Moderators: Calilasseia, ADParker
Evolving wrote:The delay between the initial flash and the brightening of the halo represents the time taken for the light to travel, and because we know how fast light travels, we can calculate how far away the supernova is by measuring that delay.
Newstein wrote:When a object passes at high speed, he said the time is different for both viewers.
Newstein wrote:When a object passes at high speed, he said the time is different for both viewers.
But when you look at a moving object far away, it takes some time to see the object because the light has to reach you.
If it passes right in front of you (closest), you will get no extra delay of observation (except the time needed to reach your eyes) but when it is further away from you, the extra time or observation delay will be there because of Pythagoras...
Evolving wrote:Sound doesn't travel at a constant speed. Light does (in a vacuum), for every observer; that is the whole point of special relativity.
Newstein wrote:Evolving wrote:Sound doesn't travel at a constant speed. Light does (in a vacuum), for every observer; that is the whole point of special relativity.
That has nothing to do about it.
If an object is stationary at 1 lightsecond away from you, you will see it after 1 second.
If an object if moving at lightspeed to the right, the object will be 1 lightsecond away from that point in 1 second.
The observer will see the moving object in that point in exactly 1,41421 seconds. (square(2)) That's a delay of 0.41421.. seconds
Evolving wrote:Newstein wrote:Evolving wrote:Sound doesn't travel at a constant speed. Light does (in a vacuum), for every observer; that is the whole point of special relativity.
That has nothing to do about it.
If an object is stationary at 1 lightsecond away from you, you will see it after 1 second.
If an object if moving at lightspeed to the right, the object will be 1 lightsecond away from that point in 1 second.
The observer will see the moving object in that point in exactly 1,41421 seconds. (square(2)) That's a delay of 0.41421.. seconds
I think I'm beginning to see what you're getting at, and my response is basically what I said in my first reply to you: yes, in practice we have to take into account the different distances (from the observer) at which light is emitted at different times; if we don't do that, we get utterly wrong results.
Newstein wrote:Evolving wrote:Sound doesn't travel at a constant speed. Light does (in a vacuum), for every observer; that is the whole point of special relativity.
That has nothing to do about it.
If an object is stationary at 1 lightsecond away from you, you will see it after 1 second.
If an object if moving at lightspeed to the right, the object will be 1 lightsecond away from that point in 1 second.
The observer will see the moving object in that point in exactly 1,41421 seconds. (square(2)) That's a delay of 0.41421.. seconds
Bernoulli wrote:Newstein wrote:Evolving wrote:Sound doesn't travel at a constant speed. Light does (in a vacuum), for every observer; that is the whole point of special relativity.
That has nothing to do about it.
If an object is stationary at 1 lightsecond away from you, you will see it after 1 second.
If an object if moving at lightspeed to the right, the object will be 1 lightsecond away from that point in 1 second.
The observer will see the moving object in that point in exactly 1,41421 seconds. (square(2)) That's a delay of 0.41421.. seconds
I still don't get what you are trying to say. That object will take 1 second to get to a point 1 lightsecond away, and then the light from that object at that point will take another second to get to the observer. Where are you getting square root of 2 from?
Return to Physical Sciences & Mathematics
Users viewing this topic: No registered users and 1 guest