🚀 go-pugleaf

sh...@one.net (Scott Hess) wrote:

>In article <569rgm$f...@bigboote.WPI.EDU>,
>	rasm...@paramount.res.wpi.edu (Frank Sweetser) writes:
>   : Chris (coop...@cf.ac.uk) wrote:
>
>   : : Eintiens Theory of Relativity. Exactly what it says; its
>   : : relative to something. If you are in the car the headlights
>   : : relative to you would still produce light at 3 x10^8 m/s Only
>   : : the observer would percieve the light a short distance away
>   : : from the car as both the car AND the light are very closely
>   : : mathced in speed. All wierd, but them again according to
>   : : Einstein at the speed of light your energy and mass become
>   : : infinite and your length in space equals zero, therefore you
>   : : occupy all pionts in space at the same time form the
>   : : application of infinate speed = universe is destroyed! But that
>   : : is all relative to the observer! not you!!  Confused yet???
>
>   : The keyword, kids, is *THEORY*...
>   : NEVER accept theories as the end-all truth...
>   : There used to be a theory that it was impossible to travel at/faster than
>   : the speed of sound....
>
>   Why, of course it's not impossible.... it's just infinitly
>   improbably.
>
>The "Why once, people said you couldn't travel faster than the speed
>of sound" response is one of those all-time silly responses.  When
>people said "Humans will never fly", they didn't mean "Flight is
>impossible".  They had counterexamples proving it _was_ possible.
>They just didn't think humans would ever do it.  Likewise, the "sound
>barrier" was "Humans will never break the speed of sound", not "The
>speed of sound is an upper limit on speed".  A simple whip breaks the
>speed of sound.
>
>The speed of light is not a "humans will never break the speed of
>light".  The speed of light in a vacuum, c, is a property of our
>universe, like pi or e.  You _cannot_ go faster than the speed of
>light while remaining in our universe.  Almost by definition, if you
>are going faster than the speed light travels in our universe, then
>you are _not_ in our universe.  [To quickly stop certain types of
>responses, if you use a "wormhole" to instantaneously go from "here"
>to "there", you are not in our universe.  You got from "here" to
>"there" faster than light could have, but you did not take the path
>light would have taken.  Likewise if you do things like time travel or
>whatnot.  "Faster than the speed of light" means that you got from
>"here" to "there" before light would have, using the same path.  As
>you can see, saying "travel faster than the speed of light" also
>implies certain definitions for "travel".]
>
>To be even more specific, back when the speed of sound was fast, all
>velocity and acceleration equations worked fine past the speed of
>sound.  It's just that nobody figured you could actually ever _go_
>that fast.  They could still figure out what accelerations would be
>necessary to push a given mass past the speed of sound, at least in
>theory.  None of our equations work if you use velocities faster than
>the speed of light.  If you use velocities faster than the speed of
>light, the results of the equations _aren't_ consistent with arriving
>at your destination before light would have by the same path.
>
>This isn't really a matter of opinion.  To prove that you can't go
>faster than the speed of light, I don't have to opine that your
>vehicle will fall apart, or your mind cannot take it, or that there's
>no mechanical means to connect enough engines, or anything like that.
>I can just prove that YOU CAN'T GET THERE FROM HERE!  You could take
>_all_ the mass in our universe, convert every last particle to energy
>(for maximum boost) and shoot it all in one direction - and you still
>will not manage to accelerate yourself to light speed.  The problem is
>that the amount of acceleration to add a given amount of velocity
>increases exponentially to infinity.
>
>In some very basic, essential sense, if you ever find yourself going
>"faster than the speed of light in our universe", you will also find
>that you are indeed not in our universe.
>
>[I had a roomate who once would start a conversation with something
>like "But let's say you _could_ go faster than the speed of light."
>How can you start a conversation by invoking magic?  I just wonder why
>people so seldom say things like "What if pi was exactly 3.5?" or

Actually, many years ago the Congress proposed a bill to make pi
exactly 22/7( or maybe 3.14, I don't ). They felt it would make
computations a lot easier. Cooler heads prevailed and the bill never
passed.   

I agree with you, people should never make light of Einstein's
theories! [ :) ]. 


>"What if e was 3.1415926...?" or "What if i was not imaginary?"]
>
>Sigh,
>--
>scott hess <sh...@one.net>     (606) 578-0412      http://w3.one.net/~shess/
><I plan to become so famous that people buy tapes of me reading source code>