Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site vax135.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!mhuxr!ihnp4!mhuxn!mhuxm!mhuxi!vax135!miles
From: miles@vax135.UUCP (Miles Murdocca)
Newsgroups: net.space
Subject: Re: Speed Of Light
Message-ID: <1078@vax135.UUCP>
Date: Fri, 10-May-85 08:18:59 EDT
Article-I.D.: vax135.1078
Posted: Fri May 10 08:18:59 1985
Date-Received: Sat, 11-May-85 02:22:04 EDT
References: <2073@decwrl.UUCP>
Organization: AT&T Bell Labs, Holmdel, NJ
Lines: 24

>> ...  An introductory dialogue to a scenario of spacehsips and lasers
>> to ask the question:

> If C IS relative (perhaps a poor word (or the operative problem?) to be
> using here) to a base, then it would seem that MANY things could go
> "faster than light", but if it's NOT relative to a base, "how can that
> be"?

The key to all of this relativity stuff is who the observer is.  You
mentioned that the lasers and ships were going at velocities relative
to some other objects (like Earth, or the ships) so you are halfway
there.  Now, let yourself be the observer (in the ship farthest away
as you had suggested).  The ship with the laser will appear to be moving
through a much shorter distance than it actually is (space shrinks for
a moving body), and the observed speed of light will remain the same.

I am not a physicist, but I am told by a physicist friend that it is
not known whether or not it is possible to go faster than the speed of
light.  But if a body moves faster than the speed of light, then it
can't move slower than the speed of light.  The transition can't be
made.

    Miles Murdocca, 4B-525, AT&T Bell Laboratories, Crawfords Corner Rd,
    Holmdel, NJ, 07733, (201) 949-2504, ...{ihnp4}!vax135!miles