# 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:** 36
**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 14, 2014, 4:57am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-to-have-light-move-faster-than-c/682160/702 "2014-03-14T04:57:02Z")
**Mythoughts** , you are wrong yet again. I would dare say that _nobody_ who has participated at all in this thread has _any_ thought that proving you wrong to yourself is easy, simple, or even possible. ---
**Author:** ![Crazyhorse](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/crazyhorse/32/31_2.png) [@Crazyhorse](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Crazyhorse)\ **Post date:** [March 14, 2014, 4:58am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-to-have-light-move-faster-than-c/682160/703 "2014-03-14T04:58:17Z")
> [@mythoughts](#): > > **But hey, MAYBE you will find one of my arguments and argue with it in an intelligent way that respects truth.** > [@mythoughts](#): > > I might be a jerk. You win. ---
**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 14, 2014, 5:11am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-to-have-light-move-faster-than-c/682160/704 "2014-03-14T05:11:48Z")
> [@mythoughts](#): > > wow, because it sure read like you did, ok… > No, that is the only rule and it was in the initial offer to make sure the argument selected was one I genuinely made and not something misconstrued by you. > Essentially I don’t trust you to make an honest selection. and here I thought you were going to lay out a new simple, logical argument - not rely on all the crap you’ve already posted (that has already been argued to death) In any event, Every single one of your arguments starts out with a faulty premise - to wit - that SR is ‘wrong’ and/or that ‘light can exceed c’ - neither of which have you proven to be true. Starting with a faulty premise will lead to a faulty conclusion (where that conclusion relies on the accuracy of the premise) - therefore your logic is faulty. End of thread - bye bye. > [@mythoughts](#): > > I am not allowed. here again you show your lack of reading comprehension - you were instructed not to open ‘more threads’ on the exact same topic that regurgitated the exact same insanity in that specific forum - you have not been prevented from opening new threads on other topics (or even this one, if you could actually make it ‘different’) in other forums. > [@mythoughts](#): > > This is not trolling, it is opposing personal attacks with a demand for an intelligent debate, or be shamed. > > You are unwilling to enter an intelligent debate, so now you are being shamed. > > **But hey, MAYBE you will find one of my arguments and argue with it in an intelligent way that respects truth.** > I really am an eternal optimist. > > Come on, stop the excuses and prove me wrong once and for all. See above - you’ve been dealt with - deal with it - now, do as you said you would do and go away. First off - the insults (which calling you a moron is insulting, to morons) are one thing - but using 'name calling to goad someone into a reaction" is trolling. “shamed” by you callng me “chicken” - pathetic - you are truly pathetic. Here again, your logic is pathetic. end of thread - bye bye. ---
**Author:** ![pancakes3](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/ba9def/32.png) [@pancakes3](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/pancakes3)\ **Post date:** [March 14, 2014, 5:26am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-to-have-light-move-faster-than-c/682160/705 "2014-03-14T05:26:37Z")
> [@mythoughts](#): > > Why not just POINT OUT THE ERRORS IN MY LOGIC? > **[Relativity, Part 1: Special Theory of Relativity - Numericana](http://www.numericana.com/answer/relativity.htm#sagnac)** > > Einstein's Special Theory of Relativity is based on two postulates: > Inertial frames in uniform relative motion are equivalent and the speed of light is the same in all of them. This is probably as basic a rebuttal to your sagnac loop point as it gets. Are we going to start keeping score? ---
**Author:** ![mythoughts](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/7993a0/32.png) [@mythoughts](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/mythoughts)\ **Post date:** [March 14, 2014, 5:36am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-to-have-light-move-faster-than-c/682160/706 "2014-03-14T05:36:52Z")
> [@pancakes3](#): > > [Relativity, Part 1: Special Theory of Relativity - Numericana](http://www.numericana.com/answer/relativity.htm#sagnac) > > This is probably as basic a rebuttal to your sagnac loop point as it gets. Are we going to start keeping score? I read that and i don’t see anything at odd with my logic. If you can, please quote the exact line and explain why you think it disagrees with me. Thanks, Oh, and I fully accept that if you best me in this while sticking with logic and avoiding math unless you want to go slow enough that I can follow you, then I will leave with my tail between my legs. So please, do go on. ---
