Nasa worth it? (thread split)

**Salodin** · 2013-02-01 11:26

So let's say if something that can generate a laser is moving at half the speed of light, then turns on its laser, the laser will only move at half its normal speed, and not actually at the speed of light? So instead of moving 1 1/2x the speed of light, it just won't move faster than light?

**Mizango** · 2013-02-01 12:25

Nothing moves faster than light. I mean, Theoretical physicists like Smolin and Joao Magueijo tinker with and write about VSL, but it is purely theoretical.

NOTHING. EVER. EVER. NADA. Moves faster than that.

**Jaybar** · 2013-02-01 12:40

Originally Posted by Salodin

So let's say if something that can generate a laser is moving at half the speed of light, then turns on its laser, the laser will only move at half its normal speed, and not actually at the speed of light? So instead of moving 1 1/2x the speed of light, it just won't move faster than light?

Relativity.

**Waraji** · 2013-02-01 12:44

Has theoretical physics yet determined a theoretical unit of measure of relative speed/time for say wormhole travel? Or is it hypothesized speed/time cease to exist within that space(if you can call it space)?

It just seems apparent that SOL travel would be a terrible mode of travel between, essentially, anywhere outside of our current system. Therefore the next best thing would be focusing on how to bend space/time.

**Viena** · 2013-02-01 12:45

Originally Posted by Mizango

Originally Posted by archibaldcrane

And the further you are from the sun the less force it would generate right? Also, say you're going .05c, getting laser-assisted across the solar system - would you only be getting 95% of that laser energy compared to if you were going, like, 10 mph? Like, the laser light is hitting the receptor "less quickly" since you're moving away from it at 1/20th of its speed?

Correct

Are you sure about that second part? I'm no physicist, but I was under the impression that the relative speed of light would be invariant. I'll probably inquire my physicist friends regarding this.

**Mizango** · 2013-02-01 13:35

Responded to first question.

**Mizango** · 2013-02-01 13:35

Didnt have time this am to get into full detail.

**Salodin** · 2013-02-01 17:27

Question about light in general (maybe should go to lhc but w/e). Why does light from a star travel for millions of years, but light from my light bulb travels until I turn off my light switch? Likewise, lasers are focused light right? So why don't they do the same?

**archibaldcrane** · 2013-02-01 17:29

not sure if

**Salodin** · 2013-02-01 17:38

I know, it sounds stupid =(. I'm trying to word it right but its not coming out. I probably answered it myself, I'm just trying to understand the earlier point of a moving object projecting light, and light moving out at a slower speed because it just can't move faster then its apparent cap.

**Jeryhn** · 2013-02-01 17:46

Originally Posted by Salodin

Question about light in general (maybe should go to lhc but w/e). Why does light from a star travel for millions of years, but light from my light bulb travels until I turn off my light switch? Likewise, lasers are focused light right? So why don't they do the same?

The answer to your question is that space generally has little matter for the light to bounce off of or be absorbed by. That's why you can see starlight even though its really far away.

You don't see the light after you've turned off your light switch because of the matter that comprises your room, the atmosphere, etc.

EDIT: To answer the other question about the relative speed of light, well, the speed of light is absolute. Nothing can travel at the speed of light except light, so light won't magically "go faster" if emitted from a moving object.

**Qalbert** · 2013-02-01 17:56

how does all the extra light from DST get stored. Is there like a big battery and then later they can pump it back into the sun?

**Jeryhn** · 2013-02-01 18:09

Actually, that's just sunlight redistribution. You see, there are about 1% of people who enjoy about 99% of the sun. So they take away an hour from everyone and that redistribute it to that 1% after a couple of months of hiding it in offshore sun accounts.

**Seraph** · 2013-02-01 18:14

Originally Posted by Salodin

I know, it sounds stupid =(. I'm trying to word it right but its not coming out. I probably answered it myself, I'm just trying to understand the earlier point of a moving object projecting light, and light moving out at a slower speed because it just can't move faster then its apparent cap.

Turning off the switch doesn't stop the existing light from traveling, it stops new light from being generated from the source. The same thing happens when a star burns out. The difference though, is that you have X lightyears of distance between you and the star, and Y feet to the lamp (1 light year = 3.1038470 * 10^16 feet. That's a shit-ton of feet). The duration of time that the light 'persists' for you at your location relative to when the 'light source went out' is directly proportionate to your distance from the source.

Assuming you were not trolling people, I hope that helps to answer your question.

**Salodin** · 2013-02-01 18:22

Originally Posted by Seraph

Turning off the switch doesn't stop the existing light from traveling, it stops new light from being generated from the source. The same thing happens when a star burns out. The difference though, is that you have X lightyears of distance between you and the star, and Y feet to the lamp (1 light year = 3.1038470 * 10^16 feet. That's a shit-ton of feet). The duration of time that the light 'persists' for you at your location relative to when the 'light source went out' is directly proportionate to your distance from the source.

Assuming you were not trolling people, I hope that helps to answer your question.

The persistence of the light is the question I wanted answered. Thanks!

Thread: Nasa worth it? (thread split)

Thread Tools

Latest Threads

Up & Coming Threads

Hottest Threads