# How to have light move faster than C **URL:** \ **Category:** The BBQ Pit\ **Created:** [February 24, 2014, 9:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-to-have-light-move-faster-than-c/682160 "2014-02-24T21:53:29Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 33
**Author:** ![Pasta](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/ecccb3/32.png) [@Pasta](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Pasta)\ **Post date:** [March 13, 2014, 9:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-to-have-light-move-faster-than-c/682160/642 "2014-03-13T21:41:39Z")
> [@Trinopus](#): > > This has driven one of our members, **Colibri** , normally one of the most tolerant, reasonable, and patient members of this board, to indulge in rude name-calling against you. This surprised me, too. 🙂 (Although I spend very little time in the Pit, so maybe he has a potty mouth I don’t see in GQ.) ---
**Author:** ![naita](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/naita/32/5862_2.png) [@naita](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/naita)\ **Post date:** [March 13, 2014, 9:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-to-have-light-move-faster-than-c/682160/643 "2014-03-13T21:42:13Z")
> [@mythoughts](#): > > Yes, I did. > But that is IMO just evidence of the state of denial that exists. > The speed of light should not be able to be broken as that can bust SR, but if it is, that’s ok SR still lives since things can exceed the speed of light now. You don’t understand the math, you don’t understand the physics, you just have the incredible gall to think you’re some kind of genius and all actually educated physicists for the last decades are in a state of denial … _head shake_ If you don’t trust them to understand the parts that you believe are so obvious and important, why do you trust them at all? Do you know how much math was involved in extracting the “faster-than-light”-measurements out of the data? Why do you trust such mathematically derived claims and not the rest of physics? Could be you’re an ignorant and biased high-chair physicist? ---
**Author:** ![mythoughts](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/7993a0/32.png) [@mythoughts](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/mythoughts)\ **Post date:** [March 13, 2014, 9:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-to-have-light-move-faster-than-c/682160/644 "2014-03-13T21:54:22Z")
> [@Pasta](#): > > “Can be seen” is the problem in this statement. If I buy something that costs $3 by giving $10 and getting $7 in change, it doesn’t mean I bought something that cost $10 or $7. The only observationally relevant quantity in the math is $3. Likewise, the only observationally relevant quantity is the two-way speed of light unless you are willing to get into the synchronization of separated clocks, which you eschewed upthread and for which you haven’t constructed a well-formed thought experiment. Firstly what you are arguing is just obfuscation. If I am blindfolded and I am standing on the ground and you are running on a travelator in a relay race to the other end of the travelator and back to me, I know that if you run hard out in one direction, and then hard out in the other, that you will be moving faster in one direction as the travelator is moving, but I can’t tell which direction the travelator is moving in, so I do not know which way you are moving the fastest. Just because I am unable to ascertain which direction is the fastest does not make them actually equal. Additionally if I can work out a system that can tell me, does not mean that because I gave up before because I couldn’t tell the difference doesn’t mean I should give up now. Yes, I did say earlier that at the time I was not then ready to propose a sync scheme, however since then I have presented several after I was ready. Do you want me to point you to the post numbers? > [@](#): > > I don’t know what “the whole loop” means here, so I’ll skip this one. Presumably this was one of the dozens of thought experiments you jumped between. No, this refers to the fact that in a Sagnac loop, the speed of light is seen to be C in the non-rotating frame, but the rotating frame has a moving finish line such that the speed of light is different CW and CCW, and this can be measured around the whole loop with a single clock. In one direction the speed of light will exceed C and one direction it will be slower than C according to the rotating frame. This is accepted by SR as unquestionably true, and yet it contradicts SR’s assertions. > [@](#): > > I’ll stop this one here, because SR doesn’t claim that mass increases with relativistic velocities in the way you are saying. I’ll stop you there, because I believe you will find it does. One of the concepts of SR is that you can’t accelerate a mass to or beyond C as the resistance to acceleration grows. If the resistance to acceleration did not grow, it should be easy to exceed C mechanically, at least in a theoretical engineering basis. The reason it is meant to be impossible to accelerate mass to C is because the resistance to further acceleration grows beyond just the normal understanding of doubling the velocity involves quadruple the energy. If you do not like the term mass, then we can just say resistance to further acceleration relative to another frame of motion increases. But call it mass or not, but the argument still stands. Such an effects breaks Newtons