Sunday, October 13, 2019

It should be possible to travel at a speed faster than that of light, even if we may not be able to measure that speed

What does it mean to travel near or at the speed of light? Does it mean "actually" traveling near or at that speed? Or does it mean that whenever the measured speed is near or at the speed of light, it's sufficient to say that the object is traveling near or at the speed of light [even if it "actually" is not]? What does "actually" mean? Does "actually" mean the speed that "God" sees? Can there be a divergence between the "actual" speed of an object and its measured speed, without us having to call it a measurement error? If yes, what's the relevance or value of such an measurement then?

Anyway, the point here is that it should be possible to travel at a speed faster than that of light. Why shouldn't it be, after all? Keep increase the quantity of energy and force and there's no reason why an object's speed shouldn't keep increasing. It isn't like once the value hits c, suddenly more energy and more force stops having an incremental effect. But how do we measure such a faster-than-c speed? Do we even have to bother with measuring? And just because we can't measure, should we conclude that the speed isn't faster than that of light? Does an object placed in a completely dark room become nonexistent and irrelevant just because we can't see it? It still is there, just that we cannot see it.

Those are some half-cooked thoughts in my mind.

OTHER TAGS= ALBERT EINSTEIN, PHYSICS, SCIENCE