| Topic: |
Science > Physics |
| User: |
"Bill" |
| Date: |
20 Jan 2005 03:59:33 AM |
| Object: |
The 'absoluteness' of the speed of light? |
In find the ‘absoluteness' of the speed of light confusing – but then
again I'm easily confused.
Consider:
Two spaceships parked parallel, pointing in the same direction,
simultaneously switch on a nice laser beam. Both beams travel through
space, neck and neck to each other, at the absolute speed of light.
The first ship remains stationary; Scotty starts the impulse engines
of the second ship, accelerates to (say) 3000 mph, maintains this
speed, and follows his laser beam.
After some years the second ship is some distance from the first
(reference) ship and, if measure instantaneously, the laser beam of
the first ship is longer than that of the second ship. Given that the
speed of light is absolute both beams are still racing along neck and
neck. As I see it Scotty is ‘catching up' on his laser ‘front'. All
observers, regardless of their location, will be able to observe this
and instantaneous distance measurements carried out by any observer
will yield equal results. (Scotty's watch may be a few seconds out due
to him accelerating to 3K mph – but as he is now traveling at a
constant speed the difference will remain constant.)
After a few billion years Scotty will start to get very close to his
laser ‘front' – and possibly even start to overtake it? But this is
not possible.
Some rudimentary explanation would be welcomed?
Bill
.
|
|
| User: "Franz Heymann" |
|
| Title: Re: The 'absoluteness' of the speed of light? |
20 Jan 2005 09:56:15 AM |
|
|
"Bill" <bill.thomson@tka.co.za> wrote in message
news:4b1e845e.0501200159.1a5acbfe@posting.google.com...
In find the 'absoluteness' of the speed of light confusing - but
then
again I'm easily confused.
You will be truly wrapped in mire if you use the word "absolute"
without any knowledge of what you mean by it.
The correct statement is that the speed of light has the same value
for all observers, whatever the relative speed between the source and
the observer might be.
Consider:
Two spaceships parked parallel, pointing in the same direction,
simultaneously switch on a nice laser beam. Both beams travel
through
space, neck and neck to each other, at the absolute speed of light.
The first ship remains stationary; Scotty starts the impulse engines
of the second ship, accelerates to (say) 3000 mph, maintains this
speed, and follows his laser beam.
His light now becomes Doppler-shifted, but it still propagates at c
relative the stationary source
After some years the second ship is some distance from the first
(reference) ship and, if measure instantaneously, the laser beam of
the first ship is longer than that of the second ship.
Why? It has been propagating at c all the time.
Given that the
speed of light is absolute both beams are still racing along neck
and
neck. As I see it Scotty is 'catching up' on his laser 'front'.
If you mean that his beam has undergone a Doppler shift, you are dead
right. If you mean anything else, you are wrong.
All
observers, regardless of their location,
The location of an observer is irrelevant.
will be able to observe this
and instantaneous distance measurements carried out by any observer
will yield equal results.
An observer can only legitimately make a valid observation with tools
he carries with him, and are at rest with respedct to himself.
(Scotty's watch may be a few seconds out due
to him accelerating to 3K mph - but as he is now traveling at a
constant speed the difference will remain constant.)
After a few billion years Scotty will start to get very close to his
laser 'front' - and possibly even start to overtake it? But this is
not possible.
Some rudimentary explanation would be welcomed?
Your attempt to arrive at a paradox is even more primitive than any of
those attempts which have already failed.
Read all about the Doppler effect.
Franz
Franz
.
|
|
|
| User: "glbrad01" |
|
| Title: Re: The 'absoluteness' of the speed of light? |
21 Jan 2005 07:50:59 AM |
|
|
"Franz Heymann" <notfranz.heymann@btopenworld.com> wrote in message
news:csokau$p9m$2@titan.btinternet.com...
(snip)
The location of an observer is irrelevant.
(snip)
Franz
It most certainly is not "irrelevant." An observer in line to the rear of
a traveler will observe frame stretching like a rubber band stretching out
and away. An observer in line to the front of an oncoming traveler will
observe compaction of frames. For a very high velocity traveler the observer
in line to the front may even observe apparent arrival before departure
depending upon his distance from the departure point of the traveler and the
traveler's velocity enroute.
