All Big Issues
The Instigator
Pro (for)
Winning
10 Points
The Contender
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points

# Speed greater than light is possible.

Do you like this debate?NoYes+1

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: 6 years ago Status: Post Voting Period Viewed: 3,182 times Debate No: 24582
Debate Rounds (3)

41 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by wiploc 6 years ago

: 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.

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 6 years ago
: 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 6 years ago
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 6 years ago
: 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 6 years ago
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 6 years ago
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 6 years ago
"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 6 years ago
@ 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 6 years ago
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 6 years ago
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.