- #1
ricmat
- 2
- 0
Hi guys!
this is my first post here, and I would like to ask a few questions concerning relativity, speed of light and concerning stuff.
I know that a lot has already been talked around here about this areas, but I have not found one thread that puts this issue in the way I would like to put it.
First, I would like to make just a few points about my background:
-I am not a physic, nor I have some background in physics, apart from school teaching, obviously
-I've read some books, threads, posts and articles about physics, but that is pretty much my background!
-So, please, if you mind to answer this thread be critic. If I'll say something very stupid, please state so! just let me know. I really love to learn and discuss this topics.
So, my issues:
My very first doubt urged when I read about einstein. I am a strong fan of Newton, but I have to admit I do not "like" the way Einstein aproaches all concepts in his theories.
My point is just a simple one: I do not understand why do physics consider light so much special! Why is its speed the limit!
I have read a lot about this, and how the very nature of light (not a wave, but a wave-particle) is so important to define speed of light as the limit. or even as it is calculated from the relations within universe laws.
My point is just this one - if we are sublight beings (we work tops at light speed minus chemicals relations in our neurons), if all our creations are sublight (a computer can't work at light speed) ... ... ...
how can we measure light speed if we work, tops, at sublight? how can we say that there is nothing that can travel faster than speed of light if we can't "see" at over speed of light?
this is - if we had no eyes, and only ears, wouldn't we think that sound speed would be the greatest speed ever? wouldn't Einstein put "c" as the speed of sound?
of course we never experienced for sure faster than light experiences. but is that possible? we have no machines working at that speed! Is there a flaw in my reasoning?
and i even can't understand that argument people usually say, that if one travels that speed of light it would almost like we do something before it occurs - how is that?
yes, we would do something and then travel faster than the speed of light, but that's not time travel. It is just like making a sound and then traveling at mach 3, only multiplied many times, but not even close to "change" time line
This is not so obvious for me, and I have never read anything that answered this question clearly.
I have also read something stating that it actually makes sense once we are the ones to "analyse" all this phenomena, and it makes sense to the actual observer (us, humans) but for me physics is the study of nature rules, and not nature rules as seen by humans. At least, that's the way I see it!
Hope to discuss this further with you!
Cheers,
ricmat
this is my first post here, and I would like to ask a few questions concerning relativity, speed of light and concerning stuff.
I know that a lot has already been talked around here about this areas, but I have not found one thread that puts this issue in the way I would like to put it.
First, I would like to make just a few points about my background:
-I am not a physic, nor I have some background in physics, apart from school teaching, obviously
-I've read some books, threads, posts and articles about physics, but that is pretty much my background!
-So, please, if you mind to answer this thread be critic. If I'll say something very stupid, please state so! just let me know. I really love to learn and discuss this topics.
So, my issues:
My very first doubt urged when I read about einstein. I am a strong fan of Newton, but I have to admit I do not "like" the way Einstein aproaches all concepts in his theories.
My point is just a simple one: I do not understand why do physics consider light so much special! Why is its speed the limit!
I have read a lot about this, and how the very nature of light (not a wave, but a wave-particle) is so important to define speed of light as the limit. or even as it is calculated from the relations within universe laws.
My point is just this one - if we are sublight beings (we work tops at light speed minus chemicals relations in our neurons), if all our creations are sublight (a computer can't work at light speed) ... ... ...
how can we measure light speed if we work, tops, at sublight? how can we say that there is nothing that can travel faster than speed of light if we can't "see" at over speed of light?
this is - if we had no eyes, and only ears, wouldn't we think that sound speed would be the greatest speed ever? wouldn't Einstein put "c" as the speed of sound?
of course we never experienced for sure faster than light experiences. but is that possible? we have no machines working at that speed! Is there a flaw in my reasoning?
and i even can't understand that argument people usually say, that if one travels that speed of light it would almost like we do something before it occurs - how is that?
yes, we would do something and then travel faster than the speed of light, but that's not time travel. It is just like making a sound and then traveling at mach 3, only multiplied many times, but not even close to "change" time line
This is not so obvious for me, and I have never read anything that answered this question clearly.
I have also read something stating that it actually makes sense once we are the ones to "analyse" all this phenomena, and it makes sense to the actual observer (us, humans) but for me physics is the study of nature rules, and not nature rules as seen by humans. At least, that's the way I see it!
Hope to discuss this further with you!
Cheers,
ricmat