laws and the CoE. > [@](#): > > SR doesn’t “proclaim” that every frame experiences simultaneously faster and slower time than any other frame. Frames don’t experience anything. Observers do, and in a typical “gotcha” thought experiment, you have to be more careful about observers that have to switch frames during the experiment. Never the less I have presented thought experiments that show unsolvable flaws with regard to time dilation without the objections you raise. > [@](#): > > Again, a thought experiment I didn’t see due to the whiplash all the jumping around was causing. Simply, take a disk and spin it, to the Lab frame the edge of the disk should be length contracted, so length markings made visible with a strobe light should now be less than it was, if a measuring tape is bent around it a reading should result that to the disk is impossible, it sees the tape as having shrunk. Additionally the radius of the disk shouldn’t change making this more paradoxical. > [@](#): > > A photon makes no such instantaneous decision. The standard treatment of the interaction of light with matter is fully compatible with special relativity. There are certainly problems where it is convenient to approximate the speed of light as infinite. But that’s just an approximation. The fact that I can say “I see light as soon as I flip a light switch” doesn’t disprove relativity. You are very much missing the point, this has no relationship to your light switch analogy. This is based on a Quantum Mechanical effect where the probability of a photon reflecting from the front surface of a piece of glass is dependant on the relationship of it’s wavelength to the thickness of the glass no matter how thick, and other optically relivant elements behind it. You can send one photon at a time and the probability of that photon reflecting at the first surface will depend on all the other surfaces it could interact with if it went through. If this were not instantaneous then Quantum Mechanics would fail until some as yet unknown quantum phenomena that moves at the speed of light informed the space at the front surface what should happen if a photon wants to know the odds of reflecting or not. So far QM has always been shown to break the speed of light, no problem, only in ways that cannot pass information such as the the Einstein-Rosen-Podolsky bridge. Now this is a way where either QM still breaks the speed of light as usual but now can be used to pass information, OR doesn’t work instantaneously as it usually does making QM something that can take time to kick in. I would note that even collapsing a wave function is either instantaneous or the wave and the particle both exist for a period of time, this might be stretching a point, but still QM has generally shown it has an instantaneous property in many experiments even if normally this is not useful for communication. > [@](#): > > Citation? There are no astronomical observations demonstrating light traveling faster than _c_. I’ll find them and include them in a separate message later. But it isn’t light exceeding C, it is matter. > [@](#): > > The convention doesn’t preclude measuring the one-way speed. It defines what you mean by speed. My financial example from above is relevant. If you choose to define the cost of an apple as the amount of money I originally hand over to the cashier ($10) before receiving my change, that is fine, and you can even choose to measure that quantity. If someone else chooses to define the cost as the net cash I leave with the cashier ($3), that’s fine, too. It would be erroneous to say, though, that all of economics is wrong because this same transition costs $10 and $3 at the same time. Someone making such a bold claim is just not being careful about how “cost” is defined. You shouldn’t have to turn to an analogy that is not directly related. The Einsteinian method of clock synch actually does preclude measuring the one way speed of light though. Wikipedia has said so. It turns and one way measurement into a 2 way one since the clocks synch pulse is a pulse of light going the other way. > [@](#): > > Returning to what I said upthread, if you want to convince anyone that you are correct or if you want to discover that you have a misconception yourself, you need to choose _one_ point and _one_ thought experiment, ideally the simplest one for which you are sure you can demonstrate a failure of SR and, thus, for which you would be most convinced of a mistake on your part if the logic doesn’t stand up to step-by-step scrutiny. Thrashing around and not drilling down into the issues of _a single situation_ is fruitless and is the core source of the disconnect you are having with participants in the thread. If you are just interested in splashing claims around until one lands in the sweet spot of “too murky to understand, too murky to refute”, then you will indeed get to yell “See!?” But I know you recognize that this isn’t advancing scientific knowledge. It’s just schoolyard bickering. You need to engage your interlocutors with as open a mind as you expect of them and with as fair a chance to follow a train of thought to its logical end. I did present one, and I asked you to read it, and you didn’t reply. It was the Sagnac effect argument. I am happy to focus on that one and work it through with you if you will reply. If you do I will drop other arguments and only reply to genuine discussion on that one, I will ignore personal attacks. Do you want a pointer to the post? I might have a hard time finding it myself at this stage. I could re-re-re-re-create it if you are not familiar with it? But I have made the argument many times. Eventually I get bored if being ignored over the same thing so I find something new to be ignored over 🙂 Up to you. ---
**Author:** ![mythoughts](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/7993a0/32.png) [@mythoughts](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/mythoughts)\ **Post date:** [March 13, 2014, 10:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-to-have-light-move-faster-than-c/682160/645 "2014-03-13T22:18:21Z")
> [@naita](#): > > If the curve is almost imperceptibly different, then the effect will be almost imperceptibly different. Or, to put it a different way. The Sagnac related effects of using a rotating frame will be as perceptible as any other effect that tells you that you’re not in an inertial frame. Entirely incorrect. The difference in the CW .vs CCW light speed in a rotating Sagnac loop is in no way related to the size of the loop and is only related to the linear velocity of the rim. It has no bearing how sharp the bend is. Indeed the Sagnac effect (discrepancy) is often maximized by making very large loops to increase the linear velocity at lower RPM, not to minimize the effect. An imperceivable bend would have 100% of the effect. > [@](#): > > What the quote said was that Einstein synch is the same as slow moving clock synch in inertial reference frames. Yes, but I would argue that that is definitely not so generally, unless time dilation relative to a preferred reference frame is taken into account, then my lack of math skill does let me down. > [@](#): > > In the inertial frame you can’t move the clocks along a radius, because there are no radii. So moving the clocks will look differently in a different reference frame moving with respect to the one you’re synching the clocks in, and the disagreement in what constitutes simultaneity will be just what is needed for observers in both reference frames to agree that light speed is c in whichever direction you measure. Sorry but I fail to see what this has to do with my initial point. ---
**Author:** ![simster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/simster/32/1047_2.png) [@simster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/simster)\ **Post date:** [March 13, 2014, 10:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-to-have-light-move-faster-than-c/682160/646 "2014-03-13T22:25:39Z")
> [@mythoughts](#): > > Sorry but I fail to see what this has to do with my initial point. not surprising, given that all of your points have been completely incorrect and that you clearly don’t understand the concepts - that you would fail to recognize the correct one. So the relationship to your initial point is a) that you were wrong b) this is why ---
**Author:** ![mythoughts](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/7993a0/32.png) [@mythoughts](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/mythoughts)\ **Post date:** [March 13, 2014, 10:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-to-have-light-move-faster-than-c/682160/647 "2014-03-13T22:26:09Z")
> [@Trinopus](#): > > That’s the problem: you’re wrong at the general school yard level! Your lack of understanding of relativity operates at junior high school stage of mathematics. > > This has been explained to you dozens of times now, and yet you keep saying, “No one has addressed my points.” Yes, we have. Repeatedly. You just refuse to acknowledge this. > > This has driven one of our members, **Colibri** , normally one of the most tolerant, reasonable, and patient members of this board, to indulge in rude name-calling against you. Everyone else here gets the hint. You don’t. > > Get the damn hint, kid. You don’t know as much as you say you do. Your claims have been thoroughly debunked. You’re just using repetition as a form of argument. > > (And…at this point, so am I. The difference is, you’ve been dishonest, and not a single other one of us here has been. You’re acting like a creationist, and some of us here have begun to treat you like one.) So you refuse to address my point in any way other than a school yard level. And then claim that this is all they deserve, since others have done what? Oh more school yard stuff. Tell me PRECISELY what what sentence/s you objected to and dispute the logic directly rather that just singing how I am wrong. An insult does not equal a logical argument or a disproof however frequently repeated! If you can’t do this do not bother responding as I will have no further correspondence with you. You have just admitted you are unwilling to talk on an intellectual and logical level. ---
**Author:** ![mythoughts](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/7993a0/32.png) [@mythoughts](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/mythoughts)\ **Post date:** [March 13, 2014, 10:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-to-have-light-move-faster-than-c/682160/648 "2014-03-13T22:29:07Z")
> [@simster](#): > > not surprising, given that all of your points have been completely incorrect and that you clearly don’t understand the concepts - that you would fail to recognize the correct one. Again, don’t just say that. Actually quote something I said and make a logical argument to show how I am wrong. Then when I reply you need to either admit that you was wrong or correctly refute that reply. Your comment has zero value, it is just a taunt and not intelligent discourse. ---
