PD wrote:
Then you imagine some "physicals" that resist measurement, either
direct or indirect.

No,
I merely do not wish to build a wall that might not be there.
Sort of like the sound wall of long ago.
Before the telegraph.
sound was the fastest speed you could communicate sound
to another person
So you yelled your message and it traveled at the speed of sound

Then the telegraph/telephone was invented and the communication
of sound wall fell.
We started to send sound.. faster than sound could travel..

The smoke signal still was faster of course but only once the smoke was in
the air
high enough to be seen.

I simply will not "build" a wall that may not be there.
and until you have proof that "FTL is impossible,
(meaning you have proof of the entire universe and how it works.)
I will keep that wall un-built.

--
James M Driscoll Jr
Spaceman

On Jun 23, 2:12 pm, "Spaceman"
wrote:
wrote:
On Jun 23, 1:20 pm, "Spaceman"
wrote:
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 bull**** 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

On Jun 21, 2:23*am, GSS wrote:

In whichever physical theory causality and logic are sacrificed
through ad-hoc postulates, that theory must be either incomplete or
wrong!!

That is bad science. The judgment of a theory is NOT based on the
"logic" or "causality" of its postulates. Those kinds of presumptions
are dangerous, because they are dependent on the structure of the
human mind. The ONLY criteria for a successful theory a
a) mathematical self-consistency
b) accurate prediction of experimental data, to the degree that there
are no data that are inconsistent with the theory's predictions where
the theory claims to apply.

You have simply the wrong metrics for the validity or strength of a
theory.

PD

On Jun 23, 4:35*pm, "Spaceman"
wrote:
PD wrote:
Then you imagine some "physicals" that resist measurement, either
direct or indirect.

No,
I merely do not wish to build a wall that might not be there.
Sort of like the sound wall of long ago.
Before the telegraph.
sound was the fastest speed you could communicate sound
*to another person
So you yelled your message and it traveled at the speed of sound

Then the telegraph/telephone was invented and the communication
of sound wall fell.
We started to send sound.. faster than sound could travel..

Your understanding of the history of physics is abysmal.
There was NEVER a presumption that the speed of sound was the fastest
signal possible. This has been known since caveman days since the gaps
between lightning and thunder were noted. Galileo attempted to measure
the speed of light and knew from his measurements that it was much,
much faster than the speed of sound.

You are perhaps recalling, from your stack of Popular Mechanics, that
there was once a belief that no *aircraft* could travel faster than
the speed of sound, for reasons that had *nothing* to do with the laws
of physics.

Perhaps you also have this simple-minded idealism that *anything* is
possible, once the technology is figured out. This is perfect for
science fiction stories written for ten-year-olds, but not for much
else.


The smoke signal still was faster of course but only once the smoke was in
the air
high enough to be seen.

I simply will not "build" a wall that may not be there.
and until you have proof that "FTL is impossible,
(meaning you have proof of the entire universe and how it works.)
I will keep that wall un-built.

--
James M Driscoll Jr
Spaceman

On Jun 22, 11:34*pm, GSS wrote:
On Jun 23, 9:47*am, wrote:



The photon has 3 waves EM and probability. Go figure?

If you normalize the photon EM wave, then its intensity will provide
you the probability of your choice!!

GSS

It is true that that light waves of dual electromagentic force are
confined to moving wave packets the wavelength and amplitude of these
waves. The electromagentic field for them does not go to infinity.

No probability allowed. I am with Einstein and I know I am right.
Mitch Raemsch

wrote:
Take a closer look, the speed of light is the speed of time.
snipped because of basis on this first sentence

There is no "speed" of time.
Time is an abstracted counting method.
Many things can count faster than a cesium atomic clock.
even the "slow speed" of Earth would be able to count atoms faster
than an atomic clock.counts the vibrations of one of them.


--
James M Driscoll Jr
Spaceman

PD wrote:
On Jun 23, 4:35 pm, "Spaceman"
wrote:
PD wrote:
Then you imagine some "physicals" that resist measurement, either
direct or indirect.

No,
I merely do not wish to build a wall that might not be there.
Sort of like the sound wall of long ago.
Before the telegraph.
sound was the fastest speed you could communicate sound
to another person
So you yelled your message and it traveled at the speed of sound

Then the telegraph/telephone was invented and the communication
of sound wall fell.
We started to send sound.. faster than sound could travel..

Your understanding of the history of physics is abysmal.
There was NEVER a presumption that the speed of sound was the fastest
signal possible.

LOL
You truly are dillusional.
Your knowledge of history itself is even worse than anything you come
up with about relativity!
LOL

--
James M Driscoll Jr
Spaceman

On Jun 23, 5:07*pm, "Spaceman"
wrote:
PD wrote:
On Jun 23, 4:35 pm, "Spaceman"
wrote:
PD wrote:
Then you imagine some "physicals" that resist measurement, either
direct or indirect.

No,
I merely do not wish to build a wall that might not be there.
Sort of like the sound wall of long ago.
Before the telegraph.
sound was the fastest speed you could communicate sound
to another person
So you yelled your message and it traveled at the speed of sound

Then the telegraph/telephone was invented and the communication
of sound wall fell.
We started to send sound.. faster than sound could travel..

Your understanding of the history of physics is abysmal.
There was NEVER a presumption that the speed of sound was the fastest
signal possible.

LOL
You truly are dillusional.
Your knowledge of history itself is even worse than anything you come
up with about relativity!

Then back up what you say with references. Bluster and cackling
doesn't do much for me.

LOL

--
James M Driscoll Jr
Spaceman

PD wrote:
On Jun 23, 5:07 pm, "Spaceman"
wrote:
PD wrote:
On Jun 23, 4:35 pm, "Spaceman"
wrote:
PD wrote:
Then you imagine some "physicals" that resist measurement, either
direct or indirect.

No,
I merely do not wish to build a wall that might not be there.
Sort of like the sound wall of long ago.
Before the telegraph.
sound was the fastest speed you could communicate sound
to another person
So you yelled your message and it traveled at the speed of sound

Then the telegraph/telephone was invented and the communication
of sound wall fell.
We started to send sound.. faster than sound could travel..

Your understanding of the history of physics is abysmal.
There was NEVER a presumption that the speed of sound was the
fastest signal possible.

LOL
You truly are dillusional.
Your knowledge of history itself is even worse than anything you come
up with about relativity!

Then back up what you say with references. Bluster and cackling
doesn't do much for me.

Why don't you show me one persons statement from back in those days
that said, communication is possible at faster than sound speeds?
In short,
Who said it was possible before the telegraph was invented?
in fact, who even had said the telegraph was possible?
Sheesh PD.
You truly are one funny rubber ruler guy!
LOL

--
James M Driscoll Jr
Spaceman

On Jun 23, 1:40*pm, wrote:
On Jun 23, 2:12 pm, "Spaceman"
wrote:





wrote:
On Jun 23, 1:20 pm, "Spaceman"
wrote:
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 bull**** 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