 |
| Register | Login | |||||
 |
Main
| Memberlist
| Active users
| ACS
| Commons
| Calendar
| Online users Ranks | FAQ | Color Chart | Photo album | IRC Chat |
|
| | ||
|
| Register | Login | |||||
|
Main
| Memberlist
| Active users
| ACS
| Commons
| Calendar
| Online users Ranks | FAQ | Color Chart | Photo album | IRC Chat |
|
| | ||
| 0 user currently in Brain Teasers. | 2 guests |
| Acmlm's Board - I2 Archive - Brain Teasers - A -relatively- difficult question. |
 |  |  |
| Add to favorites | "RSS" Feed | Next newer thread | Next older thread |
| User | Post | ||
|
||bass Programmer Admin Level: 44  Posts: 176/817 EXP: 570813 For next: 40472 Since: 03-15-04 From: Salem, Connecticut Since last post: 26 days Last activity: 11 days |
| ||
| Define c as velocity 299 792 458 m / s Define x, y, and z as massive objects traveling on a 1 dimensional line. On this line, x is moving at .9c right relative to z. Y is moving at .9c left relative to z. What is the velocity of x relative to y, keeping in mind that it is not possible for relative velocities of massive objects to equal or exceed c? |
|||
Grey the Stampede Don't mess with powers you don't understand. And yes. That means donuts. Level: 82  Posts: 1570/3770 EXP: 5192909 For next: 16318 Since: 06-17-04 From: Kingston, RI, USA, Earth Since last post: 2 hours Last activity: 1 hour |
| ||
| Negative 1.8C. Velocity is a vector quantity, which means it needs a direction, though... In the case of Y, X would be traveling negatively. And since the rules of Point of reference dictate that an object's speed doubles when it travels in the opposite direction of a moving object, it's ok for the object's speed to go over the speed of light, since point of reference doesn't dictate actual velocity, just percieved velocity. (edited by Grey on 01-17-05 10:04 PM) |
|||
Iggy Koopa Red Cheep-cheep Level: 24 Posts: 213/214 EXP: 76441 For next: 1684 Since: 03-16-04 Since last post: 66 days Last activity: 12 days |
| ||
| .994475138122c. (Thanks goes out to CHz for that answer.) (edited by Iggy Koopa on 01-17-05 10:05 PM) |
|||
|
||bass Programmer Admin Level: 44 Posts: 177/817 EXP: 570813 For next: 40472 Since: 03-15-04 From: Salem, Connecticut Since last post: 26 days Last activity: 11 days |
| ||
| Grey's answer is definately wrong. 1.8c or -1.8c was the ONLY answer that I am 100% sure is definately incorrect. Iggy's answer, as far as I can tell. Is either correct, or very close to correct. |
|||
|
Grey the Stampede Don't mess with powers you don't understand. And yes. That means donuts. Level: 82 Posts: 1571/3770 EXP: 5192909 For next: 16318 Since: 06-17-04 From: Kingston, RI, USA, Earth Since last post: 2 hours Last activity: 1 hour |
| ||
Right, right, I'm thinking in terms of scalar quantities.  Is Z moving, too? |
|||
|
||bass Programmer Admin Level: 44 Posts: 178/817 EXP: 570813 For next: 40472 Since: 03-15-04 From: Salem, Connecticut Since last post: 26 days Last activity: 11 days |
| ||
| It doesn't matter if Z is moving. X, Y, and Z are the only objects in this theoretical system, therefore X, Y, and Z can only be moving relative to each other. There is no such thing as absoloute velocity. | |||
|
Grey the Stampede Don't mess with powers you don't understand. And yes. That means donuts. Level: 82 Posts: 1573/3770 EXP: 5192909 For next: 16318 Since: 06-17-04 From: Kingston, RI, USA, Earth Since last post: 2 hours Last activity: 1 hour |
| ||
| But frame of reference would dictate that the speed of an object in one object's frame of reference is based on the speed of the object being referred to... I'm not sure if I'm thinking in the right terms, anyway. I was thinking about stuff like when two cars are going toward each other at 60 MPH the speed of one car from the point of view of the other car is actually 120 miles per hour... That kind of stuff... It's not relevant here, I guess. |
|||
|
Zem You can be civil without being flowery, dipshits. Level: 49 Posts: 584/1107 EXP: 829398 For next: 54485 Since: 06-13-04 Since last post: 131 days Last activity: 131 days |
| ||
Originally posted by Grey Right, that works for low speeds but when you get close to c, it changes because objects never appear to be moving at or above c at any frame of reference. |
|||
blackhole89 LOLSEALS Moderator of ROM hacking EmuNET IRC network admin Head GM of TwilightRO Level: 47  Posts: 513/971 EXP: 739208 For next: 26995 Since: 03-15-04 From: Dresden/Germany Since last post: 14 hours Last activity: 12 hours |
| ||
| .9944751381215469613259668508287292817679558011049723756906077348066298342541436464088397790055248619...c The corresponding formula is: v=(v1-v2)/(1-v1v2/c2). There was a neat illustration of this stuff in a recent Spektrum der Wissenschaft (a local scientific magazine) release, but I can't seem to find it now. Anyway, it said that unidirectional movement still is two-dimensional in some way, with the dimensions being distance and time. The faster an object becomes, the less it moves on the "distance" and the more on the "time" axis. Or something like that. Hope this helps~ |
|||
|
NSNick Laidback Admin Level: 85  Posts: 1680/3875 EXP: 5895841 For next: 2699 Since: 03-15-04 From: North Side School: OSU Since last post: 9 hours Last activity: 1 hour |
| ||
| Well, the formula is with addition, but one of them is negative, so yeah. | |||
Teundusia Lantern Ghost Level: 41 Posts: 152/760 EXP: 449109 For next: 31036 Since: 07-31-04 Since last post: 15 hours Last activity: 14 hours |
| ||
| erm... "define x,y and z as massive objects..." i know nothing about the answer but i do know that in 1 dimensions ALL objects are the same size. the is no MASSIVE about it |
| Add to favorites | "RSS" Feed | Next newer thread | Next older thread |
| Acmlm's Board - I2 Archive - Brain Teasers - A -relatively- difficult question. |
| | |
