If you are in a vehicle,traveling at the speed of light,what happens when you switch on the headlights?

Answer 1

you'll be able to see better

Answer 2

The theory is that, at the speed of light the mass of the travelling object increases infinitely and expands. So practically it is not possible to travel at the speed of light.

But there are other theoretical options such as bending space to achieve this. So, will the light itself work? That is questionable. Also time slows down , at the speed of light.

When you accelerate a mass, you add to its kinetic energy. This added movement energy is equivalent to a mass increase, since energy is equivalent to mass:
E = m*c^2

As a mass approaches the speed of light, more and more energy added to the mass is "consumed" by the mass increase, so it takes increasingly more energy to achieve the same acceleration, to the point that you would need more than the total energy of the universe to achieve further acceleration - and you are still not at the speed of light, yet!

The "solar bounce" space ship can also not reach the speed of light (again: this would require more energy than the universe has).

Link below.

Answer 3

There are light speed vehicles that actually have headlights? I don't remember any such thing on the Millenium Falcon or Starship Enterprise or Dr. Who's Tardus.

Answer 4

I would presume that everything would be normal to you, but not to the people outside the craft. Everything should function normally. If you think of light as an atomic or molecular structure, then think of it as, "ok I am on a ship travelling at the speed of light and I turn on the water", what do you expect to happen? The water should flow right?

Answer 5

Nothingout of the ordinary, from you point ov view, but from an outside observer at rest, he sees no headlight beams. The question is nonsense anyway, since it takes infinate energy for anything that has any mass to accelerate to the speed of light

Answer 6

you receives pulled over with the help of the police. As for the headlights, they're going to be on, yet no mild will go away them as you're occurring the same p.c., its like throwing a ball in the front of you and then operating after it on the same p.c., its relative position does not replace.

Answer 7

you won't see the light in front of you because the light will be beside the vehicle as they are at the same speed

Answer 8

Don't worry about that....just stop the car before you hurt sombody.

Answer 9

But it'd be damn hard to get that fast.

This is still unproven according to James P. Hogan. Following is a very interesting experiment suggestion to NASA.

INTERFEROMETRY BEYOND THE TERRESTRIAL MAGNETOPAUSE

The Einstein Special Relativity Theory (SRT), we all "know," forms one of the cornerstones of modern physics. Its predictions are utilized on a routine basis, and it has withstood every experimental test.

These predictions boil down, essentially, to applications of the principles of (i) mass-energy equivalence (E=mc*2), (ii) mass dependence on velocity, and (iii) time dilation. Experiments verifying these relationships have been performed with increasing precision in the course of the past century. These are the proofs that the textbooks cite in support of SRT, and which its defenders point to when questions are raised concerning Relativity basics.

But it turns out that _all_ of them can be derived by purely classical procedures, independently of any Relativistic considerations. They don't say anything unique about SRT at all. (i) follows from the principle of conservation of momentum and Maxwell's equations. Carl Zapffe gives three derivations in his book "A Reminder on E+mc*2," with numerous references that show how it was implicit in the physics known at the end of the nineteenth century. Regarding (ii), Petr Beckmann, in his "Einstein Plus Two" (1987), shows how the increase of "mass" with velocity arises as a manifestation of the electrical inertia of charges moving through fields--analogous to aerodynamic drag.

Essentially, these are effects arising from the energy differences of relatively moving systems. The question they lead to is whether the results observed regarding (iii) (e.g. the extended lives of cosmic-ray muons) are in fact confirmation of "time" being dilated, as per SRT, or result from the physical slowing-down of clocklike processes in motion through a field. The only way to test this empirically would be to sit on an incoming muon and observe whether the laboratory clocks (at rest in the field) also slow down (as the observer-referred SRT holds) or speed up (as a field-referred theory would predict). This has never been done. (A whole literature exists on all this, but I don't think that here would be the place to elaborate further.)

So, the standard proofs turn out not to be proofs at all. All that's left, then, is the interpretation of the 1881 Michelson-Morley attempt to measure an "ether wind," and its many variations performed since.

The null results returned by these experiments have two possible interpretations: (1) There is no ether; (2) the ether local to the Earth is entrained in its orbit around the Sun. (1), of course, is the orthodox line. The constancy of the speed of light for all observers is a _postulate_ that follows from accepting this interpretation. Contrary to common belief, it has never been verified experimentally. (The claimed verifications all involve round-trip measurements that average out the c+/-v velocities that arise in field-referred theories.) Having thus conferred constancy on a velocity, it then becomes necessary to distort space and time in order to preserve it. This, in effect, is what the transformation equations of SRT do.

Treating the ether as a quasi-mechanical fluid was a natural consequence of the advances in materials sciences in the nineteenth century; the peculiar properties that followed from viewing it in this way make the readiness to go with interpretation (1), and abandon the ether altogether, understandable. The situation changes considerably, however, when reviewed in terms of today's ideas of fields (which isn't to say that the concept of fields was unknown then, of course). In particular, it has been shown (e.g. by Beckmann) that the results of all the experiments performed to date, normally taken as evidence supporting SRT, are equally consistent with an alternative interpretation in which the velocity of light is constant not with respect to the observer (as in SRT), but with respect to the field environment through which the light propagates. The difference is that the derivations follow more simply, without the distortions of space and time, and the accompanying mathematical complications of SRT; also, the field-referred theory has greater predictive power (e.g in enabling derivation of the spectral line spacings for the hydrogen atom). By the criteria normally claimed of science-- equally compatible with experimental results; simpler; more powerful predictively--this would become the preferred theory.

And, indeed, when thought of as the terrestrial electromagnetic field environment, the "ether" is indeed entrained and moves with the Earth in its orbit around the Sun. The plots from NASA's own space probes show nothing clearer than the sharply defined boundary of the terrestrial magnetosphere ("geosphere"), extending out to about ten Earth radii, elongated like a teardrop pointing away from the Sun, forming a huge shock front around which the solar wind streams like the slipstream outside the hull of an airplane. And here, in our laboratories solidly nailed to our planet deep inside this bubble, is where, for a century, we have been attempting to measure our orbital slipstream. But, if the field-referred proposal is correct, that slipstream exists not in the vicinity of the Earth at all, but at the boundary where the embedded geosphere meets the magnetic "heliosphere" of the Sun (and very likely moves with it through a greater "galactosphere"). We've been trying to measure our airspeed with our pitot tube inside the cabin instead of outside in the atmosphere.

(The geosphere travels with the Earth but does not appear to rotate with it. Accordingly, a suitable Michelson-Morely type of experiment performed on the Earth's surface ought to be capable of detecting a "rotational wind"--although it would need to be far more sensitive than the 1881 experiment. Such an experiment was performed in 1925 by Michelson and Gale. Not only was a fringe shift observed, but it was possible to calculate the Earth's rotational velocity quite accurately from the results. Michelson himself was never enthusiastic about the orthodox interpretation, and continued to favor the entrained-ether alternative until his death.)

I would propose, therefore, an interferometry experiment designed along the lines of the Michelson-Morely prototype, but taking advantage of today's technologies, to be performed from a spacecraft _outside_ the geosphere boundary--preferably trailing the craft itself, to eliminate possible shielding effects within the structure. On emerging from the geosphere, the craft would be moving through the heliosphere with its shared orbital velocity of the Earth around the Sun, direct measurement of which should be easily accomplished if the field-centered hypothesis is valid. Thus, for the first time ever, an experiment would have been performed to distinguish between the observer-referred theory (SRT) and the alternative.

Should the results prove positive, such methods of "astro- interferometry" should be of particular interest to an organization like NASA because of the potential usefulness of the techniques that could follow, especially with regard to longer-range space missions in the future. For example, the fringe behavior might offer the basis for a spacegoing _odometer_ and _speedometer_ for measuring displacements and velocities relative to local (solar, planetary, or other) embedding fields. Also, the transitions between field domains could provide a means of _cosmographic mapping_ of a field-structured Solar System, and maybe of the interstellar environment beyond.

Answer 10

you would see nothing......