If you're in a car...

[CINN4M0N]

If you had someone sitting in the back seat, and you look behind you, and they lay down or pulled a face or something, would you see them do it? Or would you just see them sitting as they were originally, without motion?

 

[KefZ_X]

Unfortunalty Gravity kills you berfor you reach this the human body with some practice at pulling g, could withstand only a few seconds at more than 10 g before passing out from lack of blood flow to the brain. Or, more aptly, the lack of oxygen to feed the brain that only blood flow could provide. The heart can only beat against so much pressure before it losses the battle. Rookies couldn't hope to withstand more than about 5 or 6 g before losing consciousness.

Source
http://wiki.answers.com/Q/How_many_g's_can_a_human_take_before_they_blackout

 

[shinigamisparda]

Total ejaculation... Props to anyone who knows the source this answer right off the bat. For everyone else: http://thatguywiththeglasses.com/videolinks/thatguywiththeglasses/ask-thatguy/435-ask-thatguy-episode-3

 

[Veret]

I was look at this theoretical concept in my physics class earlier on today.
the light would never actually manage to leave the headlights. it would just sort of hover at the bulb because when the light tries to move, the bulb will be moving too at the same speed so it never leaves. That makes it sound like a big ball of light would appear but that's not true either. Because the light would never leave the headlight, if you somehow got in front of the car by also running at the speed of light, you wouldn't even see the car.

This is the answer you would expect from applying logic to classical Newtonian physics. It's also exactly what happens if you phrase the problem in terms of sound instead of light. The object (i.e. this magical car) builds up a wave of sound that's traveling at exactly the same speed, which is was causes the "sonic boom" effect of planes traveling at or above Mach 1.

But when you are moving at the speed of light, that answer is no longer correct. Why? Because you tried to apply logic to classical Newtonian physics. And when you're traveling at the speed of light, neither Newtonian physics nor logic will help you at all.

I'm not going to try to say what the correct answer is, because I have no idea; I just know that the "sonic boom" answer most people have been giving is wrong, and you need to look into Einstein's relativity theories. Shit like this is the reason I never bothered with upper level physics, despite cruising through kinematics and the like.

 

[Marowit]

um, why would you need light....if you're traveling at the speed of light...?

in all seriousness, your head would explode soon as you turn the knob.

From your reference frame, the light exits your headlights at 30000000 meters per second.

From a stationary reference frame, the light exits your headlights at 30000000 meters per

p.s. since we're using zeros, I just want to point out, you're a zero off. don't fuck around when it comes to orders of magnitude my friend. science doesn't look too kindly on that kind of shit.

3 x 10 ^ 8 m/s =

300,000,000 m/s.

 

[PrimoThePro]

first i would eat some cake. then focus on the fact that im moving so fast that if there was any resistance at all (such as wind) id be ripped apart. which is bad.

 

[mikecoulter]

The light would just go twice the normal speed of light. Simple.

I lol'd

OT: You wouldn't see anything.

Surely anyone else watching from a stationary standpoint outside the car wouldn't see anything, but you would see the headlights a per normal.

 

[Zildjin81]

The light would just go twice the normal speed of light. Simple.

I lol'd

OT: You wouldn't see anything.

Surely anyone else watching from a stationary standpoint outside the car wouldn't see anything, but you would see the headlights a per normal.

Sure, but they* light's wouldn't go twice the speed of light.

*EDIT: the