Shadowness Posted January 3, 2006 Share Posted January 3, 2006 If the speed of light is relatively the same to all objects no matter the velocity, then how do we know that earth isnt moving at 99% of C? If we were moving at that speed, C will still appear the same as if earth was moving 50% of C right? So how do we know our velocity compared to C if the speed of light remains constant under all conditions? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bascule Posted January 3, 2006 Share Posted January 3, 2006 If the speed of light is relatively the same to all objects no matter the velocity, then how do we know that earth isnt moving at 99% of C? Relative to what? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pandakat Posted January 3, 2006 Share Posted January 3, 2006 The speed of light is constant for all observers relative to the observer. No one will percieve light as travelling slower or faster than approx. 3.0x10^8 m/s. Thus it would be possible for us to be travelling near the speed of light without being aware of it. But relative to what? Is there some "stationary" reference that we can relate our movement to? Although, I don't believe that we've found any stellar body to be moving away from us (or us moving away from it) at that speed, which is measured by the doppler effect: z = approx(v/c). if we were moving near the speed of light, say .99999c, the z value would be .99999. No z value has ever come that close to 1. So I'd say it's unlikely that we are moving that fast, at least not to anything we can see in the sky. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
[Tycho?] Posted January 3, 2006 Share Posted January 3, 2006 The speed of light is constant for all observers relative to the observer. No one will percieve light as travelling slower or faster than approx. 3.0x10^8 m/s. Thus it would be possible for us to be travelling near the speed of light without being aware of it. But relative to what? Is there some "stationary" reference that we can relate our movement to? Although' date=' I don't believe that we've found any stellar body to be moving away from us (or us moving away from it) at that speed, which is measured by the doppler effect: z = approx(v/c). if we were moving near the speed of light, say .99999c, the z value would be .99999. No z value has ever come that close to 1. So I'd say it's unlikely that we are moving that fast, at least not to anything we can see in the sky.[/quote'] Actually there have been z values for extremely distant galaxies that have been 3 or 4 or something. Want to say its impossible, that there is absolutely no way for anything to appear to be going faster than c? Well thats what I said, but I looked it up, and by gum it seems to be correct. So be sure to look it up before you come back and say that I'm wrong. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
entwined Posted January 3, 2006 Share Posted January 3, 2006 The speed of light is constant for all observers relative to the observer. No one will percieve light as travelling slower or faster than approx. 3.0x10^8 m/s. Just a question, not to start an argument, but if the speed of light is indeed constant to an observer, then what is this red shift and blue shift that we keep hearing about? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Klaynos Posted January 3, 2006 Share Posted January 3, 2006 Just a question, not to start an argument, but if the speed of light is indeed constant to an observer, then what is this red shift and blue shift that we keep hearing about? If objects are moving towards or away from an observer the EM radiation given off by them goes through a change in frequency depending in the speed of the movement. We can measure the frequency of the light and compare it with emission spectrums and work out the shift in frequency and from that deduce the velocity of the object. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
swansont Posted January 3, 2006 Share Posted January 3, 2006 Z-values > 1 account for the expansion of the intervening space. No object moved faster than c in local space. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Omicron91 Posted January 14, 2006 Share Posted January 14, 2006 Well I'm assuming that we can assume that we are not movign anywhere near that fast because we probably wouldn't see light from many other objects because it would blue/red shift right off to the edges of the spectrum. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
martinluther Posted January 14, 2006 Share Posted January 14, 2006 what a wonderful question. it is indeed correct that we are not moving that fast in relation to what we can observe, however, an explotion like the big bang (or rather like "a" big bang) would send matter rushing away from the epicenter at such incredibly high speeds that it may actually be fisible. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Klaynos Posted January 14, 2006 Share Posted January 14, 2006 We do infact use telescopes that measure light in other frequencies than visible light.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now