Groups > sci.physics > #557049 > unrolled thread

Can you provide an intuitive explanation for why nothing can travel faster than the speed of light?

Started by	Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com>
First post	2016-02-26 16:56 -0600
Last post	2016-03-01 03:30 -0800
Articles	20 on this page of 60 — 13 participants

Back to article view | Back to sci.physics

Page 1 of 3 [1] 2 3 Next page →

#557049 — Can you provide an intuitive explanation for why nothing can travel faster than the speed of light?

From	Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com>
Date	2016-02-26 16:56 -0600
Subject	Can you provide an intuitive explanation for why nothing can travel faster than the speed of light?
Message-ID	<n8udnVUVceOARU3LnZ2dnUU7-K0AAAAA@giganews.com>

Can you provide an intuitive explanation for why nothing can travel 
faster than the speed of light?
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=egi445gJfzk


-- 

sci.physics is an unmoderated newsgroup dedicated
to the discussion of physics, news from the physics
community, and physics-related social issues.

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#557060

From	HVAC <mr.hvac@gmail.com>
Date	2016-02-26 15:05 -0800
Message-ID	<929dbc89-b8a5-4e75-92df-51658774cbec@googlegroups.com>
In reply to	#557049

Sam Wormley
Can you provide an intuitive explanation for why nothing can travel 
faster than the speed of light? 
-----------

BJ gets around this universal law by believing that ESP can travel faster than light. 

Hey. Can you prove it can't?

John would probably add that an alien ghost can fly up to heaven FTL. Again. Prove he can't

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#557069

From	jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com
Date	2016-02-26 23:10 +0000
Message-ID	<gj27qc-qka.ln1@mail.specsol.com>
In reply to	#557049

Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> wrote:
> Can you provide an intuitive explanation for why nothing can travel 
> faster than the speed of light?

There is nothing intuitive about it; to say otherwise is disingenuous.

-- 
Jim Pennino

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#557080

From	Fabian Russell <fb@zen.info>
Date	2016-02-26 23:42 +0000
Message-ID	<naqnt1011be@news7.newsguy.com>
In reply to	#557069

On Fri, 26 Feb 2016 23:10:08 +0000, jimp wrote:

> 
> There is nothing intuitive about it; to say otherwise is disingenuous.
>

Not true.  It is actually very intuitive.

The issue is equivalent to the following question:

Can there be a frame of reference in which light is stationary
to an observer?

Such a frame of reference would be intuitively inconceivable.  Nothing
can equal light velocity.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#557089

From	jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com
Date	2016-02-26 23:55 +0000
Message-ID	<u757qc-uua.ln1@mail.specsol.com>
In reply to	#557080

Fabian Russell <fb@zen.info> wrote:
> On Fri, 26 Feb 2016 23:10:08 +0000, jimp wrote:
> 
>> 
>> There is nothing intuitive about it; to say otherwise is disingenuous.
>>
> 
> Not true.  It is actually very intuitive.
> 
> The issue is equivalent to the following question:
> 
> Can there be a frame of reference in which light is stationary
> to an observer?

A frame of reverence is not intuitive.

Most people have difficulty fully understanding what a frame of reverence is.


-- 
Jim Pennino

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#557091

From	Mahipal <mahipal7638@gmail.com>
Date	2016-02-26 16:20 -0800
Message-ID	<b58203f6-d373-4161-8506-8f0c7cdfd5df@googlegroups.com>
In reply to	#557089

On Friday, February 26, 2016 at 7:01:10 PM UTC-5, ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
> Fabian Russell <fb@zen.info> wrote:
> > On Fri, 26 Feb 2016 23:10:08 +0000, jimp wrote:
> > 
> >> There is nothing intuitive about it; to say otherwise is disingenuous.
> > 
> > Not true.  It is actually very intuitive.
> > 
> > The issue is equivalent to the following question:
> > 
> > Can there be a frame of reference in which light is stationary
> > to an observer?
> 
> A frame of reverence is not intuitive.
> 
> Most people have difficulty fully understanding what a frame of reverence is.

