also read bunches of textbooks and taken university level physics courses about the subject.
No book and no Physics professor has ever managed to fully answer my questions. All the answers I get just use circular reasoning. Relativity says this will happen so this is the reason why that happens. All the explanations are based on the assumption that relativity is correct. Nobody is willing to put a foot outside the box.
I even had a physics proffessor who told me that if I could prove that Einstein was wrong then he would kill himself because he had wasted his entire career.
"What a complete twat!" I thought. Nobody with that attitude should be allowed to call themselves a scientist. Science is about pushing the bounds of knowledge, not sticking to some religious notion that what we know is what we know "so just deal with it!". That is the attitude I always come up against.
Let's all bow down to the great God Einstein :pray:
:angry: PY :angry:
shvarz:
Nice smiley, PY
You are right about the professor - this kind of attitude is a shame for a scientist. It is the reason why some people believe that science is a sort of religion.
One thing to remember though - theory of relativity appeared to explain an already observed fact - that speed of light is the same for all observers in inertial systems. You may not buy the theory, but you have to accept the fact :) And explain it somehow :)
Zelos:
schvarz, why does light have to be ruled by newtonia physics? relativistic is good as any, relativity does alot of sense.
all speeds are different relative to different things, exept the speed of light which is the same relative to everything
shvarz:
zelos: I can't quite place your post. Is this a question or a comment? What are you trying to tell me here?
Zelos:
im trying to tell that relativity does make as much sense for speeds close to light as newtonia do for speeds belowe 0,1C, and the "all speeds are different relative to different things, exept the speed of light which is the same relative to everything " is just a comment that is true, think it matches in this topic
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version