From: swarren@convex.com (Steve Warren)
Newsgroups: alt.alien.visitors,alt.sci.physics.new-theories
Subject: Re: Elapsed Time near c (was Re: Q&A on Extraterr
Date: 22 Jul 92 15:04:01 GMT
Organization: Engineering, CONVEX Computer Corp., Richardson, Tx., USA
X-Disclaimer: This message was written by a user at CONVEX Computer
              Corp. The opinions expressed are those of the user and
              not necessarily those of CONVEX.

In article <1992Jul22.131739.1@cc.newcastle.edu.au> ccasm@cc.newcastle.edu.au writes:
>In article <1992Jul21.002755.17265@news.eng.convex.com>, swarren@convex.com (Steve Warren) writes:
>> Nope.  The fact is that nothing can travel faster than light,
>> in any reference frame

>I disagree.One cannot see anything passing faster than the speed of light, but
>that does not stop objects travelling faster than c.

Well, Big Al, you are welcome to disagree, but you are completely
mistaken.  You could just as easily say the earth is flat.  There are
plenty of people who claim that Einstein's special theory of relativity
is incorrect (which is what you just said).  If any of these guys could
actually demonstrate an experimental contradiction of the theory then
real scientists would listen to them.  As it is, there is not a single
experiment published that disproves Einstein's special theory of
relativity.  Everything I stated in my article is a simple and basic
introductory exposition of Einstein's theory.

>If an object travelled FASTER than the speed of light,it would not be observed
>as being where it actually is.This would not be significant until it travelled
>at much higher speeds than light. So what? Sometime after it stopped its image
>would catch up with it. Thus the object would not appear to have exceeded the
>speed of light, to the stationary observer (who is only observing the image). 
>Bad luck if the object is travelling straight at you.All that would be seen is
>a black hole until well after it passed (or hit) you.

This is incorrect.  If your theory were true, and an object passed by
you at FTL velocities, you would see the light that emitted from the
object as it approached you, and you would see the light that emitted
from the object as it departed from you.  You could easily calculate
the object's actual velocity by knowing the speed of light (you can
calculate back to where it really was in time from the moment you
receive the image).  You would in fact observe the object pass by you
at FTL speeds.

Many experimental confirmations of Einstein's theories have been
performed in particle accelerators.  Subatomic particles can be
accelerated to relativistic velocities and studied.  Your theory about
light catching up behind the object does not apply to an accelerator,
since the particle is propelled around a large ring and observed from
the side as it passes by.  If the particles were going faster than
light they would ping the detectors every time they passed by, and
their velocities could be computed by the distance around the ring.
But the particles don't ever reach the speed of light; they just
continue to get more and more massive.

>Compare this to the speed of sound. We can see an event such as a gunshot
>before hearing it. The speed of the bullet is not effected by the observation.

You are very confused about relativity.  I suggest you read a good
introductory text on the subject before you attempt to instruct others
about how it works.

The biggest practical reason that FTL travel is impossible (unless new
discoveries in physics are made - that are not anticipated right now)
is because of the mass increase phenomenum.  This has been repeatedly
verified experimentally, so whether or not you think that it makes any
sense, it is in fact the way reality works.  The faster a ship tries to
go, the more massive it gets, which means that the faster the ship
attempts to go, the harder it is to go any faster.  The mass approaches
infinity as velocity approaches the speed of light.  There is no known
way to get around this.  This phenomenum was clearly predicted by
Einstein's theory.  Saying it isn't so is the intellectual equivalent
of sticking your head in the sand.
-- 
            _.
--Steve   ._||__    Welcome to the World's First GaAs Supercomputer
  Warren   v\ *|    -----------------------------------------------
             V  
Organization: Carnegie Mellon, Pittsburgh, PA