A Questioning Thought for the Day

[dwight77]

If you were in a car, and the car was traveling at the speed of light........would the headlights work?

dwight77

[Russ Bellinis]

I haven't a clue, but I would be so far "over my head" as a driver that I would not need headlights or any other lights. Unless I was also traveling on a big enough dry lake bed to get stopped and not hit anything, I would be dead! By the way this thread should either be edited to make it train related or it should move to Lower Berth.

[Bigsteel]

I haven't a clue, but I would be so far "over my head" as a driver that I would not need headlights or any other lights. Unless I was also traveling on a big enough dry lake bed to get stopped and not hit anything, I would be dead! By the way this thread should either be edited to make it train related or it should move to Lower Berth.

if you were in a train traveling at the speed of light would the mars light still work? --josh

[nachoman]

If you were in a car, and the car was traveling at the speed of light........would the headlights work?

dwight77

you cant travel at the speed of light and still have mass. So, no, your headlights wouldn't work, because you would not have a car!!

[Ralph]

Its only 7:30 in the morning. You're making my head hurt.
Ralph

[ezdays]

If you were in a car, and the car was traveling at the speed of light........would the headlights work?

dwight77

you cant travel at the speed of light and still have mass. So, no, your headlights wouldn't work, because you would not have a car!!

No, you can't travel at the speed of light, but you have to assume you can in order to answer the question. And no, the lights would never turn on because the wires going to the lights would be moving at the same speed as the electrons in them that are trying to light the lights. No electricity, no light.

[LynnB]

Ah Yaaaaaaaaaaaaa

[TrainNut]

Just to put this into perspective, the Speed of light travels at a speed of 186,000 miles a second or 700 million miles an hour. The space shuttle only travels at about 5 miles per second or 17,500 mph. To put THAT into perspective, next time your in your car, note how long it takes you to drive 5 miles and then realize, the space shuttle can do that in 1 second.

From a scientific point of view, light from the nearest star, other than the sun, (Proxima Centauri), takes four and a half years to get here. Thus, when you look up into the sky at night, none of those stars you see are there anymore. It's a direct window into the past. How's that to boggle the brain?

[Trucklover]

Just to put this into perspective, the Speed of light travels at a speed of 186,000 miles a second or 700 million miles an hour. The space shuttle only travels at about 5 miles per second or 17,500 mph. To put THAT into perspective, next time your in your car, note how long it takes you to drive 5 miles and then realize, the space shuttle can do that in 1 second.

From a scientific point of view, light from the nearest star, other than the sun, (Proxima Centauri), takes four and a half years to get here. Thus, when you look up into the sky at night, none of those stars you see are there anymore. It's a direct window into the past. How's that to boggle the brain?

I feel like im in Astronomy Class again lol. Ill have to say, taking that class was fun and VERY interesting. Some of the things that we learned, for example what TN said about the stars and there light, just blew me away!!

[TrainNut]

Assuming that a vehicle could travel at the speed of light simply for the sake of the question, wouldn't having the lighting system inside of a vehicle moving at the speed of light negate the hindrances much like a honey bee flying forwards in the TGV? A honey bee could never achieve speeds relative to the ground of 200 mph. But, put that same honey bee inside the TGV and it could achieve speeds of 214mph in relation to the ground. Thus, to beat this horse just a little more, if you were inside of a vehicle traveling at the speed of light and you flipped on your flashlight fowards, would not that beam of light be twice the speed of light relative to a fixed point?

[ngauger]

Just to put this into perspective, the Speed of light travels at a speed of 186,000 miles a second or 700 million miles an hour. The space shuttle only travels at about 5 miles per second or 17,500 mph. To put THAT into perspective, next time your in your car, note how long it takes you to drive 5 miles and then realize, the space shuttle can do that in 1 second.

From a scientific point of view, light from the nearest star, other than the sun, (Proxima Centauri), takes four and a half years to get here. Thus, when you look up into the sky at night, none of those stars you see are there anymore. It's a direct window into the past. How's that to boggle the brain?

