> It's the rather trivial limit. I mean, it's pretty clear the limiting maximum for my walking speed is also the speed of light
I was very intrigued that you were using relativistic arguments to support your point of view. I thought this was a very insightful approach and assumed you knew what I meant by "speed of light in the human body"
In [1]Landau volume 2 on the theory of relativity, chapter 1, section 1, it states:
"experminent shows that instantaneous interactions do not exist in nature. Thus a mechanics based on the instantaneous propagation of interactions contains within itself a certain inaccuracy"
The entire theory of relativity, which forms the basis of your arguments involving the speed of light as far as the real world is concerned, involves this concept of maximum limiting velocity very seriously.
You can speak, and the sound travels at the speed of sound. In many parts of physics, there is a "speed of X" based on the properties of the medium.
I don't appreciate you talking down to me about the theory of relativity, or the physics of light. I don't think you appreciate that I am a serious experimental and theoretical physicists and have published papers on my original research in PLR on applications of bio-physics to experimental nanotechnology.
> That short summary appears to violate the conservation of energy.
Because the cells in the human body consume protien for energy. Both of my parents are biologists and research scientists so thats where I learned about all of this.
> Can you point to any of the evidence? Especially evidence which shows it's unbounded?
I explicitly stated in my previous question (direct quote)
"I believe you have made an extremely strong point about the speed of light and the nature of the reasons this kind of approach needs to be bounded in a strong form or else will clearly not work"
I guess you didn't read that?
> Your analogy doesn't support the ability to add new CPUs, only new objects.
Thanks for all your help. Your condescending attitude is not helpful anymore. I think you are being very close minded and I have appreciated your point of view and we can agree to disagree
Also please consider that in newtonian mechanics the potential energy of interaction assumes an instantaneous propagation of signals between 2 particles, and there is no issue in practice with this approximation, because the speed of light is so large compared to the time scales of macroscopic phenomenon. The ideas we have been discussing is the same type of regime where its an asymptotic limit, and where these types of assumptions are quite physical and very realistic.
I have been working so hard for the past 3 weeks on a generalization of John Conways The Game of Life and he just died so I am pretty emotional right now.
I'm sorry we had to come to this point, where you have provided enough information for me to continue my work, but had to have such a confrontational fight over who understands the theory of relativity better. I can assure you, I understand the point you are making about the speed of light.
Let me remind you, the constant speed of light is only constant in a vacuum. In air the speed is not the same as water, and gravitational fields can bend the path of light.
I hope in the future we can have a physics discussion as equals instead of getting into a fight when I have been crying over the death of one of my absolute greatest personal heroes
I was very intrigued that you were using relativistic arguments to support your point of view. I thought this was a very insightful approach and assumed you knew what I meant by "speed of light in the human body"
In [1]Landau volume 2 on the theory of relativity, chapter 1, section 1, it states:
"experminent shows that instantaneous interactions do not exist in nature. Thus a mechanics based on the instantaneous propagation of interactions contains within itself a certain inaccuracy"
The entire theory of relativity, which forms the basis of your arguments involving the speed of light as far as the real world is concerned, involves this concept of maximum limiting velocity very seriously.
You can speak, and the sound travels at the speed of sound. In many parts of physics, there is a "speed of X" based on the properties of the medium.
I don't appreciate you talking down to me about the theory of relativity, or the physics of light. I don't think you appreciate that I am a serious experimental and theoretical physicists and have published papers on my original research in PLR on applications of bio-physics to experimental nanotechnology.
> That short summary appears to violate the conservation of energy.
Because the cells in the human body consume protien for energy. Both of my parents are biologists and research scientists so thats where I learned about all of this.
> Can you point to any of the evidence? Especially evidence which shows it's unbounded?
I explicitly stated in my previous question (direct quote)
"I believe you have made an extremely strong point about the speed of light and the nature of the reasons this kind of approach needs to be bounded in a strong form or else will clearly not work"
I guess you didn't read that?
> Your analogy doesn't support the ability to add new CPUs, only new objects.
Thanks for all your help. Your condescending attitude is not helpful anymore. I think you are being very close minded and I have appreciated your point of view and we can agree to disagree
[1] https://books.google.com/books?id=X18PF4oKyrUC&printsec=fron...