**Author:** ![Calatin](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/439d5e/32.png) [@Calatin](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Calatin)\ **Post date:** [March 13, 2014, 10:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-to-have-light-move-faster-than-c/682160/649 "2014-03-13T22:32:50Z")
> [@mythoughts](#): > > Again, don’t just say that. > > Actually quote something I said and make a logical argument to show how I am wrong. > > Then when I reply you need to either admit that you was wrong or correctly refute that reply. > > Your comment has zero value, it is just a taunt and not intelligent discourse. So, what have the past 13 pages been, if not numerous people quoting you, showing you that you were wrong and (in my opinion) being unbelievably polite about it? ---
**Author:** ![mythoughts](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/7993a0/32.png) [@mythoughts](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/mythoughts)\ **Post date:** [March 13, 2014, 10:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-to-have-light-move-faster-than-c/682160/650 "2014-03-13T22:47:29Z")
> [@Pasta](#): > > Fair enough. Are you interested in seeing evidence and hearing explanations that help you understand which it is? If ‘yes’, I implore you to put in the effort that you ask of everyone else and walk through this post. I promise you will learn something interesting, and hopefully that is reward enough. If something doesn’t make sense, please ask rather than introduce a new thought experiment or line of discussion. > > Grab a drink and watch [this video here](http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=tlM9vq-bepA#t=31) demonstrating visually the difference between the speed that a wave (photon) moves and the speed that a wave _packet_ moves. (The pattern is developed fully after 30 seconds or so, which I’ve linked directly to.) > > There are exactly two things to understand about what you are seeing, and no math beyond basic arithmetic is required. > > (1) The two waves at the top are added together to produce the wave at the bottom. To convince yourself of this, pause the video at any point. I’ll use t=35 seconds for my example here. At that time, the bottom wave is pinched down to zero around horizontal positions -1 and 2. Let’s look at the -1 position. Notice that the blue and red waves on top have opposite values here: the red one is low and the blue one is high. Those negate one another when added together to form that point on the bottom wave. More mathematically, the red wave has height -1 and the blue wave has height +1, so the black wave (the addition of the two) has height 0. Now take a look near horizontal position 0.5, where the black wave has its full variation going on, from height -2 to height +2, oscillating back and forth. Exactly at the peak value of the black wave, you’ll notice that the blue and red waves are “synced” up. Both are at their maximum values of +1. That is, “red + blue = black” works out to “1 + 1 = 2”, which is what the waves show at that point. Do the same check at a couple of oddball horizontal points as well to see that it’s not something special that happens at certain location. The whole black wave pattern is purely a consequence of adding the very simple red and blue waves together. > > (2) Notice the green dot on the bottom wave. It is pinned to one point on the crests/troughs and follows that crest/trough as the black wave moves to the right. Now look at the pink dot on the bottom wave. It is pinned to a peak in the larger pattern that is sculpting the black wave. Notice that this peak amplitude point, the pink dot, moves to the right very quickly. Its speed is much higher than the speeds of the blue and red waves themselves, yet they are the source of the black wave! > > If there were a physical law that said exactly what speeds the blue and red waves had to move at, the pink dot can happily move faster than that without violating that rule, as the video demonstrates. > > Does this make sense? Was it new to you? > > If it was new to you, could it be possible that there is more that might be new to you when approaching SR and your various citations? If the very simple set up in this video can make peculiar things happen, then carefully constructed physics experiments might be able to do the same, yes? Without breaking any rules, yes? Thanks, I will give this a shot. Not seen it yet. I am not sure of the details of group velocity and wave packets etc… Never the less all it means is that a few instances that seem to exceed C are maybe not real. I have never put much weight in any evidence that the speed of light has been exceeded by a wave packet because I didn’t understand it. The only reason I posted the Pulsar link was because the other news articles actually stated that the photon breached C and said nothing about wave packets, but that it was Ok because there was somehow no information. And that Einstein said that was fine for light to exceed C if it carried no info. That source may have been misreporting, and the real explanation might be wave packets, or maybe the evidence disagrees with SR and these are attempts to make this fit. I am happy to accept that this pulsar may have no evidence of breach of the speed of light, at least based on my present ignorance of wave packet/group velocity. If this was simply that an interference pattern can exceed C, I find it odd that these are reported as breaching C, a disco ball can send sweeping waves of light that can exceed C at a distance. But I would not consider that a real example of the speed of light being exceeded. ---
**Author:** ![Colibri](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/colibri/32/1841_2.png) [@Colibri](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Colibri)\ **Post date:** [March 13, 2014, 10:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-to-have-light-move-faster-than-c/682160/651 "2014-03-13T22:48:31Z")
> [@Trinopus](#): > > This has driven one of our members, **Colibri** , normally one of the most tolerant, reasonable, and patient members of this board, to indulge in rude name-calling against you. > [@Pasta](#): > > This surprised me, too. 🙂 (Although I spend very little time in the Pit, so maybe he has a potty mouth I don’t see in GQ.) You guys just don’t know me very well. I don’t post a lot in the Pit, but when someone as determinedly deluded as the OP shows up, it’s hard to resist. However, I think the worst I’ve called him is an idiot, which was being quite charitable. Brain-damaged flatworm is closer to the mark. [QUOTE=mythoughts] If you can’t do this do not bother responding as I will have no further correspondence with you. [/QUOTE] Promises, promises. 😃 People have addressed your moronic musings for many pages, and thoroughly shredded them. You just refuse to acknowledge it. The only thing left is ridicule. ---
**Author:** ![mythoughts](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/7993a0/32.png) [@mythoughts](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/mythoughts)\ **Post date:** [March 13, 2014, 10:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-to-have-light-move-faster-than-c/682160/652 "2014-03-13T22:57:00Z")
> [@Calatin](#): > > So, what have the past 13 pages been, if not numerous people quoting you, showing you that you were wrong and (in my opinion) being unbelievably polite about it? I am only aware of one example of someone actually showing me I was wrong, that was Kimble, and perhaps naita over the failed crossed light clock thought experiment. The rest has been misunderstanding that I have replied to and school yard crap. \*\*If you can find one other example of one of my thought experiments being flawed that someone has mentioned, you are welcome to cherry pick it and present it. I challenge you to do so, I am sure you will find no example where one on my thought experiments has been proven flawed except for the one mentioned above. \*\* The only other exception is a thought experiment with red and blue light that became too complex to complete to analyse as Pasta pointed out, but was not faulted. ---
**Author:** ![mythoughts](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/7993a0/32.png) [@mythoughts](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/mythoughts)\ **Post date:** [March 13, 2014, 10:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-to-have-light-move-faster-than-c/682160/653 "2014-03-13T22:59:12Z")
> [@Colibri](#): > > You guys just don’t know me very well. I don’t post a lot in the Pit, but when someone as determinedly deluded as the OP shows up, it’s hard to resist. However, I think the worst I’ve called him is an idiot, which was being quite charitable. Brain-damaged flatworm is closer to the mark. > > Promises, promises. 😃 > > People have addressed your moronic musings for many pages, and thoroughly shredded them. You just refuse to acknowledge it. The only thing left is ridicule. Again show an actual example. This simply has not happened except for the single thought experiment that I disproved myself within a day. You will find no example, all you can do is name call. ---
**Author:** ![Colibri](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/colibri/32/1841_2.png) [@Colibri](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Colibri)\ **Post date:** [March 13, 2014, 11:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-to-have-light-move-faster-than-c/682160/654 "2014-03-13T23:02:35Z")
> [@mythoughts](#): > > Again show an actual example. > This simply has not happened except for the single thought experiment that I disproved myself within a day. > > You will find no example, all you can do is name call. The thread is absolutely filled with them. You’re a delusional moron who is incapable of understanding the explanations that have repeatedly been given to you. At this point, name calling is all you deserve. ---
**Author:** ![Truman\_Burbank](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/ecc23a/32.png) [@Truman\_Burbank](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Truman_Burbank)\ **Post date:** [March 13, 2014, 11:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-to-have-light-move-faster-than-c/682160/655 "2014-03-13T23:06:59Z")
“Actually quote something I said and make a logical argument to show how I am wrong.” Oh, I _actually did this,_ didn’t I, when I \*\*quoted \*\*you claiming to be a professional physicist, and several of us used \*\*logical arguments \*\* (and small words, even) to show that you were wrong. Your response? _crickets_ If you can’t admit you are mistaken about such a simple matter, using simple concepts and everyday language, what hope for those engaging you about higher science? You see yourself as open-minded. You are not. You are closed-minded, and worst thing is that you are closed-minded about your ignorance. That is entirely the opposite of good science. Therefore, you learn nothing. And quoting a poster on Stormfront to support your arguments? Priceless. And so, we arrive again at Dunning-Kruger. …and Chinatown, of course… ---
**Author:** ![woodstockbirdybird](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/woodstockbirdybird/32/7905_2.png) [@woodstockbirdybird](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/woodstockbirdybird)\ **Post date:** [March 13, 2014, 11:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-to-have-light-move-faster-than-c/682160/656 "2014-03-13T23:08:11Z")
> [@mythoughts](#): > > Again show an actual example. > This simply has not happened except for the single thought experiment that I disproved myself within a day. > > You will find no example, all you can do is name call. Holy fuck, this thread is hilarious. I’m kind of ashamed to bump it, but Jesus, this is like watching Rupert Pupkin if he was obsessed with physics rather than celebrity. ---
**Author:** ![Calatin](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/439d5e/32.png) [@Calatin](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Calatin)\ **Post date:** [March 13, 2014, 11:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-to-have-light-move-faster-than-c/682160/657 "2014-03-13T23:11:06Z")
I just devised a fun drinking game. Read through the thread and every time you see the OP use the phrase “thought experiment”, take a drink. Of course, the sole act of reading the entire thread is enough to drive you to drink, regardless of cues and prompts. ---
**Author:** ![Trinopus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/2bfe46/32.png) [@Trinopus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Trinopus)\ **Post date:** [March 13, 2014, 11:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-to-have-light-move-faster-than-c/682160/658 "2014-03-13T23:35:51Z")
> [@mythoughts](#): > > So you refuse to address my point in any way other than a school yard level. You haven’t made any points except at a school yard level. No math, remember? ---
**Author:** ![Trinopus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/2bfe46/32.png) [@Trinopus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Trinopus)\ **Post date:** [March 13, 2014, 11:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-to-have-light-move-faster-than-c/682160/659 "2014-03-13T23:43:40Z")
> [@Calatin](#): > > So, what have the past 13 pages been, if not numerous people quoting you, showing you that you were wrong and (in my opinion) being unbelievably polite about it? Well, we started out being polite. Unfortunately, the dishonest little troll abused that so badly that even people with saint-like patience (e.g. **Colibri** ) have been moved to name-calling. A few weeks ago, I made the acquaintance of someone who disputes the existence of the historical Jesus. She insists: it’s all made up. Jesus never existed, and all references to him were invented in the early Christian era, and inserted into the writings of Josephus, Suetonius, and, of course, the Gospels. All completely made up…she says. And if you say, “Wait, isn’t there a reference somewhere else?” No problem “Sure. It’s just made up, too,” she says. Now, how do you argue with someone like that? No debate method serves. It isn’t a “debate” in any real form, just a brick wall of denial. mythoughts operates on the same level. “I know more than everyone else in the world. Prove me wrong.” Well, okay, here’s where you’re wrong… “Nope! You haven’t addressed my point!” We tried being polite… ---
**Author:** ![mythoughts](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/7993a0/32.png) [@mythoughts](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/mythoughts)\ **Post date:** [March 13, 2014, 11:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-to-have-light-move-faster-than-c/682160/660 "2014-03-13T23:53:57Z")
Because Trinopus sent this before (I think) the later reply I told him I would no longer communicate with him unless he back up his claim with actual thought. I will give this one a shot. > [@Trinopus](#): > > Lorentz transformation changes the entire frame of reference observed by someone in another frame of reference. It explains the actual observed behavior of light, and of moving objects, in moving frames of reference. This is just an assertion you have made and not a logical explanation of how I am wrong. Stating an opinion with no basis in logic has no value. Lorentz transformations only shrinks length and slows time which only makes light and other things that would now be expected to exceed the speed of light be seen to move even faster. There is no mechanism in SR or and Lorentz transformation to make a too fast photon, or electron slow down to keep to C. > [@](#): > > Back this up with a reference, please. Relativity explains the Sagnac effect. I am unsure what you are asking me to backup with references. Is it that the speed of light is different in each direction around a rotating Sagnac loop? That SR accepts the speed of light is not C in either direction in a rotating Sagnac loop? Or do you want me to give you a reference that if light completes the loop faster in one direction it must be doing this by moving faster than the other direction since both take the same path but complete it in very different times? > [@](#): > > As