If I could film an object travelling at or near the speed of light and then played the film back at say ten times it's normal speed. Would the object depicted be travelling faster than light?
2006-10-21 07:12:34 · 13 answers · asked by Anonymous in Science & Mathematics ➔ Other - Science
It is impossible. Light has the highest permitted velocity. An object cannot travel at c due to the fact that it would require infinite energy to achieve that. Besides, if it achieves to travel at c, it would become light!!!!
2006-10-21 07:17:11 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Hi. Aspphire is correct. The edge of the wave hitting shore can travel at ANY speed, even faster than light. But the edge is not a "thing", it's a point or line.
2006-10-21 07:37:34 · answer #2 · answered by Cirric 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
The film is light - it can't travel faster than itself.
But your idea is a bit like a wave hitting the shore at an angle - the part that seems to be breaking can travel along the beach much faster than the wave itself.
2006-10-21 07:23:42 · answer #3 · answered by Aspphire 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
No because effectively you would be speeding the light in the film up by the same amount.
2006-10-21 07:22:35 · answer #4 · answered by Mogseye 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
No, by definition of quantam physics *nothing* can travel faster than the speed of light. The only thing that gets close is gravitational force.
2006-10-21 07:17:15 · answer #5 · answered by nert 4 · 1⤊ 0⤋
this could be a properly-common situation. in case you have a wave crashing right into a sea coast at an somewhat small attitude the the ingredient of touch between the wave and the sea coast travels the sea coast at an outstanding cost. needless to say whilst it incredibly is parallel to the sea coast then the cost would be instant which seems to violate the rule of thumb with regard to the cost of light, etc. however the approach isn't transmitting any "innovations" so as that the violation does not happen. further with your stars, etc.
2016-10-15 06:39:20 · answer #6 · answered by ? 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
you'd have to have a pretty special camera to capture that.
calculate the size of the field of the lens, how long would the object be seen by the camera and what frame rate would be required?
silly question really
2006-10-21 07:25:40 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
No. The map is not the territory. The picture is not the object.
2006-10-21 07:22:13 · answer #8 · answered by Helmut 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Thats just silly.
2006-10-21 09:06:20 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
only if your flim speed is fast enough to catch it and then it would only appear to do so and if so can you see it????
God bless,
gabe
2006-10-21 07:26:05 · answer #10 · answered by gabegm1 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