Recent content by grounded

Thanks guys for all the replies and help, I got what I was looking for. You can close this thread.

Thank you for the replies, however that’s not exactly what I was looking for, but I am aware of all of that, at least I think I am. My social skills are not the best, let me rephrase my question…. If I were to calculate the speed of light by measuring the frequency and wavelength of light...

I understand the relativistic effects at high speeds, what accounts for the constant speed of light at low speeds? Example... If I travel towards a beam of light at 25 MPH, I will still measure the light as traveling towards me at the speed of light and not the speed of light plus 25 MPH.

Well, the relativistic Doppler effect is just the standard Doppler effect with the added Lorentz factor. And if the standard Doppler effect can change the frequency AND the wavelength, then the speed of light would remain constant even without the Lorentz factor, so it could not be the cause of...

Thank you all for the replies… To save some time, I know it’s a fact that the speed of light is constant, I am not arguing or questioning that. I am not pushing my theory (been here a while and I know the rules) or arguing with yours, just trying to understand it better. I am not adding...

Ok, if I were to travel towards the source of light at 55 mph, without knowing about special relativity, I would expect to measure the speed of light plus 55 mph. What is believed to cause this difference since it's obviously not the Lorentz factor?

I keep hearing that the relative speed of light remains constant because time and lengths change with speed, what I believe is called the Lorentz factor. At slow speeds the Lorentz factor is extremely small, so what do people believe accounts for the rest of the change? If I travel...

That's what I thought, just wanted to make sure. Thank you...

Can anyone tell me if the following is correct? Traveling directly towards a source of light at some constant speed, we will measure its frequency to be higher (compared to rest frequency) than what we would expect when using Newton’s laws. Just as traveling away from the source, we would...

The idea of an expanding universe is said to be proven by using the calculated distance of a Cepheid star from us, and the amount of change in the wavelengths of light emitted from the Cepheid star relative to us. There must be another way to prove the universe is expanding since the...

I must be missing something simple, I thought the PE of the ball at the top of the hill is equal to the KE of the ball at the bottom of the hill? (minus friction) Isn't the potential amount of energy the ball can have equal to the the energy the ball can obtain by falling or rolling?

Wait, I'm wrong. PE is not the energy required to hold the object from falling, its basically what KE can be at different distances. In that sense they are equal.

I'm not arguing, just trying to understand if the 2nd law of thermodynamics applies only for heat to mechanical or if it applies to all forms off energy tranformation. It seems logical to me that the amount of energy required to stop the ball from falling should always be more than just the...

Is there ANY way for ANY type of energy to be transformed from one form to another with no losses, a perfect 100% efficiency? Thank you...

Hi Rico Here is how I understand it, someone please correct me if I am wrong: Photons are created from the destruction of mass, simular to how fire is created from the burning of wood. The photons were created from the mass at some point, just as the fire was created from the wood. The...