Small Question About Einstein's Second Postulate

[yoyo13rom]

Ok so I was wondering, does anyone know how was Einstein's second postulate been experimentally demonstrated?
You know, the one in which there is no greater speed than the speed of light... Or scientifically speaking(quoting wikipedia):

As measured in any inertial frame of reference, light is always propagated in empty space with a definite velocity c that is independent of the state of motion of the emitting body.

Also for discussion value what's your take on the theory of relativity?(I have an exam paper on it and wave physics tomorrow and the subject just fascinates me).

 

[yoyo13rom]

Now I remembered why I had stopped coming to the forums: My threads are shit!
Eh, I should make a note not to make them anymore.

 

[Hashime]

This is a great thread! It is just that a large portion of the community are 14 year old boys, and the majority of the rest are / are future arts majors.

I am not sure about the second postulate being physically tested, but mathematically it is sound.

Relativity is awesome because once we figure out how to travel quickly time travel to the future will be possible! (faster that normal)

I also cannot wait for my quantum physics and probability class next term. As a nanotech student it is important to me.

 

[Corkydog]

I thought postulates by definition were unproveable, but assumed to be true for the time being...

 

[theonlyblaze2]

Ow, my brain. If you are asking if you can't go faster than the speed of light, I think it can happen. If that isn't what you are asking, disregard this post.

 

[Valate_v1legacy]

It's not proven, it's just commonly held as true, when I can assure you, it ISN'T.

But it only isn't under extreme and random circumstances(Untill we have the tech to create/harness such anomalies), and if the Big Bang theory is to be held, then everything is going at least 4 times the spead of light away from the center of the universe. That's just my 2 dollars.

 

[TheAmazingHobo]

I think it actually has been shown. I faintly remember that this was accomplished by looking at light emiting from binary pulsars or something. But no idea how/if they accounted for optical extinction or if that actually even counts as proving it.
Long time since I had to deal with physics as such.

As for the theory ?
I find it highly interesting, because it is just so insanely counter-intuitive. Of course light should be faster depending on the speed of the emiter, right ? But it just isn´t. It´s like the universe is trolling us ^^

But hey, always nice to see someone who is interested in any kind of hard science. Should it actually be your major, I hope you succeed at it. Should it just be an interest of yours, I hope you maintain it.

 

[Melon Hunter]

It's not proven, it's just commonly held as true, when I can assure you, it ISN'T.

But it only isn't under extreme and random circumstances(Untill we have the tech to create/harness such anomalies), and if the Big Bang theory is to be held, then everything is going at least 4 times the spead of light away from the center of the universe. That's just my 2 dollars.

If you're talking about the Hubble Constant, that's not the physical motion of objects; that's the expansion of space itself. It is perfectly possible to move away from objects faster than the speed of light if they're far enough away. Also, there's no centre of the universe. Everything moves away from everything else at a speed proportional to the distance between the two objects, so no matter where you are in the universe, it will look like everything is moving away from you.