Daily Telegraph Prize Crossword Herculis...
Crosswords0 min ago
No best answer has yet been selected by bigveg. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.It depends, you've made the asumption than things can travel faster than light speed.
If this was the case you'd see things in front of you lit up as you would driving at normal car speeds with the headlights on. And the speed of light would be called 'the speed of light from a stationary object'. The forward velcoity of the car would be imparted to the light as it leaves the light bulb. The light's speed would be the speed of light from a stationary object plus the speed of the car.
Now we assume that nothing can travel faster than light, and we're travelling at light speed.
Nothing in front of the headlights would be lit up by the headlights as you are travelling at the same speed as light.
If, in this light-speed car, you hold a flashlight and switch it on, it will light up. If you hold it in front of you and point it at yourself you will see it illuminated as you are travelling towards the light.
However, if you shone the flashlight into the back of the car to see what was on the back seat you wouldn't see anything. You cannot see anything behind you, from the direction you came, as light can't catch you up.
I'm by no means a physicist, so I may be talking complete rubbish.
Yup, it's a no-win situation, CT.
Magistrate; "You were caught doing 675,000,000 mph in a speed of light zone."
Defendant; "But I didn't see the 671,000,000 mph speed limit signs, M'lud."
M; "Exactly, then you must have been exceeding the limit. I fine you 500 Interstellar Euro Dollars and three Penalty points on your Galactic Pilot's License"