Is speed of sound higher then the speed of light???

On Sep 8, 10:17*pm, Tom Roberts wrote in
sci.physics.relativity:
I belatedly realized I forgot to say this -- it brings a bit more
perspective to the subject.

Tom Roberts wrote:
When an astronomical object behaves just like the models of black holes,
we call them black holes. But we don't know what lies inside them -- the
MODELS contain a singularity, but we don't know what these objects
actually contain.

When an astronomical object behaves just like the models of planets, we
call them planets. But we don't know what lies inside them -- the MODELS
contain matter of various kinds, but we don't know what these objects
actually contain.

When an astronomical object behaves just like the models of stars, we
call them stars. But we don't know what lies inside them -- the MODELS
contain matter and plasma and thermonuclear reactions, but we don't know
what these objects actually contain.

This can clearly be extended to cover just about everything.... This is
just saying that theoretical models are how we understand the world, and
that determines how we apply names.

Tom Roberts

When an individual in Einstein zombie world behaves just like Tom
Roberts and teaches his zombies that special relativity "would be
unaffected" even if "light in vacuum does not travel at the invariant
speed of the Lorentz transform", we call him Tom Roberts:

http://groups.google.ca/group/sci.ph...1ebdf49c012de2
Tom Roberts, Feb 1, 2006: "If it is ultimately discovered that the
photon has a nonzero mass (i.e. light in vacuum does not travel at the
invariant speed of the Lorentz transform), SR would be unaffected but
both Maxwell's equations and QED would be refuted (or rather, their
domains of applicability would be reduced)."

Pentcho Valev

On Sep 8, 4:43*pm, Pentcho Valev wrote:
On Sep 8, 10:17*pm, Tom Roberts wrote in
sci.physics.relativity:





I belatedly realized I forgot to say this -- it brings a bit more
perspective to the subject.

Tom Roberts wrote:
When an astronomical object behaves just like the models of black holes,
we call them black holes. But we don't know what lies inside them -- the
MODELS contain a singularity, but we don't know what these objects
actually contain.

When an astronomical object behaves just like the models of planets, we
call them planets. But we don't know what lies inside them -- the MODELS
contain matter of various kinds, but we don't know what these objects
actually contain.

When an astronomical object behaves just like the models of stars, we
call them stars. But we don't know what lies inside them -- the MODELS
contain matter and plasma and thermonuclear reactions, but we don't know
what these objects actually contain.

This can clearly be extended to cover just about everything.... This is
just saying that theoretical models are how we understand the world, and
that determines how we apply names.

Tom Roberts

When an individual in Einstein zombie world behaves just like Tom
Roberts and teaches his zombies that special relativity "would be
unaffected" even if "light in vacuum does not travel at the invariant
speed of the Lorentz transform", we call him Tom Roberts:

http://groups.google.ca/group/sci.ph...g/dc1ebdf49c01...
Tom Roberts, Feb 1, 2006: "If it is ultimately discovered that the
photon has a nonzero mass (i.e. light in vacuum does not travel at the
invariant speed of the Lorentz transform), SR would be unaffected but
both Maxwell's equations and QED would be refuted (or rather, their
domains of applicability would be reduced)."

Pentcho Valev



And if you could simply understand what he means by that, you wouldn't
be trolling usenet and making such a fool out of yourself.

You apparently still don't get that there are two lines in the plane
have invariant slope under hyperbolic rotations.