Blind religious belief in science

[ChochemV2]

As far as I can tell light would be measured as going at the speed of light no matter where you are measuring from. The person in the car would measure his headlights as going at the speed of light, however, so would someone on a planet. I don't know if he would be seeing the light from his headlights moving away from him (as he would normally) or if it would somehow stay stationary in front of him. The question might be fundamentally pointless because as far as we know it is impossible to accelerate anything to the speed of light so the science of the question could prevent the question from ever being answered.

[DHodges]

I can't believe Hodges just spent any time and effort to show how the modern car cannot go light speed... it sounds like Victor alright :)

Well, I thought it was funny. The whole car travelling at light speed thing is pretty silly. But when I get in a friend's car, I do occasionally ask, "Hey, can this thing do light speed?" (I guess it only really makes sense if the car is a Ford Falcon.(1))

Those models are exactly what people like Penrose are playing with.

Actually, what Penrose is playing with is his enormous penis (2).










(1) You know, like the Millenium Falcon? Do I really have to spell this out? Jeesh.
(2) Yes, I am going to continue to refer to his penis for no reason whatsoever. That's what free will is all about.

[Matt Gregory]

However, my question is not about what a person at the destination would observe, but what a person in the fast moving car would observe. And I can't think of any reason to think that their calculation wouldn't be meaningful in some way. Though it's not clear to me in what way at the moment.

But the person in the moving car would measure light to be c relative to his starting position and lower than c at his current position, wouldn't he?

As far as I can tell light would be measured as going at the speed of light no matter where you are measuring from. The person in the car would measure his headlights as going at the speed of light, however, so would someone on a planet. I don't know if he would be seeing the light from his headlights moving away from him (as he would normally) or if it would somehow stay stationary in front of him. The question might be fundamentally pointless because as far as we know it is impossible to accelerate anything to the speed of light so the science of the question could prevent the question from ever being answered.

(Assuming you were replying to what I'm quoting) Sorry, I said "his current position" but I meant his current situation, including speed. I often forget how precise your language has to be when talking about this stuff.

[Diebert van Rhijn]

However, my question is not about what a person at the destination would observe, but what a person in the fast moving car would observe. And I can't think of any reason to think that their calculation wouldn't be meaningful in some way. Though it's not clear to me in what way at the moment.

Kevin, what makes you believe 'their calculation' can add speed to another speed like 1+1? Where is that based on?

That's just what works in classical physics and we just cannot measure the existing error margin at low speeds. We just assume 50 km/hour + 50 km/hour = 100 km/hour but special relativity says it isn't because time/space distortions and experiments prove it right. Just like gravity isn't the same anymore after going up or down the stairs. It's just close enough to call it the same or 'constant'.

[Diebert van Rhijn]

Well, I thought it was funny. The whole car travelling at light speed thing is pretty silly.

The humor didn't work for me because the same car has lights throwing out beams that go at light speed and a radio that received/transmits at similar high speeds.

Actually, what Penrose is playing with is his enormous penis

Aren't you just projecting under the flag of free will :?) BTW it's Sir Penrose.

[Ryan Rudolph]

I don’t really follow Kevin’s car example either, his hypothetical example is not plausible so I don’t quite follow the argument, it seems that by physical properties alone, a car could never travel at the same speed as light. I agree that speed is a relative measure, but things do indeed travel slower or faster depending on the physical makeup of the thing moving through space/time.

Even if the observer watches light traveling by, and he is spinning on a planet as he observes, I think he can still be fairly certain that the planet is traveling much slower than the actual beam of light he is observing.

However, this is not to say that nothing can ever travel faster than the speed of light, but I would say this – Based on the human perspective, which takes into account the functioning human consciousness the way it operates, and all the current scientific instruments used to observe the behavior of 'known' things, light as a ‘thing’ seems to be the fastest moving material out there.

I would also add that in the future, we may discover some new material not yet observable by humans that does in fact travel faster than light, but with the current instruments, a light-year is still probably the best unit of measure to deal with enormous distances through space-time.

[Matt Gregory]

I don’t really follow Kevin’s car example either, his hypothetical example is not plausible so I don’t quite follow the argument

You're getting caught up in irrelevant details. The only relevant things about the example are the object moving at the speed of light, and the light being shined forward from the object. The idea of a car is convenient because we already know how the lights are set up on it, so that part doesn't need to be described.

