Thread replies: 14
Thread images: 1
Thread images: 1
File: tumblr_oenvl6wKrh1uvues3o1_500.jpg (101KB, 500x509px) Image search:
[Google]
101KB, 500x509px
I'm having a difficult time understanding relativity, just from a perspective of someone trying to visualize the process. I know a few things about it. I know that time and space and length are not absolute, and this change takes more of an effect approaching light speed. Also, the speed of light is constant. Things gain mass and contract and time slows down when approaching light speed. These are all things I know you already know, but I just want you to know what I already know.
What I am really having difficult with is trying to understand the michelson morley experiment. What confuses me, is that when a person who is in a space shuttle going close to the speed of light emits a light going to the front and back of the space shuttle, the one in the space shuttle who emits the light will see both beams hit the front and back of the ship at the same time. A person observing the light being emitted from outside of the shit who is at rest, though, will see the beam hitting the back of the ship before the one that hits the front of it.
So supposedly since the space shuttle is going close to the speed of light, to an observer who is at rest outside of the ship, the beam going towards the front of the ship will be trying to "catch up" to the front of the ship. If this is true, then I don't understand how both beams of light emitted from earth wouldn't hit the detector at different speeds. If the earth was moving into light from the sun, it seems only natural that the speed of light would be earth's speed going towards the light + the speed of light itself. The speed of light never changed, but it wouldn't make sense not to add the speed of the earth. It's like the difference between ramming into a car head on, both going rather fast, or ramming into a car from behind, which is moving away from you. Obviously you will hit it at a much slower speed.
Please help me understand this, it escapes my comprehension.
>>
The only thing that is constant for us on earth is the rotation of earth itself. How we see light is relative to the rotation of earth. One can even say that a small fraction of light takes longer to reach us because of how gravity curves some of the light coming from the sun.
>brainlet here just trying to help you visualize what some may seem as a form of abstraction
>>
>>8755825
In your example, the earth is the spaceship so the observer sees the light simultaneously.
An observer not on the earth would measure different times for light from the sun to the earth, just like an observer watching the ship.
The earth/sun system is moving relatively slow so the effect wouldn't be large, but it's there.
>>
>>8755825
>This makes me wonder
How far would the shadow of earth reach in length?
>>
>>8755825
You've happened into a paradox
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ladder_paradox
>it seems only natural that the speed of light would be earth's speed going towards the light + the speed of light itself
That might seem natural but it's wrong.
>>
>>8755825
When you add the speed (v/t) of the earth, time adjusts to make the speed still the speed of light.
>>
>>8755825
Play the game called "a lower speed of light". I had a good grasp on it to begin with but after finishing it I had a much better intuitive grasp. It's a download but it's free and fun to boot.
>>
>>8755881
I assume infinitely.
>>
>>8756171
>a lower speed of light
Looks pretty interesting. Thanks.
>>
>>8756184
What happens to light that is moving past the earth but slightly bend due to gravity from earth? When all those beams of light bend, they will at some point collide right? Will there still be a shadow?
>>
>>8756213
Well, considering if the shadow is bent even slightly around the earth it won't be infinite then no. I assume that the bending of light around earth's gravity has something to do with the lights reaching earth at constant speeds, without adding the speed of the earth. If that is what you're getting at...
>>
>>8756228
Well, to amend what I just said, I guess that anything that moves towards light would slow down time in the time space continuum. I assume that is why anything which is moving towards light will subtract it's speed from the speed of the light coming towards it. I don't know.
>>
So could someone correct me if I'm wrong? Whatever is moving towards a source of light slows down in time, and contracts in length. So if you measured something moving towards light, you wouldn't add it's speed to the speed of light moving towards it, because it slows down in time. Since speed is distance / time, it could be traveling the same distance and it would seem like it would be traveling at a normal time frame from an internal reference point.
>>
>>8756213
I think there will still be a shadow. A "shadow" isn't the abscence of light, just a place of lower intensity light compared to its surroundings. As long as the light that bends around the earth is not as bright as the light that goes by the earth with minimal bending, you could still say that the earth casts a shadow.
Thread posts: 14
Thread images: 1
Thread images: 1