- #1
QuestionMarks
- 64
- 0
In trying to understand relativity, I once read a statement that even traveling at the speed of light, an emitted photon traveling in your direction would still move away from you at the speed of light.
This confuses me as I have a hard time correlating it to a real scenario. Say "The Flash" (moves at c) was at a starting line with a flashlight. Could he not race the photons emitted from the flashlight? But what if The Flash was carrying a flashlight while he ran and then turned it on; is this when the photons would move away from him at the speed of light even though he is traveling that speed?
If so, this seems even more mind-boggling to me than I had originally understood relativity to be. I know it's often said that science doesn't like to address "why issues" per say, but is there any philosophical context perhaps that makes this necessity more intuitive if I'm right here?
This confuses me as I have a hard time correlating it to a real scenario. Say "The Flash" (moves at c) was at a starting line with a flashlight. Could he not race the photons emitted from the flashlight? But what if The Flash was carrying a flashlight while he ran and then turned it on; is this when the photons would move away from him at the speed of light even though he is traveling that speed?
If so, this seems even more mind-boggling to me than I had originally understood relativity to be. I know it's often said that science doesn't like to address "why issues" per say, but is there any philosophical context perhaps that makes this necessity more intuitive if I'm right here?