🚀 go-pugleaf

On Jun 23, 2:12 pm, "Spaceman" <space...@yourclockmalfunctioned.duh>
wrote:
> lith...@nbnet.nb.ca wrote:
> > 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.
>
> The first thing you must do is forget about relativity,
> wormholes, time travel, and all that nasty stuff that relativity
> can summon up from space-time curvature.
> and no white holes either BTW.
> And Black holes are nothing like relativity states they are.
> No worm holes, no bending of space-time 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.
>
> No,
> the Newtonian/Eucdlidian house is not built from cards
> like Relativity is.
> It is built from basic math and geometry that will make
> it stand for a long time to come.
> Not "warped space-time" math that can not even
> compare to the Euclidian 3D reality that is all around us.
>
> >> 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
>
> No,
> lightspeed has nothing to do with the physical "speed" of other objects.
> It only has to do with how they would be viewed.
> Just as the speed of sound only has to do with the hearing
> of objects, not the actual speed of the objects.
>

Take a closer look, the speed of light is the speed of time.
Try imagining a clock who's ticks involve the light going a certain
distance and returning then notice how you cant change anything else
without also changing everything else by the same amount.Even if time
in our universe changed it would all look the same locally.
Its a reasonable guess that even a metal rod thats made up of
particles will be in some ways just like tiny little boxes of light
because of the way that all quantum particles always have speed of
light and time dependencies that are in some ways not so different
from the light clock.
You should look over my other postings but to benefit you would need
to keep an open mind.
By the way if there is no black holes and no anything else in your
list either what exactly do you believe in.
Dale

> --
> James M Driscoll Jr
> Spaceman