Brad
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Creighton Hogg" |
|
| Title: Re: The 'absoluteness' of the speed of light? |
20 Jan 2005 10:14:56 AM |
|
|
On Thu, 20 Jan 2005, Franz Heymann wrote:
"Bill" <bill.thomson@tka.co.za> wrote in message
news:4b1e845e.0501200159.1a5acbfe@posting.google.com...
In find the 'absoluteness' of the speed of light confusing - but
then
again I'm easily confused.
You will be truly wrapped in mire if you use the word "absolute"
without any knowledge of what you mean by it.
The correct statement is that the speed of light has the same value
for all observers, whatever the relative speed between the source and
the observer might be.
Now here's something that's bugged me for awhile. Let's take a step back
and not even think about light per se, but about Maxwell's equations. Now
back in the day, Maxwell's equations were tested under very limited
environments, but now we've got probes going into space, sattellites
orbiting the Earth at high speed, etc. and we've seen that the electronics
and transmitters of all these things work no matter where they are and how
fast they're going in the solar system. Isn't that pretty damn good
evidence Maxwell's equations work independent of inertial reference frame?
Because, trivially, if electromagnetism works in all inertial reference
frames then that implies the speed of light is independent of inertial
reference frame.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Franz Heymann" |
|
| Title: Re: The 'absoluteness' of the speed of light? |
20 Jan 2005 04:43:48 PM |
|
|
"Creighton Hogg" <wchogg@hep.wisc.edu> wrote in message
news:Pine.LNX.4.44.0501201009160.8065-100000@erodium.hep.wisc.edu...
On Thu, 20 Jan 2005, Franz Heymann wrote:
"Bill" <bill.thomson@tka.co.za> wrote in message
news:4b1e845e.0501200159.1a5acbfe@posting.google.com...
In find the 'absoluteness' of the speed of light confusing - but
then
again I'm easily confused.
You will be truly wrapped in mire if you use the word "absolute"
without any knowledge of what you mean by it.
The correct statement is that the speed of light has the same
value
for all observers, whatever the relative speed between the source
and
the observer might be.
Now here's something that's bugged me for awhile. Let's take a step
back
and not even think about light per se, but about Maxwell's
equations. Now
back in the day, Maxwell's equations were tested under very limited
environments, but now we've got probes going into space, sattellites
orbiting the Earth at high speed, etc. and we've seen that the
electronics
and transmitters of all these things work no matter where they are
and how
fast they're going in the solar system. Isn't that pretty damn good
evidence Maxwell's equations work independent of inertial reference
frame?
Because, trivially, if electromagnetism works in all inertial
reference
frames then that implies the speed of light is independent of
inertial
reference frame.
Creighton, you must also not forget that one of the essential
predictions of Maxwell's equations, namely the fact that c is
independent of the relative states of motion of the source and the
observer, has been tested at gamma factors in excess of 20, and not as
the small relativistic corrections you mention.
Franz
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Uncle Al" |
|
| Title: Re: The 'absoluteness' of the speed of light? |
20 Jan 2005 01:49:12 PM |
|
|
Bill wrote:
In find the ‘absoluteness' of the speed of light confusing – but then
again I'm easily confused.
Consider:
[snip crap]
Lightspeed for all inertial observers is constant. That is the way
reality is configured. Get over it. There are no gaps to exploit.
Michelson-Morley experiments
Kennedy Thorndike experiments
Ives-Stilwell experiments
Hughes-Drever experiments
Weak field
<http://tycho.usno.navy.mil/ptti/ptti2002/paper20.pdf>
Nature 425 374 (2003)
http://www.eftaylor.com/pub/projecta.pdf
<http://www.public.asu.edu/~rjjacob/Lecture16.pdf>
<http://relativity.livingreviews.org/Articles/lrr-2003-1/index.html>
Relativity in the GPS system
or strong field,
Science 303(5661) 1143;1153 (2004)
http://arXiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0401086
http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0312071
<http://relativity.livingreviews.org/Articles/lrr-2003-5/index.html>
Deeply relativistic neutron star binaries
If your opinions veer otherwise you are an empirical *****.
--
Uncle Al
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/
(Toxic URL! Unsafe for children and most mammals)
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/qz.pdf
.
|
|
|
| User: "Androcles" |
|
| Title: Re: The 'absoluteness' of the speed of light? |
20 Jan 2005 06:05:37 PM |
|
|
"Uncle Al" <UncleAl0@hate.spam.net> wrote in message
news:41F00B38.4026E963@hate.spam.net...
