(Obviously not OP) Alright, I'm just a young dumbling, so my question will probably have lots of misunderstandings:
I still wonder, if the universe has no reference point (wich I find to be very logical inb4), then how come there's a thing such as approaching the speed of light? And the idea that time dilation it isn't caused by speed in itself but acceleration seems like a bandaid just to fit our current circumstances, but lets say we have a spacedock traveling half the speed of light in a complete void pointed towards X, and a spaceship leaves the spacedock pointed towards the opposite of X with half the speed of light. That should be considered as even more acceleration right? But it makes no sense as to why that object should have a different time perspective compared to something that has been immovable in the starting point.
Daniel Johnson
>but heat from light is considered conduction to the light particle.
What the fuck? I am an uneducated imbecile and I can not get my head around this. Explain please: are you saying that from the perspective of the light particle, there's no space between the source of light and the object it hits? Does this mean photons just keep going on forever when they're beamed out of a light source?
It's because conduction, convection, and radiation are all names for the same thing. It's all just particles touching particles and transferring energy when they touch. It's how you look at it.
Aaron White
Light source heat is considered radiant heat conduction is shown in photo which is the hand touches a hot surface. Conduction is when one heat source is touching another like a plate and frame heat exchanger. Radiant heat is like a radiant heater the heat source is expelled out into the room with out the means of a fan. So you are incorrect in that philosophy
Gavin Allen
>just Yeah, they happen all by themselves and not in any way related to the way we percieve the world around us in which we exist.
You are as deep and insightful as a puddle. gtfo
Joshua Parker
(Not op nor physicist), but that's a very simple yes, that's why light years are a thing, it keeps going on forever until the universe rips itself apart.
Christopher Brooks
Are you implying that relativistic effects only apply to particles with mass, and that Lorentz contraction of space does not apply to massless particles????
Jordan Kelly
I don't think you really understood what OP was saying
Mason Cooper
An independent non moving observer would correctly see both spaceships moving towards each other at over 1c. However both spaceships would detect the approaching spaceship at nearly 1c.
Anthony Roberts
no, I do not. I'm questioning the very idea of being able to percieve space and time without mass.
Should it be impossible to do so, then any thought experiment stating "let's put us in the FOR of a photon and try to check how it looks like", then asking the question "why does it look so crazy", can be answered by stating: "It's obvious that it's crazy, because you are trying to imagine percieving something that cannot physically be percieved". That would be the absolute version of it.
The physical results are set in stone. I'm not trying to deny the fact that in a photons frame of reference, space and time are fubar. I'm mostly trying to argue that any attempt we try to make in order to imagine this fubarness is meaningless, as it would amount to trying to fit a square peg in a round hole. And that in itself can allow you to wrap your head around this fubarness. "Why is whatever I imagine while observing this thing weird?" - "Because I'm imagining observing something that cannot be observed."
