NSX at Speed of Light Question

[NeoNSX]

I found this good question for all you scientists/mathematicians out there to start debating over...

<B>If you are travelling at the speed of light in your NSX, and turn the headlights on...does it do anything?</B>

 

[slammed]

hmmm

According to Einstein,
It is impossible for anything other than light to travel at the speed of light, because the mass of your car would become infinite.

 

[cmhs75]

If you were traveling with the NSX at the speed of light and turn your head light on, the light coming out of it would not exceed the speed of light because the speed of light is the absolute speed, there is no greater speed.

 

[huckster]

seems like ive read some theories that the speed of light may not be an absolute speed---but we dont know what the rules would be at that point (our current 'laws' would not apply---pun intended).

 

[huckster]

our antecedents may find out. We are currently accelerating and the oscillating universe theory is being challenged academically. MAYbe we begin slowing down and contracting back---or maybe oscillation theory is wrong and we go warp speed baby.

 

[NeoNSX]

LOL... nobody even mentions that an NSX can't travel at the speed of light, so this question is irrelevant.


EDIT: My mistake - Speed of light modkit available at Science of Speed.

 

[MarkB]

...Speed of light modkit available at Science of Speed....

I knew Chris and Seth were on the cutting edge; but, ....

 

[huckster]

yeah, but what about shrodingers cat? (however you spell that)

 

[MarkB]

...shrodingers cat?...

 

[steveny]

If 91-01 lights are they HID or Halogen?
At the speed of light how much time would expire before the rear tires needed to be changed. This could seriously impede forward motion.

 

[nsxtasy]

http://www.souri.com/alpha/c.html

 

[Lud]

Forget the headlights, if your NSX is hitting the speed of light, let's talk about your performance mods!

Or did you just do enough weight reduction to get your car's mass down to zero?

Or did you just add a really ugly body kit, ugly rims, neon, a huge wing and lots of decals, thus turning your NSX into a tachyon? Oooh sorry that was bad. I'll stop now.

 

[MarkB]

Ken, huckster

If we put Shrodinger's cat in the context of light-speed travel, does that mean that light-speed travel is, in reality, merely a jump from one of an infinite number of realities to another?

 

[Jimbo]

Neo,

You really do need to buy a NSX...



-Jim

 

[Briank]

The head lights would turn on and the light would be traveling at 2X speed of light. Its the tail lights that would not be visible. That would really piss off the cops trying to catch you to give you a moving violation.

 

[NetViper]

If you upgraded from HID to Warp Drive lights, you should be fine.

 

[NSXLNT]

I would agree with BrianK with regards to the forward motion. Think of a fighter plane firing a missile at another plane. If the plane is travelling at the speed of sound, and the velocity of the missile is the speed of sound, the missile would travel at 2Xspeed of sound, and hit it's target which would also be travelling at the speed of sound. I believe, however, that you would see the tail lights from behind, but the car would no longer be where the light is.

 

[Lud]

The head lights would turn on and the light would be traveling at 2X speed of light. Its the tail lights that would not be visible.

This is not correct per Einstein who says the speed of light is a constant ("c"). The speed of light does not change for the observer, but if the body emitting the light is traveling toward or away from the observer the waves are compressed or expanded and thus you get a wavelength shift, a.k.a. doppler shift.

Think of a fighter plane firing a missile at another plane. If the plane is travelling at the speed of sound, and the velocity of the missile is the speed of sound, the missile would travel at 2Xspeed of sound, and hit it's target which would also be travelling at the speed of sound.

This is also incorrect. Putting aside the practical issues... From the second you lauch the missle, it is going to decelerate down to it's maximum self-propeled velocity which you gave as mach 1. Thus unless it catches the target before it finishes decelerating down to it's max speed, it will never catch up since it's maximum self-propeled speed is identical to the speed of the target.

However this type of analogy is flawed to begin with because massive objects like a plane and missile behave completely differently than light. If the planes were flying toward each other their closing speed would be relative. If they each shot a laser at each other, however, the time it took the light to close the distance between them would be constant regardless of the relative speed of the planes; it wouldn't even matter if the planes were traveling toward or away from each other, the light would travel the same distance in the same time.


P.S. This is all per Einstein: http://www.bartleby.com/173/ and while most of it is accepted, some folks are pushing and questioning the very edges of some of these issues, though none of them would really affect this discussion. I am not a physicist or cosmologist or anything like that and have trouble getting my head around some of the deeper stuff, but this is all high school. If you disagree with Einstein and can back up your argument, write a paper and get published. The only major rift is the quantum mechanics folks, but even they acknowledge current quantum theory is flawed.

 

[Briank]

This is really neat stuff, nice diversion for my, "Its broke - fix it" workday.

 

[NSXLNT]

I never did take any physics courses, just pondering this question. I would have thought that speed is additive in the same direction. It would seem that the missile is already traveling at the speed of sound just being carried by the plane, and then, when fired, it would reach it's max of mach one under it's own power, thus doubling it's actual speed? If the plane is chasing it's target, which is going the same speed, how would the missle hit the target if it could not travel faster than the speed of the target? Would this work if we were able to pretend that the missile would reach mach one and remain constant without decelerating?
Wouldn't mach one at rest (being carried) plus mach one powered
(being fired) equal mach two?

 

[MarkB]

...Wouldn't mach one at rest (being carried) plus mach one powered (being fired) equal mach two?...

Since missiles are bound by aerodynamic drag, if it is capable of mach 1, then it doesn't matter how fast it is going when launched. Once released (fired), it becomes subject to drag and will go no faster than its design capabilities.

 

[NemesisX]

ok...so if my headlights and blinkers are useless....does that mean that I have to stick my arm out to signal a left-right turn???

Can my dog ride with his head out the window??

Are the windows able to withstand the pressure when I try to roll my window up?? or shall I get the Dali special "lightspeed" window clip thingies???

 

[Lud]

It would seem that the missile is already traveling at the speed of sound just being carried by the plane, and then, when fired, it would reach it's max of mach one under it's own power, thus doubling it's actual speed?

No. Let's say you have a bicycle. At maximum effort you can pedal it 20 MPH on a flat road. Now tie the bicycle to the rear bumper of a car with a rope. Get on the bike and have someone accelerate the car up to 30 MPH on a flat road. Start pedaling as fast as you can and take a knife and cut the rope.

What happens? Do you gradually:
A) Accelerate to 50 MPH (your max speed + the speed of the car)
B) Decelerate to 20 MPH (your max speed under your own power)

Obviously the answer is B. The same is true for the self-propeled air-to-air missile fired from the plane.

The reason air-to-air missiles can catch planes in real life is because they can fly faster under their own power than the planes. For example an AIM-7 Sparrow runs at Mach 4 under it's own power -- it would reach Mach 4 even if you launched it from a tower. A missile that couldn't go considerably faster than the target plane under it's own power would be useless.

So it's more like being towed up to 5 MPH by the car, then you cut the rope and accelerate under your own power up to 20 MPH... It's the same speed you were able to reach on your own, though you get there a little faster since you get a head start by being towed up to 5 MPH.

But again this has no bearing on the way light behaves. The original question does not really have an answer because it there are no known physics decribing the situation of an object with mass travelling at the speed of light. It's like asking "What is the result if I divide a number by zero?" You can't, so there isn't an answer.

You can try to describe what should happen if you were travelling very close to the speed of light and turned on your headlights, as that situation involves a scenario that is believed to be possible. If anyone is really interesting in learning more, make a big bowl of popcorn and do a bunch of reading here: http://www.weburbia.demon.co.uk/physics/relativity.html

 

[NeoNSX]

Or did you just do enough weight reduction to get your car's mass down to zero?

Or did you just add a really ugly body kit, ugly rims, neon, a huge wing and lots of decals, thus turning your NSX into a tachyon? Oooh sorry that was bad. I'll stop now.

ROFL....

They must have changed the gearshift material to the NSX-R mesh, saving 10grams.

Plus using the big-wing with neon lights (which you posted last month) would definitely help reach light-speeds. Or is that warp-speed? Is warp-speed faster than light-speed, or the same?

 

[j14nsx]

At light speed reaching the nearest star to Earth would still take years. We all know on Star Trek they can go from star to star in days or less. Warp speed must be faster, or is it that the distance travelled is less?