Originally Posted by JogaBonito1502
@Root: You can't throw a ball if you're traveling at the speed of light. The ball would be too "heavy". The closer one gets to the speed of light the more energy it takes to accelerate objects. So at the speed of light--close to it suffices--one cannot accelerate any objects.
Regarding the impact: The probability of 2 photons colliding are EXTREMELY small, especially if they're from different sources. In a way, the questions you guys are asking don't apply because they are derived from Newtonian mechanics. It's easy to forget that the rules change when one is dealing with high energies.
@Root: If Eistein was incorrect, then so is Newton. Are you ready to claim that everything you've learned from physics is incorrect? While it is highly likely that the experiment was done correctly, one cannot rule out the possibility of errors until the results are reproduced. Claiming that Einstein was incorrect after seeing results from one source of experiments while having a basic understanding (unless you're a physics Ph.D and I'm not aware) of the subject is quite bold.
I said nothing about throwing a tennis ball at the speed of light, I gave the specific example of throwing a ball on a train.
I specifically chose the lights on a car at the speed of light. that's what makes the question interesting. you're talking about light being emitted and travelling at the speed of light, but if it's already coming from a source that's at the speed of light then what happens to the light in front of the source?
Claiming the probability of two things colliding is very small because they are tiny and travelling quickly is silly, I know that the probability is small, but that wasn't the point of the question either. theoretically, the impact speed is
twice the speed of light,
Everyone who was so quick to think [/i]twice the speed of light but that's impossible[/i] were too quick to jump on their dogma that the speed of light can't be broken, and forgot something pretty simple.
there is no crazy breaking the known laws of physics here (in this question), two things were travelling at the speed of light in opposing directions and they hit. the impact speed would be twice the speed of light, because the impact speed is only a theoretical something that we make up to describe the energy released.
the speeds were objectA = C and objectB = C, when they hit the energy release was the mass times the speed (2C), but since the mass is infinitesimally small, so is the energy release, even though the speed is massive. the actual measured speeds go from C to 0 in an instant when the two particles hit.
Newton has already been proved incorrect in a few of his theories. indeed I think that Einstein has as well.
Claiming that Einstein could have possibly been wrong in any number of his theories isn't arrogant, or bold, as for reproducing the experiment, I made the same point in a similar discussion the other day, and was told that supposable the experiment has been reproduced, somewhere like around 600 times.
even so, this doesn't even mean that Einstein is incorrect in all his work or that we throw away newtons work either... it is just saying that a part of a theory needs to be revised, also there are all kinds of theories that these results fit into that leave Einstein work untouched and still regarded as accurate.
Also, I think that it's actually wrong to sit on the other side of the fence and to not question, or not believe that you're qualified to question... when faced with empirical evidence that it's likely that a person is wrong, no matter how great/respected/regarded that person is, the way that science works is that theories are only accepted until something comes along to disprove it. or until a new better fitting theory comes along that explains things better. if you regard someone as too great to have their work or words questioned then you're doing little more than creating a church and holding them up as gospels.