Relativity

[skepticalbip]

Some implications of this stuff: if ya wanna know how much faster a light is moving compared to a moving object, no math is required.

A pudgy 6 year old girl and her athletic 16 year old brother decide they're gonna have a foot race, and he's much faster than her. They run from the marker to the wall. When dad fires the gun towards the wall to signal the commencement of the race, the wife (mother) shines a light towards the wall:

A: sister
B: brother
C: light
D: bullet

How much faster is a than b? Requires subtraction
How much faster is b than a? Requires some math, right?
A to d, d to a, same thing: pull out the abacus

From slowest to fastest, we have a, b, d, c

If we want to know how much faster is c than a, no math required. C to b, no math needed.

Light is equally faster than a bullet than is light to a snail. (That's an implication of what I'm being told)

This is a "paradox" you are creating for yourself because you continue to insist on not citing a reference frame.
Let's designate the ground is the reference frame for all the measurements and the race is to be for one Kilometer.
A: assume the sister runs at 1 Km/Hr with respect to the ground
B: assume the brother runs at 10 Km/Hr with respect to the ground
C: light moves 1,080,000,000 Km/Hr with respect to the ground
D: assume the bullet moves at 100 Km/Hr with respect to the ground

It will take the sister one hour to complete the race, the brother 1/10 hour to complete the race, light 1/1,080,000,000 hour to complete the race, and the bullet 1/100 hour to complete the race. It should be obvious that the speed difference between any two of the racers (with respect to the specified reference frame) is easily seen including light. Obvious since speed is distance per unit time and the distance designation requires a frame of reference.

You seem to be constantly switching reference frames in your arguments. In this case you seem to be changing the reference frame for light willy-nilly from a reference frame of the ground to a reference frame of whichever racer you are comparing the speed of light to.

While it is true that the speed of light is constant with respect to any chosen reference frame, it is not true that once a reference is chosen that the difference between the speed of light and the speed of everything else moving in the same reference frame will be the same.

And there I was thinking my switching was 'relative' to who I was talking to.

If I'm moving relative to the ground and light is moving relative to the ground, then we should be able to measure both my speed relative to the ground and measure the light's speed relative to the ground. If I increase my speed relative to the ground, the speed of light relative to the ground doesn't change. When I express my speed relative to the ground as a percentage of the speed of light relative to the ground, I should not get the same percentage when I speed up.

If I'm traveling at a speed relative to the ground that puts my speed at 1/4c relative to the ground and later increase my speed relative to the ground that puts my speed at 1/2c relative to the ground, then I'm now traveling 1/2 the speed of light relative to the ground. In both cases, whether I'm traveling at the slower speed or traveling at the higher speed, the speed of light relative to the ground hasn't changed.

Yet, something's amiss. I get the sense that not everyone shares the view that we can even travel at any proportional speed of light relative to the ground since light relative to me will always appear to travel away from me at the same speed no matter how fast I'm going. Not travel at but away. If I'm traveling at 1/4c relative to the ground and shine a light that takes off at c relative to me, then how is that reconciled with its speed relative to the ground?

What is amiss is that you keep switching reference frames in the middle of your "analysis".

If you are traveling at 1/4c relative to the ground using yourself as the reference frame then you will not see yourself as moving with respect to your reference frame but will see the ground moving at 1/4c in the opposite direction (sorta like being on a fast, smooth train where you don't feel like you are moving but it looks like the scenery is zipping by in the opposite direction to which you are moving). And, of course, will measure light travelling at c in your reference frame with respect to you.

Meanwhile someone on the ground observing will, in their reference frame, see themselves as stationary and see you moving at 1/4c and will measure light at c in their reference frame. This means that, from their reference frame, the light is still moving at c which is only 3/4c faster than they measure you moving.

These are observations from two different reference frames that, by not establishing a reference frame from which all measurements are made, you insist on trying to combine.

 

[steve_bank]

Fast

No No ! A thousand times no!

Sometimes you seem to get, then you don't. C will be the same no matter the frame.

Close your eyes and create a mental picture. Two spaceships are at rest. One accelerates away to a relative velocity of say .5 C. The other emits a laser pulse towards the other ship. The other ship will measure the pulse's speed as C. Is that not clear?

Regardless of acceleration and relative velocity on each ship a meter, second, and kilogram will appear the same.

 

[fast]

Fast

No No ! A thousand times no!

Sometimes you seem to get, then you don't. C will be the same no matter the frame.

