The Instigator
baggins
Pro (for)
Winning
10 Points
The Contender
mega-antitheist
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points

Speed greater than light is possible.

Do you like this debate?NoYes+1
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 2 votes the winner is...
baggins
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 7/5/2012 Category: Science
Updated: 4 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 2,528 times Debate No: 24582
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (41)
Votes (2)

 

baggins

Pro

The burden is upon me to show that when observed from appropriate frame, speed greater than light is possible. The task of Con is to refute any argument or example that I may present.

==Definitions==

Speed:
The rate or a measure of the rate of motion, especially:
a. Distance traveled divided by the time of travel.
b. The limit of this quotient as the time of travel becomes vanishingly small; the first derivative of distance with respect to time.
c. The magnitude of a velocity. [1]

Speed of Light: 299792458 m/s [2]

==Notes==

1. The voters are requested to vote on the basis of arguments presented in debate and not their own knowledge of subject.
2. To win this debate, Con must explain where my arguments are wrong. A simple reference to standard textbook will not suffice.
3. If my opponent wants to add any constrain, they should post them in the comments section. Once I approve, they can be added in my partner's opening round and will be considered as part of the debate.

==Structure of debate==

Round 1: Acceptance / Definition
Round 2: Arguments
Round 3: Rebuttals + Summary

Thanks in advance to my opponent for debating with me.

Reference
[1] http://www.thefreedictionary.com...
[2] http://en.wikipedia.org...
mega-antitheist

Con

I accept it is up to you to turn physics as we know it on its head, I am looking forward to your arguments.
Debate Round No. 1
baggins

Pro


Many thanks to Mega antitheist for accepting this debate.


There are many ways for me to show that speed greater than light is possible, especially since my opponent has not added any condition whatsoever. Some of the methods can be found in comments section. However I will go ahead with what I had originally planned.


Consider a star 40 lightyears away, straight in front of your nose, as shown in figure 1. To describe the position of this star we need a coordinate frame. We consider the direction in front of you as x-axis. The direction from your legs to head as y-axis and the remaining direction as z-axis. In this frame, the coordinates of the star are (40,0,0) lightyears. The actual figure of 40 lightyear is not important, and some other similar value will also work.


http://www.debate.org...


Let us perform an about turn. It is quite possible to turn 180 degrees around y-axis in; let us say 2 seconds. The frame also turns with you. The new situation is shown in figure 2. The new coordinates for the star are (-40,0,0) lightyears. Elementary physics tells us that the displacement in this frame is 80 lightyears.


http://www.debate.org...


It takes light 80 years to travel a distance of 80 lightyears. However, in our frame, the bulky and bright star has covered that distance in 2 seconds. The star is clearly travelling much faster than speed of light (defined in the debate as 299792458 m/s).


The resolution is affirmed.


mega-antitheist

Con

mega-antitheist forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 2
baggins

Pro

Unfortunately mega-antitheist has forfeited his round, in spite of the fact that this debate had a 3 day response time. It is possible that he got extremely busy in some work. Even then an acknowledgement in comments would have been welcome.

Since this is only a 3 round debate, this looks like an automatic win for me. VOTE PRO
mega-antitheist

Con

mega-antitheist forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
41 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by wiploc 4 years ago
wiploc
ADT_Clone wrote:

: In the real world, speed is measured from.a stationary point of reference.

That is pre-Einsteinian thinking.

: If that is not possible,

It's not. All motion is relative to the observer.

: ... the movement of the frame of reference is taken into account and negated to find
: the actual absolute speed of the object.

"Absolute speed" is an outmoded concept. False, disproven, wrong.

: As I said before, your entire debate relies on semantics your ill-defined, impractical
: definition of "speed"

Pot, meet kettle.

: and your misleading title,

His resolution made it clear that he was going to perform some trick based on frame of reference. He only did what he promised.

: giving the illusion we are talking about absolute speed

There is no such thing. Talk to any scientist or physics teacher or student.

: I hope I dont see you try this type of argument again, you have lost my respect.

