Re: OT Speed of light stuff - was Pluto.

Kevin W. Miller wrote:

"Lon VanOstran" <RVnFT@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:43qchsF1pbomoU2@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx

Kevin W. Miller wrote:



Maybe I'm as "illogical" as Will. His explanation seemed sensible to
me. Here on earth, we measure speed relative to earth, which is
moving pretty fast as it circles the sun. It would seem that if we
employ the movement of earth as it circles the sun, we could fire
rockets into space, with greater speed and less rocket boost than
if we fired them counter to the movement of the earth around the
sun. Their speed, while not changing, would be different relative
the the speed of various other objects in space, just as you can
pass a vehicle coming toward you much more quickly than you can
pass one going away from you.
In space, when we measure speed, what are we comparing it to, since
everything in space is moving?

Lon


We are, usually, measuring it in miles per hour (could be kilometers,
parsecs, light years etc). That means the number of miles traveled
each hour. It has nothing to do with the motion of the Earth around
the Sun or the motion of the Sun around the Galaxy. It's the number
of miles the object travels each hour. That seems very simple. I
think where poor Will, and apparently some others, gets confused is
with the word "relativity". The way "relativity" is usually explained is by example. If you were
sitting in a stopped train, for example, and looked out the window
and saw another train passing, you would not be able to tell whether
it's the other train moving by you or you moving by the other train
(assuming you could ignore the lack of sound and vibration as clues
to your own movement and all you could see out the window was the
other train). It would look the same whether it was you moving and
the other train stopped or vice versa. There is no experiment you
could perform that would tell you whether it was your train moving
or the other train moving. You could try dropping a ball but it
would appear to you to drop straight down. You could toss the ball
forward but it would appear to follow exactly the arc you would
expect it to follow. You could toss the ball to the rear and it
would again follow exactly the arc you would expect it to follow.
And it would appear to you to do that no matter what your own speed. Now let's pretend that you could see the fellow in the other train
drop the ball and could watch it as it hit. Because of the motion of
the other train (or yours, since you can't tell which one is
moving), it would appear to you that the dropped ball did not drop
straight down but actually dropped at an angle. The same for a ball
tossed by the other fellow toward the front or back of his train. It
would appear to you that the arc of the ball was either stretched or
shortened depending upon the direction of the tossed ball. The other
observer, watching you perform with the ball, would see the same
effects. Neither of you would be able to tell which is moving
"relative" to the other. If both trains were each moving towards the
other near light speed, as the other passed it would appear to you
as though the other were moving at near twice the speed of light (or
that the other was stopped and you were moving at near twice the
speed of light) but it's still only an appearance. Each would still
cover the same amount of distance in the same amount of time. The
effect isn't additive. No matter what the "two bullet" theory says. Kevin W. Miller 

Your simple explanation ignores the fact that the earth is moving, and
your measurements are only relative to objects moving, as compared to
the surface of earth. When you get to outer space, you must consider
the speed of movement of the earth, and then consider that in
relation to any other objects in space which are relevant to the task
at hand.
Forget our lifetime limitations, and consider trying to travel to a
star which is millions of light years away, and which is moving
perpendicular to the route you need to travel in reaching it, as well
as growing closer to us at some changing speed (because it will miss
us, and eventually start speeding away).

Once you've left the gravitational pull of earth, you can consider all
speeds relative to the star you are trying to approach, yet your speed
going away from earth would be a completely irrelevant to the
project. I would submit that you could be moving away from earth at
the speed of light, and could be moving closer to the chosen star at
a much faster rate than that, because it is moving toward you as well.

IMHO, in order to consider that we can't travel faster than the speed
of light, one must first establish just which point in space is NOT
moving, and compared to what. How do you do that?

Lon 


Did you even read what I wrote?

Kevin W. Miller



I read what you wrote. It had only to do with speed on the surface of earth, which had absolutely NOTHING to do with what _I_ wrote, to which you were responding.

Lon
.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: "The Impossibility of Measuring the Velocity of Light"
    ... it but the speed of the observer would. ... with relativity it supports relativity while in fact the simplest ... "3.3 Tests of Light Speed from Moving Sources". ... to say "they travel in all possible directions at all possible speeds, ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: Unidirectional character of 1905 Einstein Relativity Transformation
    ... the mass of the Sun and the second with the mass of the Earth. ... present in the Newtonian mechanics. ... moving with respect to a fixed Sun (in the real world we have an Earth ... There is no asymmetry in 1905 relativity. ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: Synchronicity and Slow Clock Transport
    ... moving at high speed relative to the ether along with the barn. ... difference between said 'measurements' and physical reality. ... anything moving at speeds were this stuff matter. ... I accept Lorentzian Relativity but don't buy the shit Philosophy ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: Tony fails again, resorts to quote slinging.
    ... is moving up or down, *relative to me*, but only a mental gimp would ... equally valid view as opposed to the elevator moving. ... moves and the Earth is at rest,"  would simply mean two different ... "Albert Einstein's Special Theory of Relativity) ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Swift grb satelitte
    ... star at ever increasing speeds the observable wavelengths ... > A was travelling away to the right from x at c therefore its light ... Now you say that A's light is not moving relative to x. Could you ... > Doesnt that mean that Earth is moving left relative to A`s light ...
    (sci.astro)