Only because I have a peeve about details being correct... That should be "Some" of the stars are not there anymore.....

the younger stars are still there, but yes, not very many. They have been replaced by newer stars, our scientists gather, but again - since their light has not reached us yet, we can't be sure...

I was taught this way.... If a train is running on a infinite straight line (Galaxy Express999) It's headlight (or mars light) will cast a straight line of light.

As it leaves the Earth the light leaves too (186,000 mps)

The light would not be "seen" on Proxima Centauri for 4 and a half years. Now, this means, that if a train was traveling near the speed of light, before it lost it's mass... The light leaving the flash light inside would visibly slow, because our scientists have proven that the speed is constant and never changing no matter "where" the light is or how fast it's going.... In other words, the person holding the flashlight would "catch up to the light " when it it first turned on. After that - the "beam" would be a solid beam as if you turned one on standing on the Earth at night.

Taking this further, Some of the stars we're seeing with the Hubble telescope are actually gone now, but since the "Supernova" section of the light has not reached us yet, we see only the "younger" normal light. That is what makes this all so interesting.

Someone looking back to us from somewhere else.. Is "seeing" the Earth when the Egyptians were building the pyramids... Or hearing news of the Wright brothers flying their plane.. and of course, the most used one... The TV broadcasts of Hitler......

It's all in how far away they are and how sensitive their radio telescopes are... and timing is everything...

[Sumpter250]

you cant travel at the speed of light and still have mass.

.............................unless, you can find some way to negate the inertia of that mass.
Or, have a means by which that inertia can be put in stasis.

It is a widely accepted theory that the speed of light cannot be exceeded. Therefore; UFOs can only be figments of imagination...............or,
Therefore; "Warp factor" must be a definition of "mental state", and not "speed" (even if the latter does affect the former )

[tetters]

Helm, lay in a course for Romulan Neutral Zone. Warp 7. Engage.

[TrainNut]

Only because I have a peeve about details being correct... That should be "Some" of the stars are not there anymore.....

the younger stars are still there, but yes, not very many. They have been replaced by newer stars, our scientists gather, but again - since their light has not reached us yet, we can't be sure...

We're saying the same thing ... I wasn't referring to the the end of their existence (although that is the case with some), just the change of movement. Just like our Galaxy, all other spiral galaxies rotate as well. The stars move on orbits around the centre of the Galaxy. For some, that movement may not be much (10-.1 arcseconds per year) but it is still movement making them not where you see them. Even the image of our own sun is eight and one half minutes old by the time we see it.

The light would not be "seen" on Proxima Centauri for 4 and a half years. Now, this means, that if a train was traveling near the speed of light, before it lost it's mass... The light leaving the flash light inside would visibly slow, because our scientists have proven that the speed is constant and never changing no matter "where" the light is or how fast it's going.... In other words, the person holding the flashlight would "catch up to the light " when it it first turned on. After that - the "beam" would be a solid beam as if you turned one on standing on the Earth at night.

This also gives further understanding to the theory that as an object or person is accelerated toward the speed of light, time slows down for it/him.

[Selector]

Fellas, a couple of observations. First, just because a black body radiator (a star) is 2 million light years away doesn't mean it isn't "there" any longer once we detect its light. Everyting is in relative motion, but some of that motion is purely radial from our vantage point...always in the same line of sight but either coming toward us or receding. Others have tangential motion, or proper motion, and they do move perpendicularly to our line of sight when we first see them. Those stars are no long "there", but the vast majority of them still exist after a mere 2 million years have passed.

Secondly, the younger stars, wherever they are, and at whatever distance from us, are sure to be there less as a likelihood than the older, hydrogen rich, metal poor dwarf stars that have been burning for billions of years. For example, the very ancient Population II stars in globular clusters have been "burning" for billions of years and will go on burning for billions more, while their nephews and nieces, Pop I stars, much larger and undergoing core fusion at much higher rates, will have their entire lives measured in several hundreds of millions of years...or less. These newer stars are more massive, which means more density at their cores due to the pressure of their more massive outer envelopes crushing in on the core. More compression = more heat= more/faster nuclear synthesis= shorter time to the iron core or core collapse to neutron density or black hole...every star's eventual demise.

Or so my learning went many years ago.