Thank you, Mark.


The above is more of a distillation of everything I've
learned as applied to what you asked. There's a bit more to
it of course, but you have to start somewhere.

It's never too late to start learning, but it's always
too early to stop. Einstein once said something along the
lines of "The more I know, the more I realize I don't know"
which I grok as the growing awareness of how much more there
is to know as one learns. I am not that profoundly ignorant,
but I'm trying. ;)

I can read and understand the errors in the postings "disproving" e=mc2.

Yay! Good start.

I thank you in advance for your patience in answering my simple minded
questions.

It helps me clarify in my own mind what I think I know.

You state;

"... That's why we've developed instrumentation to translate
the very small, very large, and very fast to what we're
capable of sensing directly. Since we comprehend every step
in the translation, we trust the whole...."

However, these same instruments are limited by their very design to the
speed of electromagtec radiation.

Yup, but that wasn't known in the beginning. As the
instruments (and how we thought they worked) were refined
that became apparent. Science depends heavily on
trial-and-error. In fact, it requires us to _assume_ we're
in error at the outset, otherwise there's no point in doing
the trials. This logically means that we can't expect to
ever get it completely right which is IMO the difference
between science and religion.

I keep going over the same thing in my head;

Distance is infinately divisable, I therefore assume it can be
multiplied
infinately. I assume the measurement of distance is infinately
divisable,
but cannot be less than 0

Hold up! How do you know that distance is infinitely
divisible in the first place? That's an assumption, not an
observation.

Would it be more correct to say that, mathmatically, distance is infinately
divisable? I am NOT saying a particle of (insert anything here) is
infinately divisable, because that I do not know, and cannot observe.
Mathmatically, I can start at 1 metre, and divide it in half forever.


Time is infinately divisable,

Another assumption, not an observation.


I observe that time must be infinately divisable. Without infinately
divisable time, how could there be movement? If time reached a "smallest
unit", t, then the observation of movement in increments of t would show
instantaneous change of position of an object in motion between t and t+1.
Don't know if I downlaoded my head correctly there, but that is as clear as
I can make it.

Mass is infinately divisable,

Same same.


If I have a measurement of say, Grog, mathmatically can't I infinately
divide it into smaller parts, 1/2 grog, 1/8th grog, 1/16th grog, etc?



(Over simplified) speed/velocity is the distance travelled over a period
of
time. I assume that velocity (relative to k coordinate system) can be 0
(at
rest relative to k), but with the two beliefs above, why is there a
186,000
mile/second speed limit?

If I understand you, you're assuming several things; that
light propagates stepwise along the tiny chunks of quantized
spacetime, and since those chunks may be assumed to be
infinitely small, light shouldn't be able to propagate at
all since it will take forever to get from one chunk to the
next at a given scale because there are infinitely more
chunks at smaller scales. If light doesn't propagate
stepwise, it shouldn't be impeded at all in its progress and
should be able to "slide past" all those chunks at infinite
speed. Yet obviously it does propagate at a definite speed,
so there's something fundamentally wrong in the assumptions.

See, this is why you make the big bucks. But I don't assume as to how light
propogates, be it in steps (which would be infinate, as you well put it,
assuming my above observations are correct) or not in steps, at which point
it should not have a limit at all.



Familiar with Zeno's Paradox and its resolution?

Is the speed of light limit false due only to the fact that is the
maximum
velocity our biological makeup is able to observe?

As far as is known, the c limit isn't false _by
definition_ because it hasn't been observed to be violated.

I have no problem stipulating as to what the speed of light is - those with
much more brains than I have answered that.

Can you pass over the chase and cut to the crash? Are you
trying to figure out why exceeding c is impossible?


I don't understand why the velocity of electromagnetic radiation also just
happens to be the universal speed limit.

My original post was questioning if there were previous mathmatical "proofs"
as to why we could not go faster than the speed of sound. I know, and knew,
that bullets, whips, etc consistantly broke the sound barrier. I just
wanted to see if there were other professional opinions, at the time, which
stated that it was not possible. The answer was no.

My understanding (warning - may be flawed) is that the closer we come to
reaching the speed of light, the more energy it would take to increase
velocity, and at the same time the object being accelerated would increase
in mass.

My second understanding (see above warning) was that this theory was put
forth due to observations of the speed of light, and where said speed seems
to always be the same, even in situations where we expected it to be more or
less due to the doppler effect.

"iNet Lending Group" wrote in message
...

Thank you, Mark.


The above is more of a distillation of everything I've
learned as applied to what you asked. There's a bit more to
it of course, but you have to start somewhere.

