What is the total speed of light? (clearer)?

No question light constant speed of 186,000 miles per/sec. It is the ride-on concept that has not been explored.





Here is another illustration: the head beam of car has range of 2 miles only, no matter what, it can reach 2 miles, though, but LIGHT IS CONSTANT. Suppose the car has traveled straight 100 miles, after 1 hour.. What is distance traveled by the light, riding on the motion of car, after one hour?








Jsaldea12





9.22.09What is the total speed of light? (clearer)?
speed of light= 300000000m/s





so the distance covered by it in 1 hour , ie. 60 seconds is


60*300000000=18000000000mWhat is the total speed of light? (clearer)?
There's no ';concept'; here. You simply don't understand what you are talking about. Individual photons leave the car's headlights at 186,000 miles per second. The two miles is the distance at which the human eye can no longer resolve the spot of light. It has nothing whatsoever with how far or how fast the light travels, and once each photon has left the light, it has no idea what the car is doing. There IS no light ';riding on the motion of the car';. The light's travelling at 186,000 miles per second. It's long gone.





The light which was emitted right at the start of the hour? It's travelled 186,000 * the number of seconds in an hour.


The light which was emitted right at the end of the hour? It's travelled no distance at all. The photons have only just been created.





I'm afraid NASA are ignoring you because you haven't even reached the level of an average 12 year old yet. Please go read a book on this. You are not ready to be trying to invent scientific concepts - you don't have enough knowledge of the basics.
The speed of light, in vacuum, is 2.997925 (+/- 0.0000002) x 10^10 cm/sec


Nearly 300,000 km/h


By relativity the speed of light is constant. It doesn't move any faster because the car is travelling - the light emitted is gone and on its own. The speed of the the car does not add to the speed of the light..
One could argue that the question is meaningless. After all, Force = mass x acceleration where mass is the rest-mass which is defined as the resistance to acceleration. I know it's a circular definition - but that's the best you get. Mass is an intrinsic property of matter. Light is made from photons which are the carrier for the electromagnetic force. Photons have no rest mass.





For something that does have rest-mass:


F = ma (for non relativistic speeds)





a=F/m





m cannot be zero because it makes the equation undefined. Actually, m cannot be close to zero either because for a given force, the acceleration shoots off towards infinity as the mass nears zero. And we know massless photons travel at a constant speed therefore a tiny mass cannot go that fast let alone shoot off to infinite speed. The relativistic force for a mass at high speed must be described as a dynamic equation of momentum:





F = dp/dt





where p is momentum (mass x velocity). ( this is a differential equation )





Working this out will reveal that the force contains two components of acceleration:





one parallel to the direction of travel, and one perpendicular to it.





The eqn looks like this:





F = ~^3ma|| + ~ma_





It's a tough read in these limited symbols:





~ means 'gamma'


^3 means 'cubed'


m = rest-mass of the object


a = acceleration


|| indicates parallel


_ indicates perpendicular





Anyway - the point is, even for a tiny mass at high speed you can find a force and it is meaningful to talk about acceleration. But if m=0 F=0 and in both terms the acceleration could be anything. Again... it's undefined.





Also - gamma ~ is 1/sqrt(1-(v/c)^2)


where c is the speed of light, and v is the velocity that the mass is going. v cannot equal c because division by zero is not allowed. This bolsters the undefinability of 'Force' for a massless particle. v cannot exceed c because sqrt(-ve) is a tough call for real values.





Furthermore, a single photon behaves like a wave. If you try to locate it as a particle, then due to Heisenberg's uncertainty principle the position and momentum cannot be measured simultaneously





delta X . delta P %26gt;= h_bar/2





Where h_bar is a small constant.





This means that the more tightly you measure position, X, the less certain you are about the momentum P. This is a basic property that cannot be violated. To measure distance D traveled you use





D = st





and distance is the difference between two positions, x_1 and x_2.





The more you pin down x_1 and x2, the more uncertain is the momentum P and for a massless thing like a photon you could argue that it takes zero time to travel anywhere. This is nonsense really, so again, the question becomes meaningless.





If you pin down the momentum, then the X_1 and X_2 are very uncertain and the photon is smeared over everywhere. Again, rather hard to swallow and the question becomes meaningless.





Perhaps this is why so many people have so much trouble with the speed of light. It might be better to talk of the 'Einstein speed' or something and state it as a cosmic speed limit. This would free up photons to be photons in their own little (big) world without the burden of forever being compared to things with mass.