can we see it #2 ?

[Spyman]

Bis repetita placent.

Let's recap the thread so far:

 

1) It is NOT commonly believed that Galilean transformations is valid by professional scientists working in the physics area of relativity.

The theory of relativity explicitly states that nothing can go faster than light so your arguement that we can't use Galilean transformations is useless, (although it is correct). Therefor you can't use this simple argument to claim that there could exist objects speeding faster than light through space relative us.

 

2) According to relativity maximum speed is finite, thus NO physical object or message or field line may travel faster than light.

Speculating about what would happen or how a hypothetical object would appear to look like in a fantasy world with other laws of nature than what we percieve to have in our Universe can be fun, but it doesn't resolve into anything useful. If nothing can travel through space faster than light then we will never see such an object either, and as such the question whether the light from such an object would be redshifted or not is irrelevant, until it is first succesfully showed that objects are able to break the speed of light through space.

 

3) According to relativity a hypothetical object that would be moving faster than the speed of light would emit light with IMAGINARY energy.

Since this already is a hypothetical situation in an impossible situation, we can't possible know how this light with imaginary energy will interact with normal matter or if it would be possible to detect it at all. If scientists ever will be able to detect objects speeding through space faster than light then relativity will have to be reconsidered, possibly changed or totaly scrapped. Which will make any hypothetical predictions using the theory in its current state likely to be very wrong.

 

4) According to relativistic doppler redshift there are NO objects moving away from our local point of view faster than light through space.

We are not currently observing any object with a relativistic doppler indicating a speed faster than light through space and we will never be either according to relativity, because any value of redshift will indicate a speed through space lower than the speed of light. You can not make any claims on observations of objects speeding through space faster than light according to relativistic doppler redshift.

 

5) According to cosmological redshift space is expanding, causing distant objects to recede from our local point of view faster than light.

General relativity has the feature that space is able to expand or compress, and this change of geometry is not limited to the speed of light. Our current knowledge and observations indicates that space is expanding, and this expansion is causing distant objects to recede from us faster than light. In this model of Universe the distant objects are not moving away from us by speeding through space, instead it is the space between them and us that gets stretched to a greater length. You can not make any claims on observations of objects speeding through space faster than light according to cosmological redshift.

 

Conclusion: Before claiming that objects are able to speed through space faster than light, relativity must first be proved wrong and that is going to be really really hard to too, since it so far has succesfully passed every unambiguous observational and experimental test.

 

 

I suggest that you bring something new to the table instead of continue to repeat what has been said already.

[michel123456]

Conclusion: Before claiming that objects are able to speed through space faster than light, relativity must first be proved wrong (...)

 

No. That is not necessary.

Relativity is right.

Relativity states that SOL is constant. I can keep that.

 

If bold characters mean shouting, you must be pissed off.

Sorry.

---

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

You've already indicated (post 41) you don't want to discuss this in terms of relativity. How then shall we proceed?

 

O.K. Forget the FTL.

 

Take a STL (Slower TL) object going away (not receding) at 0,9c.

Can we see it?

And what is the speed of light coming from this object and reaching us ?

 

I couldn't find a more stupid question.

Edited June 25, 2010 by michel123456
Consecutive posts merged.

[swansont]

O.K. Forget the FTL.

 

Take a STL (Slower TL) object going away (not receding) at 0,9c.

Can we see it?

And what is the speed of light coming from this object and reaching us ?

 

Yes. It will be redshifted and moving at c.

[Spyman]

If bold characters mean shouting, you must be pissed off.

Sorry.

No, I am not angry. I bolded the main parts of the points to make them more highlighted, so the reading and understanding of my post should be easier.

It had nothing to do with shouting or my temper.

 

 

No. That is not necessary.

Relativity is right.

Relativity states that SOL is constant. I can keep that.

No, you are wrong, you can't just cherry pick some parts in a theory you like and then neglect the others. If relativity is correct then there wont be any normal matter speeding through space faster than light and if we find out that objects can go faster through space then relativity would need to be changed to reflect those new observations.

 

Special relativity is a theory of the structure of spacetime. It was introduced in Albert Einstein's 1905 paper "On the Electrodynamics of Moving Bodies" (for the contributions of many other physicists see History of special relativity). Special relativity is based on two postulates which are contradictory in classical mechanics:

 

1.The laws of physics are the same for all observers in uniform motion relative to one another (principle of relativity),

2.The speed of light in a vacuum is the same for all observers, regardless of their relative motion or of the motion of the source of the light.

 

The resultant theory agrees with experiment better than classical mechanics, e.g. in the Michelson-Morley experiment that supports postulate 2, but also has many surprising consequences. Some of these are:

 

- Relativity of simultaneity: Two events, simultaneous for one observer, may not be simultaneous for another observer if the observers are in relative motion.

- Time dilation: Moving clocks are measured to tick more slowly than an observer's "stationary" clock.

- Length contraction: Objects are measured to be shortened in the direction that they are moving with respect to the observer.

- Mass-energy equivalence: E = mc2, energy and mass are equivalent and transmutable.

- Maximum speed is finite: No physical object or message or field line may travel faster than light.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory_of_relativity