lemur Posted March 31, 2011 Share Posted March 31, 2011 Sure there is. Unless an object is in a vacuum, there is constant stream of oxygen molecules on it. I don't get the importance of a stream of light waves on an object, though. Other than making sure we see it later, what's the relevance? We can only see things that have light. That's about it for the relevance. No? I meant because light travels at maximum speed and everything else moves relative to that speed, the number of waves (peak, troughs, pick a reference point on the wave) remains fixed regardless of the motion or observed distance/time either observer. I.e. waves can shift to longer and shorter wavelengths but the number of waves is fixed because the amount of energy is fixed. "Number of waves" makes no sense. Do you mean 'number of peaks' perhaps, as in higher frequency? do you mean more intensity? What number of waves? Wavelength? Wavenumber (1/wavelength) ? I mean that frequency refers to #waves/second. For a speedy observer, the frequency increases though the speed of the waves is measured to be C. A really fast observer could measure lots of very high frequency x-rays because those waves are blueshifted radiowaves, while an observer at the source would view them as radiowaves because the source is not moving relative to the waves. Either way, the number of waves traversed during the journey of one to the other is the same, although time and distance may be measured differently for each. The moving traveller would measure the waves as x-rays and thus measure a much shorter journey that the observer viewing the waves as radio-waves, also moving at C relative to that vantage point. Am I getting this wrong? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
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 account
Already have an account? Sign in here.Sign In Now