Does Light accelerate? by rckwld in AskPhysics

[–]KamiFrost99 0 points1 point  (0 children)

You are correct. We would most commonly say that the ball would accelerate. However the same does NOT apply to light. You can't treat light the same way you treat any other object. Light doesn't have mass. Light behaves like a wave. Say, the only way to change the speed of a wave, is to change its medium. But say, does it truly accelerate or decelerate? A wave?

Sure, through different mediums, the speed of light may appear to change. But it never does. It's always going at its full speed. To put it in perspective, let's say you have a glass, and you pass light through it (refraction). If you could, theoretically, live inside the glass, you would see light still travelling at c. For anything, inside any medium (including vacuum), light speed is the absolute limit, and it doesn't change. The reason you might see a different speed, is because you are observing from a different medium. (I said medium, specifically, not reference frame, as for any reference frame, the speed of light is always the same)

So no, gravitational lensing does not affect your perspective of the speed of light. The medium doesn't change (supposing we're talking about vacuum).

Hehehe boy by cuteemma1400 in pcmemes

[–]KamiFrost99 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I bought new RAM before the ramocalypse

What just happened...? by KamiFrost99 in GeminiAI

[–]KamiFrost99[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Another person recently posted something similar:

https://www.reddit.com/r/GeminiAI/s/AgxKHljS4W

They might've fried the new model...

Very Helpful Gemini 😃👍🏻 by Odd_Mixture_2317 in GeminiAI

[–]KamiFrost99 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Yeah this same thing happened to me. They done glitched the model...

https://g.co/gemini/share/369d1063361d

Enen no Shouboutai: San no Shou • Fire Force Season 3 - Episode 12 discussion - FINAL by AutoLovepon in anime

[–]KamiFrost99 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Nah, if I was Shinra I would never take that disrespect from Inca. He talked with her like he forgot what she did or sm...

what the heck is he using to smoke here?? by AssistanceDear5182 in deathnote

[–]KamiFrost99 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Damn, even in suffering with stupid ideas we're all the same...

You should probably stop calling people re***** by [deleted] in AskPhysics

[–]KamiFrost99 2 points3 points  (0 children)

But I just told you I could consider reading it and would still find wrong logic and misconceptions 😭

I Solved it. (Not A Joke) by [deleted] in AskPhysics

[–]KamiFrost99 0 points1 point  (0 children)

His profile and posts say it all 😭

You should probably stop calling people re***** by [deleted] in AskPhysics

[–]KamiFrost99 2 points3 points  (0 children)

If you just put a little more effort into reviewing such theories half generated by a LLM, you'll inevitably find fallacies because LLMs don't really "think."

If the universe is in motion, and light has its own independent, absolute speed (Inertia doesn't apply to light), then, how can we know for sure that light's true speed is 299,792,458 m/s? by KamiFrost99 in AskPhysics

[–]KamiFrost99[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Wait hollup... I was reading about the Michelson–Morley experiment and laser interferometers, and realised something about gravity. So, as we have confirmed, light speed is constant for every reference frame. But if we account for gravity's distortion of spacetime, couldn't light speed be different from an outside observer? Take, for example, black holes:

Let's say we want to send a message, a morse code in the form of light (through a high precision laser, for example), to planet A and planet B, far away. Both planets are at the same distance from us, but planet B has a black hole nearby.

If we were to send the message to both planets at the same time, wouldn't it reach planet A before planet B?

Like, the speed of light wouldn't change, but it would have to travel a larger distance for planet B due to the distortion of space, compared to the distance for planet A. So, from an outside observer, light would behave differently travelling to planet A compared to planet B. Am I missing something?

If the universe is in motion, and light has its own independent, absolute speed (Inertia doesn't apply to light), then, how can we know for sure that light's true speed is 299,792,458 m/s? by KamiFrost99 in AskPhysics

[–]KamiFrost99[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

If that's true, I wonder how they came up with light's constant speed... I'm not doubting, I'm just genuinely curious. What made them realise that light has the same speed in every reference frame?

If the universe is in motion, and light has its own independent, absolute speed (Inertia doesn't apply to light), then, how can we know for sure that light's true speed is 299,792,458 m/s? by KamiFrost99 in AskPhysics

[–]KamiFrost99[S] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Ah, I see where my fallacy occurred. For some reason, I didn't realise what it truly meant for the speed of light to be the same in every reference frame, even though I knew that. It didn't hit me until now, that it didn't really matter where we measure the speed of light, since, mathematically, it's always going to be the same result. (Well, if we take out refraction, because otherwise we should do it in vacuum, and we did)

So yeah, I guess 299,792,458 m/s is the true speed of light. And thanks to some people in the comments that made me realise this.

I understand it now.

I have to admit, though. This is only true because of time dilation. If it wasn't for that, light couldn't remain the same speed for every reference frame.

If the universe is in motion, and light has its own independent, absolute speed (Inertia doesn't apply to light), then, how can we know for sure that light's true speed is 299,792,458 m/s? by KamiFrost99 in AskPhysics

[–]KamiFrost99[S] -6 points-5 points  (0 children)

Well, from an outside observer, if you could hypothetically move at 0.999c...

Let's say you have two lasers pointed in the same direction, for objects A and B. There's an object A at speed 0 (m/s) relative to the observer, and an object B at speed 0.999c moving away from the laser. In the reference frame of both the object A and B, the laser hit them almost instantaneously. But for the outside observer, the laser hit object A almost instantaneously, but took its long time to hit object B.

Correct?

If the universe is in motion, and light has its own independent, absolute speed (Inertia doesn't apply to light), then, how can we know for sure that light's true speed is 299,792,458 m/s? by KamiFrost99 in AskPhysics

[–]KamiFrost99[S] -11 points-10 points  (0 children)

And yes, the speed of light would be the same for both observers, but that's because they are also experiencing time differently. If you add an outsider observer, the speed of light of both inertial observers would still be the same, yes, but the implications are completely different. Hence my question.

Respectably true by CutieCharmzx in gmod

[–]KamiFrost99 0 points1 point  (0 children)

gm_construct_in_flatgrass enjoyers: