Re: Faster than Light?

Peri of Pera wrote:
On Jul 30, 4:02 am, "Ben Bean" <ken_scrapthis_vi...@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
wrote:
Peri of Pera wrote:
On Jul 29, 10:17 pm, "Ben Bean" <ken_scrapthis_vi...@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
wrote:
"Peri of Pera" <rie...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in
messagenews: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.

Mr Bean,
in my example, the rockets 'own speed' of 100km/sec is relative to
the spaceship and the speed of the spaceship is relative to its
homeport. I agree with you that science has not been able to
identify absolute speeds.

Peter Riedt

In your first post, you said, "SR cannot provide evidence
or even a theory to explain how the reduction is possible or
occurs". But it does.
Briefly, it is because the Number Line representing velocity is not
a flat continuum,
light speed is its upper limit, and that speed is tantamount to an
infinity. Velocity
is
a number line askew, which skew cuts in to both the temporal and
spatial cocmponents.
See my site for more
explanationshttp://placido.u21.0web-hosting.com/kavs/kjs/relrap.html

And hey, I JUST GOT TIPPED OFF TO GREAT FREEWARE CALLED OE-QuoteFix,
which will resolve formatting/replying problems allegedly caused by
Google Groups.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Mr Bean,
number line, flat continuum, temporal and spatial components, mumbo
jumbo. Lets go back to our agreement that absolute speed does not
exist. The relative speeds of all objects in the universe may vary
from each other in a range of anything of less than 0km/sec to more
than 300000km/sec. I know of no regulatory force or power consisten
with logic that can or will set a maximum limit, especially since the
ether has been abolished. My spaceship took off from earth which
imparted its velocity through space (whatever it is) to the spaceship
which in turn imparted its speed to the rocket, the three motions
adding up to more than 300000km/sec. Once the rocket separated from
the spaceship, what magic told the rocket it was going faster than
AE's speed limit? What magic agent tells the spaceship it must ignore
the speed of planet earth and what magic agent tells the rocket it
must ignore the speeds of both earth and spaceship? The AE dogma of
the addition of velocities proposition is absurd in the extreme. A
rigorous experiment to prove or disprove it is impossible and
therefore the adherents of the SR belief system can use any bull***
to support it.

Peter Riedt

Okay -- that sounds like it is your final word on the subject. You reject relativity
because (perhaps) in your own mind you can't swallow what goes against your existing
allegiances. You've perused my site I trust, and yet it hasn't turned your opinion.
Not a big problem. Rant on; it's your venue.


.