noted in this thread, physicists don’t say “mass increases with relativistic velocities” any more, but use a different formulation. However, mass is (at a simplistic level) observed to increase with relativistic velocities. This is shown in the design of particle accelerators. Very fast-moving objects are harder to accelerate further, exactly as if they have increased mass. Yes, and if an object becomes harder to accelerate further, then 2 counter-rotating gyros will resist acceleration more when when they are spun up. And less when they are not. So if you throw a spun up gyro mass to the rear of a spaceship, and if as it moves to the rear the gyros are spun down they will not impart as much force once spun down. This leads to breaking both the conservation of energy and Newtons laws. No matter what you call this increased resistance to acceleration. This was already answered. > [@](#): > > This is wrong. You have not been able to cite any studies or experiments showing this claimed effect. I have provided thought experiments. I have repeatedly said I am personally not interested in physical experiments. I have presented thought experiments previously that show that time dilation in SR’s sense can be proven paradoxical. You and indeed no one has successfully tackled these, Asypotically Fat (I know I have his user name wrong) was the only to try, and I very much doubt that he would be happy with his answer that involved a clock being dropped oscillating in time rate relative to the rotating cabin at a rate based on the frequency of… well nothing. And he has made about the best attempts to address one of my thought experiments without resorting to insults and feigning confusion. Except the one that was flawed. > [@](#): > > You’ve repeated this many times, and it still doesn’t make sense. You keep adding “rotation” to the classic barn-and-ladder example, as if it makes a difference. Until you comprehend the barn-and-ladder example, as it is, you don’t gain anything by adding unnecessary complications to it. I understand the classic barn thought experiment. That is why I didn’t present it, this one is different and the reason you are reverting to another thought experiment is because you know that one has a solution based in simultaneity. If that explanation made sense with a round disk, you would not need to reference a different thought experiment. Both of us can easily explain away the classic barn experiment with little thought, but neither of us can solve this variation. > [@](#): > > No actual objects travel faster than light, even in the weirdest quantum physics models. No “signal” can be sent via quantum entanglement. The photon has no “knowledge” of anything external to it. Your understanding of quantum physics is no better than your understanding of relativity. The example I gave you does not have any ‘THING’ moving faster than the speed of light. Rather the information about the rest of the optically relivant structure must either exceed C, OR Quantum Mechanics must fail to work for initial photons in a newly setup experiment. > [@](#): > > Please cite evidence for this claim. Point us to experimental evidence that the speed of light, as understood, results in any contradictions. > > Cite, please? Show us one example of light being detected from an astronomical object “earlier” than it should. > > (Do you comprehend the speed-of-light measurement using the satellites of Jupiter, which I explained in an earlier post?) I am referring matter moving faster than the speed of light, citations will come. > [@](#): > > Cite, please, that this ever happens or has ever been observed. > > You’re being dishonest here, but, worse, you’re being childish. You are making empty claims, without being able to back them up from any external scientific source. You are the one being childish and even defending it over logical debate. If you want me to reply, keep the posts on topic. ---
**Author:** ![Calatin](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/439d5e/32.png) [@Calatin](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Calatin)\ **Post date:** [March 13, 2014, 11:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-to-have-light-move-faster-than-c/682160/661 "2014-03-13T23:55:11Z")
> [@Trinopus](#): > > No debate method serves. It isn’t a “debate” in any real form, just a brick wall of denial. > > mythoughts operates on the same level. “I know more than everyone else in the world. Prove me wrong.” Well, okay, here’s where you’re wrong… “Nope! You haven’t addressed my point!” > > We tried being polite… Yeah, that’s my point. The OP admittedly knows little, if anything, about the subject and refuses to “do the math”, but instead has “thought experiments” that purportedly disprove fundamental principles of science. Experts and other learned individuals enter into the thread, basically taking him by the hand and showing him where his logic is flawed. Over and over, he moves the goalposts, ignores the evidence, etc. And, yeah, there’s been a few insults and whatnot, mostly out of frustration, but I’ll gladly admit that the other posters in this thread are being far kinder than I would be, if I had knowledge or experience in this field. The willful ignorance is maddening. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-to-have-light-move-faster-than-c/682160.md?page=32) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-to-have-light-move-faster-than-c/682160.md?page=34)