Bill wrote:
In find the 'absoluteness' of the speed of light confusing - but then
again I'm easily confused.
Consider:
[snip crap]
Lightspeed for all inertial observers is constant. That is the way
reality is configured. Get over it. There are no gaps to exploit.
Fucking stooopid ignorant imbecile Schwartz.
http://www.androc1es.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/SekerinTime.htm
http://www.androc1es.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/actual_data.htm
Time is invariant for all frames of reference, inertial or otherwise.
Distance is invariant for all frames of reference, inertial or
otherwise.
Get over it, there are no gaps for time machines to play with.
Androcles.
Michelson-Morley experiments
Kennedy Thorndike experiments
Ives-Stilwell experiments
Hughes-Drever experiments
Weak field
<http://tycho.usno.navy.mil/ptti/ptti2002/paper20.pdf>
Nature 425 374 (2003)
http://www.eftaylor.com/pub/projecta.pdf
<http://www.public.asu.edu/~rjjacob/Lecture16.pdf>
<http://relativity.livingreviews.org/Articles/lrr-2003-1/index.html>
Relativity in the GPS system
or strong field,
Science 303(5661) 1143;1153 (2004)
http://arXiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0401086
http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0312071
<http://relativity.livingreviews.org/Articles/lrr-2003-5/index.html>
Deeply relativistic neutron star binaries
If your opinions veer otherwise you are an empirical *****.
--
Uncle Al
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/
(Toxic URL! Unsafe for children and most mammals)
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/qz.pdf
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Paul Cardinale" |
|
| Title: Re: The 'absoluteness' of the speed of light? |
20 Jan 2005 08:54:47 AM |
|
|
Bill wrote:
In find the 'absoluteness' of the speed of light confusing - but
then
again I'm easily confused.
Consider:
Two spaceships parked parallel, pointing in the same direction,
simultaneously switch on a nice laser beam. Both beams travel through
space, neck and neck to each other, at the absolute speed of light.
The first ship remains stationary; Scotty starts the impulse engines
of the second ship, accelerates to (say) 3000 mph, maintains this
speed, and follows his laser beam.
After some years the second ship is some distance from the first
(reference) ship and, if measure instantaneously, the laser beam of
the first ship is longer than that of the second ship. Given that the
speed of light is absolute both beams are still racing along neck and
neck. As I see it Scotty is 'catching up' on his laser 'front'.
Wrong. Since 3000 mph (ship speed) < 670,543,200 mph (speed of light),
he will never catch up.
All
observers, regardless of their location, will be able to observe this
and instantaneous distance measurements carried out by any observer
will yield equal results.
Wrong. Measured distance is frame dependent.
(Scotty's watch may be a few seconds out due
to him accelerating to 3K mph - but as he is now traveling at a
constant speed the difference will remain constant.)
The speed difference between Scotty's ship (or anything at all) and the
a light beam is frame dependent.
After a few billion years Scotty will start to get very close to his
laser 'front' - and possibly even start to overtake it?
Wrong. A slow object can't overtake a fast object.
Paul Cardinale
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Jim Black" |
|
| Title: Re: The 'absoluteness' of the speed of light? |
20 Jan 2005 11:24:48 PM |
|
|
Bill wrote:
In find the 'absoluteness' of the speed of light confusing - but
then again I'm easily confused.
Consider:
Two spaceships parked parallel, pointing in the same direction,
simultaneously switch on a nice laser beam. Both beams travel through
space, neck and neck to each other, at the absolute speed of light.
The first ship remains stationary; Scotty starts the impulse engines
of the second ship, accelerates to (say) 3000 mph, maintains this
speed, and follows his laser beam.
After some years the second ship is some distance from the first
(reference) ship and, if measure instantaneously, the laser beam of
the first ship is longer than that of the second ship. Given that the
speed of light is absolute both beams are still racing along neck and
neck. As I see it Scotty is 'catching up' on his laser 'front'.
Special relativity defines distance as it would be measured by rulers
at rest relative to a hypothetical observer, and time as it would be
measured by clocks at rest relative to the observer. It defines an
event near the observer to be simultaneous with a far-away event if the
nearby event occurs halfway between the time light needed to have left
the observer to reach the distant event and the time light from the
distant event arrives. Change the velocity of the observer, and all
these definitions change.