It's never too late to start learning, but it's always
too early to stop. Einstein once said something along the
lines of "The more I know, the more I realize I don't know"
which I grok as the growing awareness of how much more there
is to know as one learns. I am not that profoundly ignorant,
but I'm trying. ;)

I can read and understand the errors in the postings "disproving"
e=mc2.

Yay! Good start.

I thank you in advance for your patience in answering my simple minded
questions.

It helps me clarify in my own mind what I think I know.

You state;

"... That's why we've developed instrumentation to translate
the very small, very large, and very fast to what we're
capable of sensing directly. Since we comprehend every step
in the translation, we trust the whole...."

However, these same instruments are limited by their very design to
the
speed of electromagtec radiation.

Yup, but that wasn't known in the beginning. As the
instruments (and how we thought they worked) were refined
that became apparent. Science depends heavily on
trial-and-error. In fact, it requires us to _assume_ we're
in error at the outset, otherwise there's no point in doing
the trials. This logically means that we can't expect to
ever get it completely right which is IMO the difference
between science and religion.

I keep going over the same thing in my head;

Distance is infinately divisable, I therefore assume it can be
multiplied
infinately. I assume the measurement of distance is infinately
divisable,
but cannot be less than 0

Hold up! How do you know that distance is infinitely
divisible in the first place? That's an assumption, not an
observation.

Would it be more correct to say that, mathmatically, distance is
infinately
divisable? I am NOT saying a particle of (insert anything here) is
infinately divisable, because that I do not know, and cannot observe.
Mathmatically, I can start at 1 metre, and divide it in half forever.


Time is infinately divisable,

Another assumption, not an observation.


I observe that time must be infinately divisable. Without infinately
divisable time, how could there be movement? If time reached a "smallest
unit", t, then the observation of movement in increments of t would show
instantaneous change of position of an object in motion between t and t+1.
Don't know if I downlaoded my head correctly there, but that is as clear
as
I can make it.

Mass is infinately divisable,

Same same.


If I have a measurement of say, Grog, mathmatically can't I infinately
divide it into smaller parts, 1/2 grog, 1/8th grog, 1/16th grog, etc?



(Over simplified) speed/velocity is the distance travelled over a
period
of
time. I assume that velocity (relative to k coordinate system) can be
0
(at
rest relative to k), but with the two beliefs above, why is there a
186,000
mile/second speed limit?

If I understand you, you're assuming several things; that
light propagates stepwise along the tiny chunks of quantized
spacetime, and since those chunks may be assumed to be
infinitely small, light shouldn't be able to propagate at
all since it will take forever to get from one chunk to the
next at a given scale because there are infinitely more
chunks at smaller scales. If light doesn't propagate
stepwise, it shouldn't be impeded at all in its progress and
should be able to "slide past" all those chunks at infinite
speed. Yet obviously it does propagate at a definite speed,
so there's something fundamentally wrong in the assumptions.

See, this is why you make the big bucks. But I don't assume as to how
light
propogates, be it in steps (which would be infinate, as you well put it,
assuming my above observations are correct) or not in steps, at which
point
it should not have a limit at all.



Familiar with Zeno's Paradox and its resolution?

Is the speed of light limit false due only to the fact that is the
maximum
velocity our biological makeup is able to observe?

As far as is known, the c limit isn't false _by
definition_ because it hasn't been observed to be violated.

I have no problem stipulating as to what the speed of light is - those
with
much more brains than I have answered that.

Can you pass over the chase and cut to the crash? Are you
trying to figure out why exceeding c is impossible?


I don't understand why the velocity of electromagnetic radiation also just
happens to be the universal speed limit.

My original post was questioning if there were previous mathmatical
"proofs"
as to why we could not go faster than the speed of sound. I know, and
knew,
that bullets, whips, etc consistantly broke the sound barrier. I just
wanted to see if there were other professional opinions, at the time,
which
stated that it was not possible. The answer was no.

My understanding (warning - may be flawed) is that the closer we come to
reaching the speed of light, the more energy it would take to increase
velocity, and at the same time the object being accelerated would increase
in mass.

My second understanding (see above warning) was that this theory was put
forth due to observations of the speed of light, and where said speed
seems
to always be the same, even in situations where we expected it to be more
or
less due to the doppler effect.








No light speed limit!
And I guarantee it with 200% money back!

See my device that propagates information with speeds up to 40 times FTL.
http://www.ultra-faster-than-light.com

Sincerely,

Mathew Orman
www.ultra-faster-than-light.com
www.radio-faster-than-light.com

Mathew Orman wrote:

No light speed limit!
And I guarantee it with 200% money back!

See my device that propagates information with speeds up to 40 times FTL.
http://www.ultra-faster-than-light.com


Crank Information
http://www.google.com/search?q=FTL+site%3Awww.crank.net