Originally posted by Oneness
Stop it with the srug.Okay, how would we know an object is in superluminal motion to apply this special
"superluminal equation" in the first place if we didn't measure it as such? How do we know light's velocity in a vacuum, in an atmosphere, under water if measuring light's speed required a special equation that didn't exist before we knew light's speed?You can't tell me that which you aren't comprehending because you want to sound smart. That's psuedo-intellectualism. You don't actually know what you're talking about, but Bardock seems like he's more knowledgeable than me based on your subjective of our argument. However, I was right, as Astner said. The equation for velocity does not have any stipulations on macroscopic objects, that's a rule of relativity and if it were true in all instances than there's no way the Flash would have been able to do what he did, contrary to the author's guesstimate. He didn't plug in the equation.
The speed of light used to be a lot faster, as time passes the universe's state of energy density is altered. This is an effect of chaotic inflation. All these strange inconsistencies in Newtonian physics are what led to extensions of it; quantum-mechanics, string-theory, chaotic inflation, supergravity, etc.
Originally posted by AbnormalButSaneHere, in this specific argument, you happen to be wrong.
Yes, I am the pseudo-intellectual here.
We uncovered light's speed through experimentation, by measuring it with that very same equation. If we measured a macroscopic man to be moving superluminally, then we can infer that the rule of special relativity does not seem to apply to him for whatever reason. Just like I did.
Originally posted by AbnormalButSaneNever do that.
I'll defer to your judgment.
You have to look at things skeptically. Yet, it's not like I didn't break it down logically.
Really, you shouldn't jump in an argument you don't understand because one side of the argument makes more sense to you.
The rule of special relativity claims that a macroscopic object can never move faster than C (the cosmic speed-limit). Light's velocity is generally an asymptotic value for velocity in the macroscopic world. There's even an equation accounting for the rate in which acceleration declines which increases the closer one gets to C. The tortoise and the hare.
However, if we measure a macroscopic object to be moving superluminally, using the basic algebraic equation to find velocity, than it seems that special relativity does not apply for that particular object. A lot of things like that happen in the real universe, inconsistencies in Newtonian physics. There are scientific explanations, but they have to be found.