Close your eyes and create a mental picture. Two spaceships are at rest. One accelerates away to a relative velocity of say .5 C. The other emits a laser pulse towards the other ship. The other ship will measure the pulse's speed as C. Is that not clear?

Regardless of acceleration and relative velocity on each ship a meter, second, and kilogram will appear the same.

P1: If I'm traveling at 99MPH and you come up behind me at 100MPH, I will recognize two things: you are traveling fast but coming up slowly.

P2: If I'm traveling at 99.9%c and light comes up behind me at c, I will recognize two things: light is traveling fast but coming up slowly.

I'm saying P1 and P2 are true, but it's like most of y'all are saying P2 is false.

If I'm the one on the space ship that takes off and you emit a beam, then WHEN it actually gets to me, sure, I'll measure it at C, and when it passes me, I'll measure it at C, but the speed of light relative to myself should seem slow, as if I could reach out and pet the leading photons as they turtle by.

 

[fast]

And there I was thinking my switching was 'relative' to who I was talking to.

If I'm moving relative to the ground and light is moving relative to the ground, then we should be able to measure both my speed relative to the ground and measure the light's speed relative to the ground. If I increase my speed relative to the ground, the speed of light relative to the ground doesn't change. When I express my speed relative to the ground as a percentage of the speed of light relative to the ground, I should not get the same percentage when I speed up.

If I'm traveling at a speed relative to the ground that puts my speed at 1/4c relative to the ground and later increase my speed relative to the ground that puts my speed at 1/2c relative to the ground, then I'm now traveling 1/2 the speed of light relative to the ground. In both cases, whether I'm traveling at the slower speed or traveling at the higher speed, the speed of light relative to the ground hasn't changed.

Yet, something's amiss. I get the sense that not everyone shares the view that we can even travel at any proportional speed of light relative to the ground since light relative to me will always appear to travel away from me at the same speed no matter how fast I'm going. Not travel at but away. If I'm traveling at 1/4c relative to the ground and shine a light that takes off at c relative to me, then how is that reconciled with its speed relative to the ground?

What is amiss is that you keep switching reference frames in the middle of your "analysis".

If you are traveling at 1/4c relative to the ground using yourself as the reference frame then you will not see yourself as moving with respect to your reference frame but will see the ground moving at 1/4c in the opposite direction. And, of course, will measure light travelling at c in your reference frame with respect to you.

Meanwhile someone on the ground observing will, in their reference frame, see themselves as stationary and see you moving at 1/4c and will measure light at c in their reference frame. This means that, from their reference frame, the light is still moving at c which is only 3/4c faster than they measure you moving.

These are observations from two different reference frames that, by not establishing a reference frame from which all measurements are made, you insist on trying to combine.

I get that I'm not traveling 1/4c relative to myself. I guess I would never be moving relative to myself, but I'm comparing myself relative to the ground and the speed of light relative to the ground.

 

[skepticalbip]

And there I was thinking my switching was 'relative' to who I was talking to.

If I'm moving relative to the ground and light is moving relative to the ground, then we should be able to measure both my speed relative to the ground and measure the light's speed relative to the ground. If I increase my speed relative to the ground, the speed of light relative to the ground doesn't change. When I express my speed relative to the ground as a percentage of the speed of light relative to the ground, I should not get the same percentage when I speed up.

If I'm traveling at a speed relative to the ground that puts my speed at 1/4c relative to the ground and later increase my speed relative to the ground that puts my speed at 1/2c relative to the ground, then I'm now traveling 1/2 the speed of light relative to the ground. In both cases, whether I'm traveling at the slower speed or traveling at the higher speed, the speed of light relative to the ground hasn't changed.

Yet, something's amiss. I get the sense that not everyone shares the view that we can even travel at any proportional speed of light relative to the ground since light relative to me will always appear to travel away from me at the same speed no matter how fast I'm going. Not travel at but away. If I'm traveling at 1/4c relative to the ground and shine a light that takes off at c relative to me, then how is that reconciled with its speed relative to the ground?

What is amiss is that you keep switching reference frames in the middle of your "analysis".

If you are traveling at 1/4c relative to the ground using yourself as the reference frame then you will not see yourself as moving with respect to your reference frame but will see the ground moving at 1/4c in the opposite direction. And, of course, will measure light travelling at c in your reference frame with respect to you.

