Upgrade to enjoy this feature!
Vital MX fantasy is free to play, but Premium users receive great benefits. Premium benefits include:
- View and download rider stats
- Pick trends
- Create a private league
- And more!
Only $10 for all 2026 SX, MX, and SMX series.
If you really "don't care" how it works, you wouldn't be in this thread in the first place. Your presence here negates your statement that "I give less than a shit about how the seat bounce actually works."
And ego plays a role in science through peer review. If you think you're right and you think the accepted science is wrong, you get a chance to prove it wrong. If you can prove it wrong, that feeds your ego as a scientist. That doesn't mean that the science itself is skewed by ego.
If you're in a vehicle capable of travel at light speed - if you accept that impossible scenario as possible - there's no reason to believe the lights wouldn't remain "on". The switch would be "on". Everything wouldn't just turn off at the speed of light. So, "they will turn on" is my first point, which is true in this imaginary, impossible scenario.
"But you won't be able to see light in front of the car" is my next proclamation. This is also correct because the speed of light is the speed of light. You cannot make light go faster than the speed of light. If you're traveling at that speed, then light would not be able to emit from the front of your vehicle forward to light up what's in front of you. In order for headlights to work, the light reflects off of objects in front of you. The light travels outward, then reflects off of something, then comes BACK to your eyes, and that's how you observe headlights. AT the speed of light, this becomes impossible. ADD TO THAT the fact that time stops, and it's even "more impossible" if there is such a thing as "more impossible". In other words, there are MULTIPLE reasons why it's impossible. I stated one here.
"The speed of light is called that because it's the speed of light. You can't make it go faster. It's not like driving 60mph and throwing a rock forward 20mph inside the car, where the rock will be traveling 80mph." Uhhh... This is correct as well.
So...
Back to you.
If that's what you're asking, the answer is "both".
The Shop
Luxon 4-Post Bar Mounts
$189.95 - $239.95
DeCal Works Huge Plastic Inventory of UFO and Polisport kits.
Free shipping: VITALMX
But when you turn things around and say "Unlike you, Steve, I don't have time to be an expert in everything." you're attacking me personally and you know it.
That doesn't fit with someone who "doesn't care". I wouldn't have treated you that way, and I haven't. Why did you feel the need to do that?
Fail.
If you're in a vehicle capable of travel at light speed - if you accept that impossible scenario as possible - there's no reason to believe the lights wouldn't remain "on". The switch would be "on". Everything wouldn't just turn off at the speed of light. So, "they will turn on" is my first point, which is true in this imaginary, impossible scenario.
You put in a caveat this time. The problem is, when you say this, you are either talking science fiction or displaying a severe lack of comprehension of physics. In your case, you didn't know this, you wrote about it, were called on it, googled the answer, and now are trying to pretend you knew the answer all along.
But, you still persist in a what if. Well, there IS no what if. You can't apply the known laws of physics to a scenario which violates those very laws.
Where were you correct? When you were throwing rocks. That's it. The rest is bullshit.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2215177/Could-travel-fas…
http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2011/sep/22/faster-than-light-particl…
http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2011/sep/23/faster-light-neutrinos
Geez
What you've done is created an impossible scenario that doesn't produce a result, because there is no observer at the speed of light (that's why all information is lost). But, you force the point (which is invalid), so you can claim something in terms you 'understand' (you don't) which really doesn't exist. It's kinda like dividing by zero, and unless you're Chuck Norris, that doesn't happen.
But in hard science, theories described through mathematical constructs are not exempt from experimentation. The proof of the theory, and the validity of the math, is still in the results of the experiment, and the extension to real world results. The fact that someone synthesized (which is what they are doing at that level) an equation with a complete proof isn't the end game as far as what it represents. Witness the utility of the large hadron collider, or the differences in the debate over string theory and whether the equations behind it are even testable.
Tangent, I'm pretty sure I recommended a book to you years ago called "Fire In The Mind." I may even have sent you a copy. Anyway, you would enjoy it if you haven't read it. I'm not suggesting that because I think it proves any position I've taken, just because I think you'd enjoy it and you claim to read a lot for the pure joy of knowledge.
I didn't ask the question. Yell at them for asking it if you want, but in the scenario the question presented, I was correct.
The question is thought experiment about the speed of light. That's all.
It's the same as the question about an airplane on a treadmill, for example. That's a thought experiment demonstrating understanding of what drives an airplane forward. For the purpose of that question, you have to forget about friction, for example, because if you add friction to the scenario, the question becomes very complex and you need to know how much the plane weighs, how big the wheels are, what kind of friction loss there is at the wheel at takeoff speed and at TWICE takeoff speed (since the treadmill is matching plane speed in the opposite direction), etc.
