Exactly.. could it be that special relativity is correct up until
lightspeed, but fails after that? Anyone know of any online papers
or articles that address this line of thought?
> Jonathan Reeves wrote:
>
> On Thu, Jun 01, 2000 at 04:09:32PM -0400, Brian Atkins wrote:
> >
> > What I mean is the difference between someone watching a moon landing
> > in 1969 on TV vs. someone watching it on Alpha Centauri many years later.
> > In either case there is a delay, and even if you had instant (FTL) TV
> > signals from the moon to your TV in 1969 there still is no way that I
> > see that you actually are going "back in time" or causing any kind of
> > paradox.
> >
> > By classical physics, you are right.
> >
> > With relativity things happen differently.
> >
> > If you are standing next to Fred, and are stationary relative to him,
> > time moves at the same speed for both of you.
> >
> > If you are walking past Fred, your time is a little slower.
> >
> > If you are flying past Fred in a spaceship at near light speed, it is a
> > lot slower.
> >
> > If you are a photon, and flying past him at the speed of light, time is
> > stationary for you.
> >
> > If you are flying past him at faster than the speed of light, time for
> > you goes backwards. Hence, you arrive before you left.
>
> I keep hearing this argument, but as far as I can understand, this rests
> solely upon the fact that an arbitrary decision has been made that nothing can
> move faster than the speed of the light. Because of this whenever something
> comes up that appears to be able to move faster than the speed of light, or
> invalidate the argument that nothing can move faster, this theory reverses the
> situation and says "ah, in that case it must be moving backwards in time
> because nothing can move faster than light."
>
> This is circular reasoning and rests on the premise that the mathematical
> equations of special relatively are exactly correct in all cases.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu Jul 27 2000 - 14:12:24 MDT