What if instead of a car, we were in an airplane and the airplane is on a treadmill that is going nearly the speed of light in the other direction. What would happen?
What if instead of a car, we were in an airplane and the airplane is on a treadmill that is going nearly the speed of light in the other direction. What would happen?
oh please wrote:
It's all relative ...
What would happen if you were in an elevator that was plummeting to Earth, but in the split second before you jumped up ... ?
you wouldn't be able to with all those G's on you.
Not Einstein wrote:
According to the theory of relativity (as I understand it), if you were traveling at close to light speed, and you turned on your headlights, the light produced by your headlights would still appear to move away from you at the speed of light. In other words, from your perspective, it would be as though you were standing still relative to the light that was being emitted from your headlights.
However, from the point of view of a "stationary" observer, like someone on earth's surface (even though that's technically not stationary), it would appear as though the light emitted from your headlights was only moving fractionally faster than you.
It seems weird, and it is when you think about it from a classical physics perspective, as we are used to doing, but the reason it works this way is because there is no absolute reference point from which to make measurements, instead, we each make "relative" measurements based on our own perspective, which are all equally correct. Hence the reason for the name, the theory of relativity. To all of these observers, light always moves at the speed of light, regardless of the observer's motion.
I just spent the last 3 weeks researching and doing a paper on relativity, and you pretty much have it right. As for the sign, it starts getting tricky. Thats when variables such as time and at what perspective and speed that sing is at in relativity to the car.
Here is an equally interesting question.
Lets say a car was designed aerodynamically so as to produce an amount of downforce unrealistically large. So large in fact that the downforce became greater than the force exerted on the car by gravity (that is to say, if you were driving along a very long scale, the cars weight would increase quickly as you accelerated and began creating more downforce)
Could you drive this car upside down in a tunnel? How would you get there? Could you stay there? The downforce would become "up"force (or lift, if you prefer) at that point...
P.Whelan wrote:
Here is an equally interesting question.
Lets say a car was designed aerodynamically so as to produce an amount of downforce unrealistically large. So large in fact that the downforce became greater than the force exerted on the car by gravity (that is to say, if you were driving along a very long scale, the cars weight would increase quickly as you accelerated and began creating more downforce)
Could you drive this car upside down in a tunnel? How would you get there? Could you stay there? The downforce would become "up"force (or lift, if you prefer) at that point...
Airplanes do that all the time. I suppose the tunnel would have to have rounded sides that you could drive up in order for this to work.
It sounds like you're describing an airplane with wheels on the top.
Not Einstein wrote:
According to the theory of relativity (as I understand it), if you were traveling at close to light speed, and you turned on your headlights, the light produced by your headlights would still appear to move away from you at the speed of light. In other words, from your perspective, it would be as though you were standing still relative to the light that was being emitted from your headlights.
However, from the point of view of a "stationary" observer, like someone on earth's surface (even though that's technically not stationary), it would appear as though the light emitted from your headlights was only moving fractionally faster than you.
It seems weird, and it is when you think about it from a classical physics perspective, as we are used to doing, but the reason it works this way is because there is no absolute reference point from which to make measurements, instead, we each make "relative" measurements based on our own perspective, which are all equally correct. Hence the reason for the name, the theory of relativity. To all of these observers, light always moves at the speed of light, regardless of the observer's motion.
Great answer. You explained this much more eloquently than I ever could. I had a hard time wrapping my mind around it when my AP physics teacher taught it to us in high school. I have since learned to appreciate that physics, especially at the atomic and sub-atomic levels, often does not make intuitive sense. Doesn't mean I understand it though!
P.Whelan wrote:
Here is an equally interesting question.
Lets say a car was designed aerodynamically so as to produce an amount of downforce unrealistically large. So large in fact that the downforce became greater than the force exerted on the car by gravity (that is to say, if you were driving along a very long scale, the cars weight would increase quickly as you accelerated and began creating more downforce)
Could you drive this car upside down in a tunnel? How would you get there? Could you stay there? The downforce would become "up"force (or lift, if you prefer) at that point...
Indy cars at high enough speed can and do produce a downforce greater than the weight of the car. They actually could drive along a sideways or an upside-down track. Don't slow down, though.