🚀 go-pugleaf

Mike Sprayberry wrote:
> 
> Wait....Suppose the Earth (or any object) IS traveling at .9999c.  As
> you say, we would never know it.   BUT, if a jet is flying around the
> Earth toward the direction that the Earth is traveling through space,
> would the jet be doing the theoretically impossible??  Traveling FASTER
> than light??  Could this happen??
> 
> A better example...accelerate a gun to .9999c.  Then fire the gun...does
> the bullet break the light speed limitation (relative to a "stationary"
> observer)???

Hmm... what did I just say?  Motion, or rather the appearance of motion,
is relative!  In the cases you mention, we would see the plane moving at
whatever speed it was moving.  From the point of view of some
theoretical "stationary" point in space, the plane would be moving just
a tiny bit faster than the Earth, but still less than the speed of
light.  Ditto with the bullet.

Applying acceleration to an object always appears to have the same
effect _from the point of view of the object_.  This applies whether you
are talking about spaceships, airplanes, stars, or bullets.  The
relativistic equations make this apparently counterintuitive fact not
just possible, but obvious.  In fact, it isn't even counterintuitive at
all - it makes perfect sense when you look at it right.

-- 
John M. Aldrich <figh...@cs.com>                      

* Anything that happens, happens.
* Anything that, in happening, causes something else to happen,
  causes something else to happen.
* Anything that, in happening, causes itself to happen again, happens
  again.
* It doesn't necessarily do it in chronological order, though.
 
                                       --- Douglas Adams