"Rich Griffiths" wrote in message
communications...
On Sun, 05 Jul 2009 13:24:20 +0100, Richard wrote:

Is it not true that if I were able to accelerate my cup of coffee at
light speeds

non sequitur. acceleration = rate of change of speed.

at a frequency of 14Mhz

non sequitur. frequency is not a measure of speed or acceleration.

my cup of coffee would radiate a 14Mhz carrier?

No.

--
Rich

If the cup was to move 5 meters left, then 10 meters right, then ten meter
left again that would be one cylcle. There are 14 million cycles in one
second. So, net speed of cup is speed of light.

"Richard" wrote in message
...

"Rich Griffiths" wrote in message
communications...
On Sun, 05 Jul 2009 13:24:20 +0100, Richard wrote:

Is it not true that if I were able to accelerate my cup of coffee at
light speeds

non sequitur. acceleration = rate of change of speed.

at a frequency of 14Mhz

non sequitur. frequency is not a measure of speed or acceleration.

my cup of coffee would radiate a 14Mhz carrier?

No.

--
Rich

If the cup was to move 5 meters left, then 10 meters right, then ten meter
left again that would be one cylcle. There are 14 million cycles in one
second. So, net speed of cup is speed of light.

Actually the frequency ought to be 15 Mhz.

On Mon, 06 Jul 2009 09:51:12 +0100, Richard wrote:

"Richard" wrote in message
...

"Rich Griffiths" wrote in message
communications...
On Sun, 05 Jul 2009 13:24:20 +0100, Richard wrote:

Is it not true that if I were able to accelerate my cup of coffee at
light speeds

non sequitur. acceleration = rate of change of speed.

at a frequency of 14Mhz

non sequitur. frequency is not a measure of speed or acceleration.

my cup of coffee would radiate a 14Mhz carrier?

No.

--
Rich

If the cup was to move 5 meters left, then 10 meters right, then ten
meter left again that would be one cylcle. There are 14 million cycles
in one second. So, net speed of cup is speed of light.

Actually the frequency ought to be 15 Mhz.

Nonetheless, you still have acceleration, speed, and frequency seriously
confused. If you want to do a "thought experiment" (or any experiment,
for that matter), you must formulate it properly if you want to draw
sound conclusions from it.

And the "clarification" about frequency also makes no sense.

Either the cup has infinite acceleration at each end of its motion, or it
accelerates steadily from zero speed to a maximum at the middle and then
decelerates to zero again. The first implies an infinite change in
momentum and kinetic energy. The second implies a speed higher than the
speed of light at the middle of the motion.

You can't postulate conditions that defy the laws of physics and then ask
what physics implies anyway.

This is all WAY off topic, so we should end it.

--
73
Rich