🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <SHESS.96N...@howard.one.net>, sh...@one.net (Scott Hess) writes:
#]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. <SNIP>

Perhaps more correctly stated, "The speed of light in a vacuum, c, 
*appears to be* a property of our universe, like pi or e.  Current
popular theory predicts that one _cannot_ go faster than the speed 
of light while remaining in our universe."

#]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.  

Yup.  And they could calculate the energy necessary to push a given
mass past the speed of light as well ...... at least in the theory
of the day.

#]This isn't really a matter of opinion.  <SNIP>
#]I can just prove that YOU CAN'T GET THERE FROM HERE!  

Can you *really* prove it?  If so, let's send all those erudite physics
weenies home.  The job is done.  Or is it that what you can do is to
derive the current theory and spread your derivations (complete with 
all the required assumptions) before us for our perusal?  Science seeks
to understand and predict, and to that end, we create models (theories)
that we believe will let us extrapolate from what we know to what we
would like to understand.  As such, our theories are molded as much by
that which we would like to understand as by the nature of the physical
universe.  Newton was exactly correct, for his day, as was Ptolemy.
Both modeled what was known and predicted what was needed.  *Proof*,
we must remember, has a temporal aspect to it.

#][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?  

Yeah, it would be like starting a conversation around the turn of the
century with, "let's say there was a limit to the speed of light...."
How could you have started a conversation by invoking magic?  What
use could it possible have been.  But, ya know, there were some folks
doing just that: Einstien, Planck, Bohr, .....

#]I just wonder why people so seldom say things like "What if pi was 
#]exactly 3.5?" or "What if e was 3.1415926...?" or "What if i was not 
#]imaginary?"

Yeah, imagine where we'd be .....

Actually, these are not that absurd.  The semiconductor industry, for 
years, used the equivalence (1 mil) = (0.025 micron).  When device
geometries were on the order of a mil or two and error was 5%, this 
was close enough.  Pi comes from the ratio of the circumference of
a circle to its diameter.  The ancients could have chosen the inverse
ratio and given pi a value nearer 0.31831, and the universe would 
still have unfolded as it should.  EE's tend to use 'j' for the 
"imaginary" axis, rather than 'i'.  Who knows, perhaps the theory
would be easier to learn if we considered the axis to be the frequency
axis rather than a "make-believe" axis.

To paraphrase Asimov, "The great discoveries of the world are seldom
heralded by a cry of "Eureka!!" (I have found it) but by a phrase more
like, "Gee, that's funny."

Historically, the world has advanced more from the discoveries of those
who questioned the popular wisdom than by those who had accepted it.

Danny
-- 
========================================================================
Danny Bersch		| There is only one basic human right, the right
Motorola		| to do as you damn well please.  And with it
SPS, LATG, ATO, SST	| comes the only basic human duty, the duty to
ber...@sst.sps.mot.com	| take the consequences.          -P.J. O'Rourke
========================================================================