Reverence? I thought you both were discussing frames of reference?!
No wonder Physics is such a difficult subject for me! I need help!

That autoCollect@# SW is playing tricks upon your mind Jim. Relax.

> -- 
> Jim Pennino

-- Mahipal “IPMM... माहिपाल ७६३८: My son's emailID is learntospell, trul(y)!”

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#557127

From	jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com
Date	2016-02-27 03:54 +0000
Message-ID	<n8j7qc-sac.ln1@mail.specsol.com>
In reply to	#557091

Mahipal <mahipal7638@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Friday, February 26, 2016 at 7:01:10 PM UTC-5, ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
>> Fabian Russell <fb@zen.info> wrote:
>> > On Fri, 26 Feb 2016 23:10:08 +0000, jimp wrote:
>> > 
>> >> There is nothing intuitive about it; to say otherwise is disingenuous.
>> > 
>> > Not true.  It is actually very intuitive.
>> > 
>> > The issue is equivalent to the following question:
>> > 
>> > Can there be a frame of reference in which light is stationary
>> > to an observer?
>> 
>> A frame of reverence is not intuitive.
>> 
>> Most people have difficulty fully understanding what a frame of reverence is.
> 
> Reverence? I thought you both were discussing frames of reference?!

There is no need to proof read a USENET posting as there will always
be someone fixated on pointing out all typos.


-- 
Jim Pennino

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#557138

From	Mahipal <mahipal7638@gmail.com>
Date	2016-02-26 21:04 -0800
Message-ID	<3be55580-5888-4916-9beb-a64d242b0ae6@googlegroups.com>
In reply to	#557127

On Friday, February 26, 2016 at 11:01:09 PM UTC-5, ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
> Mahipal <mahipal7638@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Friday, February 26, 2016 at 7:01:10 PM UTC-5, ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
> >> Fabian Russell <fb@zen.info> wrote:
> >> > On Fri, 26 Feb 2016 23:10:08 +0000, jimp wrote:
> >> > 
> >> >> There is nothing intuitive about it; to say otherwise is disingenuous.
> >> > 
> >> > Not true.  It is actually very intuitive.
> >> > 
> >> > The issue is equivalent to the following question:
> >> > 
> >> > Can there be a frame of reference in which light is stationary
> >> > to an observer?
> >> 
> >> A frame of reverence is not intuitive.
> >> 
> >> Most people have difficulty fully understanding what a frame of reverence is.
> > 
> > Reverence? I thought you both were discussing frames of reference?!
> 
> There is no need to proof read a USENET posting as there will always
> be someone fixated on pointing out all typos.

You mean someone==me, sorry about that dude Jim. I love you!

Once is a typo, twice in the same one post is heavenly.

> -- 
> Jim Pennino

No no No my friend Jim! You don't get off that easy. 
Explain what was on your mind when you Reverenced?
Shit, I'd be proud if I made a typo of that high quality!

-- Mahipal “IPMM... माहिपाल ७६३८: I'm trying to get my friends and
   family to hate me on Facebook. It just takes a word Word WORD...”

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#557183

From	Fabian Russell <fb@zen.info>
Date	2016-02-27 11:58 +0000
Message-ID	<nas3210mf8@news3.newsguy.com>
In reply to	#557138

On Fri, 26 Feb 2016 21:04:45 -0800, Mahipal wrote:

> 
> I'm trying to get my friends and
> family to hate me on Facebook.
>

For me, just the simple act of someone using Facebook is enough
to incite extreme and lasting hatred.  Nothing else is required.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#557229

From	Mahipal <mahipal7638@gmail.com>
Date	2016-02-27 08:08 -0800
Message-ID	<789536f5-0d8d-4547-bcb9-083cb0a90194@googlegroups.com>
In reply to	#557183

On Saturday, February 27, 2016 at 6:59:51 AM UTC-5, Fabian Russell wrote:
> On Fri, 26 Feb 2016 21:04:45 -0800, Mahipal wrote:
> 
> > I'm trying to get my friends and
> > family to hate me on Facebook.
> 
> For me, just the simple act of someone using Facebook is enough
> to incite extreme and lasting hatred.  Nothing else is required.

Cute Fabian, but I use IT to let my distant family know I'm still breathing. 
Not that anyone really cares! But that's another story...

You may tell yourself... Talking Heads. You may find yourself...

Let me share a silly Facebook Stor(y) I often tell my me friends.
So, a long time ago, my young IT friend Jeff asks me to join Facebook.
So I do. Then I ask my wife, sitting next to me bed, to befriend me.
Instantly she blocks me. My first and only face block ever. Slap!
I'm divorced now, of course. Jeff's still my very good friend.

Same as it ever was.... Same as it ever was... Talking Heads...

Did I use too many words? Damn, I hope I didn't say too much...

Letting the days go by.... water flowing under... Talking Heads... YMMV.

https://www.google.com/?gws_rd=ssl#q=Letting+the+days+go+by+water+flowing+under+Talking+Heads

-- Mahipal “IPMM... माहिपाल ७६३८: me alwa(y)s changes...”

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#557236

From	Fabian Russell <fb@zen.info>
Date	2016-02-27 16:25 +0000
Message-ID	<nasilj027co@news4.newsguy.com>
In reply to	#557229

On Sat, 27 Feb 2016 08:08:17 -0800, Mahipal wrote:

> 
> ... Talking Heads. 
> 

First it's Facebook, and now it's the Talking Heads.

You are really asking for a gigantic ostracism.

It literally could not get worse.  You've hit rock bottom.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#557245

From	Mahipal <mahipal7638@gmail.com>
Date	2016-02-27 09:05 -0800
Message-ID	<c102af9a-20e4-479c-8a27-022e5be08438@googlegroups.com>
In reply to	#557236

On Saturday, February 27, 2016 at 11:25:42 AM UTC-5, Fabian Russell wrote:
> On Sat, 27 Feb 2016 08:08:17 -0800, Mahipal wrote:
> 
> > ... Talking Heads. 
> 
> First it's Facebook, and now it's the Talking Heads.

Nice juxtaposition I did do there! You are welcomed!

I wasn't promoting Facebook, it just happens to exist Exist EXIST.
Its root source idea being plagiarized by some young schmuckNerd@#.

> You are really asking for a gigantic ostracism.

Ostracism? Crap, where's me m(y) Dictionary?! Ok, I get it... 

> It literally could not get worse.  You've hit rock bottom.

I share your pain Fabian, but Talking Heads are very talented.
I'll bet Talking Heads have a Facebook page to boot?! O shit, sorry.
Rock bottom? Seriously?! You make me laugh Fabian. Thank you!
Also, do share what music you actually rock like, spare me your hatred stance.

After that, I'll teach you some Ph(y)sics you wish you knew!

-- Mahipal “IPMM... माहिपाल ७६३८: Usenet exists so people can hate on me?!”

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#557263

From	Fabian Russell <fb@zen.info>
Date	2016-02-27 17:55 +0000
Message-ID	<nasnui01td3@news6.newsguy.com>
In reply to	#557245

On Sat, 27 Feb 2016 09:05:53 -0800, Mahipal wrote:

> 
> Also, do share what music you actually rock like, spare me your hatred stance.
> 

Aside from the neo-classicism of Hindemith, Stravinsky, etc., and the atonal
splendor of Schoenberg, Berg, and Webern, there is only one musical genre
suitable for the modern physicist, and that is GOTHIC ROCK:

Joy Division
Siouxsie and the Banshees
Bauhaus
The Cure
Etc., Etc.

Alas, Mahipal, unless you are a devotee of this dark crowd you'll never
make it.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#557279

From	Mahipal <mahipal7638@gmail.com>
Date	2016-02-27 10:32 -0800
Message-ID	<cf71fd2b-47bb-4e7a-95fc-794432d8d2f8@googlegroups.com>
In reply to	#557263

On Saturday, February 27, 2016 at 12:54:05 PM UTC-5, Fabian Russell wrote:
> On Sat, 27 Feb 2016 09:05:53 -0800, Mahipal wrote:
> 
> > Also, do share what music you actually rock like, spare me your hatred stance.
> 
> Aside from the neo-classicism of Hindemith, Stravinsky, etc., and the atonal
> splendor of Schoenberg, Berg, and Webern, there is only one musical genre
> suitable for the modern physicist, and that is GOTHIC ROCK:

Good stuff! Thanks, I'll add that to my iApple@# must play lists. Yet...

