[ExI] speed of light at the speed of light

[Tomaz Kristan]

The Relativity is either solid, either it only appears solid. Poking it,
shouldn't harm, on the contrary!

I try to poke it myself, too,

http://protokol2020.wordpress.com/2013/08/15/extreme-cases-in-relativity/




On Fri, Aug 23, 2013 at 7:08 AM, Norman Jacobs <wincat at swbell.net> wrote:

> If there is no time, then light has no speed, so we can move at will
> throughout the universe (to any position), unless we get sucked into a
> black hole.****
>
> ** **
>
> ** **
>
> *From:* extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org [mailto:
> extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org] *On Behalf Of *Anders Sandberg
> *Sent:* Thursday, August 22, 2013 4:29 PM
> *To:* extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
>
> *Subject:* Re: [ExI] speed of light at the speed of light****
>
> ** **
>
> On 22/08/2013 20:58, John Clark wrote:****
>
> On Thu, Aug 22, 2013 at 7:29 AM, Gordon <gts_2000 at yahoo.com> wrote:****
>
> ** **
>
> > I am in a spaceship accelerating away from earth and approaching the
> speed of light. I have a flashlight. My instruments tell me that the light
> emitted from my flashlight travels at c. This is true no matter whether I
> shine it forward in the direction of my travel or backward toward the rear
> of the ship. ****
>
> I am accelerating away from earth such that my ship's velocity relative to
> earth compared to c is halved in each time period. For example at time t,
> my ship is travelling at 90% of c. At t2, my ship is travelling at 95% of
> c. At t3, my ship is travelling at 97.5% of c, and so on for an infinite
> amount of time as I approach c.****
>
> ** **
>
> It's OK for thought experiments to be wildly impractical but they must be
> physically possible, and the above experiment would not only take an
> infinite amount of time to perform it would also take an infinite amount of
> energy.****
>
>
> However, the conclusion about infinite time and energy are a *result* of
> doing the Einstein thought experiment properly. You cannot dismiss the
> lightspeed case straight away.
>
> Einstein had a nifty way of showing that there is something problematic
> going on in this case, which I think was one of his primary reasons for
> developing the full theory: suppose you run past an electromagnetic wave
> while travelling at c. What do you see? It ought to be static in your
> reference frame, but in that case it breaks Maxwell's laws. So either
> electrodynamics is wrong, or the velocity addition formula is wrong (and we
> already have some suspicions since light seem to move at c regardless of
> speed). So let's see what happens if we assume the velocity addition
> formula has to be something else...
>
>
> ****
>
> -- ****
>
> Anders Sandberg,****
>
> Future of Humanity Institute ****
>
> Oxford Martin School ****
>
> Faculty of Philosophy ****
>
> Oxford University ****
>
> ------------------------------
>
> No virus found in this message.
> Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
> Version: 2013.0.3392 / Virus Database: 3211/6600 - Release Date: 08/22/13*
> ***
> ------------------------------
>
> No virus found in this message.
> Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
> Version: 2013.0.3392 / Virus Database: 3211/6600 - Release Date: 08/22/13
>
> _______________________________________________
> extropy-chat mailing list
> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
> http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20130823/6d093c6d/attachment.html>