[Kevin Solway]

Kevin, what makes you believe 'their calculation' can add speed to another speed like 1+1? Where is that based on?

We know that the driver will measure the speed of the light leaving their headlights to be C. And we know that they will measure their speed relative to their starting point to be some speed greater than zero, as indicated by the speedometer in their car.

It strikes me that the calculation of the combined speed would be useful for something - if only for driver himself.

[PS. It should be noted that the special formula that is used for adding velocities is only for an observer measuring the velocity at the destination]

[Ryan Rudolph]

Matt wrote:

The only relevant things about the example are the object moving at the speed of light, and the light being shined forward from the object.

But all observable ‘objects’ within the totality do not travel at the speed of light; they travel much slower than that. I thought light is only able to travel that fast because of his physical makeup, the fact that it has the structure it does as a photon.

I don’t see how scientists could get matter to travel that fast, because only a ‘thing’ with the same composition as light is able to move through space-time at those speeds.

The only way this example would be plausible is if Kevin could provide a newly discovered substance or material, that is even more conductive to fast speeds than light, and then he would need to provide further evidence that other ‘things’ could travel with this material as passengers so to speak.

For instance; if he used dark matter as an example, and gave evidence that it travels faster than the speed of light, and then he gave further evidence that humans are able to ride with dark matter in the same way we are able to go about our daily lives on the planet earth while it spins around the sun.

[Matt Gregory]

I honestly don't know why you're raising these points. We all know that a car traveling at light speed is implausible. The discussion is about a purely theoretical concept.

[Jason]

I'm no physics expert, but here's my possibly ignorant and foolish two cents:

If all motion is relative, then it seems cars can move at the speed of light - just define a beam of light as being the stationary reference point, now it is the car that is moving at the speed of light, not the light beam.

[Ryan Rudolph]

Matt wrote:

I honestly don't know why you're raising these points. We all know that a car traveling at light speed is implausible. The discussion is about a purely theoretical concept.

yeah, perhaps I'm just being a tad nit picky. Over all, Kevin's argument is reasonable, but implausbile hypotheticals seem counterintuitive to good philosophy to me. Perhaps, I'm just jaded from the Academic Arena, where professors thrive in the realm of implausible hypotheticals.

[Tomas]

.

-tomas-
Finally a genius inquiry worth going after :-)



-kee-buss-
Kevin Solway -- I've been arguing for decades that it is easily possible for things to travel faster than the speed of light,


-tomas-
And for decades your speech has been falling back to the earthly limitations of gravity. Seeding our cosmic brains with your insightful ponderings. Thank you. However, shake your long-hair now and them... as some of your wavelength has found itself ibedded in the hair. Please save your haircut shavings, have it for lunch and please recycle the thought patterns.



-kee-buss-
and that the limitation on the speed of light is only an artifact of the language of relativity.



-tomas-
Discounting the Earth's wobble... we are hurtling through space at 1,000 miles per hour.

So, we are travelling in a car going east-to-west at 60 mph are we then travelling at 1,060 miles per hour?

And then, we are going west-to-east at 60 mph we are then going 940 mph?

What is the traffic cop to think when we (Kee-Buss in lightspace) tell him that we are really not "speeding" at all? Of course, he'll tell us to, "Tell it to the judge." And i'll mutter that the judge (Kee-Buss) is presently light-waves away in Australia. Uh-huh.



-kee-buss-
Now, at last, there are scientists who are admitting this:

Science podcast with Roger Penrose

They say something like, "For the first time ever, we reveal that science does in fact believe that things travel faster than the speed of light."



-tomas-
Much the same as our heart-beat (somewhat same argument for lightning) as it "sparks" the muscle-organ tissue it is going at the speed of light. If we are walking west-to-east (we) are travelling 4 mph faster than the speed of light and the opposite is true when walking west-to-east. The body compensates for our bodymass moving instead of being stationary position.

Perhaps when we dart our eyes from side-to-side we see a "blur of light" just for a split-second. Hmmm, oh well. Simple musings.



Tomas (the tank)
Prince of Jerusalem
16 Degree
Scottish Rite Free Mason


31


.

[Diebert van Rhijn]

Kevin, what makes you believe 'their calculation' can add speed to another speed like 1+1? Where is that based on?

