laura  thanks....so if the  momentum is the speed of light....what is our position?
108368
Momentum of the speed of light=zero\nMomentum is defined as mass times speed.\n\nthe light don't have a momentum beacuse don't have a mass.  light is just energy.
551506
I'm assuming you are talking about a relativistic particle here.  Correct me if I'm wrong.\n\nClassical momentum is p=mv\n\nMomentum in relativistic mechanics is p=(gamma)*mv where \n\ngamma= 1/sqrt(1-(u/c)^2)  \nu=speed of particle\nc=speed of light\n\nNOW, what you are saying is:\n\n(gamma)*mv=3.3*mv\n\nNotice m and v cancel and you are left with:\n\ngamma=3.3\n\n1/sqrt(1-(u/c)^2)=3.3  \n\nInvert both sides then square:\n\n(1-(u/c)^2)=0.091827\n\nSolve for u (skipping some steps b/c you should be able to do algebra by now):\n\nu=0.95298*c\n\nThe answer:  95.3% the speed of light\n\nOh yeah!
918305
If you apply a force to move an object, you produces work, and this work is equal to the kinecti energy change.\n\nThe speed of light is not force!!!!
306574
The important principle in this theory is:\n\nThe speed of light is not affected by the speed of the source emitting this light.\n \nThat is: “Once light is emitted from a source it moves in vacuum with a constant speed.\n\nSpeed of a matter and the speed of light are measured by measuring length and time.   But light is energy; whereas the source is a matter.\n\nIf both observers; one at rest and another moving; says that light’s speed is same for both, there are only two possibilities; 1. Both must be at rest or 2. Time and length must be different for the two observers. \n\nBut one observer sees that the other is moving with a speed relative to him. Therefore, time and length must be different for the two observers.\nThe other consequence is that mass is also affected by its speed. \n\nThe one at rest will observe that time and the length are shortened for a moving object such that the speed of light is the same for both frames of reference. \n\nSince the moving observer observes that the other one is moving and he is at rest he will say in the other man’s reference frame time and length are shortened such that the speed of light is the same for both frames of reference. \n\nThis is the theory of relativity.
855043
It's all theory, we don't know if (something) can exceed the speed of light. I would argue that time would be void at that moment, but again it's my theory. Interesting thought though.
992432
Your question is similar to Einstein's question that led to a revolution in physics, so it's not a stupid question by far. Einstein asked, what would happen if someone could travel along a beam of light? What would the traveler see? \n\nThink of relative motion. When I'm on a train, watching the country side go by, it appears to me that everything else is moving and I, the tables, the chairs, and the people on the train are not moving. If I were standing on the ground watching the train go by, it would be the oppisote: I would appear, to myself, to be standing still, and the train, people on it, chairs and tables would all appear to be moving. Relative motion, hense the term "relativity."\n\nWhat Einstein discovered is that even if one could travel at the speed of light, that person would observe the light in your headlight traveling away from him AT THE SPEED OF LIGHT. Weird, huh? Think about it. If you're on a ski slope and an avalance is chasing you, what are you going to do? You are going to RUN. Why? It decreases the rate at which the avalance is approaching you. If the avalance is traveling 20  mph and you can run 15 mph, the avalance is only gaining on you at a rate of 20 mph - 15 mph = 5 mph. You slow it's approach to you. However, that does not work with light. If you ran away from a light beam, and managed to travel at the speed of light, the light beam behind you would STILL BE APPROACHING YOU AT THE SPEED OF LIGHT. Light speed is constant in every reference frame, no matter WHAT the speed of the observer. \n\nIn short, you would see the light in the headlight traveling away from you at the speed of light.
566668
No object that has mass can be accelerated to move at the speed of light. If you were somehow moving at 0.99c and then shown a flashlight, the velocity of the photons would not be 1.99c, it would just be c. The speed of light is invariant. The true formula at relativistic speeds is the following:\n\nV = (v+u) / (1 + vu/c²)\n\nWhen the velocites are not relativistic (i.e. throwing a ball out of a moving car) this approximates to V = v+u. So if you are moving toward something that is emitting photons at c, and you yourself are somehow also moving at c, the velocity you observe the photons to be moving is still just c. Try it in the formula: V = (c+c) / (1 + cc/c²) = c\n\nIt can be derived from special relativity or the Lorentz transformations.
410856
Engery\nMass\nc is the speed of light (why c? I don't know does anybody else?)
321687
OK, to answer this question, we first have to make a few important assumptions, otherwise the question is meaningless.\nFirst, we have to assume that you can accelerate your car to the speed of light....this is not actually possible since it would have an infinfity mass and thius take an infinite amount of energy to achiece.  Secondly, wehave to assume that at the speed of light, your head lights will opperate noramlly (i.e. you turn them on and light shines out) due to [for reasons beyond the scope of this answer] the way head lights actually work.\n\nI would also like to preface my answer with say that traveling AT the speed of light is much different than traveling just UNDER the speed of light.\n\nOne VERY important thing to remember is that in ALL frames of reference, the speed of light is constant.\nNo matter who is watching the light travel and measuring its speed, it will always come out to be the exact some value, 299,792,458 m/s exactly.\n\nWhen you, inside your car traveling at the speed of light (with respect to some "stationary" observer), swtich on your head lights and look out the wind shield, you WILL see light traveling away from you at the speed of light.\n\nIf this "stationary" observer (by which I mean a someone who you are traveling past at the speed of light) watches all this happen, both you and the light are still traveling at the same speed in his reference frame....the speed of light.\n\nSo the answer depends on who's frame of reference your talking about.  From your point of view, yes, you would see the light traveling away from you at the speed of light as if nothing was out of the ordinary.\nFrom the "Stationary" person's reference frame, you and the light would be keeping up with eachother, neither moving infront or falling behind the other one...tied.
