wormholeman

I think this is a hypothetical question, regarding

the lightbulb moving at c.

It is incorrect because the speed of light is the same for all inertial observers. The light will come towards you at c no matter what speed the light source is moving away or towards you.

hmm, heres a thought. To think in this manner, obviosly when the light bulb

is facing you the light from it would have to allways be reaching you, because

in order for the light bulb to be put in front of you it has to stop, which

makes the light allways hit your face. But, if the light bulb is facing you

and suddenly it went at 186,000 mph away from you then the light

would move away at 186,000 mph.

I think that makes sence.

It is incorrect because the speed of light is the same for all inertial observers. The light will come towards you at c no matter what speed the light source is moving away or towards you.

Ohhhh cool! Ya I see what your saying.

If a luminous source that is a digital system, meaning it can be on or off, say a lightbulb, is turned on, but at the exact same moment is launched away from your vision at the speed of light, what would one see. I belive that observer would not see anything. The light would not have had enough time to travel to his/her retina (is it retina? im no optometrist) because the source of the light is being shot away from that persons vision as quickly as the light can travel, therefore the light emited from the lightbulb would not travel away, because those opposite rays would double the speed of light. What do you think?

If that was possible, I believe your right.

this has been bugging me for ages' date=' this whole twins and one in a rocket at near c thing.

 

if I`m stationary in space (I`ll do it there as opposed to a train and station for reasons that`ll become clear later), and a spaceship with my twin passes me at near c BUT at a constant speed, time will go slower for him than it will for me, but WHY? I`m moving just as fast relative to him in the other direction, so Who is getting "Younger"?

Gravity is playing little part as is mass (that would occur on a train and station on a large Earth).

 

who is to say WHO is actualy moving, what dictates the one whos time goes slower:confused:[/quote']

 

To answer your question on the bases of my thinking. Why I think time would

go slower for your twin is because your twin is moving at near c, but you say

at a constant speed, but because he is at a constant speed. Your twin, I think would be on another level of time and because your twin is traveling at a speed, he had to have accellerated somehow, and because you are not moving and are stationary, time stays neutral for you.

Ya, thats interesting..Also note that in here in canada there is a crater very large also. I dont know much about it but there is one in canada too.

Hi! Today after I logged on the internet a news artical opened my eyes

abit about some scientists in the U.S somehow were able

to create a tremendous amount of energy in the form of heat.

I thought It would be cool to post this to see some reactions from

people about this. I read it carefully, It's pretty cool!

But the even more interesting thing about the expirement was

the fact the scientists dont know how they did it!

They speculated it was some unknown energy that was the culprit.

Would be cool to know how it happened.

They used a Z - machine http://www.livescience.com/technology/050607_z_machine.html

"Trying is the first step towards failer"

Homer.S

heehee.

@ Silkworm -I don't get why you want me to think of it as heat, you did already say that

there would be nothing.

Temperature is not defined with the internal energy of atoms. Temperature is defined by the kinetic [/u'] energy of atoms, the motion of atoms. The internal energy of atoms are not part of temperature definition.

So Silkworm and you are trying to say that, Aboslute zero is

when there is total void and theres absolutely nothing no temprature

no heat and not as cold as it can be.

I get it.

Well I'm going with the blonde guy on this one.

just like the blonde guy said:

" So that is as cold as the atoms can be. We call that Absolute Zero.

I get it! When the atoms are all stopped the gas is ABSOLUTELY as cold as can be!

Yes, and that is really cold. The thermometer shows a comparison of the Absolute (also known as the Kelvin) and Fahrenheit scales of temperature. Absolute Zero is -459 degrees Fahrenheit. "

Yes it is the number of nothing, but it dose not mean zero kelvin has

no temperature.

Someone help me here..

"You can't make something 0K because it is the temperature of nothing"

Ya, but I wouldn't jump to conclusions.

"a Scottish physicist and mathematician calculated that molecular motion stops at -273 deg C. He called this temperature absolute zero, the lowest possible temperature."

Notice how Lord kelvin say's "lowest possible temperature".

Ahh but wait..Zero (0) is nothing. Zero Kelvin (0k) is something.

Absolutely nothing? are you serious?

that is interesting. But it is also abit scarey.

why is there no ^{o[/sup'] when talking about Kelvin? Isn't any temperature measured in degrees by default?}

^{Check this out. It talks about degrees in kelvin.}

^{http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=kelvin}

It is difficult for me to say what and exactly where and how to get to zero kelvin. Mabey it's impossible for it to exist. Is not zero kelvin reffering to the coolest temprature? I don't think it has to do with nothing silkworm. Even on

a thermometre there is zero celcious and that dose not mean there is no temprature. When I defined nothing, I was just pointng out nothing is nothing and nothing more. thats what I beleive anyhow.

Mabey, who ever wants to try cooling an enviroment to zero kelvin they would just

need a strong and more efficiant cooling device.

Ya, I did change it.

I have a stupid question that I honestly don't know the answer to:

Is it possible to build a flashlight that is powered by body heat? Say you just simply clutch it and the heat from your hand powers the flashlight? I wouldn't expect it to be uber efficient tho...

probobley.

Even though I see you dont have a battery in the battery-free flash light

and you can get a certain amount of volts which are not enough. Couldn't

you just build a tiny inverter?

I dont know just an idea.

What do guys think would happen if someone cooled an enviroment to zero Kelvin? sounds dangerous to me.

I understand why you would think nothing to have zero kalvin.

but how do you know "nothing" is at zero kalvin. Nothing

defines absolutley nothing and that would mean even no temprature.

Absolute zero is 0 K, not 0 C. You never saw this happen on a thermometer - there is no thermometer that can read the coldest temperatures that have been attained.

This truly made me think more about it.

Thanks swansont.