>the speed of light is independent of the movement of the

File: 1439373464729.png (358KB, 502x419px) Image search: [Google]

358KB, 502x419px

>>7745565

File: doppler8.gif (116KB, 400x100px) Image search: [Google]

116KB, 400x100px

>>7745565

Picture the Dopplereffect. Even on a moving source the first wave front won't arrive faster at the destination, but it will cause the wave fronts to become shorter/wider depending on your view causing a blue or red shit.

From the perspective of the light source of course no shift at all happens

>>7746060
Well, I see what you mean, but it doesn't really help. I get how the doppler effect applies to both sound waves (an ambulance driving past) and light (blue or red shift). But doppler effect is wavelength, not speed.

For example, your gif is showing doppler effect of sound waves propagated by the car, and unlike light, sound waves are not independent of movement of the source or the observer. This is show in your gif by how the sound wave arriving at the right hand side arrive fast when the car is standing still, and slower once the car starts moving away to the right (so for an observer standing at the right hand side of the gif the sound waves would be arriving slightly slower than the standard speed of sound through air.

I guess this is what I'm trying to get at. You can make a gif represent sound waves, or waves in water, but it would be impossible to create a gif of how light waves work. Even though I get the concept on paper or in an abstract sense, I can't visualize it or create a visual or metaphorical representation.

I get that this doesn't matter, and that in a way there is nothing to get, but still...

>>7746553
>Even though I get the concept on paper or in an abstract sense, I can't visualize it or create a visual or metaphorical representation.

The universe is (approximated by) Minkowski spacetime, where instead of the ordinary Pythagorean relation holding, the distance ("interval") between two points in space-time ("events") is instead s^2 = space^2 - time^2.

So just take some graph paper, denote one axis as "space" and the other "time" and start drawing straight lines to represent objects moving through space at a constant velocity. Just remember to mark down their real lengths, instead of their Euclidean ones. Light rays are 45° angles.

>>7745565

Sounds interesting, haven't heard this before.

Firing cannon ball from opposite moving vehicle at fired speed would make ball drop on the spot. But wave velocity equals frequency times wavelength. When wave source moves wavelength increases as dopplereffect shows and frequency stays same then velocity should not change that much. So yes it sounds counterintuitive.

I need to think this a little bit..

>>7746590
thank you

Thanks a lot, now this bothers me too. Can't figure it out. Specially with sound which is mechanical wave.

>>7745565
Something about these old school clothes ...

>>7747865
Yessir! And old-school 18-year-old Demi Moore w/ tiny titties. I'd post her hairy bush, but this is blue board

>>7745565
>Obviously I accept it as true

>This is the most counterintuitive thing to me
>bothers the fuck out of me

You are everything wrong with the direction the world is going. Blindly accepting information as true when you don't even understand it.

>>7748213
If we didn't do this we'd rarely learn anything new.

Do you understand exactly how every aspect of your television works? Does this limit you from knowing how to change the volume? You're not going to build your own television.

Other people proved it. There's evidence and documented proof. Me reaffirming this is a waste of time unless I'm trying to expand upon it.

But if our sun is moving, then its going the speed of light B-)

>>7748205
>old school hairy bush

There's also something about old school photography, the softer lighting, the colors, the stark contrasting of dark pussy hair against women's light skin, delineating a beautiful triangle, directing all the attention to her sex

Please post it on /s/ and link me

>>7748213
Nothing in my original post implies blind acceptance. I just said it is counterintuitive and was hoping for ways to help solidify my understanding.

>>7745565
>This is the most counterintuitive thing to me.
I can't think of a way to make it less counterintuitive for you but maybe it's comforting to think that it's only counterintuitive because it only becomes noticeable in situations you'll never experience firsthand. If we were able to move at speeds near light then relativity would be as natural as newtonian stuff. In one of my physics classes the teacher showed us a video like this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JQnHTKZBTI4
It doesn't make it intuitive, but I found it was helpful for visualizing the effects of relativity.

>>7746060

I used to explain the doppler shift quite differently. The explanation was usually to explain the use of radar to measure the speed of vehicles. (I used to work at a police radar company.)

First, consider a tennis ball. If you throw a tennis ball at a vehicle coming toward you, it will come back faster than what you threw. If the car is going away from you, the ball comes back slower. If you measure the speed of the ball going and coming, you can determine the speed of the car.

The trick is that in both cases, the energy of the tennis ball is related to the speed. You are indirectly measuring the kinetic energy of the tennis ball. The faster it is going, the higher the energy; the slower, the lower the energy.

When you use electromagnetic waves instead of a tennis ball, the speed doesn't matter because it will always be the same speed. Instead, you measure the energy by measuring the wavelength. If the car is coming toward you, the wavelength is shorter signifying that the energy is higher. When it is going away from you, the wavelength is longer and the energy is lower. By measuring the wavelength of the electromagnetic wave returned and compare that to the electromagnetic wave sent, you determine whether the energy is greater (coming toward you) or less (going away from you) and how much of a difference (the more, the higher the speed).

So it doesn't matter if you are throwing tennis balls or using radar, you are using the energy to determine the speed of the vehicle.

Oddly enough, because I preferred that explanation over the usual explanation, the lawyers would never put me on the stand as an expert witness. They felt that my explanation would confuse the jury. I don't understand it, because I thought (and still think) that my explanation is far clearer than the usual explanation.

>>7750087
Yeah, I think this is at the heart of the problem

File: red shift light.png (17KB, 1464x632px) Image search: [Google]

17KB, 1464x632px

>>7745565

The best way to think about it is that the speed of causality is independent of the movement of of "stuff" and/or the inertial frame of reference of the observer. Massless "objects" just happen to travel at this speed.

I made this stupid diagram. The point is that the light takes the same amount of time to get to any particular distance away from the object moving. The light gets to the same distance at the same time. The difference is that it gets there either red-shifted or blue-shifted depending on the direction of the object.