However, for the PURPOSE OF THE QUESTION, you have to forget about this and answer it on the basis that the engines create thrust through the air, and airplanes do not travel through driving the wheels forward like a car. Then the answer is that yes, an airplane on a treadmill that matches its speed in the opposite direction will still take off.
I know you must know this. You have to know that you're being obtuse here. Which leads us to the psychology of projection, as you're accusing me of things that you, yourself, are actually guilty of, and I am not.
Pit Row
This is actually the simplest part, and I don't understand how you don't get it.
If light travels at 186,282 miles per second, and you're traveling 186,282 miles per second, light cannot emit forward from your position. Period.
And AT the speed of light, even on board the vehicle, where you're traveling the speed of light, you would not be able to see light in front of you, regardless, because of the point I just made AS WELL AS the fact that time stops. No, you won't feel as if time has stopped, obviously, but it will have stopped, and that's yet another reason why light cannot emit forward from your vehicle.
This is true.
Someone with knowledge of the subject matter would have explained to the person asking the question that the question is flawed. If you had taken a physics class, you would know this.
When they teach physics, they throw curve balls at you to see if you understand the material, not just regurgitate a formula.
You didn't understand the material, but now you at least understand this one item. You've learned something, but it appears you still don't understand the bigger picture because you are still arguing.
I feel a need to restate the issue: Once you dismiss a part of the laws of physics, you negate the entire basis and can make up any answer you want. You could say that once reaching the speed of light, the light waves travel parallel to the car and there's a sonic chick riding on them to take your food order. When she brings out your food you use the light waves as a cup holder.
That is just as correct (or incorrect) as any other answer.
Notice TFS left? Because he knows he was wrong and isn't man enough to just agree and laugh it off. You should have stopped long ago.
But for example, the special theory of relativity was purely mathematical at its inception. It wasn't until a solar eclipse years later that it was proven through observation, which in this case takes the place of "experimentation" in the scientific process.
In physics, it happens that way a lot today, where math shows one thing, and then you try and apply that math to the observable universe. The idea of dark matter is a great example of this process as well.
And sometimes it works the other way, where observations happen, and that leads to trying to figure out the math. That's how Newton did most of his work.
My grandfather was a Freemason, and in looking into joining that myself (for the sake of tradition), it was put to me that I had to believe in a higher power to be a Freemason. This is problematic for me, so I asked them if my believe in math as the "higher power" would count, and they said no. So, according to them, math isn't "the thing", but in that instance, I was trying to make it "the thing".
As far as that's concerned, math should be an explanation of things, logically, not "the thing", but hell, it could be "the thing" as far as I know...
This actually happened to me at a Frank Marino & Mahogany Rush concert in 1980.
Or it coulda been that cube of of black afghanny we burned down.
Very simply, an event needs a period of time to both occur and to make an observation. Since there is no passage of time, there is no event, and there is no observation. The way you write/word/conceptualize things is still in terms of objects traveling below the speed of light, and those descriptions don't apply at the speed of light.
Some people arguing against my position in this thread have said that the SPEED OF LIGHT is relative, and that's what the Theories of Relativity were about. They are incorrect.
So, if you can successfully identify the reason the scenario is presented, you have to let go of the initial point that it would take infinite power to move something with mass at the speed of light, which means it's impossible and immeasurable.
"If you're in a car traveling the speed of light, and you turn on your headlights, what happens?" The correct answer, given the point of the scenario, isn't "It's impossible to go the speed of light in a car." That's correct, obviously, but it's not the correct answer to the question.
When you can wrap your head around this, maybe we'll get somewhere. Otherwise, you can keep claiming I'm wrong, but I'm not, so yell it as loud as you want. I had it right from the start. I didn't learn this now. I learned this and understood it in full almost 20 years ago when I read "A Brief History of Time", along with the many books that followed.
I used to believe that, if "greys" were real (the aliens), it was much more likely that they were interdimensional travelers or time travelers than intergalactic travelers, given how much they look like us (biology - theory of evolution - comes into play here) and how difficult it would be to travel so far in little space craft, etc. I couldn't have had this idea if I didn't understand the theories of relativity.
I don't necessarily believe this today, as time travel to the past seems more and more impossible the more I think about it, but the idea still came to me by virtue of my understanding of the theories of relativity.
Sorry to disappoint you.
Post a reply to: Seat Bounce