That was not called for.
Posted by baggins 4 years ago
baggins
: A stationary point of reference, ie. Not rotating or moving the point of reference while measuring the speed.

Problem is, this is cyclic. To say that something is moving or stationary, you need a frame of reference. You cannot talk about any motion without defining a frame first.

As per theory of relativity, speed greater than light is not possible in ANY frame of reference. Further it should have been clear to any reader in the first round that I am going to use some special reference frame.

You still haven't provided the correct definition of 'stationary frame' and speed. Also kindly provide appropriate sources.
Posted by ADT_Clone 4 years ago
ADT_Clone
I think you purposely missed the point of what I was saying. A stationary point of reference, ie. Not rotating or moving the point of reference while measuring the speed.
Posted by baggins 4 years ago
baggins
@ ADT_Clone:
: In the real world, speed is measured from.a stationary point of reference.

There is no such thing as a stationary frame of reference. Perhaps, you are talking about using earth, sun, solar system or milky way as frame of reference.

: As I said before, your entire debate relies on semantics your ill-defined, impractical definition of "speed"

Provide correct definition of speed.

: and your misleading title, giving the illusion we are talking about absolute speed(as the speed of light is something practical) rather than your meaningless version.

Define absolute speed.
Posted by ADT_Clone 4 years ago
ADT_Clone
Oh, and for an example of that quote, measure photon A from the reference of photon B when they are travelling in opposite directions at the speed of light. According to your definitions, photon A is travelling twice as fast as the speed of light!

Science is flipped upside down!
Posted by ADT_Clone 4 years ago
ADT_Clone
In the real world, speed is measured from.a stationary point of reference. If that is not possible, eg. a satelite, the movement of the frame of reference is taken into account and negated to find the actual absolute speed of the object.

As I said before, your entire debate relies on semantics your ill-defined, impractical definition of "speed" and your misleading title, giving the illusion we are talking about absolute speed(as the speed of light is something practical) rather than your meaningless version.

I hope I dont see you try this type of argument again, you have lost my respect.
Posted by baggins 4 years ago
baggins
"Pro could have shortened his argument: "Imagine an object viewed from a frame of reference moving away from it at twice the speed of light. There you go." "

Problem is, this is not plausible. Had I proved that such a frame can exists, then yeah, I would have proved speed greater than light.

The situation I have presented is quite plausible.
Posted by baggins 4 years ago
baggins
@ RoyLatham

I was keeping lots of explanation for my defense, however that was not needed as my opponent went fishing. My argument does sound too simple to be true. But it is still quite valid, and the actual explanation is quite involved.

Any elementary physics will tell you that motion is defined only with help of a frame of reference. You cannot say that an object 'moves from one place to other' unless you have defined a frame of reference.

Suppose I move a frame of reference 'X' with respect to a frame of reference 'Y'. There is also an object Z which is at rest with respect to 'Y'. It will be perfectly valid to say that Z was moving with respect to X, even though it was stationary with respect to Y. If some asks whether Z was really moving or not, it would be a meaningless query. We have to define frame of reference BEFORE we discuss motion.

The only new thing is, I have introduced rotating frames. Pick up any high school text books on special relativity and they only consider translation between frames.

Also please note, I have not 'changed' the frame of reference. I have only rotated the frame at a rate which is perfectly plausible.
Posted by RoyLatham 4 years ago
RoyLatham
The error in Pro's argument is that "speed" is defined by an object moving from one place to another. If all that is done is change the frame of reference, the object doesn't move.

Pro could have shortened his argument: "Imagine an object viewed from a frame of reference moving away from it at twice the speed of light. There you go."

I was tempted to vote Con on grounds that Pro didn't make a prima facie case, but that would be too cruel.
Posted by yuiru 4 years ago
yuiru
Wow, lame... I thought this was about light from Death Note!! stupid animeh!
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by wiploc 4 years ago
wiploc
bagginsmega-antitheistTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70 
Reasons for voting decision: forfeit
Vote Placed by RoyLatham 4 years ago
RoyLatham
bagginsmega-antitheistTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Reasons for voting decision: Forfeit without argument.