Frederick Williams wrote: >quasi wrote: >> netzweltler wrote: >> > >> >Meaning, that the notion of infinite speed is nonsense, >> >right? >> >> Well, I surely don't know how to make sense of it (but >> I'm willing to be educated). > >Would it do to say that if a material object moved a non-zero >distance instantaneously, then it moved with infinite speed?
So let's say a particle starts at x=0 on the x-axis and moves at infinite speed to the right, arriving "instantaneously" at x=1. But then it also arrives at x=2 just as instantaneously. In fact, it arrives at every positive x-value in the same instant. So what is the position of the particle at time t=0? And where is the particle at time t=1?
It seems to me that the concept of infinite speed violates the intuitive notion of time and space -- that is, it goes against the notion that any given particle at a given time has one and only location in space. I think that intuitive notion is so compelling that it should not be abandoned so casually.
Thus, I would forget about infinite speed unless I could be convinced that the advantages of having such a concept outweigh the blatant disadvantage of losing our intuitive notions (essentially axiomatic notions) about time and space.