🚀 go-pugleaf

On Jun 24, 1:41 am, "papar...@gmail.com" <papar...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 23 jun, 16:20, "Spaceman" <space...@yourclockmalfunctioned.duh>
> wrote:
> .....
> > What is absurd about 2 times the speed of light?
> > What is absurd about c+c=2c?
> > Is basic algebra absurd?
.
> > 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.
> > 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..
> > :)
> > --
> > James M Driscoll Jr
> > Spaceman
>
> For one thing nature determines it!
>
> Read carefully the following from Lev Landau:
>
> "The interaction of material particles is described in ordinary
> mechanics by means of a potential energy of interaction, which appears
> as a function of the coordinates of the interacting particles. It is
> easy to see that this manner of describing interactions contains the
> assumption of instantaneous propagation of interactions. For the
> forces exerted on each of the particles by the other particles at a
> particular instant of time depend, according to this description, only
> on the positions of the particles at this one instant. A change in the
> position of any of the interacting particles influences the other
> particles immediately.
>
> However, experiment shows that instantaneous interactions do not exist
> in nature. Thus a mechanics based on the assumption of instantaneous
> propagation of interactions contains within itself a certain
> inaccuracy. In actuality, if any change takes place in one of the
> interacting bodies, it will influence the other bodies only after the
> lapse of a certain interval of time. It is only after this time
> interval that processes caused by the initial change begin to take
> place in the second body. Dividing the distance between the two bodies
> by this time interval, we obtain the velocity of propagation of the
> interaction.
> We note that this velocity should, strictly speaking, be called the
> maximum velocity of propagation of interaction. It determines only
> that interval of time after which a change occurring in one body
> begins to manifest itself in another. It is clear that the existence
> of a maximum velocity of propagation of interactions implies, at the
> same time, that motions of bodies with greater velocity than this are
> in general impossible in nature. For if such a motion could occur,
> then by means of it one could realize an interaction with a velocity
> exceeding the maximum possible velocity of propagation of
> interactions".
>
I fully agree with the above quoted observation from Lev Landau.

It is true that the speed of propagation of interactions cannot be
more than the speed of propagation of stress/strain waves  c  in the
physical space continuum which in turn is controlled by the physical
parameters eps_0 and mu_0 of vacuum. That is c= 1/sqrt(eps_0.mu_0).

But that must not limit the relative velocity between a moving
observer and a particle (say a photon) in flight as wrongly asserted
in relativity.

> If you accept causality as truth, then c as the maximum possible
> velocity of propagation of signals follows. If not then you believe in
> miracles.
>
> Miguel Rios

Under the second postulate of SR, the requirement of constancy of
velocity of light in vacuum was changed over to the requirement of
constancy of the velocity of light in each of the infinitely many
inertial reference frames in relative uniform motion, by sacrificing
the absolute nature of space and time coordinates.

Let us consider a simple example to illustrate this point. Consider
two space points A1 and A2 fixed in BCRF. Let us use the universal
coordinated time UTC within BCRF. Assume that at certain instant of
(UTC) time t0, one photon particle P1 is emitted from A1 towards A2
and another photon particle P2 is emitted from A2 towards A1.
Logically the relative approach velocity of the two particles, wrt
each other, will be 2c. But SR will not agree with this logic. As per
SR you will attach one reference frame with particle P1 and call it
inertial reference frame K1 and attach another reference frame with
particle P2 and call it inertial reference frame K2. Then SR will use
its postulates to declare that in K1, particle P2 is approaching P1
with approach velocity c and in K2 particle P1 is approaching P2 with
approach velocity c.

Do you consider it logical?

GSS
http://www.geocities.com/gurcharn_sandhu/index.html