🚀 go-pugleaf

On Jun 23, 1:40 pm, lith...@nbnet.nb.ca wrote:
> 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- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

Time is passing slightly slower than the speed of light for moving
matter in gravity dale. Matter and space's Gamma is above one.

Mitch Raemsch