There's more beautiful music than that. Just is Is IS! Composer Sachin Dev Burman.

> Joy Division
> Siouxsie and the Banshees
> Bauhaus
> The Cure
> Etc., Etc.

Hey Fabian that's exactly my friend Jeff's list! 
How the fuck in Hell did you do that, Fabian?!

> Alas, Mahipal, unless you are a devotee of this dark crowd you'll
> never make it.

Make what What WHAT?! The water is deep my friend Fabian. Drowning E(y)e.

-- Mahipal “IPMM... माहिपाल ७६३८: Hath pe likh(y) likhaie... HandsWriting.”

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#557557

From	HVAC <mr.hvac@gmail.com>
Date	2016-02-28 06:06 -0800
Message-ID	<2943bd27-6e91-48b7-91ee-4273743aa3f2@googlegroups.com>
In reply to	#557279

I don't care if Monday's blue
Tuesday's grey and Wednesday too
Thursday I don't care about you
It's Friday I'm in love

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#557570

From	Mahipal <mahipal7638@gmail.com>
Date	2016-02-28 07:27 -0800
Message-ID	<fa8ec686-f3ff-4b2b-973f-fd9aac8cb22e@googlegroups.com>
In reply to	#557557

On Sunday, February 28, 2016 at 9:06:24 AM UTC-5, HVAC wrote:
> I don't care if Monday's blue
> Tuesday's grey and Wednesday too
> Thursday I don't care about you
> It's Friday I'm in love

What, neither Sabbath nor Sunday? 

-- Mahipal “IPMM... माहिपाल ७६३८: Sure I invented the da(y)s and their colours!”

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#557430 — commutative

From	noTthaTguY <abu.kuanysh05@gmail.com>
Date	2016-02-27 16:48 -0800
Subject	commutative
Message-ID	<10bff996-da9b-4750-9ac0-ff35bb5eb176@googlegroups.com>
In reply to	#557263

show the canonical major key,
by induction on sharps & flats (or,
flats & sharps

> Aside from the neo-classicism of Hindemith, Stravinsky, etc., and the atonal
> splendor of Schoenberg, Berg, and Webern, there is only one musical genre
> suitable for the modern physicist, and that is GOTHIC ROCK:
> 
> Joy Division
> Siouxsie and the Banshees
> Bauhaus
> The Cure
> Etc., Etc.
> 
> Alas, Mahipal, unless you are a devotee of this dark crowd you'll never
> make it.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#557205

From	jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com
Date	2016-02-27 07:06 +0000
Message-ID	<dhu7qc-eed.ln1@mail.specsol.com>
In reply to	#557138

Mahipal <mahipal7638@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Friday, February 26, 2016 at 11:01:09 PM UTC-5, ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
>> Mahipal <mahipal7638@gmail.com> wrote:
>> > On Friday, February 26, 2016 at 7:01:10 PM UTC-5, ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
>> >> Fabian Russell <fb@zen.info> wrote:
>> >> > On Fri, 26 Feb 2016 23:10:08 +0000, jimp wrote:
>> >> > 
>> >> >> There is nothing intuitive about it; to say otherwise is disingenuous.
>> >> > 
>> >> > Not true.  It is actually very intuitive.
>> >> > 
>> >> > The issue is equivalent to the following question:
>> >> > 
>> >> > Can there be a frame of reference in which light is stationary
>> >> > to an observer?
>> >> 
>> >> A frame of reverence is not intuitive.
>> >> 
>> >> Most people have difficulty fully understanding what a frame of reverence is.
>> > 
>> > Reverence? I thought you both were discussing frames of reference?!
>> 
>> There is no need to proof read a USENET posting as there will always
>> be someone fixated on pointing out all typos.
> 
> You mean someone==me, sorry about that dude Jim. I love you!
> 
> Once is a typo, twice in the same one post is heavenly.
> 
>> -- 
>> Jim Pennino
> 
> No no No my friend Jim! You don't get off that easy. 
> Explain what was on your mind when you Reverenced?
> Shit, I'd be proud if I made a typo of that high quality!