**Author:** ![mythoughts](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/7993a0/32.png) [@mythoughts](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/mythoughts)\ **Post date:** [March 14, 2014, 5:49am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-to-have-light-move-faster-than-c/682160/707 "2014-03-14T05:49:54Z")
> [@simster](#): > > and here I thought you were going to lay out a new simple, logical argument - not rely on all the crap you’ve already posted (that has already been argued to death) No, I have asked you to pick whatever you think is easy to win, pick an old argument. Sagnac would be good, or whatever you like. If you want me to recreate one, I will. > [@](#): > > In any event, Every single one of your arguments starts out with a faulty premise - to wit - that SR is ‘wrong’ and/or that ‘light can exceed c’ - neither of which have you proven to be true. No, they don’t, that is the conclusion. > [@](#): > > Starting with a faulty premise will lead to a faulty conclusion (where that conclusion relies on the accuracy of the premise) - therefore your logic is faulty. Your premise is faulty, I start off with the premise that SR is right and that the speed of light is C except where SR states specifically it is not. > [@](#): > > here again you show your lack of reading comprehension - you were instructed not to open ‘more threads’ on the exact same topic that regurgitated the exact same insanity in that specific forum - you have not been prevented from opening new threads on other topics (or even this one, if you could actually make it ‘different’) in other forums. What am i meant to answer to this? On the subject of Relativity i am clear that no more threads will be tolerated and that was the subject under discussion. And my threads contain insanity, but it does not come from me. > [@](#): > > See above - you’ve been dealt with - deal with it - now, do as you said you would do and go away. You chicken. No, you know how to make me go away. Except that requires you to make more intelligent and correct arguments. As I predicted, you are chickening out. > [@](#): > > First off - the insults (which calling you a moron is insulting, to morons) are one thing - but using 'name calling to goad someone into a reaction" is trolling. Only is trying to keep someone on subject in a thread about SR is trolling. > [@](#): > > “shamed” by you callng me “chicken” - pathetic - you are truly pathetic. What did you say, pluck pluck? > [@](#): > > Here again, your logic is pathetic. > > end of thread - bye bye. Hahahahaha! I gave you all the chance in the world. And you just exposed yourself as someone who was full of (chicken) s#!+. And incapable of using logic. ---
**Author:** ![Calatin](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/439d5e/32.png) [@Calatin](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Calatin)\ **Post date:** [March 14, 2014, 5:53am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-to-have-light-move-faster-than-c/682160/708 "2014-03-14T05:53:06Z")
> [@mythoughts](#): > > Oh, and I fully accept that if you best me in this while sticking with logic and avoiding math unless you want to go slow enough that I can follow you, then I will leave with my tail between my legs. This statement encapsulates a great deal of why you are meeting resistance on the board. I’m biting my tongue so hard that I can taste the blood. ---
**Author:** ![mythoughts](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/7993a0/32.png) [@mythoughts](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/mythoughts)\ **Post date:** [March 14, 2014, 5:53am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-to-have-light-move-faster-than-c/682160/709 "2014-03-14T05:53:13Z")
> [@Crazyhorse](#): > > You win. Yes, yes I do. I am still using logic and no one else opposing me is (with logic). No one is able to refute my logic, when they try they are unable to respond to my rebuttal showing them their flaws in reasoning. Look, if you guys act like childish jerks, so can I (regrettably), if you guys act logical, and reasonable, so will I. ---
**Author:** ![mythoughts](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/7993a0/32.png) [@mythoughts](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/mythoughts)\ **Post date:** [March 14, 2014, 6:02am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-to-have-light-move-faster-than-c/682160/710 "2014-03-14T06:02:20Z")
> [@Calatin](#): > > This statement encapsulates a great deal of why you are meeting resistance on the board. I’m biting my tongue so hard that I can taste the blood. I don’t get your meaning? That was an effort to appease, not offend. I was trying to show how readily I will admit I am wrong about it all even if someone just wins one point of logic. Like giving a slow pitch in the hopes someone will take a hit at it. Win the game if you hit one. Ok, maybe it seem condescending? was that it? ---
**Author:** ![Crazyhorse](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/crazyhorse/32/31_2.png) [@Crazyhorse](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Crazyhorse)\ **Post date:** [March 14, 2014, 6:45am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-to-have-light-move-faster-than-c/682160/711 "2014-03-14T06:45:16Z")
> [@mythoughts](#): > > Yes, yes I do. > > I am still using logic and no one else opposing me is (with logic). > > No one is able to refute my logic, when they try they are unable to respond to my rebuttal showing them their flaws in reasoning… I know. But you have to understand that’s just what they’ve been taught by “Big Science”. In the world of quantum physics today, there is a deeply entrenched belief that you’re a trolling douchebag. ---
**Author:** ![Budget\_Player\_Cadet](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/budget_player_cadet/32/205_2.png) [@Budget\_Player\_Cadet](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Budget_Player_Cadet)\ **Post date:** [March 14, 2014, 7:14am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-to-have-light-move-faster-than-c/682160/712 "2014-03-14T07:14:45Z")
> [@mythoughts](#): > > Yes, yes I do. > > I am still using logic and no one else opposing me is (with logic). > > No one is able to refute my logic, when they try they are unable to respond to my rebuttal showing them their flaws in reasoning. Actually, at least two pages ago, I remember one mentioning the biggest flaw with your reasoning: it’s all armchair theorizing which may or may not have any actual connection to reality. ---