We know that the driver will measure the speed of the light leaving their headlights to be C. And we know that they will measure their speed relative to their starting point to be some speed greater than zero, as indicated by the speedometer in their car.

Yes, but why do you assume a simple addition like speed_a + speed_b? There's no reason to assume that is a valid thing to do with all possible speed. It's based on a theory or assumption that such calculation makes sense. That theory might be faulty so any simple calculation the 'ignorant' driver makes will be possible faulty since he applies a faulty or incomplete theory.

It strikes me that the calculation of the combined speed would be useful for something - if only for driver himself.

Indeed, he would discover no matter how fast he tries to let his car go, the combined speed won't go over the lightspeed limit. He'll see space and time deform way earlier and would come up with special relativity to explain it, for now :)

[PS. It should be noted that the special formula that is used for adding velocities is only for an observer measuring the velocity at the destination]

Well, that's always the case, isn't it? The relativity that influences any measurement, addition or subtraction of velocities is always present even for the person in the car or whatever point one decides to start comparing different objects in spacetime.

Relativity is not only about selecting a frame of reference to do your observation in but it results in a calculation allowing for compensating values for any transformation between inertial frames of reference.

It seems that the speed of light is an artifact created by, or property of spacetime itself. The question how fixed this limit is becomes the question of how spacetime is shaped or if it can be punctured, locally folded, etc. There the more exotic theories come in handy.

Yeah, Dave, I know, playing with... etc.

[DHodges]

We all know that a car traveling at light speed is implausible.

Well, I'm glad that's clear, at least.

Yeah, Dave, I know, playing with... etc.

I wasn't even going to say it this time, I swear!
(Okay, I was.)

[Jason]

We all know that a car traveling at light speed is implausible.

Well, I'm glad that's clear, at least.

If that's the case, can you tell me what's wrong with the idea in my previous post?

[Diebert van Rhijn]

can you tell me what's wrong with the idea in my previous post?

If all motion is relative, then it seems cars can move at the speed of light - just define a beam of light as being the stationary reference point, now it is the car that is moving at the speed of light, not the light beam.

It's certainly an interesting but valid choice of reference frame. The car would go backwards though... unless you take the backlights instead :)

But you'd have to pick one of course, front or back. But how fast do the lights at the other side go on your lightspeed car? Do they freeze?

[ExpectantlyIronic]

Matt,

I don't think that's true unless the car was moving faster than the speed of light. The speed of the light would overtake the speeds of all the slower objects.

The light would disperse prior to reaching the finish line if it were far enough away from the car.

[DHodges]

If all motion is relative, then it seems cars can move at the speed of light - just define a beam of light as being the stationary reference point, now it is the car that is moving at the speed of light, not the light beam.

It's certainly an interesting but valid choice of reference frame.

This is an interesting question. But it seems to me that according to the usual definitions, we can not take the beam of light as an inertial reference frame:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reference_frame
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inertial_reference_frame

In short, a reference frame is a place where a person might be making measurements, and a person, like the car, can not be travelling at the speed of light.

However, one can wonder what the universe looks like "from the photon's point of view," if a photon were to have such a thing. It seems to me - and obviously we are now in a completely speculative realm - that from the photon's view, there is infinite time dilation, and its trip from being emitted by one particle and absorbed by another takes zero time, even if it is in another galaxy; it is instantaneous.

Conjecturing further, from the photon's point of view, since it takes zero time, the photon can go from A to B, back again (travelling backwards in time as an anti-photon, but for zero time) to A, and then forward again to B, and this is completely the equivalent of going straight from A to B, to the outside observer.

Travelling backwards in time might seem odd, but remember that from the photon's view it is instantaneous. And an anti-photon is just a photon (of opposite phase), which cancels out the first photon travelling from A to B.

And this, I speculate, gets us somewhere close to the Transactional Interpretation of QM.

[Sapius]

Diebert: But you'd have to pick one of course, front or back.

Yes, we would have to. I’m not really well versed with scientific theories and wouldn’t like to disrupt this discussion, but I would like to see it from a slightly “philosophical” point of view.

If any point assumed to be a fixed reference point in space and time is also actually on the move (to which multiple-relativity also applies), then the distance X (Point A to B) itself has to necessarily be on the move, so if anything is said to be moving at the speed of light, then it has to be that speed plus (or minus depending on the assumed realtive direction of X) the motion of X itself.

