3 ms·
Typically we think of "speed" as observed from outside the moving [object], but I guess "typically" it doesn't matter. I think it's an interesting point and yo
by marshray 2y ago
Typically we think of "speed" as observed from outside the moving [object], but I guess "typically" it doesn't matter.
I think it's an interesting point and you're not wrong to say it ticks at least one of boxes. It just doesn't match the concept that people have in mind, so an otherwise interesting discussion ends up rat-holing on semantics.
- JumpCrisscross 2y ago> Typically we think of "speed" as observed from outside the moving Is it? We don’t colloquially consider the Earth’s rotation or revolution. This isn’t a Star Trek warp drive. But dismissing it as “hardly a warp drive” seems categorically wrong.
- mr_mitm 2y agoSub luminal speeds are in an entirely different category than super luminal speeds. It's hard to overstate how different it is, so the original objection is completely appropriate. You can argue about the wording, but what's the point in that? Everyone with half a brain agrees on the facts.
- marshray 2y agoI don't recall having considered this point before, though granted I will call half a brain a good day.
- marshray 2y ago> We don’t colloquially consider the Earth’s rotation or revolution. Wasn't this choice of reference frame the basis for that whole drama with Galileo, or am I misunderstanding?
- groby_b 2y agoWe discovered a couple of centuries later that there's more than one reference frame, you can choose, and the choice matters. It's been a pretty interesting development!