On Thu, 30 May 1996 22:33:56 +1000 (EST) Martin Bennett said:

: On Thu, 30 May 1996, Philip Mak wrote:
:
: > On Thu, 30 May 1996, Sebastian Weinberg wrote:
: > >
: > > On Thu, 30 May 1996, Kun-chan wrote:
: > >
: > > > > The three laws of nature:
: > > > >
: > > > > 1) You cannot accelerate beyond lightspeed.
:
: That only applies if you use Eisteins theory of relativeity.

Of course.  Since it still remains to be disproven I was assuming
the current relativistic equations.

: > > > > 3) Kun-chan is always right.

: > > Now, I can't help but wonder what would happen if you were to claim that
: > > acceleration beyond lightspeed was possible...
: > >
: >
: > Well let's see... if speeds beyond c = 3*10^8 m/s were possible, it would

Speeds beyond lightspeed are perfectly possible.  It's just
impossible to *accelerate* to or beyond lightspeed from *below*.
Just the same as you cannot *de*celerate an object that's moving
above lightspeed to below it.

: > be possible for an observe to observe an event happening, and then
: > prevent that same event from happening. I don't remember the exact
: > details, but this is possible (I saw a Star Trek tech thing).

Which is the *only* place where you'll ever see this.  :)

: Bah! Star Trek is a load of bunk! If defies virtually every known law of
: physics!

That's what I watch it for.  In almost every episode you can spot
some kind of error.


Sebastian
--
       <http://enterprise.mathematik.uni-essen.de/~bastian/>
                         Comics reviewed
--
I am a computer - As such I never have or will make a mistake or
error (I thought I did once, but I was wrong).