FTL

(I think that this image resembles Star Trek but it is the cover of a collection by Keith Laumer.)

Keith Laumer, "The Limiting Velocity of Orthodoxy," Science Feature IN Galaxy Science Fiction, December 1980, pp. 187-190.

Laumer discusses the light speed velocity. This is an opportunity:

to try to understand what Laumer says;
to review Poul Anderson's fictional faster-than-light (FTL) space drives.

Trying to summarize Laumer:

it is said that, at light speed, a spaceship's mass would be infinite, its length would be zero and its duration would also be zero;

it is argued that infinite mass, zero length and zero duration are impossible, therefore light-speed travel is also impossible.

Comments So Far
This argument is a syllogism -

If there is light-speed travel, then there is an infinite mass, a zero length and a zero duration.
There is no infinite mass, zero length or zero duration.
Therefore, there is no light-speed travel.

I am not sure that there cannot be zero duration. This idea exists in sf as temporal stasis.

Back to Laumer:

He asserts that infinite mass, zero length and "no time" (p. 188) are impossible, not super-light velocity.

Comment
But there are equations to prove that light-speed travel would involve these impossibilities.

Laumer:

A radio source recedes from Earth at 0.75C;
another radio source recedes from Earth in the opposite direction, also at 0.75C;
0.75 + 0.75 = 1.5;
therefore, these radio sources should be receding from each other at greater than the speed of light;
but physicists say that, in this case, "The velocities don't add." (p.189)

Comment
Why do the velocities not add? As I understand it, common sense ideas reflect our experience which is limited to masses visible to our sense organs moving at speeds much lower than the speed of light. As Hegel argued, quantity affects quality. We should expect the properties of subatomic particles to differ from those of macroscopic objects and the properties of very fast objects to differ from those of very slow objects.

Laumer:

"LIGHT IS A CONDITION, NOT AN EVENT. (Laumer's Theorem)." (p. 190)

He argues that:

light has no velocity;
the radiating sun sets up conditions extending in all directions;
the light rays do not move at the same speed relative to the sun and to Earth and to each other and to those going in the opposite direction;
a velocity implies a time and a distance;
we are told that, at high velocities, time and distance are variables;
if time on a receding object is standing still, then so is the object;
what is our frame of reference for measuring speeds?

Comment
That is as much as I can extract from Laumer. At most, he has the makings of another FTL rationale. We will revisit Anderson's rationales in the next post.