Yes, You Can Go Faster Than Speed Of Light

[Super Polymath]

I'm not sure how this is relevant to anything being discussed here, Polly.  Nor do I understand it.  You say that for the speed of light to "remain constant" it has to speed up (or slow down in your other scenario).  How does it "remain constant" if it changes speeds?

Because the metric in which we measure time is changing!!!!!!!!!

[Super Polymath]

Moron, look! In order for the speed of light to remain constant under time dilation (heavier particles than red-shifted photons) it has to speed up (quantum entanglement). In order for it to remain constant under time contraction (red-shifted photons in light-years worth of vacuum radiation/photon ether) the velocity has to slow down (galaxies flying apart). Time contraction is the reverse of time dilation. Shorter length slows time, longer length speeds up time. Slow-motion speeds up the speed up the speed of light, fast-motion slows down the speed of light. Capisce? I'm mostly Irish (Half Scottish on my paternal Italian side, half Red Rob McGregor on my French maternal side) but a lil' Sicilian (North Italian).

B/c this was quoted by thah Moron@! prematurely.

[Super Polymath]

Poly you're taking over! You don't get a say, you're doing it! Good luck.

I'm overthrowing the Pope.

 

[Super Polymath]

[Moronium]

You used two examples, one with a relative velocity between A and C of .9c with a velocity of .45c between one of those two and a B object in between them, meaning the velocity between the other one and B would be .8c, that's scenario 1.

 

Why would it mean that?  How does the relative speed between B and C become .8c?

[Moronium]

The other example was of A and C both moving at 4.5c relative to B so A and C are moving at .9c relative to each other IN B'S FRAME, making it a completely different scenario. In this one the velocity between A and C in their own frames is 7.5c.

 

 

No, it's not a completely different scenario at all. A just happened to notice a previously overlooked object, i.e., B. That doesn't change the scenario in the least.  It just adds more information.

 

Scenario 1, as you call it, is just one you have invented totally out of the blue.  It has nothing to do with anything I said.  You can't disprove that my dog is black by saying the sky is blue, sorry.

Edited June 27, 2018 by Moronium

[Moronium]

You're totally confused, A-wal, and completely incoherent as a result.  You seem to confuse yourself more with every post you make

[A-wal]

I honestly didn't realise it was even possible to be this thick.

 

In scenario one the relative velocities are:

A/C-.9c

A/B-.45c

Those are the two velocities you gave. This makes the C/B velocity .8c.

That means that the relative velocity of A/C in B's frame is 1.25c (.8c + .45c).

 

In scenario two the relative velocities are:

A/B and C/B-.45c

That means that the relative velocity of A/C in B's frame is .9c (.45c + .45c).

Again, those are the two velocities you gave. This makes the A/C velocity .75c.

 

Trying to disprove that a dog is black by saying the sky is blue is exactly what you're doing but your too stupid to even realise.

Edited June 27, 2018 by A-wal

[Moronium]

In scenario one the relative velocities are:

A/C-.9c

A/B-.45c

Those are the two velocities you gave. This makes the C/B velocity .8c.

That means that the relative velocity of A/C in B's frame is 1.25c (.8c + .45c).

 

 

 

Just answer a question for once rather than endlessly repeating your absurdities.  HOW and WHY does "this" MAKE the c/b velocity .8?

 

HOW and WHY does "that" MEAN that the relative velocity of A and C is 1.25c in B's frame?  Where would B EVER get that idea?

Edited June 27, 2018 by Moronium

[A-wal]

Just answer a question for once rather than endlessly repeating your absurdities.  HOW and WHY does "this" MAKE the c/b velocity .8?

Because that's the only way the other two statements (A/C velocity = .9c & A/B velocity = .45c) can both be true.

 

HOW and WHY does "that" MEAN that the relative velocity of A and C is 1.25c?  Where would B EVER get that idea?

Because A is moving away from B at .45c and C is moving away from B at .8C, so obviously A and C are moving away from each other at 1.25c in B's frame.

[Moronium]

A-wa

 

Because A is moving away from B at .45c and C is moving away from B at .8C, so obviously A and C are moving away from each other at 1.25c in B's frame.

 

 

Heh, A-wal.  Once again you can't even begin to explain yourself.  That's no surprise, really, because it's inexplicable.  Your only "support" for your absurd claims is to say it's "obvious."

 

A-wal, in addition to being very confused, you are high-strung and emotionally overwrought.  As a result, your main form of so-called "argument" is to attack others with vulgar and insulting invective while declaring your own infallibility.  All without even making any attempt to present a rational argument. You're really not worth talking to, sorry.

Edited June 27, 2018 by Moronium

[A-wal]

:) So you don't think it's obvious that 0.45 + 0.8 = 1.25? Oh my.

 

We're talking about the relative velocity of two objects from the perspective of a third object so the velocity addition formula doesn't apply.

 

A-wal, in addition to being very confused, you are high-strung and emotionally overwrought.

I am confused. I simply can't understand how it could be possible for anyone to be this stupid and completely oblivious enough to think that something they can't even grasp is wrong.

