The speed of the bullet is added to the speed of the jet at moment of release. Air resistance and gravity then takes over on both the plane and the bullets. In a vacuum the plane would not overtake the bullets unless the plane speeds up. Whether going faster or slower than Mach 1 is not relevant. Light is different as explained in Einstein's theories where time changes, not the speed of light. At the point of initial impulse the ball does just stop in mid-air. Without air resistance the ball would just drop to the ground, and without gravity the ball would be stationary in mid air at the time of initial impulse. With gravity and air and ground resistance the ball would travel in the same direction as the car and slow down to a stop. Only if the initial speed of the ball exceeded the speed of the car would the ball travel in the opposite direction of the vehicle
Ya think?!! You only showed I was correct. Except to keep you on track I should have said “photons are not a wavelength”. They are described as “packets of energy”. As such they contain waves but they are not waves. Even you referred to “wavelengths of photons” and yet they have no wavelength, themselves.
Mass of weight Is there anyway to increase the mass of weight so it can be equal too or heavier than the volume of density? Perhaps we will find a way to bond weight with volume, together. Then fire the bonded quantity at a mega structure, such as ChatGPT. Use ChatGPT's knowledge to release the bonds between weight and volume - and then everything will become less dense.
Light actually does have momentum, but it is extremely small. Something like only 1 out of 400 million of the total energy in light is energy in the forward direction, as we would normally understand energy of movement in a physical object.
This is incredibly stupid, or perhaps you just carelessly misworded your post. Such a stupid error almost makes people not want to bother responding. Light normally moves much faster than sound.
This might not be true, although it has not been demonstrated to the contrary. If space can be bent and warped, theoretically light might be able to travel faster. Space slows down anything travelling through it, so to speak. If the space between two points can be reduced, then something could travel faster than light, but this would only be relative to normal space alongside it.
You would have to figure out some way of having the moon's gravity be able to have an effect on something moving and then be able to break that bond. This seems to be what your idea boils down to, in essence. Unfortunately, current science has not figured out a way to break or reduce the bond between anything and gravity. Maybe what you would want to do is somehow tie light up in the form of mass, allowing gravity to act on it, and then release that light. The Time Dilation Theory of Gravity says that the gravitational force ultimately comes from an object's trajectory through time. If you were to create "fake mass", by binding light to an object, I am not sure what that would do. This does seem like a perpetual motion device sort of scheme. I can't think of a reason exactly why it wouldn't work.
People generically use mass and weight as the same thing. In physics they are quote different. Weight includes acceleration of gravity, so weight and force are synonymous. Mass is derived from how far an object moves with a given force, an inertial measurement. You can find mass on the periodic table. So short story long I dont know how to relate to your question.
Mass attracts mass. Time is nothing more than our abstract interval measuring system so literally time does not effect anyting. Time dialation is nothing more than sitting at a outdoor concert and calculating the time it takes to see the drummer hit the drum and you to hear it. Of course its gets interesting when you are moving closer and farther to the source.
Light has zero rest mass. That's why it's able to travel at the cosmic speed limit. It does have momentum and thus it's direction may be altered by gravity. The idea of binding a massless particle to some mass is ridiculous, and even if you did, the unit would have rest mass and thus could not travel at the cosmic speed limit.
Well, that may not be entirely true. That would be another complicated discussion. Different scientists have some different interpretations on that. It is true that the rest mass of light is at least very small, if not precisely zero. If you want to start another thread, we can discuss this specific issue.
I see no reason why the idea would be totally ridiculous. If you bind energy to mass, it would actually increase the mass of the particle. This is pretty basic and widely accepted physics. The question is, could you use that to obtain work out of a gravitational system. Which is more difficult to answer.
Just FYI, Koko does not acknowledge that time dilation is real and rejects the theory of relativity entirely.
If the particle has mass, it can not travel at the cosmic speed limit - the speed of a photon in a perfect vacuum. The path of light is affected by gravity, as momentum is involved.
FALSE, that is a typical yardmeat interpretation! FALSE, partly true. So how you doing with that.....still believe in time travel?
That is not conclusive the way the experiment was done. There is a high probability refraction comes into play with this. Im not sold. There is no such thing. That is einsteins speed limit.
Well... first, the basic measurement, according to the Encyclopedia Britannica: "The value for the speed of light in a vacuum is now defined as exactly 299,792,458 metres per second. The speed of light is considered a fundamental constant of nature." Link: https://www.britannica.com/science/speed-of-light
Yes, he is credited with that advancement in physics. If your rather unspecified disagreement comes from light path being affected by gravity, this is not a phenomenon limited to some experiment. It is well known throughout astrophysics. In fact, it is a tool used to investigate galaxies far beyond those directly detectable by direct telescopic imaging. As light is bent around intervening mass, one gets a focusing effect that is like a super telescope into the deep reaches of our universe.
He was the first to bring it to print He hired Lorentz to do the cypherin for him lol you use the word known, I disagree, I use the words 'assumed'.
You literally argued with me for weeks arguing that time dilation and relativity are false. I'm glad if you finally understand that your arguments were full of **** (especially since your main "source" was some random YouTuber in his basement), but that's what happened. But, hey, glad to hear you realized the error of your ways and now embrace basic physics.
FALSE, I argued against the stupidity that your abstract model has mass lol Relativity was a bust, it did not make our satellite work correctly, Lorentz did! double LOL bullshit, I dont need any youtuber for this simple ****. Yes your warped interpretation as usual. Basic physics is not your false god einstein lol
Then you need to study the subject deeper. BTW, you can’t “remove” a wavelength. So part of your trouble stems from not wording the issue/question correctly.
