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.
Originally posted by BobAthome
"to take what scientific experts tell us on faith"
sounds like a cult,,of high Priests
QUESTION EVERYTHING!
*
If I shot a beam of light into a vacuum, it would travel at the maximum theoretical (or absolute) speed. If the beam then entered, say, a clear glass of water, it would slow down to whatever speed light likes to travel in water. On the other side of the glass, is a vacuum again.
My first question is, after the light emerges from the glass, at what speed will it want to travel. Will it continue along at the speed it was going while it was in the water...or will it accelerate up to its maximum speed again? If it speeds up again, by what process can it do so? Wouldn't this go against the principle of momentum...that things will tend to continue on their way at a constant speed unless acted upon by a force of some kind?
*
Of course the speed of light isn't constant. How do you think it get's sucked into a black hole? It has to change it's speed flying outwards and turn inwards.
*
sounds like a cult, of high Priests
Originally posted by Helious
Originally posted by AnnoyingOrangeX
Originally posted by BIGPoJo
If you are moving at 20mph light coming from you will still be traveling at 186mps no matter where the light is observed. If you throw a ball at 6mph out of car at 20mph you could say that the ball is moving at 26mph. Balls thrown from moving vehicles follow different rules than light. You cannot add the 20mph to the 186mps because it is already going at max speed.
no ...you are assuming that it travels at max speed and therefore behave other than the ball because this is implied by what einstein said but this is actualy not the case. Why should light behave otherwise than anything else?
Because light is made of photons and photons do not have mass, unlike a baseball, or as you put it, "anything else". That being said, we already know it is not an absolute constant because we know black holes exist. Light traveling outwards from the center of a star is also slowed down. Einstein knew both of these things and his work actually predicted it before it was proven.
Originally posted by libertytoall
Basic logic tells me light speed would have to be infinite in order for it to remain constant for an observer regardless of motion or at rest, in relation to the source.
Originally posted by Seektruthalways1
reply to post by libertytoall
LOL yup he was wrong, light isnt a constant.
abcnews.go.com...
scienceblog.com...
Originally posted by Astyanax
I don’t believe you can expect to understand relativity without such a course of academic study. Self-study won’t do it; you need to be taught. That’s because there are too many ways to get your ideas wrong and go off at a tangent – sometimes literally, as in this poster’s case.
Originally posted by CLPrime
(note, not the speed at which they travel, but the speed at which they are transferred) through a material. These transference speeds can be very slow, but they do nothing to the speed of the photons, which is always the same value.
Originally posted by Seektruthalways1
reply to post by libertytoall
LOL yup he was wrong, light isn't a constant.
abcnews.go.com...
scienceblog.com...
The experiment doesn’t invent any new physics.When light passes through a material such as water or glass, it slows down a bit as the photons interact with the surrounding molecules. The new result merely set the world record for slowest light.
This is not the first time that scientists have tweaked the speed of a light signal. Even light passing through a window or water is slowed down a fraction as it travels through the medium. In fact, in the right conditions, scientists have been able to slow light down to the speed of a bicycle, or even stop it altogether.
And even though this seems to violate all sorts of cherished physical assumptions, Einstein needn't move over – relativity isn't called into question , because only a portion of the signal is affected
Originally posted by DarkSarcasm
I'm sure this has already been corrected, but, photons do have mass. Light is a form of matter with such small mass that it can behave both like a wave and as a particle.
Light speed is not constant, it only seems constant to the observer because wherever the observer is the speed is affected the same way. The calculation of the speed of light is an ideal environment formula, meaning that in the theoretical complete vacuum of space light would move at this speed. Light is pushed and pulled by gravity in the same way as any other particle, if this was not true then light would not be captured by a black hole or bent around a star as it passes. This was proven by scientists observing a total solar eclipse, like a pencil in a glass of water, the stars behind the sun that have light pass closely around the sun appear to be in a slightly different place than they really are. Thus proving that light is affected by gravity and therefore cannot he constant.