Would it be accurate to relate the curve of the balloon to the curvature of space? If we look back at the idea of the map maker trying to make a distant object on the Earth, would the expanding of space be like the Earth was growing/inflating while he was doing so?
Hmm... Kinetic energy is mv2, like you say--mass * velocity2 / 2. This means that if you double the velocity, you quadruple the kinetic energy. What does this mean for our cars? Would the impact be worse, or is that extra energy accounted for by the distance the two cars slide after the 100 mph...
I've been sitting here thinking about collisions, deceleration, and conservation of momentum, and I just want to see if I'm on the right track.
For a start, let's say we crash a car into a solid, "unmovable" wall at 50 mph, and measure the results. If we then take two cars identical to that...
This seems a little obvious to point out, but you can't travel at exactly the speed of light. If you picked a speed like 0.999c instead, then yes, the light would still be c with respect to you.
You can't mix and match measurements from different frames, so don't even worry about using the clock in the ship and the distance measured from the ground. You'll never get a real result from that. Basically, because of time dilation and everything, it's perfectly acceptable for you to get...
You're still trying to work out speed using clocks in the moving ship and distances measured from at rest. Like PassionFlower said earlier, if you use that logic you can conclude that you traveled faster than light if you make a 10 lightyear long journey (measured from rest) in only 5 years...
See, what relativity forbids is for you to measure your brother as coming towards you faster than light while you're traveling towards each other. You're not taking measurements when this happens, thus relativity isn't being violated. All of your measurements are coming from the ground frame, so...
Even if you use a ground clock, so all of your measurements really did come from one frame, you'd still come to the conclusion everyone keeps telling you: according to the ground measurements, the closing speed between the two ships was 1.5c. If you come to the incorrect conclusion that someone...
Which is exactly why you're getting a result according to the ground frame, where the closing distance is allowed to be 1.5c. If you come to the conclusion that someone moved faster than c from that then it's your own fault for using measurements from one frame in a different frame.
I'm just wondering if you're trolling everyone at this point. You're saying yourself that all your measurements are made from the ground's frame--that is, when everything is standing still before the experiment. You've been told again and again that from the ground's frame--from those...
That's where people start telling you you're wrong. What you're not getting is that you're using distances measured in one frame of reference and then telling us to ignore that frame of reference. It doesn't matter if there's ground or not. The closing speed is only 1.5c according to the...