Let's say there's 2 objects in the universe. A incredibly

>>7954976
no

>>7954976
No; velocity doesn't work that way.

>>7954976
Yes, it's possible to *imagine* a reference frame from which one object appears to move at superluminal velocity /with regard to the other object/, but the manifold that composes questions with embedded "objective" reference frames isn't a valid form of relativistic reality. The problem is that you're trapped in the manifold is can only see the "objectively" superluminal object /as if it was/ moving at near-light velocity.

>>7955002
Another way of saying it is that your "objective" reference frame would have to move at relativistic speeds and ignore that light can't catch up.

File: 1458758480625.png (15KB, 344x302px) Image search: [Google]

15KB, 344x302px

>>7954976
>read physics book that the speed of light can't be exceeded
>hey guys if this happened could the speed of light be exceeded
"no"

>>7955152
>read physics book that the speed of light can't be exceeded

Get out of my house!

>>7954976
From a logical point of view, the lesser object will get pulled towards the larger object at a certain speed although the larger object will move towards the lesser object too although at a much lesser rate.

THIS IS ALL ASSUMING THAT WHEN WE SAY LARGE OBJECT WE ALSO MEAN ITS DENSITY IS HIGH AS FUCK

The closer the objects get, the faster they start moving towards one another too until the two objects crash into one another.

>Why isn't the Earth crashing into the sun then
The object and motion keeps them from falling into the sun. This also applies to my thesis above.

File: 1444917271542.gif (342KB, 480x265px) Image search: [Google]

342KB, 480x265px

>>7955244
>thesis
Fuck I meant theory