**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 14, 2014, 7:17am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-to-have-light-move-faster-than-c/682160/713 "2014-03-14T07:17:53Z")
Someday, By God, just you wait and see, someone is apparently going to willingly pay him to do ‘thought experiments’ all day long, and then he’ll be a \*professional \*physicist. I just wonder why the marketplace hasn’t snapped him up already. Or what else a guy has to do to make himself marketable in the field of physics. I mean, besides acquire ‘credentials’, which is so petty and small-minded. ---
**Author:** ![Itself](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/d07c76/32.png) [@Itself](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Itself)\ **Post date:** [March 14, 2014, 7:29am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-to-have-light-move-faster-than-c/682160/714 "2014-03-14T07:29:34Z")
> [@Truman\_Burbank](#): > > Someday, By God, just you wait and see, someone is apparently going to willingly pay him to do ‘thought experiments’ all day long, and then he’ll be a \*professional \*physicist. I just wonder why the marketplace hasn’t snapped him up already. Hello Dr. **mythoughts** , My name is the Honorable Mr. Itself, I am the Nigerian Minister of Physics. I have found the SECRET PHYSICS BOOKS of Albert Einstien in which he renounced special relativity and stopped using math. I am seeking a reliable, trustyworthy person who is totally a PHYSICIST (but doesn’t have any of the credientials that would make him a zealot or an unthinking supporter of the orthodoxy). I cannot move the books out of my country myself because of TIME DILATIONS, but I will gladly let you read them in exchange for a small amount of $500,000,000,000,000,000,000 United States dollars from America. Because youare such an excellent physicist, you can use your LOGIC and NOT MATH to convert the masses and stop Big Science, GMOs, and cigarette comapnies from manipulating the aether. I am also aware that you can create non-physical cosmic energy, and that seems legit. ---
**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 14, 2014, 8:12am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-to-have-light-move-faster-than-c/682160/715 "2014-03-14T08:12:31Z")
Oh shit, that’s\*\* funny\*\*. Well done! ---
**Author:** ![mythoughts](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/7993a0/32.png) [@mythoughts](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/mythoughts)\ **Post date:** [March 14, 2014, 8:52am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-to-have-light-move-faster-than-c/682160/716 "2014-03-14T08:52:26Z")
Attempt to keep things on topic… Sagnac effect, from the stationary frame the speed of light around the loop is equal in both directions. From the rotating frame the speed of light is not equal, the finish line moves, if it moves at near the speed of light one photon is almost stopped while the other is seen to be moving at almost 2 times the speed of light. Multiple Defenders of Relativity have agreed this is true, including Relativity supporter naita and supported by this document pro Relativity document posted by user Pancakes3: [Relativity, Part 1: Special Theory of Relativity - Numericana](http://www.numericana.com/answer/relativity.htm#sagnac) Einsteinian clock synch methods cannot be used for one way speed of light measurements, it will make them equal to 2 way measurements. Wikipedia says so, logic says so, it would not work with sound in a wind tunnel even to give a true one way speed test. So since that method is quite literally rigged to never give a truthful answer for a one way speed of light, we must use an alternative clock synch method, synch by the signal going around both ways and using the fastest is a crude but effective method. (this requires velocity greater than .5C and preferably higher) Or sync from a light flash in the center of rotation. Or slow slow clock transport from the center of rotation. All these would definitely show the speed of light around the loop to be unequal over even a small portion of the loop. And if it is found to be unequal over a portion of the loop, it would also be just as true if the loop was astronomical in size, and even if only part of the loop actually existed. This means that all not perfectly straight motion could be part of such a Sagnac loop (at least momentarily). And perfectly straight motion simply does not exist. Hence all real motion could be found to have a variable speed of light with clocks that are synced in any reasonable way. **Relativist supporter Ronald Raygun agreed that these synch schemes would show a variable speed of light over a portion of a Sagnac loop.** You can put a million smoke screen juvenile personal attacks out there, but it doesn’t cover the fact that you are unable to solve these or other arguments. ---
**Author:** ![mythoughts](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/7993a0/32.png) [@mythoughts](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/mythoughts)\ **Post date:** [March 14, 2014, 11:45am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-to-have-light-move-faster-than-c/682160/717 "2014-03-14T11:45:14Z")
BTW in researching my magnetic inertia control idea, I came across papers that claim evidence of electromagnetic near fields propagating instantaneously. It would be ironic if the one time I wanted SR to be right, it falls flat on it’s face and dies. > **[0009023.pdf](https://arxiv.org/ftp/physics/papers/0009/0009023.pdf)** > > 609.87 KB [http://arxiv.org/ftp/physics/papers/0009/0009076.pdf](http://arxiv.org/ftp/physics/papers/0009/0009076.pdf) Both by the same chap No, I have not read these in any detail. They would only disprove my idea if near-fields propagated instantaneously. Though near instantaneously would kill any hope of it being practical. Note: a near-field is not detached from the source and is not yet a photon. ---
