Speed of light... The limit? Or simply the road?

You are making a big mistake by mixing philosophy with science. Science is measurable and testable. Statements like "limits are useless" are not measurable and testable (and have no place in science).

If you want to talk about the science then you are mostly off base on what it means to have a limit on the speed of light. You need to understand basic relativity from a scientific viewpoint (any philosophical viewpoint is meaningless).

The reason I am responding (at this late hour) is that you mentioned the idea of moving the railroad, and you seem to grasp that if there is a railroad moving at 300 mph with a train going 124 mph, an observer who is not attached to the railroad will see the train moving at a greater speed than 124 mph.

This is the first part to understanding the problem that makes relativity (and the absolute speed of light) necessary.

By the way. The speed of light is a real limit. Anyone who has a physics degree has done experiments to prove this.

I see, we think differently, I feel free to mix and match things as I see fit, and philosophers where the scientists of old.

After all, philosophy is considered pointless by today's standards thus my question was indeed pointless... on purpose.

Even so...

You seem to forget that our planet moves pretty fast, and while I understand that the railroad needs to move faster, I simply believe that "science" has not enough data to know the true answer (after all, as I mentioned, science meant the earth was flat, and that humans would never fly, then data changed their point of view, and it was "suddenly" scientifically possible... Coincidence? Of course not!.

Honestly, I need to know nothing, what I want is what I do, I have everything I need, and if that leaves me unqualified to "speaketh to thy as I lack the deeper understandings of the elite", then well... never been fan of those that feel the urge to rise above others...

Thanks for your very interesting answer, and while you indeed know your science, I do indeed understand the so called "meaningless" of philosophy possibly better than you.

What would science have been without philosophy, without people asking if thing can fly, if why we exist, what we can do, and how we can do it easier thanks to what came to be science and technology? Nothing I believe.

Ps: Who gives those degrees? Human beings... arrogant human beings that believe they know the absolute truth... The truth constantly changes, and no degree can prove one superior to another, after all, what is a piece of paper with some ink? I seek deeper meaning than following others rules, and a paper with a degree telling me that I kissed my teachers butt and indoctrinated myself with what another man thinks is right...

Please, if nothing else I am far too spiritual of nature to fall for that ****... No disrespect of course, we live in different worlds, different views... respect mine, and I shall respect yours... As for agreeing.. lets agree to disagree.

I don' t know which direction we should take this conversation. Science is measurable and objectively testable meaning it has on "right" answer based on measurements and experimentation.

If you would like me to explain the scientific answer, I would be more happy to do this. Not only will I explain how it works, I can also explain how we know it is scientifically correct. I can tell you the experiments we have done, the observations we have made, the predictions we have made that confirmed our understanding, and the technology you you use that wouldn't work if the speed of light were not a constant.

You have a basic misunderstanding of what it means that the speed of light has a limit. So a scientific discussion might be interesting.

The alternative is for us to discuss the divergence between philosophy and science. These two fields really diverged around the time of Galileo in the 16th century when philosophers maintained that the Earth was the center of everything. Galileo started making observations about moons of Jupiter and the motion of objects on earth that went against the philosophers (causing Galileo quite a bit of problems).

Which side would you like to discuss?

Beforehand, thanks for the offer.

Honestly, I just read the end, with you? Neither, its not like we aren't even from the same world, our ideals and ways are different, I respect your way complicated perspective though, I mean you are smart, but I dont wanna be that kind of smart

I appreciate the offer though, its just a question, not a conversation topic, I mean your knowledge is superior and all that, but I would never spend my time down reading a book about science, I am all sports, and wondering, not technical science stuff, hell no.

OK fine.

The answer is yes, the speed of light is an absolute limit and nothing with mass goes faster.

For you to understand why that is true and what that means, you are going to have to put in a little work to understand the science. Once you understand why the speed of light must be a constant (or the Universe wouldn't work), and once you understand the experiments that have been done and the predictions that have been made, then you can dispute the physics.

It seems to me that debating a principle without even understanding the claim behind it is futile in any field of study.

Yawn... enough formalities, stop wasting your time friend, I have no interest in knowing the limits, as they always expand anyways.

Now you can tell me this and that, but I simply wont listen, out of self respect.

Now how about you getting some too and stop wasting your time.

Dont expect thank you`s nor respects... if I did not say it clearly enough, I will do so now: Enough science talk, I ignore it! Science is merely mans perception of the world, once upon a time science was that the world was flat and in the middle of the universe with the sun spinning around it, then science was that pluto was a planet...

Scientists... Pfff, give me some sciencetits and I will listen, as for now you are just getting annoying, start a school or something for the ones interested, now if you just need someone to talk to, no thanks, desperate people hardly have anything to add... please stop proving me right...

No reply required nor wanted, have a nice day.

He's right Max, don't waste your time. This clown is about 12 years old, if he's even that old.

Shadow, I think that you are misreading. The speed of light "c" is a constant not constant. In this particular part of the universe "c" happens to run at about 186,000 miles per second. This is a reflection on our comprehension of "miles" and time.

There are other parts of a universe perhaps (probably) where the speed of light is less than 186,000 mps as measured by miles but it is always "c".

It is a bit easier to grasp if you regard gravity and space as a field rather than a force .

If you are seriously interested study, "black holes, quasars, red shifts, doppler effects and others that you will bump into on the net.