? quick question about the speed of light

paulkish

paulkish

old fart
They, scientist, say we cannot go faster then the speed of light. Putting it in perspective IMHO the speed of light is only relative to your perspective. If you can conceive a situation exceeding the speed of light, odds are your conception can be exceeded. ... :)

The above is also factual in racing because what ever you conceive and put together to go fast, can then be exceeded, because it was correctly conceived. ... :)
 
If as some scientist say you cannot go faster then the speed of light and it is true, but you find speeds faster then the speed of light then the speed of light is relative to your perspective.

Can there be speeds faster then the speed of light? My answer is there are things happening faster then the speed of light. The idea there cannot be speeds faster then light is not true unless the speed of light can be seen as different from one perspectives. If it can't and the speed of light cannot be exceeded, then the observation itself becomes the perspective and determines the speed of light. How you see it is not about what it is but it becoming what you see. If the speed of light is constant and cannot be exceeded yet you can calculate or show proof of speeds beyond the speed of light, then you must also be able to observe two worlds from the same place.
 
Last edited:
paulkish said:
If as some scientist say you cannot go faster then the speed of light and you find speeds faster then the speed of light then the speed of light is relative to your perspective.

Can there be speeds faster then the speed of light? My answer is there are things happening faster then the speed of light.
Click to expand...
Not in this country! Lol
 
paulkish said:
If as some scientist say you cannot go faster then the speed of light and it is true, but you find speeds faster then the speed of light then the speed of light is relative to your perspective.

Can there be speeds faster then the speed of light? My answer is there are things happening faster then the speed of light. The idea there cannot be speeds faster then light is not true unless the speed of light can be seen as different from one perspectives. If it can't and the speed of light cannot be exceeded, then the observation itself becomes the perspective and determines the speed of light. How you see it is not about what it is but it becoming what you see. If the speed of light is constant and cannot be exceeded yet you can calculate or show proof of speeds beyond the speed of light, then you must also be able to observe two worlds from the same place.
Click to expand...
This is what is known as a non sequitur. The base of you hypothesis is assuming that you reference experimental data (in your last sentence) that you have not actually shown. You have put forth a philosophical argument but not a scientific one.
 
In philosophy, a formal fallacy, deductive fallacy, logical fallacy or non sequitur (Latin for "it does not follow") is a pattern of reasoning rendered invalid by a flaw in its logical structure that can neatly be expressed in a standard logic system, for example propositional logic.
 
Would the abilityto go faster then the speed of light be limited by yor ability to measure the speed.
IE: if you measuring technique was at its limit you could not measure anything faster.
 
my google search says radio waves travel at the speed of light.
The Italins at CREN claim to have sent neutrinos 60 nano seconds faster then the speed of light over a 500 mile distance.
 
Just a dumb thought.

If the big bang supposedly happened at faster then the speed of light and you cannot go faster then the speed of light, then there was no big bang and my theory of and ignition causing the start of the universe we are in is more likely correct.
 
paulkish said:
Just a dumb thought.

If the big bang supposedly happened at faster then the speed of light and you cannot go faster then the speed of light, then there was no big bang and my theory of and ignition causing the start of the universe we are in is more likely correct.
Click to expand...

AR-3910X powered by a PVL??
 
The theory of the universe expanding faster than the speed of light is based upon the fact that objects in the universe are moving apart faster than the speed of light.
But that does not mean that either object is moving faster than the speed of light.
Example two cars meet on highway. going opposite directions, both cars are traveling at 50 mph. exactly. If they continue to travel in opposite directions then they will be moving apart at 100 mph. But neither car is traveling at 100mph. That is a crude example but correct.
So Paul it does matter where your point on observation is taken.
One of simplest examples of relativity is a train flat car traveling at 30 mph. a person in front throws a baseball to the rear at 30 mph. If a bystander is watching at the exact time the ball will appear to stand still. Which in reality it does. but to the people of the train it appears to move at 30 mph. Now the question is. which is right. Or is it just relative.
The only thing that I know of that is faster than the speed of light is how fast your day can go from fantastic to horrible when you wife asks you. Do you think this dress makes me look fat?
 
One Fast Kat said:
The only thing that I know of that is faster than the speed of light is how fast your day can go from fantastic to horrible when you wife asks you. Do you think this dress makes me look fat?
Click to expand...

Just got in from a rainout at Lernerville and your last paragraph made me think your day can change from fantastic to horrible instantly.

Then that made me think of instantaneous dynamic weight transfer we talk about on here and yep doesn't instantaneous weight transfer by definition occur faster then the speed of light? ... :)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top