How Does Relativity Affect Our Perception of Light and Time?

neh4pres
Messages
45
Reaction score
0
[SOLVED] light and time

ok from what i understand if I am traveling just under the speed of light and looking foward the the light is aproching me at 186000 mps... there's 2 unites of measure here distance and time.. from what i know my time slows.. so the light seems to be reaching me at the speed of light instead of allmost double the speed of light... here's where my thought experiments come in.. if i turn around and look back in the direction I am coming from and time for me is still slow it should seem that light would be reaching me at 1/4 the speed of light. i know this not to be true... but it seems that if I am looking behind me at close to the speed of light my time would have to speed up to compensate and make me and any insterments percieve that the speed of light is still 186000miles per second
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Only to the observer who sees you moving at that high speed will your clocks run slowly. As far as you are concerned, your clocks run just as they always do.
 
neither time dilation nor length contraction can explain why both the light coming at you head-on and the light coming from behind both appear to you to be moving at the same speed. that is where loss of simultaneity comes in.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Relativity_of_simultaneity
 
ok i realize that to me everything is normal and and my clocks runing to an observer explaines y light coming at me from in front still seems to come at me at 186000 mp(s) cause (s) seconds are slower for me... however if i look backwords light will need to be coming at me at 186000mps... however won't my clock observed from someone watching me have to be running faster for this to happen..
 
ok thanks granpa .. i will look into this... not a bad question for someone who gets their knowledge from sci channel
 
I started reading a National Geographic article related to the Big Bang. It starts these statements: Gazing up at the stars at night, it’s easy to imagine that space goes on forever. But cosmologists know that the universe actually has limits. First, their best models indicate that space and time had a beginning, a subatomic point called a singularity. This point of intense heat and density rapidly ballooned outward. My first reaction was that this is a layman's approximation to...
Thread 'Dirac's integral for the energy-momentum of the gravitational field'
See Dirac's brief treatment of the energy-momentum pseudo-tensor in the attached picture. Dirac is presumably integrating eq. (31.2) over the 4D "hypercylinder" defined by ##T_1 \le x^0 \le T_2## and ##\mathbf{|x|} \le R##, where ##R## is sufficiently large to include all the matter-energy fields in the system. Then \begin{align} 0 &= \int_V \left[ ({t_\mu}^\nu + T_\mu^\nu)\sqrt{-g}\, \right]_{,\nu} d^4 x = \int_{\partial V} ({t_\mu}^\nu + T_\mu^\nu)\sqrt{-g} \, dS_\nu \nonumber\\ &= \left(...
In Philippe G. Ciarlet's book 'An introduction to differential geometry', He gives the integrability conditions of the differential equations like this: $$ \partial_{i} F_{lj}=L^p_{ij} F_{lp},\,\,\,F_{ij}(x_0)=F^0_{ij}. $$ The integrability conditions for the existence of a global solution ##F_{lj}## is: $$ R^i_{jkl}\equiv\partial_k L^i_{jl}-\partial_l L^i_{jk}+L^h_{jl} L^i_{hk}-L^h_{jk} L^i_{hl}=0 $$ Then from the equation: $$\nabla_b e_a= \Gamma^c_{ab} e_c$$ Using cartesian basis ## e_I...

Similar threads

Replies
11
Views
2K
Replies
6
Views
1K
Replies
5
Views
1K
Replies
20
Views
2K
Replies
10
Views
6K
Replies
16
Views
2K
Replies
31
Views
2K
Replies
45
Views
6K
Back
Top