Re: Faster than Light?
- From: "Ben Bean" <ken_scrapthis_vicki@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Tue, 29 Jul 2008 10:17:09 -0400
"Peri of Pera" <riedt1@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:8103906d-0ef8-4e26-aea8-19219807a2c4@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Faster than Light?
The theory of relativity claims that the motion of physical objects
cannot exceed a speed of 300,000km/sec. However, we know from
experience (e.g. equatorial rocket launchings, multistage rocket
vehicles etc) that the final velocity of objects is their starting
velocity plus their own velocity.
"Their OWN velocity"?? What the heck is meant by that, pray tell! No mister, an
object's final velocity is clearly NOT what you formulate. An object's OWN velocity
equals precisely ZERO -- that much is obvious. It's obvious because "space" is a
non-existent (imaginary) substrate. An object "in space" has no velocity *relative* to
said "space", because "space" is not a THING, but rather it is the ABSENCE of any
thing.
So the answer to the quandary lies in identifying what an object's velocity is AS
ASSESSED from another observation platform. That ALONE has any substantive meaning! So
all motion of material objects IS relative. No object can move at or above light speed
AS ASSESSED from another observation platform. It's childish fiddle-faddle to think
that an object has some real value for its velocity relative to space itself; as that
notion was disproven ages ago, by indisputable reckoning of top-notcch physicists.
.
- References:
- Faster than Light?
- From: Peri of Pera
- Re: Faster than Light?
- From: Sue...
- Faster than Light?
- Prev by Date: Re: Physics versus Mathematics
- Next by Date: Re: Are *observed* SR effects real?
- Previous by thread: Re: Faster than Light?
- Next by thread: Re: Faster than Light?
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
