- #36
cliowa
- 191
- 0
Gokul43201 said:Saying the speed of light is frame-independent is not equivalent to saying that c is an upper limit (without the framework of SR).
I'm sorry, I obviously didn't make myself clear: That's not what I meant to say, I agree with you.
I couldn't agree more. I just feel it's a little weird that so many here are claiming the upper speed limitness of light as LOGICAL, as if it was the most natural thing. The fact that SR is self-consistent doesn't make it logical, in my opinion. Would those of you, who consider this whole thing "logical" also call Quantum Mechanics a "logical" thing? Would you call the entanglement (the EPR paradoxon) for example "logical"?Gokul43201 said:All explanations of physical phenomena must follow from some theory. Please explain anything to me without using the results of some theory.
Take a look at this:
Ubern0va said:One cannot go faster than the speed of light simply due to logical reasoning. That is, if one were to take into account the theory of relativity, which states that, the closer you get to the speed of light, the faster the world moves around you and the slower you move relative to the world (i.e. the less you progress through time). That having been said, the logical inference to make is that when you hit a point past the speed of light, you will begin to go back in time relative to the world around you, though the world around you should actually begin to go slower and slower the faster you go after surpassing the speed of light.
And now? So what? In QM you go back and forth in time just like you want. The theory works quite well. QM is self-consistent. Is this the third kind of logic, the very new one?
Now, to bring an end to this, here's the definition of "logic" wikipedia:
Wikipedia said:Logic (from Classical Greek λόγος (logos), originally meaning the word, or what is spoken, but coming to mean thought or reason) is most often said to be the study of arguments, although the exact definition of logic is a matter of controversy amongst philosophers (see below). However the subject is grounded, the task of the logician is the same: to advance an account of valid and fallacious inference to allow one to distinguish good from bad arguments.
So, it's all about concluding, getting a series of good arguments to culminate in one conclusion. THE PROBLEM (of this thread) IS THAT THERE IS NOW ANSWER TO THE QUESTION "WHY STOP AT THE SPEED OF LIGHT?". THERE IS NO REASON. THAT'S JUST THE WAY IT IS, IT SO HAPPENS. IT'S A PURE FACT WE HAVE TO LIVE WITH. PHYSICS DOESN'T ASK WHY SOMETHING IS BUT HOW SOMETHING IS.
Best regards...Cliowa