Meanwhile someone on the ground observing will, in their reference frame, see themselves as stationary and see you moving at 1/4c and will measure light at c in their reference frame. This means that, from their reference frame, the light is still moving at c which is only 3/4c faster than they measure you moving.

These are observations from two different reference frames that, by not establishing a reference frame from which all measurements are made, you insist on trying to combine.

I get that I'm not traveling 1/4c relative to myself. I guess I would never be moving relative to myself, but I'm comparing myself relative to the ground and the speed of light relative to the ground.

No you are not. If you are saying how fast you measure light to be moving then you are assuming that you are the reference frame doing the measurement. Traveling at 0.25c with respect to the ground, you can not measure how fast light will be seen as moving by someone on the ground. You can only calculate what they will see. A reference frame does not move with respect to itself regardless with how it is moving with respect to other reference frames like the ground in your case.

I really would suggest that you go through the math of special relativity. It is quite simple, so simple that anyone who passed eighth grade math should have absolutely no problem with it. If you can understand the math then special relativity becomes obvious. General relativity is another story entirely but what we are talking about is special relativity.

 

[Wiploc]

If I'm moving relative to the ground and light is moving relative to the ground, then we should be able to measure both my speed relative to the ground and measure the light's speed relative to the ground. If I increase my speed relative to the ground, the speed of light relative to the ground doesn't change. When I express my speed relative to the ground as a percentage of the speed of light relative to the ground, I should not get the same percentage when I speed up.

If I'm traveling at a speed relative to the ground that puts my speed at 1/4c relative to the ground and later increase my speed relative to the ground that puts my speed at 1/2c relative to the ground, then I'm now traveling 1/2 the speed of light relative to the ground. In both cases, whether I'm traveling at the slower speed or traveling at the higher speed, the speed of light relative to the ground hasn't changed.

Not sure I'm following you, but let's try this:

Sara's on the ground. You're in the ship traveling at .5c relative to Sara.

The light travels at c relative to Sara, and it travels at c relative to you. The fact that you sped up means that--according to you, but not according to Sara--light sped up too.

Sara says that her light beam passes you at .5c. But you say, no, it's passing you at c, so it must be leaving her at 1.5c.

You can never pet the photons as they pass, because they move at c relative to you. Always. And Sara will insist that they move c relative to her.

Yet, something's amiss. I get the sense that not everyone shares the view that we can even travel at any proportional speed of light relative to the ground since light relative to me will always appear to travel away from me at the same speed no matter how fast I'm going.

Earlier, you were giving your speed as relative to c, and that we universally rejected. But when you say you are traveling at some fraction of c relative to the ground then we're happy with that.

Not travel at but away. If I'm traveling at 1/4c relative to the ground and shine a light that takes off at c relative to me, then how is that reconciled with its speed relative to the ground?

You think Sara (stopped relative to the ground) should see the light as moving at 1.25c, since you see it as moving at c. But both of you measure it at c. That is, she says it moves at c relative to her, and you say it moves at c relative to you. You disagree.

Until you get this part, we can't start explaining all the weird distortions that we have to make to account for it. We'll say that Sara is foreshortened, and more massive, and that her time has slowed down, and maybe other things. And this is how we rationalize that she thinks light is traveling at c relative to her when you know that it is traveling at c relative to you.

 

[Wiploc]

Two spaceships are at rest.

Don't say that. It justifiably confuses him.

You can say that they are at rest relative to each other.

 

[Wiploc]

P1: If I'm traveling at 99MPH and you come up behind me at 100MPH, I will recognize two things: you are traveling fast but coming up slowly.

That never happens with light.

P2: If I'm traveling at 99.9%c and light comes up behind me at c, I will recognize two things: light is traveling fast but coming up slowly.

No, light always moves at 100% of c.

Hey, you can shoot a beam of light past Sara. She's going away from you (or you're going away from her) at .999c. So, you will know for a fact that light is just creeping past her. But she'll deny it. She will know for a fact that the light passed her at 100% of c.

And then you'll have to argue about when you triggered your light beam, and what speed time is passing for whom, and who is foreshortened by how much. And if you work all of that out, you'll know why she thought light was passing her at c when you know it was really passing her at .001c. And she'll know why you thought the light left you at c when she knows it left you at 1.999c.

I'm saying P1 and P2 are true, but it's like most of y'all are saying P2 is false.

P2 is false. For all of our different styles of explanation, nobody here will say that P2 is true.

If I'm the one on the space ship that takes off and you emit a beam, then WHEN it actually gets to me, sure, I'll measure it at C, and when it passes me, I'll measure it at C, but the speed of light relative to myself should seem slow, as if I could reach out and pet the leading photons as they turtle by.

You never see light as traveling at c relative to anything but yourself.
Sara never measures c as traveling at c relative to her.

C (uppercase) is centigrade.
c (lowercase) is the speed of light.

 

[Wiploc]

And there I was thinking my switching was 'relative' to who I was talking to.

If I'm moving relative to the ground and light is moving relative to the ground, then we should be able to measure both my speed relative to the ground and measure the light's speed relative to the ground. If I increase my speed relative to the ground, the speed of light relative to the ground doesn't change. When I express my speed relative to the ground as a percentage of the speed of light relative to the ground, I should not get the same percentage when I speed up.

If I'm traveling at a speed relative to the ground that puts my speed at 1/4c relative to the ground and later increase my speed relative to the ground that puts my speed at 1/2c relative to the ground, then I'm now traveling 1/2 the speed of light relative to the ground. In both cases, whether I'm traveling at the slower speed or traveling at the higher speed, the speed of light relative to the ground hasn't changed.

Yet, something's amiss. I get the sense that not everyone shares the view that we can even travel at any proportional speed of light relative to the ground since light relative to me will always appear to travel away from me at the same speed no matter how fast I'm going. Not travel at but away. If I'm traveling at 1/4c relative to the ground and shine a light that takes off at c relative to me, then how is that reconciled with its speed relative to the ground?

What is amiss is that you keep switching reference frames in the middle of your "analysis".

If you are traveling at 1/4c relative to the ground using yourself as the reference frame then you will not see yourself as moving with respect to your reference frame but will see the ground moving at 1/4c in the opposite direction. And, of course, will measure light travelling at c in your reference frame with respect to you.

Meanwhile someone on the ground observing will, in their reference frame, see themselves as stationary and see you moving at 1/4c and will measure light at c in their reference frame. This means that, from their reference frame, the light is still moving at c which is only 3/4c faster than they measure you moving.

These are observations from two different reference frames that, by not establishing a reference frame from which all measurements are made, you insist on trying to combine.

I get that I'm not traveling 1/4c relative to myself. I guess I would never be moving relative to myself, but I'm comparing myself relative to the ground and the speed of light relative to the ground.

If you are giving light's speed relative to the ground, you'll measure it at 1.25c.

 

[fast]

You can never pet the photons as they pass, because they move at c relative to you. Always.

This captures my attention. I realize I have been doing a lot of flip flopping. When I envision c as a constant, I adopt the view and visualize some resistance, and when I envision c as relative, I happily adopt that view and mount some resistance. It's like I have watched a movie with 2 endings and will argue that it ended in a way others didn't watch. Maybe the answer is that it's universally a constant speed relative to everyone no matter their position or speed.

Photons move at c relative to me.
Photons move at c relative to me.
Photons move at c relative to me.

Okay, I've said it three times. Let's see if it sinks in.

Earlier, you were giving your speed as relative to c, and that we universally rejected.

My mistake is this:

If I convert c to MPH and divide by 2, I call it .5c and assume it theoretically possible to travel that fast, but I can't travel that fast alongside light, as it will always be traveling at twice .5c faster than me, which means I'm aways traveling 0%c, no matter how fast I'm traveling relative to objects with mass.

 

[Wiploc]

You can never pet the photons as they pass, because they move at c relative to you. Always.

This captures my attention. I realize I have been doing a lot of flip flopping. When I envision c as a constant, I adopt the view and visualize some resistance, and when I envision c as relative, I happily adopt that view and mount some resistance. It's like I have watched a movie with 2 endings and will argue that it ended in a way others didn't watch. Maybe the answer is that it's universally a constant speed relative to everyone no matter their position or speed.

Photons move at c relative to me.
Photons move at c relative to me.
Photons move at c relative to me.

Okay, I've said it three times. Let's see if it sinks in.

Earlier, you were giving your speed as relative to c, and that we universally rejected.

My mistake is this:

If I convert c to MPH and divide by 2, I call it .5c and assume it theoretically possible to travel that fast, but I can't travel that fast alongside light, as it will always be traveling at twice .5c faster than me, which means I'm aways traveling 0%c, no matter how fast I'm traveling relative to objects with mass.

I want to say yes! I want to say bingo! I want to say you've got it!

But, when you say you're always traveling at 0%c, you're trying to give c a frame of reference.

But, aside from that, I think you've got it!

 

[Juma]

You can never pet the photons as they pass, because they move at c relative to you. Always.

This captures my attention. I realize I have been doing a lot of flip flopping. When I envision c as a constant, I adopt the view and visualize some resistance, and when I envision c as relative, I happily adopt that view and mount some resistance. It's like I have watched a movie with 2 endings and will argue that it ended in a way others didn't watch. Maybe the answer is that it's universally a constant speed relative to everyone no matter their position or speed.

Photons move at c relative to me.
Photons move at c relative to me.
Photons move at c relative to me.

Okay, I've said it three times. Let's see if it sinks in.

Earlier, you were giving your speed as relative to c, and that we universally rejected.

My mistake is this:

If I convert c to MPH and divide by 2, I call it .5c and assume it theoretically possible to travel that fast, but I can't travel that fast alongside light, as it will always be traveling at twice .5c faster than me, which means I'm aways traveling 0%c, no matter how fast I'm traveling relative to objects with mass.

That is true if you ment this:
Your frame of reference is standing still when measured from the photons frame of reference.

 

[fast]

This captures my attention. I realize I have been doing a lot of flip flopping. When I envision c as a constant, I adopt the view and visualize some resistance, and when I envision c as relative, I happily adopt that view and mount some resistance. It's like I have watched a movie with 2 endings and will argue that it ended in a way others didn't watch. Maybe the answer is that it's universally a constant speed relative to everyone no matter their position or speed.

Photons move at c relative to me.
Photons move at c relative to me.
Photons move at c relative to me.

Okay, I've said it three times. Let's see if it sinks in.


My mistake is this:

If I convert c to MPH and divide by 2, I call it .5c and assume it theoretically possible to travel that fast, but I can't travel that fast alongside light, as it will always be traveling at twice .5c faster than me, which means I'm aways traveling 0%c, no matter how fast I'm traveling relative to objects with mass.

That is true if you ment this:
Your frame of reference is standing still when measured from the photons frame of reference.

Yes

 

[fast]

Using smaller numbers, this might make more sense. If we pretend light travels at 1000MPH, then if I'm traveling at 10MPH and light passes me, it will a) be traveling at 1000MPH and b) be traveling exactly 1000MPH faster than me.

If I speed up and find that I'm now traveling twice my original speed, I would find that I'm now traveling 20MPH. If light passes me, I would still measure it at 1000MPH. In this case too, I would find that light is traveling faster than me. By how much? No math needed. It's traveling 1000MPH faster than me.

In both instances, my speed 10MPH and 20MPH are relative to the ground. The speed of light never changes in those situations, and in both instances, light is traveling at 1000MPH. How much faster is light traveling than me? No math needed. The answer is c, not c-10 or c-20 or some other closer approximation.

 

[skepticalbip]

This captures my attention. I realize I have been doing a lot of flip flopping. When I envision c as a constant, I adopt the view and visualize some resistance, and when I envision c as relative, I happily adopt that view and mount some resistance. It's like I have watched a movie with 2 endings and will argue that it ended in a way others didn't watch. Maybe the answer is that it's universally a constant speed relative to everyone no matter their position or speed.

Photons move at c relative to me.
Photons move at c relative to me.
Photons move at c relative to me.

Okay, I've said it three times. Let's see if it sinks in.


My mistake is this:

If I convert c to MPH and divide by 2, I call it .5c and assume it theoretically possible to travel that fast, but I can't travel that fast alongside light, as it will always be traveling at twice .5c faster than me, which means I'm aways traveling 0%c, no matter how fast I'm traveling relative to objects with mass.

That is true if you ment this:
Your frame of reference is standing still when measured from the photons frame of reference.

I'm not sure that "the photon's frame of reference" has any real useful meaning. A photon would "see" the universe as two dimensional and time as stopped - time dilation and Lorentz contraction to the limit. If not for the time dilation and contraction, the photon would see itself stationary and everything moving at c in the opposite direction to its direction of travel.

 

[skepticalbip]

Using smaller numbers, this might make more sense. If we pretend light travels at 1000MPH, then if I'm traveling at 10MPH and light passes me, it will a) be traveling at 1000MPH and b) be traveling exactly 1000MPH faster than me.