Rather than catching up with the laser beam, Scotty is being left
progressively further behind by it. Using the first ship's
definitions, end of the laser beam is moving at c, while the length of
the laser beam is increasing at a rate less than c, specifically c-v,
where v = 3000 mph.
On the other hand, if we use Scotty's definitions, the rate of increase
of the length of the laser beam will be c. The primary reason for this
discrepancy is the different definitions of simultaneity. Suppose
that, using the first ship's definitions, after an hour, the end of the
laser beam passes a beacon placed a light-hour away, while Scotty
passes a beacon placed 3000 miles away. By the first ship's
definition, the laser has gotten less than a light-hour away from
Scotty in the hour. But by Scotty's definition, the laser had already
passed its beacon when Scotty passed his. So the distance the light is
from Scotty when he passes his beacon is, by his definition,
significantly larger than it is by the first ship's definition. It
will, by Scotty's definition, have travelled a very tiny bit less than
one light-hour in a very tiny bit less than an hour. The speed of
light, by his definition, is c.
All
observers, regardless of their location, will be able to observe this
and instantaneous distance measurements carried out by any observer
will yield equal results.
This is not true. First of all, distance is defined differently by the
different observers, and second, the observers will not have the same
definition of "instantaneous."
(Scotty's watch may be a few seconds out due
to him accelerating to 3K mph - but as he is now traveling at a
constant speed the difference will remain constant.)
This is also not the case. The difference between the two watches
increases perpetually at a constant rate.
After a few billion years Scotty will start to get very close to his
laser 'front' - and possibly even start to overtake it? But this
is not possible.
Scotty will not overtake his laser beam, because he is travelling much
slower than it.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Morituri-|-Max" |
|
| Title: Re: The 'absoluteness' of the speed of light? |
20 Jan 2005 11:51:40 AM |
|
|
Bill wrote:
In find the 'absoluteness' of the speed of light confusing - but then
again I'm easily confused.
Consider:
Two spaceships parked parallel, pointing in the same direction,
simultaneously switch on a nice laser beam. Both beams travel through
space, neck and neck to each other, at the absolute speed of light.
The first ship remains stationary; Scotty starts the impulse engines
of the second ship, accelerates to (say) 3000 mph, maintains this
speed, and follows his laser beam.
After some years the second ship is some distance from the first
(reference) ship and, if measure instantaneously, the laser beam of
the first ship is longer than that of the second ship. Given that the
speed of light is absolute both beams are still racing along neck and
neck. As I see it Scotty is 'catching up' on his laser 'front'. All
observers, regardless of their location, will be able to observe this
and instantaneous distance measurements carried out by any observer
will yield equal results. (Scotty's watch may be a few seconds out due
to him accelerating to 3K mph - but as he is now traveling at a
constant speed the difference will remain constant.)
Time slows down for each ship as it approaches the speed of light.. thus no
matter how fast they each go, for them the speed of light is always going to
be just out of reach.. to them the speed of light will always seem to be
the same, thus absolute.
.
|
|
|
| User: "glbrad01" |
|
| Title: Re: The 'absoluteness' of the speed of light? |
21 Jan 2005 09:18:37 AM |
|
|
"Morituri-|-Max" <newage@sendarico.net> wrote in message
news:McSHd.39073$Ta2.9101@fe2.texas.rr.com...
Bill wrote:
In find the 'absoluteness' of the speed of light confusing - but then
again I'm easily confused.
Consider:
Two spaceships parked parallel, pointing in the same direction,
simultaneously switch on a nice laser beam. Both beams travel through
space, neck and neck to each other, at the absolute speed of light.
The first ship remains stationary; Scotty starts the impulse engines
of the second ship, accelerates to (say) 3000 mph, maintains this
speed, and follows his laser beam.
After some years the second ship is some distance from the first
(reference) ship and, if measure instantaneously, the laser beam of
the first ship is longer than that of the second ship. Given that the
speed of light is absolute both beams are still racing along neck and
neck. As I see it Scotty is 'catching up' on his laser 'front'. All
observers, regardless of their location, will be able to observe this
and instantaneous distance measurements carried out by any observer
will yield equal results. (Scotty's watch may be a few seconds out due
to him accelerating to 3K mph - but as he is now traveling at a
constant speed the difference will remain constant.)