First occurance:

The 'f' key is adjacent to the 'v' key.

Second occurance:

It is faster to cut and paste long words than it is to type them in.


-- 
Jim Pennino

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#557239

From	Mahipal <mahipal7638@gmail.com>
Date	2016-02-27 08:43 -0800
Message-ID	<5b0a517a-b56d-4562-a284-26b63301830f@googlegroups.com>
In reply to	#557205

On Saturday, February 27, 2016 at 9:05:05 AM UTC-5, ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
> Mahipal <mahipal7638@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Friday, February 26, 2016 at 11:01:09 PM UTC-5, ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
> >> Mahipal <mahipal7638@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> > On Friday, February 26, 2016 at 7:01:10 PM UTC-5, ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
> >> >> Fabian Russell <fb@zen.info> wrote:
> >> >> > On Fri, 26 Feb 2016 23:10:08 +0000, jimp wrote:
> >> >> > 
> >> >> >> There is nothing intuitive about it; to say otherwise is disingenuous.
> >> >> > 
> >> >> > Not true.  It is actually very intuitive.
> >> >> > 
> >> >> > The issue is equivalent to the following question:
> >> >> > 
> >> >> > Can there be a frame of reference in which light is stationary
> >> >> > to an observer?
> >> >> 
> >> >> A frame of reverence is not intuitive.
> >> >> 
> >> >> Most people have difficulty fully understanding what a frame of reverence is.
> >> > 
> >> > Reverence? I thought you both were discussing frames of reference?!
> >> 
> >> There is no need to proof read a USENET posting as there will always
> >> be someone fixated on pointing out all typos.
> > 
> > You mean someone==me, sorry about that dude Jim. I love you!
> > 
> > Once is a typo, twice in the same one post is heavenly.
> > 
> >> -- 
> >> Jim Pennino
> > 
> > No no No my friend Jim! You don't get off that easy. 
> > Explain what was on your mind when you Reverenced?
> > Shit, I'd be proud if I made a typo of that high quality!
> 
> First occurance:
> 
> The 'f' key is adjacent to the 'v' key.
> 
> Second occurance:
> 
> It is faster to cut and paste long words than it is to type them in.
> 
> -- 
> Jim Pennino

Understood, I get the mechanics of it all. Yet, your writing is
immaculate, very concise. Just making it all that much funnier.

I've read/written the word reference a brazillion times and not once
before had it occurred to me that reverence was so close by, rhyming.

Without words, we'd just have numbers and equations. How boring is that?!

But but BUT... imagine the frames of reverence that passed through my
mind at first sight. All said and done, beautiful typo! 

Since you Sky Pilot Jim are one, do enjoy hearing this song:
https://www.google.com/?gws_rd=ssl#q=sky+pilot Eric Burdon and The Animals

-- Mahipal “IPMM... माहिपाल ७६३८: Never never NEVER... reach The Sk(y)...”

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#557190

From	HVAC <mr.hvac@gmail.com>
Date	2016-02-27 04:33 -0800
Message-ID	<5546fadc-af12-48dd-aafe-c37da6d258f5@googlegroups.com>
In reply to	#557127

 
> Reverence? I thought you both were discussing frames of reference?! 

There is no need to proof read a USENET posting as there will always 
be someone fixated on pointing out all typos. 
-------------

Lol

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

Page 1 of 3 [1] 2 3 Next page →

csiph-web

Can you provide an intuitive explanation for why nothing can travel faster than the speed of light?

Contents

#557049 — Can you provide an intuitive explanation for why nothing can travel faster than the speed of light?

#557060

#557069

#557080

#557089

#557091

#557127

#557138

#557183

#557229

#557236

#557245

#557263

#557279

#557557

#557570

#557430 — commutative

#557205

#557239

#557190