On the other hand, since we cannot take any point as absolutely fixed in space-time as that point is actually multi-relatively moving itself, hence neither can we know or consider in which absolute direction is X itself actually moving, since there are none absolute directions to speak of. So speed, more or less than speed of light remains multi-relative in which ever way actually.

Instantaneous movement of photons over distance can be attributed to the involvement of hyperspace, which actually may be happening due the inter-warping of different dimensions itself, making distance multi-relative too; hence (multi-relative) distance (multi-relative in time and space) itself may also not be an absolute measure to movement so to speak. However, all but remain a matter of convenience that definitely helps make sense in and of descriptive practicality, when speaking/thinking of any particular thing/phenomena.

[Matt Gregory]

Matt wrote:

I honestly don't know why you're raising these points. We all know that a car traveling at light speed is implausible. The discussion is about a purely theoretical concept.

yeah, perhaps I'm just being a tad nit picky. Over all, Kevin's argument is reasonable, but implausbile hypotheticals seem counterintuitive to good philosophy to me. Perhaps, I'm just jaded from the Academic Arena, where professors thrive in the realm of implausible hypotheticals.

I can understand the disgust for useless intellectualizing, but I think you're throwing the baby out with the bathwater. The hypothetical is just a tool used for the sake of convenience, to zero in on one aspect of a large problem a la divide and conquer. Dealing with too many aspects of a problem at once imposes unnecessary overhead on a discussion and makes it more difficult to follow.

I can't think of any offhand, but I'm sure there are ways to abuse the hypothetical. But if Kevin was doing that in this case, then, not knowing much about this field, I'm not able to detect it. I don't agree with his conclusion, but it's not because I think his use of the hypothetical is at fault, I think his application of the mathematics is off.

[Matt Gregory]

I'm not still not clear on measuring the speed of light. Let's say a car leaves its starting point, accelerates to 1/2 light speed and then turns its headlights on. The speed of the headlights relative to the starting point would be c, right? And the speed of the headlights relative to the guy inside the car would be c, right? What would the speed of the light be if you were standing at the starting point and measuring the speed of the headlights from the car? Wouldn't it be c - the speed of the car? Or c - the speed of the car calculated according to the Lorentz transform?

[Jason]

If all motion is relative, then it seems cars can move at the speed of light - just define a beam of light as being the stationary reference point, now it is the car that is moving at the speed of light, not the light beam.

It's certainly an interesting but valid choice of reference frame.

This is an interesting question. But it seems to me that according to the usual definitions, we can not take the beam of light as an inertial reference frame:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reference_frame
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inertial_reference_frame

In short, a reference frame is a place where a person might be making measurements, and a person, like the car, can not be travelling at the speed of light.

Once again excuse my relative ignorance of physics, and maybe I'm misunderstanding you, but what you wrote seems like a circular argument. It also appears to contradict the idea that motion is relative, because it assigns(apparently arbitrarily, if motion is relative) special characteristics* to the light but not the car.

*no observing or measuring from here, infinite time dilation.

[DHodges]

Once again excuse my relative ignorance of physics, and maybe I'm misunderstanding you, but what you wrote seems like a circular argument. It also appears to contradict the idea that motion is relative, because it assigns(apparently arbitrarily, if motion is relative) special characteristics* to the light but not the car.

*no observing or measuring from here, infinite time dilation.

Is the beam of light (or moving along with the beam of light) a place where a person might be, performing a measurement?

[Diebert van Rhijn]

Is the beam of light (or moving along with the beam of light) a place where a person might be, performing a measurement?

I don't like this idea of a person having to fit into a reference frame. Certainly the measurement can be made in any kind of frame, perhaps often hypothetical or mathematically but also experiments can give indications. For example a photon could collide with another particle and the resulting energies could be measured and things can be said about vector and energy of trajectories involved.

That a photon doesn't have a point of view is a lame remark, since cars don't have a POV either, or 'x'. The moment it's described as particle instead of wave, it has a reference frame, not?

And isn't the question about how far a detector or observer of the detector influences photon or quantum level events to any significant degree still debated? Many theories do actually have proven to work even if in the calculations the person performing the measurement was ignored. At some levels it might become more important but not at the photon level, IMO.