Time slows down for each ship as it approaches the speed of light.. thus
no matter how fast they each go, for them the speed of light is always
going to be just out of reach.. to them the speed of light will always
seem to be the same, thus absolute.
No, time does not slow down for the traveler. Light speed information
concerning a traveler going away at 99.999% of the speed of light at one
light second's distance from an observer takes one second to arrive back to
the observer. The traveler is then approximately two light seconds distant
from the observer while the observer observes him, including his clock, to
be one light second's distance from him. At two light seconds distance, it
takes light speed information two seconds to reach back to the observer,
showing him the traveler is two light seconds distant from him. The traveler
is approximately four light seconds distant from him when the observer
observes him, including his clock, to be two light seconds away.
At one light year's distance, it takes light speed information one year to
reach back to the observer, showing him the traveler, including his clock,
is one light year distant from him. The traveler, including his clock, is
approximately two light years distant from him when the observer observes
him to be one light year away from him.
Yes the observer observes time to be [apparently] slowing down for the
traveler, including time on the traveler's clock. The observer also observes
the traveler to doing approximately 50% the speed of light relative to
himself rather than the 99.999% the traveler is actually doing.
The traveler, including his clock, is twice the distance ahead of his
apparent location in space and time to the observer. And he is doing nearly
twice the velocity observed. If he had been born right at the time of
departure, he would be twice the age he is observed to be by the distant
observer. Any child born on Earth at approximatelyly the same time the
traveler was, would be, and would remain, approximately the same age
throughout this scenario.
Why do physicists take the apparent to be the intrinsic reality? Because
they think in terms of instantaneous transmission of information to
observers from any distance at all. If transmission of information were
instantaneous across distances in space and time, then the apparent would be
real. But it is not instantaneous, thus the apparent is not, and can never
be, intrinsic reality.
Brad
.
|
|
|
| User: "Morituri-|-Max" |
|
| Title: Re: The 'absoluteness' of the speed of light? |
21 Jan 2005 12:29:23 PM |
|
|
glbrad01 wrote:
No, time does not slow down for the traveler.
Yes it does... experiments with atomic clocks for petes sake have shown this
effect. Time is not absolute. Travelling at greater and greater speeds do
change time for the traveller.
.
|
|
|
| User: "glbrad01" |
|
| Title: Re: The 'absoluteness' of the speed of light? |
22 Jan 2005 08:44:32 AM |
|
|
"Morituri-|-Max" <newage@sendarico.net> wrote in message
news:7SbId.40487$_56.28088@fe2.texas.rr.com...
glbrad01 wrote:
No, time does not slow down for the traveler.
Yes it does... experiments with atomic clocks for petes sake have shown
this effect. Time is not absolute. Travelling at greater and greater
speeds do change time for the traveller.
There is something a heck of lot people forget, or never knew in the first
place, about Einstein's famous imaginary trip to the speed of light. Where
it is that is "timeless," real time, absolute time, or zero-point time.
Einstein didn't move a muscle, so to speak, much less travel the Universe,
when he took that imaginary trip. He did it in place.
I presume that at some time you've the phrase "do it immediately if not
sooner." You reside "immediately" in time. Time at the speed of light
resides "sooner." As a matter of fact, it resides 'soonest'. Just as there
being no such thing as "zero-g" means there is an infinite gap-number of
gravities residing in micro-gravity between one Earth-g and 'infinitesimal',
there is an infinite gap of "sooner" ("do it immediately if not sooner") in
time residing between "immediately" in time and "soonest" in time ("soonest"
being clock time at the speed of light). It has taken me fifteen years to
figure out that Einstein--perceptibly--simply bridged the gap between
immediately and soonest in time. I'm not the only one who figured it out,
Stephen Hawking tried to explain it with his analogy concerning a Grand
Central Station of the Universe, through which everything in the Universe is
permanently passing through, whose great clock on the wall forever displays
exactly the universal real time of the Universe frozen for all time at
00.00.00.00 on the clock between hypothetical midnight and any and all time
after.
I finally figured out that traveling light-time frames always have to be
on the absolute dead edge of time. The propagated traveling light-time frame
itself, essentially a single-sided 2-dimensionally flat surface "brane",
can't be anywhere else in time whatsoever except on the dead leading edge of
time when traveling through space and time. It never slows down so to back
off from that leading edge, nor does it speed up so to surpass that leading
edge. It is the most consistent "always on time and on station" thing in the
Universe. The most "constant" regarding time. So constant it can measure
time to a leading edge velocity invariable "cosmological constant of zero."
