If two rockets move away from each other at the speed of light,

wow congrats bro you broke the universe

heres your nobel prize

>>8316407
lorentz addition

Lorentz is rolling in his grave

>>8316407

Here OP
http://youtu.be/ZAPOjcCfHqc

>>8316410
>Lorentz is rotating in his grave
Fixed.

>>8316416
>rotation has an inertial frame
faggot

>>8316407
No, they are still going at the speed of light relative to each other. Physics is a fucking joke.

File: 34d006f321f50dfe304a464ef11cce09.jpg (17KB, 564x430px) Image search: [Google]

17KB, 564x430px

>>8316422
Yeah sounds like it. I heard that many physicists have been Jewish. Up to their usual dirty tricks I see. The theory of relativity is just an attempt to try to codify cultural relativity in science. No such thing as an absolute reference frame? Sure there is, it's called God, duh. Clueless cultural marxists.

>>8316422
>>8316429

http://youtu.be/jRKz82v5JQY

>>8316420
look everyone, an autist doesn't understand a joke

>>8316484
looks like you didn't understand mine either

>>8316407
So nobody is going to give a serious answer to this question?

Did physicists actually get BTFO?

>>8316504
nothing with mass can move at the speed of light, so there can be no serious answer

the is a serious answer iif it were say 90% of the speed of light

a third observer will see the two rockets moving at 90% of the speed of light, apart from each other.

people on the rockets would see something different, as speed is not the same for all observers, they'd see the other rocket travel at (0.9+0.9)/(1 + 0.9^2) of the speed of light, about 0.994.

this is lorentz addition, mentioned in this thread

i don't get why people to know the topic is relativity, but still expect speed to be universal, instead of relative.

File: Autism as Context Blindness.png (276KB, 343x445px) Image search: [Google]

276KB, 343x445px

>>8316514

>>8316407
>If two rockets move away from each other at the speed of light

Do they have mass?

>>8316514
>a third observer will see the two rockets moving at 90% of the speed of light, apart from each other.

Well a third observer would observe their relative velocity to each other as 1.8c. That is the gap between the two would appear to increase at 1.8c.

>>8316777
that's correct.

This is literally the first thing they teach you in any book or article about special relativity.

Look up the Lorentz transformation

>>8316734
>contributes nothing but an old old meme

>>8316514
>nothing with mass can move at the speed of light
Okay, so forget the rockets, then. Would light traversing in one direction see other light moving in the opposite direction at twice the speed of light?

File: no.jpg (26KB, 564x490px) Image search: [Google]

26KB, 564x490px

>>8316407
No, no no no.

>>8316788
so delta x increases at 1.8c

delta x is faster than light

>>8318116
it's beyond its event horizon

it would not be able to see it, as if it didn't exist

Get this.

The photons don't transmit information to each other, so """""relative 2c""""" is permissible.

>>8318144
No delta x is greater than c.
3000000000000 is also greater than c but it has no practical effect on physics.

>>8318116
Light has no experience of time. Due to time dilation, if you travel at lightspeed then all events are instantaneous. So it doesn't really make sense to ask at what speed light sees other light moving.

>>8318151
But we could use two objects moving at the speed of light in opposite directions to double the amount of information being transmitted at the speed of light