To: Ernest_at_the_Beach
From a math major ... Two beams traveling in opposite directions at the speed of light are relatively traveling at twice the speed of light.
QED.
To: OldNavyVet
Relative to WHAT?
I thought the Michelson-Morley experiment put paid to that.
/johnny
To: OldNavyVet
Disclaimer: I am a cook, not a physicist or math guy.
/johnny
To: OldNavyVet
What happens when a spaceship traveling the speed of light turns on its headlights? :-)
To: OldNavyVet
--
Two beams traveling in opposite directions at the speed of light are relatively traveling at twice the speed of light. --
That's Newton's theory of relativity. It is a good approximation for relative speeds under about 100,000 kilometers per second.
20 posted on
10/13/2012 1:02:25 PM PDT by
Cboldt
To: OldNavyVet
"Two beams traveling in opposite directions at the speed of light are relatively traveling at twice the speed of light."The reason it's called the "Special theory of relativity" is that your calculation does not hold true. It's physics, not math.
22 posted on
10/13/2012 1:12:25 PM PDT by
norwaypinesavage
(Galileo: In science, the authority of a thousand is not worth the humble reasoning of one individual)
To: OldNavyVet
No, I don’t believe that is correct.
27 posted on
10/13/2012 1:54:03 PM PDT by
SgtHooper
(The last thing I want to do is hurt you. But it's still on the list.)
To: OldNavyVet
Dear math major:
Unfortunately, that math is not accurate at speeds on the close order of the velocity of light.
39 posted on
10/13/2012 5:09:33 PM PDT by
AFPhys
((Praying for our troops, our citizens, that the Bible and Freedom become basis of the US law again))
To: OldNavyVet
Two beams traveling in opposite directions at the speed of light are relatively traveling at twice the speed of light.
No they aren't. That's exactly the kind of scenario Einstein included in his special theory of relativity.
If recent developments have come up with a particle that can go faster than the speed of light... then recent developments have broken new ground on this question.
Your statement is not new ground; it is old ground. It is ground that was basically covered by Einstein in 1905.
42 posted on
10/13/2012 5:23:29 PM PDT by
samtheman
(Obama. Mugabe. Chavez. (Obamugavez))
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson