It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Quick question about Light Speed communication

page: 2
8
<< 1   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 28 2018 @ 08:12 AM
link   
a reply to: Crumbles

It would be delayed feed , think of it the same as watching an interview via sattelite feed and seeing the delay in between the question and answer




posted on Nov, 28 2018 @ 11:05 AM
link   

originally posted by: norhoc
a reply to: Crumbles

It would be delayed feed , think of it the same as watching an interview via sattelite feed and seeing the delay in between the question and answer

But how would it go from undelayed stream (at the time of the launch) to a delayed one when far out in space?



posted on Nov, 28 2018 @ 01:12 PM
link   

originally posted by: StallionDuck
All,

Let's look at it a different way:

Say you sent a ship out with a camera 1 light year. The camera is recording the whole way. Once the ship reaches one light year out (equals one year to get there by the ship's perspective), the ship returns (one more year) and we look at the footage of the 1st trip.

I suspect:
- The film will be exactly 1 year in length.
- We will not get the film in 2 years even though the ship's time is a 2 year round trip.

Yes the footage would be only 1 year long. But you will see it years later when the ship arrives.



- Wouldn't that ship become infinite in space and mass?

No



- Wouldn't that ship meet our future selves? (Future predetermined by this example?)
---- Thinking about it, the ship 'should' meet us at exactly 2 years just as he perceived but we would see him some many, many years later. It's backwards than what it would 'seem' as he would see the future us and we would see him at the same time he meets us. This is very confusing..

Not fully sure what you mean here. I guess you are talking about the twin paradox. What matters in the round trip case is who is accelerating. The person that accelerated will be younger than the person at rest when they meet again.



- If light is traveling at the speed of 'light', wouldn't we see it moving slower but from the light's perspective it would be traveling at light speed?

There is no lights perspective. Because at speed of light every distance becomes zero.



- Why is light not infinite in space and mass? I know light doesn't have mass to begin with, supposedly but it does push or exert a force against mass.

Light has no mass. But it has energy and momentum. Technically you can see it as a disturbance in the electromagnetic field. This disturbance affects charged objects, exerts a force on them. The mass of the charged objects says how much they accelerate due to this force.



posted on Nov, 28 2018 @ 03:16 PM
link   

originally posted by: moebius
Light has no mass. But it has energy and momentum. Technically you can see it as a disturbance in the electromagnetic field. This disturbance affects charged objects, exerts a force on them. The mass of the charged objects says how much they accelerate due to this force.
I don't know why you say "charged objects" instead of just "objects". This video doesn't say anything about the objects needing to be charged and is right as far as I know, or maybe you're looking at a QED view and the video is looking at a relativity view and they are different, in which case maybe you could give me a link to what you're talking about?:

Common Physics Misconceptions



posted on Nov, 28 2018 @ 03:38 PM
link   
It still doesn't make sense to me how we can put a lander on mars and minutes later have pictures ..



posted on Nov, 28 2018 @ 04:27 PM
link   
a reply to: wildespace


Due to the distance it travels away from earth. This is not that hard to understand



posted on Nov, 28 2018 @ 04:28 PM
link   
a reply to: wildespace


Due to the distance it travels away from earth. This is not that hard to understand



posted on Nov, 28 2018 @ 04:30 PM
link   
a reply to: Gargoyle91


WHAT?? because of the distance Mars is from Earth it takes about 3 minutes for light to travel from there to here. Seriously , this is easy stuff guys, come on



posted on Nov, 28 2018 @ 04:37 PM
link   
a reply to: Crumbles If the probe stayed 1 light year away, whatever signal we would receive would always be 1 year behind. If it continued out, your gate would change with it, so that once the craft was 2 light years away, whatever you get here on Earth would be 2 years behind.

Fred..



posted on Nov, 28 2018 @ 04:39 PM
link   
a reply to: norhoc



An orbiter passes over the rover and is in the vicinity of the sky to communicate for about eight minutes at a time, per Martian day. In that time, between 100 and 250 megabits of data can be transmitted to an orbiter. That same 250 megabits would take up to 20 hours to transmit direct to Earth.



I was just questioning the fact that the Mars lander hit the surface and moments later we had pictures ..



posted on Nov, 28 2018 @ 04:49 PM
link   

originally posted by: pheonix358
Light speed may not be a barrier at all, but nevertheless your question is still valid.

Light speed is the barrier for all information associated with mass. There's no speed limit to a concept or a symbol. Thoughts have no particular speed limit.



posted on Nov, 29 2018 @ 08:50 AM
link   

originally posted by: Gargoyle91
a reply to: norhoc



An orbiter passes over the rover and is in the vicinity of the sky to communicate for about eight minutes at a time, per Martian day. In that time, between 100 and 250 megabits of data can be transmitted to an orbiter. That same 250 megabits would take up to 20 hours to transmit direct to Earth.



I was just questioning the fact that the Mars lander hit the surface and moments later we had pictures ..


We received the "I've landed" signal from the lander on Mars, then shortly after we received the image. However, both that "I've landed" signal and the image that may immediately follow had been sent from the lander on Mars a few minutes before we got them.

I suppose what I'm saying is the that lander had already landed and sent out the "I've landed" signal a while before we got that signal. It's not as if we tracked the landing in actual "live" time.

When the people at mission control all start celebrating a successful Mars landing, the actual spacecraft had already landed and been there for a few minutes (in InSight's case, about 8 minutes). So NASA received the signal at 19:54 UTC from InSight that it had landed, that landing had already taken place at 19:46 UTC.

edit on 29/11/2018 by Soylent Green Is People because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 29 2018 @ 10:36 AM
link   

originally posted by: Crumbles
Can someone Answer my question. Light speed communication is the limit, of course everyone knows this. I was randomly thinking the other day. If we sent out a probe, and it live streamed from launch to lets say Alpha centauri wouldn't we get real time images from start to finish since there is never a cut from broadcast. Just a weird thought. I know I am wrong, but not sure why. I know it takes 1 year from one light year away to reach us, but if we are getting a constant feed how would that work.

I've asked around, and the answer seems to be that the signal/feed will experience a very slight but constant delay as the probe is getting further and further away. The effect will be due to Doppler shift, and in tiny part due to relativistic time dilation.



new topics

top topics



 
8
<< 1   >>

log in

join