**Author:** ![Smeghead](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/f1d935/32.png) [@Smeghead](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Smeghead)\ **Post date:** [March 14, 2014, 12:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-to-have-light-move-faster-than-c/682160/718 "2014-03-14T12:21:25Z")
Is it bad that I’m having a bit of schadenfreude? I’m a biologist, and we’re fighting off idiot evolution deniers constantly. I’m sure physicists have their share of nutballs to deal with, but it can’t be anything like what we’ve got. I have to say, I’m kind of enjoying watching physicist-type people banging their heads against a wall of implacable, unalterable stupid - stupid so stupid that it can’t understand just how stupid it is - and not feel obligated to wade into the fray. WELCOME TO MY WORLD!! ---
**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 14, 2014, 12:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-to-have-light-move-faster-than-c/682160/719 "2014-03-14T12:30:39Z")
> [@mythoughts](#): > > No, I have asked you to pick whatever you think is easy to win, pick an old argument. > > Sagnac would be good, or whatever you like. > If you want me to recreate one, I will. > > No, they don’t, that is the conclusion. > > Your premise is faulty, I start off with the premise that SR is right and that the speed of light is C except where SR states specifically it is not. > What am i meant to answer to this? > On the subject of Relativity i am clear that no more threads will be tolerated and that was the subject under discussion. > And my threads contain insanity, but it does not come from me. > You chicken. > > No, you know how to make me go away. > Except that requires you to make more intelligent and correct arguments. > As I predicted, you are chickening out. > > Only is trying to keep someone on subject in a thread about SR is trolling. > > What did you say, pluck pluck? > > Hahahahaha! > > I gave you all the chance in the world. > > And you just exposed yourself as someone who was full of (chicken) s#!+. > And incapable of using logic. a) you’re trying to prove your faulty conclusion - you’ve assumed ‘c is not correct’ and ‘SR is faulty’ - and you are building your arguments to prove it - this is not logical. This is starting with the faulty premise and building a case for it. If you want to prove that ‘c is incorrect’ or that ‘SR is faulty’ - you design an experiment that does that, and you do the work - something you have not done. in any event you’re a troll - I’m done - go pluck yourself. ---
**Author:** ![Kobal2](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/kobal2/32/20_2.png) [@Kobal2](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kobal2)\ **Post date:** [March 14, 2014, 1:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-to-have-light-move-faster-than-c/682160/720 "2014-03-14T13:05:23Z")
> [@Smeghead](#): > > Is it bad that I’m having a bit of schadenfreude? I’m a biologist, and we’re fighting off idiot evolution deniers constantly. I’m sure physicists have their share of nutballs to deal with, but it can’t be anything like what we’ve got. I have to say, I’m kind of enjoying watching physicist-type people banging their heads against a wall of implacable, unalterable stupid - stupid so stupid that it can’t understand just how stupid it is - and not feel obligated to wade into the fray. > > WELCOME TO MY WORLD!! Oh, physicists get their fair share of kooks too, don’t you worry. More unpredictable than garden variety creationists too because you know \*exactly \*what arguments a creationist is going to put forward, even which examples & “thought experiments” they’re going to use to try and support their brand of shit. It’s like they get monthly reminders with updated cheat sheets or something. Physics kooks OTOH are \*all \*completely out there, each from a different barely comprehensible insanity direction (although to be fair, most settle for conclusively proving Einstein was a stoopids with some napkin “proof” they came up with in 5 minutes after 8 Jaëgerbombs). Remember Time Cube ? That’s the kind of deep whu?! I’m talking about. Sheepishly, it’s why I sort of :smack: whenever Neil DeGrasse Tyson goes on his crucible of stars, we are made of star stuff stump speech. Because… well it’s textbook truth for one thing ; and he injects so much \*passion \*into that bit of his whenever he does it for another ; that I can just tell every time it gets broadcast on national TV or someone plugs it on the internet a brand new generation of well-meaning but complete nutters mixing grade school understanding of physics, New Age shite, vague undefined all-encompassing “spirituality” and dogged self-importance is born. The man is a charismatic menace. ---
**Author:** ![Reyemile](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/46a35a/32.png) [@Reyemile](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Reyemile)\ **Post date:** [March 14, 2014, 1:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-to-have-light-move-faster-than-c/682160/721 "2014-03-14T13:31:37Z")
> [@Kobal2](#): > > It’s like they get monthly reminders with updated cheat sheets or something. That’s because the do. There are several organizations dedicated to fighting evolution that provide study-guides for their advocates. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-to-have-light-move-faster-than-c/682160.md?page=35) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-to-have-light-move-faster-than-c/682160.md?page=37)