🚀 go-pugleaf

On Jun 23, 1:20 pm, "Spaceman" <space...@yourclockmalfunctioned.duh>
wrote:
> lith...@nbnet.nb.ca wrote:
> > Dale
> > I know you probably wont listen but here goes anyhow.
> > Try asking yourself what would happen if you had a space ship
> > traveling near the speed of light and it also had a spinning wheel
> > whose edges were to also be traveling near light speed.Would our space
> > ship now be traveling with a wheel on board with its edges now
> > traveling twice the speed of light to our prospective.
> > Or wold it push the space ship backwards so as to avoid the edges of
> > the wheel going at twice the speed of light.
>
> What?
> Do you think FTL has been proven impossible so
> we better not allow such?
> You better check the proof, the fact is no proof has been
> made at all about FTL being impossible.

Hi Spaceman
Dale Actually some of the main parts of that alternative theory I so
often post on actually dose argue for the possibility's of FTL.
Even argues that it must happen naturally in some parts of the
universe where white holes must exist for the theory to be valid.
Still haven't been able to figure out the details to actually be able
to make a portable wormhole that would make this sort of thing
possible.Got some clues however and was working on the idea that if
negative energy behaves in the opposite way with centrifugal force.For
example spin matter hard enough it always flies apart but if negative
energy exists and behaves the opposite way then there is no limit to
how much energy you can put in to spinning a bit of it as it just
clumps together with more and more force.Never mind that it spins in
reverse etc.


>
> > Or will one side of the wheel contract and display a slower time so we
> > don't have these contradictions.
> > Point I am trying to make if that if you don't have rubber rulers and
> > broken clocks you end up with other absurdities that are worse.
> > At least the present absurdity's are somewhat tested and reasonably
> > true there is just a lot of missing details.
> > Dale
>
> What is absurd about 2 times the speed of light?
> What is absurd about c+c=2c?
> Is basic algebra absurd?
> and Why do you call me Dale?
> As I said,
> the only reason they use rubber rulers is so nature and some
> of thier own bullshit about time dilation does not violate
> the precious house of cards they have built.

In this case it would be an even worse house of cards if we didn't
have it.But yes they do have some pretty ridiculous stuff stated as
fact.For just one example the whole stuff about singularity's touted
as fact or at least implied as fact should only have been stated as
hypothesis.To much else to go into theoretical physics is full of
nonsense or some approximation of nonsense implied as fact.


> But of course, nature will blow it down sooner or later.
> Simply because nature seems to think 1+1 does equal 2.
> and if c can =1..
> c can be doubled no problem if a smart enough technology
> comes forward to do so..
> :)

It can be doubled and tripled etc but to do that you need a bubble of
space where the speed of light is also increased by the same amount.
Dale

>
> --
> James M Driscoll Jr
> Spaceman