🚀 go-pugleaf

RetroBBS NetNews Server

Inspired by RockSolid Light RIP Retro Guy

Article View: alt.games.warcraft
Article #353178

Re: Lightspeed constant...

#353178
From: Nick
Date: Thu, 12 Dec 1996 00:00
50 lines
3135 bytes
John M. Aldrich wrote:
> 
> 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

Not claiming to have tons of knowledge on the subject, but I belive the
relativity theory (I just barely undestand it) and yet that assumed
boundreys on speeds and exsistence thereabout and their relationship to
perception don't hold water.
-- 
-Nick ;:-)

Visit my homepage!
http://www.wolfenet.com/~paradox/
Technical Details
Message-ID: <32B0C11D.7670@wolfenet.com>
Path: mbox-mo1.pugleaf.net!unknown!not-for-mail
References: <574e67$1hb@mippet.ci.com.au> <01bbe156$56e4e8a0$2ddcdbcd@maxkilms.nidlink.com> <32A4E35B.3347@pop.erols.com> <32A62F6B.5F90@hg.uleth.ca> <32A6646B.1801@fsl.com.sg> <32A72439.3C05@clinton.net> <Pine.OSF.3.95.961205182254.32105A-100000@wpi.WPI.EDU> <32A8AF7A.5F7C@enternet.co.nz> <32A9C8EF.1ACC@cs.com> <32AB03E7.3775@internetMCI.com> <32B0D640.31ED@cs.com>

Show Full Headers
Complete Article Headers
From: Nick <par...@wolfenet.com>
Subject: Re: Lightspeed constant...
Date: 1996/12/12
Message-ID: <32B0C11D.7670@wolfenet.com>
X-Deja-AN: 203830008
references: <574e67$1hb@mippet.ci.com.au> <01bbe156$56e4e8a0$2ddcdbcd@maxkilms.nidlink.com> <32A4E35B.3347@pop.erols.com> <32A62F6B.5F90@hg.uleth.ca> <32A6646B.1801@fsl.com.sg> <32A72439.3C05@clinton.net> <Pine.OSF.3.95.961205182254.32105A-100000@wpi.WPI.EDU> <32A8AF7A.5F7C@enternet.co.nz> <32A9C8EF.1ACC@cs.com> <32AB03E7.3775@internetMCI.com> <32B0D640.31ED@cs.com>
organization: Wolfe Internet Access, L.L.C.
mime-version: 1.0
reply-to: par...@wolfenet.com
newsgroups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips,comp.os.ms-windows.win95.misc,comp.os.ms-windows.win95.setup,comp.multimedia,comp.graphics.animation,alt.games.doom,alt.games.descent,alt.games.warcraft,comp.graphics,comp.graphics.animation,alt.fan.bill-gates,comp.os.os2.mi
x-mailer: Mozilla 3.01Gold (Win95; I)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit