It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
I know I maybe in for a bit of a roasting here but I am genuinely trying to understand a subject I am relatively new to.
So, if either of the two postulates were wrong, would this mean that it may be possible to travel faster than the speed of light?
I ask this as I am certain, (apologies for not providing a source at the moment), that I recently read that the first of these postulates may be incorrect and that the laws of physics can and do change.
There is still so much more to learn about the universe.
Everyone made the incorrect assumption that C was the "velocity of light." Today, science still calls the velocity of light C. But not so. It was only an integration constant to make Maxwell's equations match the measurements.
The question is though,will the academics accept such a thing or will they condemn it? I'm guessing the latter.Too many academics have their minds closed these days that its almost as if they've turned into the church that used to prosecute them!
I found some articles last night about scientists claiming to have broken the speed of light,not sure if thats true,but they're interesting to read.
It is from those postulates, and the mathematics derived from them, that the speed limit appears. And since it is shown in the mathematics, the exact words used to describe it don’t matter. After all, mathematics is the language of physics.
If you're in a car,say a Bugatti Veyron,you could do 0-60 in 2 & a half 2nds.Wouldn't the velocity be different to when you traveled at a steady 60mph for 15min? Do you use more energy in those 2 & a half 2nds than you do in those 15min?