Everything else in and of the Universe is equally constant in being right
there on that leading edge of time with light (always passing through
Hawking's imaginary Grand Central Station; or always being where Einstein
went during his imaginary trip) but that "everything else in and of the
Universe", particularly of matter, uncluding us, is always a little bit
behind and slower than light in 'realizing' where it is. That "little bit
behind and slower" applied to "everything else" is infinitely variable and
always 'relative'. Also, that same "little bit behind and slower" is every
"past-future"....in and bound for universal real-time--or cosmological
constant--zero-point.
Cosmological constant zero, light-time history frames in single-sided
2-dimensional "branes" (virtual space-time frames), timing frequencies
(frequency of time ("infinitely variable")), and lastly the joker in time's
dimensional deck, "relative to..." (as in gain in or loss of). Four
dimensions of time.
Just in passing, do you know why there are so few atomic clocks? Also,
that acceleration--accelerations herein wanting to be expressed in numbers
of gravities of acceleration--effects particles? Also, that having to do
with traveling clocks at any velocity whatsoever and their relationship to
distant observers at any appreciable distance from the clock, there will
always be two clocks (one real and one apparent) and two clock times (one
real time and one apparent time) rather than just one clock and one time?
Also that the moon's gravity effects every particle in the Earth, and every
satellite and satellite's clock in Earth orbit, regarding distance and
velocity, to some minute fluctuating "tidal" degree? Also that the atomic
clock has to be corrected periodically to match it up with East Coast
"apparent" time? That a difference gradually grows between the atomic
clock's clock timing and the actual timing of the time environment it is in?
That the 9.0 earthquake the other side of the world just had may eventually
require reset of the atomic clock's clock time sooner than may have been
scheduled?
Which gradually gets off time in its timing, the Earth in its spin and
wobble, the Earth in its orbit, and orbital drift, of the Sun, the apparent
solar system in its apparent horizontal track and verticle drift through the
apparent galaxy, the apparent galaxy in its track through the apparent
universe, the whole of the apparent activity of the apparent universe in
view, or one to a few cesium atoms that--regardless of their observed
[timing like clockwork]--themselves can never really be detected as to exact
position and velocity but can only be 'apparently' detected?
I know I'm splitting hairs but I also know how crucial it is to split
hairs finely when talking precision. Having to do with my defining four
dimensions of time rather than one, physicists such as Brian Greene have
projected in some of their writings their sense of insecurity concerning the
veiw of there being only one dimension to time.
Brad
.
|
|
|
| User: "Franz Heymann" |
|
| Title: Re: The 'absoluteness' of the speed of light? |
23 Jan 2005 09:23:16 AM |
|
|
"glbrad01" <glbrad01@insightbb.com> wrote in message
news:kFtId.17543$4I2.15697@attbi_s01...
[snip]
This ng is not a place in which to compete for the position of most
vapid waffler.
Franz
.
|
|
|
| User: "Morituri-|-Max" |
|
| Title: Re: The 'absoluteness' of the speed of light? |
23 Jan 2005 04:43:53 PM |
|
|
Franz Heymann wrote:
"glbrad01" <glbrad01@insightbb.com> wrote in message
news:kFtId.17543$4I2.15697@attbi_s01...
[snip]
This ng is not a place in which to compete for the position of most
vapid waffler.
Yeah, he'd never get first place anyway.. John Kerry has that shown up...
D'Oh! My one and only political comment for this year.
I deserve it though, so far haven't broken my new years resolution to not
talk to any of the trolls here.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Puppet_Sock" |
|
| Title: Re: The 'absoluteness' of the speed of light? |
20 Jan 2005 10:26:03 AM |
|
|
Bill wrote:
[relativity question]
Dude! You are off topic in sci.physics. Move it to
sci.physics.relativity where it belongs.
Socks
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Chris ORiordan" |
|
| Title: Re: The 'absoluteness' of the speed of light? |
20 Jan 2005 01:04:46 PM |
|
|
c has the qualitative properties of a Newtonian infinite speed in two
senses:-
(i) mathematical:- It is the same for all observers, regardless of
their own (finite) speed;
(ii) physical:- (As Einstein noted) it would take infinite kinetic
energy to make a body move at c.
.
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
