haha well my degree will show physics as a minor, but the classes are there in my transcript hehe
oh i'd say you're incorrect about the referenced speed of light....it is equivalent to 299,792,458 meters per second, but nature knows no meter, nor does it know any second....those numbers are based on our units of time and space, now a days defined by us from radiation from cesium-133 atoms.....the speed of light by any other measurement would cause the same results on our spacetime......it is a true constant regardless of what reference is chosen to measure it....in any referece frame, by any number system conceivable, c (not as defined by us numerically, but simply read -the speed of light-, in its purest form) is constant.......this is the very reason absolute time and absolute space were abolished when relativity "came to light" in 1905
Einstein's speed limit still applies alright, in the sense that nothing with mass can ever reach the speed of light, which is not a "speed limit" in the sense that it can
be reached and not exceed it...the photon itself is always moving at c in a vacuum since it is the carrier of electromagnetism
Originally Posted by 94 Daily Driven 4.6L
Relative to the driver , (assuming he isn’t pure energy…) the photons would appear to be traveling away at the speed of light.
Relative to a stationary observer within the universe (assuming he had real quick vision), the photons would appear to be traveling at 2x the speed of light and assuming the driver is approaching him. (Don't forget about Doppler shifts).
Relative to a stationary observer outside the universe the photons would appear to be traveling at multiple times the speed of light (assuming the universe is expanding at a c+ rate and the flashlight is headed towards the observer.)
cant believe i missed these...lol......first sentence is correct....the next two are absolutely incorrect.....show me the relativistic Lorentzian tranformation calculations that permit this, and i'll eat all my words
two-words: spacetime contraction