 

As a result, your main form of so-called "argument" is to attack others with vulgar and insulting invective while declaring your own infallibility.

I've been extremely patient with you!

 

All without even making any attempt to present a rational argument.

:)

 

All without even making any attempt to present a rational argument. You're really not worth talking to, sorry.

Don't apologise. I've been hoping you'll piss the fcuk off for ages.

[Vmedvil2]

You can only go faster than the speed of light with a Wormhole or if you warp space, you have to move the space and not the object because it takes a infinite amount of energy to accelerate the object at the speed of light and more and more energy as the speed of light approaches. If you move the space you can go as fast as you want that is why Warp Drive is possible in real life, but without a device that can change the properties of space you cannot go faster than the speed of light in my experience as it would have infinite mass at the speed of light your object. These systems obey Special Relativity and thus  moving faster than the speed of light is impossible as well without a device that alters space. If space has been properly altered it is possible but for normal objects this is a impossible feat going faster than the speed of light, and only currently theoretically possible with Warp Drive. This increased mass is called relativistic mass which obeys the equation below where at V = C , m = ∞ 

 

 

The lesson is simple if you want to move faster than the speed of light, move the space between the objects nothing about it not being able to move faster that light.

Edited June 28, 2018 by VictorMedvil

[DaveC426913]

This thread has lost its way.

 

Moronium, propose your thought experiment again. The 3 ships, A, B and C, or the ship with the tiny lab in it. Whichever one suits you.

 

There is a simple answer; it's just getting lost in the fray.

[Moronium]

This thread has lost its way.

 

Moronium, propose your thought experiment again. The 3 ships, A, B and C, or the ship with the tiny lab in it. Whichever one suits you.

 

There is a simple answer; it's just getting lost in the fray.

 

Why again?  You can just quote it if you want it on your screen for easy reference.

 

As far as the "simple answer" goes, if your idea is merely to get out your calculator and apply the addition formula, then you would be answering the wrong question.

Edited June 28, 2018 by Moronium

[Moronium]

This thread has lost its way.

 

Moronium, propose your thought experiment again. The 3 ships, A, B and C, or the ship with the tiny lab in it. Whichever one suits you.

 

There is a simple answer; it's just getting lost in the fray.

 

 

Here's what A-wal is saying:  If B sees A (using a "radar gun") receding from him at .45c, then he would HAVE T0 see C (again, presumably using his radar gun) receding from him at the rate of .8c and that he would therefore conclude that they are (obviously) travelling 1.25c relative to each other.  Why would he HAVE TO see it that way?  Because the infallible velocity addition formula says so, that's why!

 

My math aint so hot, but 1.25c is more than the speed of light, aint it?

 

It doesn't matter that A and C have already directly measured their relative speed to be .9c..  Now, by God, it's 1.25c, because the formula says so. This is from the same guy who says there can be one, and only one, "relative speed" between any two objects.  Go figure.

Edited June 28, 2018 by Moronium

[OceanBreeze]

So, this is your question?

 

I never got a coherent explanation for this confusing situation.  Does anyone have one?

 

We have two objects, A and C.  Let's look at this from A's perspective.  He sees C moving away from him at .9c.  And, of course, C will also see A receding from him at .9c, because that's their relative velocity, right?

 

Now then, let's say that A notices object B, which is between him and C.  He sees B as going in the same direction as C, except that B is receding from him at the rate of only .45c.

 

What will B see?   He will see  A receding from him at .45c, right?  He has to, because that's how A sees him. That's their relative velocity. He will also see C receding from him at the rate of .45c, but in the opposite direction, right?

 

Going back to A's perspective, because he noticed B, A no longer sees C receding from him at .9c.  A now sees C receding from him at the lesser speed of (approx) .75c, right?  With respect to C, A's doppler readings have now changed, right?

 

But, if B suddenly explodes, and ceases to exist, A will once again see C receding from him at .9c, right?

 

We know all this because the velocity addition formula tells us it's true, and because we know that formula has been CONCLUSIVELY PROVEN to be true.  What A sees doesn't matter at all.  It's what B tells us that A will see that is "really true."

 

 

If so, it is hard to say whether you are making a joke here, or really asking a serious question?

 

You gave the relative velocity of C, with respect to A , V_AC as 0.9c, and of B with respect to A, V_AB as 0.45c.

So, you only need the relative velocity of B with respect to C, V_BC as I understand your question.

That is easily obtained by using the velocity addition formula.

 

The relevant formula is:

 

[math]0.9c\quad =\quad \frac { 0.45c\quad +\quad { V }_{ BC } }{ 1\quad +\quad \frac { (0.45c)({ V }_{ BC }) }{ { c }^{ 2 } }  }[/math]

 

 

Which leads to:

[math]0.9c\quad +\quad 0.405\quad { V }_{ BC }\quad =\quad 0.45c\quad +\quad { V }_{ BC }[/math]

 

Solving for V_BC :  V_BC = 0.45c/.595 = 0.756c

So you have V_AC = 0.9c, V_AB = 0.45c and V_BC = 0.756c

 

Do you see any problems with that answer?

 

Why do I bother?

 

 

Edited June 28, 2018 by OceanBreeze