If I speed up and find that I'm now traveling twice my original speed, I would find that I'm now traveling 20MPH. If light passes me, I would still measure it at 1000MPH. In this case too, I would find that light is traveling faster than me. By how much? No math needed. It's traveling 1000MPH faster than me.

In both instances, my speed 10MPH and 20MPH are relative to the ground. The speed of light never changes in those situations, and in both instances, light is traveling at 1000MPH. How much faster is light traveling than me? No math needed. The answer is c, not c-10 or c-20 or some other closer approximation.

You are combining measurements from two different reference frames again. If you are moving with respect to the ground then there are two reference frames to be considered, you and the ground you are moving relative to. If you see yourself as moving then you are conflating reference frames and attributing a measurement (your motion) from another frame to your frame. You can not move with respect to yourself, your reference frame.

From the ground reference frame you are measured at 10 or 20 MPH and light is measured at c. The light is seen as moving c -10 or -20 MPH faster than you.

From your reference frame, you are not moving (a reference frame can not move with respect to itself) but you can measure the ground moving 10 or 20 MPH with respect to you. You will measure light as moving at c with respect to you and at c +10 or 20 with respect to the ground.

This isn't even primarily a relativistic problem. Newtonian mechanics addresses most of what is confusing you. Think of a boat moving against the current on a flowing river. The boatsman and an observer on the bank measurements's of what motions they see with respect to themselves of the boat, water, and bank will be quite different.

 

[fast]

My next example will have me tied down in a cage under anesthesia...cemented to something designed to shoot me if I jump reference frames again.

 

[Wiploc]

That is true if you ment this:
Your frame of reference is standing still when measured from the photons frame of reference.

Yes

Now I think we (the people advising you in this thread) have actual disagreement.

I should disclaim: I have no expertise in physics.

Remember when you had the magical horse? Sara was standing still (relative to herself), You were going sixty miles an hour (relative to Sara) the ball was going seventy (relative to Sara), and the horse was running 100mph relative to each of you?

How can a horse like that have a frame of reference? It doesn't have a native speed. It's speed depends who is looking at it. And if three people are looking at it, it runs simultaneously at three different speeds. So what would it mean to be going at some speed relative to the horse?

Someone with expertise may correct me, but I don't think that is a right or useful way to think about this.

 

[fast]

That is true if you ment this:
Your frame of reference is standing still when measured from the photons frame of reference.

Yes

Now I think we (the people advising you in this thread) have actual disagreement.

I should disclaim: I have no expertise in physics.

Remember when you had the magical horse? Sara was standing still (relative to herself), You were going sixty miles an hour (relative to Sara) the ball was going seventy (relative to Sara), and the horse was running 100mph relative to each of you?

How can a horse like that have a frame of reference? It doesn't have a native speed. It's speed depends who is looking at it. And if three people are looking at it, it runs simultaneously at three different speeds. So what would it mean to be going at some speed relative to the horse?

Someone with expertise may correct me, but I don't think that is a right or useful way to think about this.

Oh, there's definitely competing ideas. It shows amidst corrections to my repeated blunders.

Idea version 1.0:

When my newton cap is on, it's a close approximation to reality but only as we whiz along in our snail-paced lives; however, as we pick up speed and compete in a world of the furious fast, the approximation becomes less and less, and when we go all out and shift into high gear, the newton hat helps us not one bit. It requires the wearer to put on einstein's hat. And, we can't go wrong with that, as it correctly portrays reality.

Idea version 2:

Houston, we have a problem, for the faster we go, for some, we're picking up speed and climbing the percentage ladder to the speed of light, but for others, never shall we gain.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

P1: If I'm traveling at 99MPH and you come up behind me at 100MPH, I will recognize two things: you are traveling fast but coming up slowly.

P2: If I'm traveling at 99.9%c and light comes up behind me at c, I will recognize two things: light is traveling fast but coming up slowly.

I'm saying P1 and P2 are true, but it's like most of y'all are saying P2 is false.

If I'm the one on the space ship that takes off and you emit a beam, then WHEN it actually gets to me, sure, I'll measure it at C, and when it passes me, I'll measure it at C, but the speed of light relative to myself should seem slow, as if I could reach out and pet the leading photons as they turtle by.

What's going on here is that 99.9% c your clock is running 22 times slower than normal and your yardstick is also 22 times shorter than normal. Combine these things and when you look at that light zipping by you'll perceive it moving at 300,000 km/sec, just as if you were standing still. (You're also 22 times heavier than normal but that doesn't matter for measuring it's speed.)