288 reputation
149
bio website
location
age
visits member for 3 years, 8 months
seen Jun 9 at 5:51

May
31
comment The speed limit is with respect to what?
@Nathaniel, unfortunately I don't have any books on relativity. I'm not a physics student, I ask this question just because I'm curious about these things.
May
31
comment The speed limit is with respect to what?
@Nathaniel, what was that answer he gave? can you post it as an answer?
May
31
comment The speed limit is with respect to what?
Can we think of this "apparent mass" as the inertia of an object?
Sep
16
comment Can light travel slower than the maximum?
It's almost philosophical. If all we have are measurement of light's speed, and all those measurements turn out to be the same independently of the (inertial) reference, then all we can say is that the perceived speed of light is always the same. But we can't say that light moves always at the same speed because our perception is affected by our own speed. That's what I mean when I said that what's constant is the perceived speed of light and not the speed itself.
Sep
16
comment Can light travel slower than the maximum?
I'm being misunderstood. What I'm saying is that if you know about the constantness of light's speed and if you wrongly assume that that constantness is w.r.t a fixed motionless point (like I initially did) then you would think that light should be measure at different speeds depending if you are moving of not. So my conclusion is that it's not the speed itself what's constant but the perception of it.
Sep
15
comment Can light travel slower than the maximum?
But if you do know about the constantness of light's speed, then you would think... if we flash a light backwards, and we are moving the other way at speed v, then w.r.t us the light should be moving at speed c + v. But evidence says otherwise. It's the perception of the speed what's constant, not the speed per se.
Sep
14
comment Can light travel slower than the maximum?
I'll accept your answer because you mention the fact that this is supported on empirical observations and not just somebody's theory. However, you say "He observes the light leaving his flashlight with a speed of u=+c" like it was an obvious fact, but that's exactly my question: why light's speed is not reduced like a tennis ball would. I guess the answer is... just because it's been seen experimentally that light behaves that way.
Dec
31
comment Why is the charge naming convention wrong?
Some people say that the NET FLOW OF CHARGE in a metal conductor goes from the positive terminal to the negative one (even though the electrons are moving in the oposite way). And since what matters is the net flow and not the electrons movement, it is correct to assume that electricity moves from positive to negative. I've read a number of discussions here and there between people that really seem to know what they are talking about, and there is no final agreement about it.
Nov
18
comment Why is the charge naming convention wrong?
I'm still reading those articles at amasci.com and I'm starting to realize that this subject is really understood my few and misunderstood by many. In such a situation, you are no longer sure whom to belive. Should I trust what you say? or should I trust what college professors say? or what books say?
Nov
17
comment Why is the charge naming convention wrong?
Your answer broaden the discussion a little too much. Let's focus on the question. See this web.engr.oregonstate.edu/~traylor/ece112/lectures/… Everywhere I read says Franklin chose wrong and that electrons actually flow the opposite way as conventional current. But you seem to have a different opinion.
Nov
17
comment Why is the charge naming convention wrong?
so what was Franklin's mistake? To propose a naming convention?
Feb
6
comment Electromagnetic fields vs electromagnetic radiation
yep, I meant that exactly. +1 for your detailed answer
Feb
6
comment Electromagnetic fields vs electromagnetic radiation
wow, such a long answer. No need to shake the balloon though; I understand that every object, just by not being at absolute cero, is already emitting light (it's like electromagnetic radiation is almost a property of matter).
Feb
5
comment Electromagnetic fields vs electromagnetic radiation
and that propagating disturbance is what is called a photon?
Feb
5
comment Light emitted by an object according to its temperature
Ok, so that diagram I linked is an oversimplification. The ratiation emitted is not just one wave-length, it's a range of wave-lengths. And if after yellow comes white I guess it means the object radiates the whole rainbow at that temperature.
Feb
5
comment Electromagnetic fields vs electromagnetic radiation
I see. So a photon is actually the interaction between the electric and magnetic field? (or at least the energy involved in that interaction)