> ... absolute velocity, which doesn't make any sense unless you're a photon
whizzing by.  And in that case you could even argue the velocity is infinite
since the photon's clock has stopped due to travelling at the speed of
light.
/>

Photons all live in the eternal now.
No Photon ever is somewhere else compared to any other photon.
No photon ever gets there first, or next or last.
No photon takes any time to get anywhere, or indeed IS anywhere except here,
which is where all photons are.
Despite what we think we see.
Or, that's what they think, or would if they thought.
If they did think it would be a timeless infinitude of thought - or
instantaneousness.
For a photon the whole of time passes in less than the smallest moment of
time. Less than Planck time. Or doesn't pass at all.

While all this seems so much rubbish from our perspective, it's disturbing
enough and real enough to some who deal with such things that they will seek
to avoid avoid doing time dependent experiments with particles which have no
rest mass, due to their instantaneous interconnection.

Neutrinos may be worse (although nobody REALLY believes it) - negative rest
mass :-). Not to mention changing 'colour' repeatedly as they radiate from
the sun (or star of uour choice) so that only 1/3 as many as (were once)
expected appear in terrestial detectors. Charming.



     R

Warning: Do not Gargoyle for
                                                           Neutrino color
if you do not want your head to explode.

... See.

You were warned!.









2009/7/22 Olin Lathrop <olin_piclist@embedinc.com>

> Sean Breheny wrote:
> > Would you consider the speed of light to be an absolute velocity?
> > Contrary to popular understanding, the Theory of Relativity is
> > somewhat a misnomer. Physics before Einstein considered all velocity
> > relative in a simple additive manner (like you suggest). Special
> > Relativity should more properly be called "irrelativity" or "partial
> > relativity" because velocities are only relative when they are small
> > compared to C. Near C, they are approximately absolute.
>
> Good point, I wasn't considering speeds near that of light.  Speeds do
> become more absolute as you approach the speed of light.
>
> If I remember right, the original statement had something to do with
> Earth's
> absolute velocity, which doesn't make any sense unless you're a photon
> whizzing by.  And in that case you could even argue the velocity is
> infinite
> since the photon's clock has stopped due to travelling at the speed of
> light.
>
>
> ********************************************************************
> Embed Inc, Littleton Massachusetts, http://www.embedinc.com/products
> (978) 742-9014.  Gold level PIC consultants since 2000.
> --
>  http://www.piclist.com PIC/SX FAQ & list archive
> View/change your membership options at
> http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist
>
-- 
http://www.piclist.com PIC/SX FAQ & list archive
View/change your membership options at
http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist