View Single Post
May2-11, 01:04 PM
Sci Advisor
PF Gold
ZapperZ's Avatar
P: 29,242
Quote Quote by Physicist1231 View Post
Rather most scientific breakthroughs have been achieved by thinking outside the box. And viewing something as simple as speed as a limitation is a little too "in the box".
Actually, this is NOT true.

Most breakthroughs and new ideas are based on the impetus of either a logical inconsistencies of an established understanding (eg: non-covariant of Maxwell equation under galilean transformation), or based on empirical observation that simply violates current theories or has no explanation (eg: high Tc superconductors). Only THEN would one needs to come up with new physics to describe these things. One just doesn't start with thinking "outside the box" for no apparent reason!

Here is a good example. If the speed of light is the max any object (we will say a photon) can reach and that is relative to any point or object in space then what if you have two cars with cool little engines under the hood. They are X distance apart and traveling directly twoard each other at 50mph each.

Cumulitively they are approaching at 100mph.

Speed it up to 300mph each... you get 600mph closure. (Car A will see Car B approaching at 600mph)

Keep going to .25C... cumulative of .5c (no one has exceeded C yet...)

Now get to .5C each... You have a total of 1C for closure. According to Relativity this would be the limitation.

But neither one actually exceeded the speed of light. Bump the speeds up to just over .5C (which is still possible according to either newtons physics or relativity) and now you have a combined closure speed of >1C. Photons of light do this all the time say from one star to the next or even photons reflecting from the earth back in the direction of the sun. Or even simpler... two candles 5 feet from each other are emitting photons with a closure rate of the photons of 2C (excluding things like gravity, reflection, and refraction that may slow it down a little).

So >C is possible even with relativity.

You can counter this argument with Lenth and time contractions. To exclude those you have observer C that is standing equidistant from each object and measures each objects (A and B) approach and sees them both coming in at 1C apiece. He can logicly conclude that the rate of approach is 2C.... Fun stuff to think about.
This is a clear example of the faulty application of velocity addition in Special Relativity. Before you proceed any further, please do some homework on why the galilean velocity addition that you've used isn't valid for speeds approaching c. This is basic Special Relativity 101. This is not "thinking outside the box". This is not knowing what's in the box.