575949
Einstein postulated that the speed of light would remain the same regardless of the inertial frame in which it is measured.  This contradicts classical physics, since if an object is moving at a velocity v, as measured in an inertial frame, and that inertial frame is moving with a velocity v2 with respect to a second inertial frame, then you should take the vector sum of the two velocities to determine the velocity of that object with respect to the second inertial frame.\n\nEinstein postulated that within an inertial frame the laws of classical physics held.  So, to make things work out Einstein calculated that time and space are distorted with velocity.  It is as though you and your brother are of different heights, but you both want to be the same height, so you take a rubber ruler and stretch it so you get the same measurement for the two of you.\n\nIn this way you always measure the speed of light as the same value, no matter how fast the source of the light is moving with respect to you.  You adjust the rubber ruler so that what you want to believe remains true.
414243
OK, traveling at light speed is impossible, just as Einstein proposed when he said that light speed is a limit speed.  However in the fiction part of it, lets assume you are traveling in a space shift at that speed, then nothing happened and you would see the light bulb as if you were traveling at a lower speed, that is because of relativity. You both are traveling at the same speed, so the relative speed between you and the light bulb is zero.  I hope this helps you and I'm adding a link so you can study a little bit more on those subjects.
299439
You've confused the statement of the theory. Let two observers be in the same inertial reference frame with two synchronized watches. One observer accelerates in a negligibly small amount of time to some fraction of the speed of light relative to the other observer. The latter observer will be called O1 and the moving observer O2. \nO2 will measure the time in 01's reference frame to be going *slower* than the time in his frame. Likewise, O1 will measure the passage of time in 02's frame to be going *slower* than in 01's frame (the half-life of particles "increases" depending on their speeds). In other words, given two events A and B that always occur t seconds apart in O, they will occur at some separation T > t when measured from O'. The same will occur if O' is switched with O in the sentence above.\nQuestions like this usually come from confusing the relativity of simultaneity. Remember that in relativity, there are no two events that are simultaneous with respect to all inertial frames. \nI recommend you check out the text "Spacetime Physics" by Wheeler et al.
11066
well first, read my other answer to your question about the speed of sound.  You would probably expect the answer to be the same, and the light to reach the other car, but this is a special circumstance because nothing can travel faster than the speed of light, not even light itself.  when a beam of light is shone ahead of a rapidly moving space vehicle, and is expected to be moving at the speed of light plus the speed of the vehicle, it is still only moving at the speed of light, which is puzzling.  Physicists have defined the speed of light to be the ultimate cutoff point for speed.\n\nAnd also, you wouldn't be able to travel at the speed of light anyway because time would probably stop since it does get slower and slower the faster you go.  Velocity warps time, the faster you go, the slower time moves for you relative to a stationary object.  I've read this, and it is definately true, we had to derive the formula in physics from, and calculate the time, lenghth(which decreases with speed), and mass (which increases with speed) distortion as well.  The effects of this are very negligable unless you are moving at speeds very very close to the speed of light, at least over 90% of the speed of light, and we haven't gotten anywhere close yet.  The denominator of this factor that time, length, and mass are distorted by actually is 1 minus the square root of the speed of light(c) over the speed in which the object is traveling (v), so the reason you can't go faster than the speed of light is because if v was greater than c, then that square root would be greater than one, meaning the denominator would be negative, meaning the factor would be negative, and the light would actually be travelling backwards in time...\n\nIf you find any of this interesting, I highly recommend "The Elegant Universe" by Brian Greene.
960079
You've lost the point of the equation.  Squaring the speed of light will give you the energy released, not an enhanced speed of light.
468247
The speed of light is constant, approximately 300,000km/second. \n\nThe principals of relative motion are that if you are travelling at a speed, and you look at something else travelling at another speed, your perception of the speed of that something else will be the difference between your two speeds. For example if you are travelling 60, and you get overtaken by someone going at 70, you perceive them to be travelling at 10, since they travelling at 10 relative to you. \n\nHowever, you can never perceive the speed of light to be anything different than it's constant value. Therefore, if you travel at half the speed of light, time actually slows down to half of what it normally is, since this is the only way for the speed of light to remain constant. \n\nTherefore if you travel at the speed of light, time stands still. To answer your question, I don't know what you'd see, but probably nothing!\n\nTheres a more complicated explanation involving the magnetic and electric fields of a photo of light, but that's the basics.
1149311
Light does not intend to travel at the speed of light\nLight travels at a certain speed, it actually does not know its speed.\nWhen scientists measured this speed they found it 299 792 458 m / s or about 186000 miles per second \nso they make it fixed term, refereed as "the speed of light", used it in other physical equations...\nthen it "speed of light" became a famous term. \nBut Light still does not know that they called its velocity as the light speed..\nAnd I think it will not know!
1126307
the opposite of the speed of light :)