Path: ...!feeds.phibee-telecom.net!weretis.net!feeder6.news.weretis.net!usenet.blueworldhosting.com!diablo1.usenet.blueworldhosting.com!feeder.usenetexpress.com!tr2.iad1.usenetexpress.com!69.80.99.27.MISMATCH!local-2.nntp.ord.giganews.com!news.giganews.com.POSTED!not-for-mail
NNTP-Posting-Date: Thu, 04 Apr 2024 02:28:25 +0000
Subject: Re: [SR] Dismaying intellectual desert?
Newsgroups: sci.physics.relativity
References: <XLDLGsv1hABGotvAZBescT5TXe8@jntp> <XlUp20JC76T6AH-vABrXEkdMExc@jntp> <uubjl8$3kff5$1@i2pn2.org> <zioLpkDQ5BnvVBN4zK-llSOTWBM@jntp> <uuf3m5$3orih$2@i2pn2.org> <02hbEvjPsZbzeuyxZ3vm9FvsN80@jntp> <uuguqs$3r210$1@i2pn2.org> <eDeUL6ry2ZqUMHeYudR7di_vy90@jntp> <_ViPN.434232$ET2.30663@fx12.ams4> <17c2e181fb7980ff$1736437$160734$c2565adb@news.newsdemon.com> <Wq0nmrAcnNJBzDHwHIhK4GNi_Us@jntp>
From: Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 3 Apr 2024 19:28:34 -0700
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:38.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/38.6.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <Wq0nmrAcnNJBzDHwHIhK4GNi_Us@jntp>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Message-ID: <sOGdnUde-vTUjZP7nZ2dnZfqnPednZ2d@giganews.com>
Lines: 70
X-Usenet-Provider: http://www.giganews.com
X-Trace: sv3-4mVt1onx1MFoiouAaHLQ9ccbIrMGFer47tNGMkNrqhIg31IL0qE3IMLuoJXMn0abo+dh3d0Wzlv7LCp!/2pTfvtKpnumE6cfFKyXx6YHw6KmBJ2BpyXNix75sCTnMk2aIxIrMyibREy5DwntjCamwzmevw8=
X-Complaints-To: abuse@giganews.com
X-DMCA-Notifications: http://www.giganews.com/info/dmca.html
X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Please be sure to forward a copy of ALL headers
X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Otherwise we will be unable to process your complaint properly
X-Postfilter: 1.3.40
Bytes: 4793

On 04/03/2024 05:08 PM, Richard Hachel wrote:
> Le 03/04/2024 à 23:12, Maciej Wozniak a écrit :
>> W dniu 03.04.2024 o 22:26, Paul B. Andersen pisze:
>>
>>> Yes, we know that no speed of massive objects or particles
>>> can exceed c. So what?
>
> The notion of simultaneity being defined by the coincident existence of
> all events occurring
> at the same time ; or again, being characterized by the set of all
> physical phenomena
> taking place at the same time; we should be able, at least considering
> all the components
> fixed being in a given inertial system, to speak of absolute
> simultaneity, of synchronization
> cosmic, or common calendar -- these terms then being likely to acquire
> real significance
> physical tion -- if we could, without it varying, transpose the
> universal simultaneity specific to a
> particular observer to all the other inertial observers present in this
> same frame of reference.
>     It would be enough to find any signal, or any action, by which a
> body A could
> interact instantly with a body B, that is to say by means of information
> propagating infinitely
> quickly, so that this notion of absolute simultaneity can be
> experimentally proven.
>     We could then say that the action induced by body A was instantly
> transmitted to body B, or
> that the action produced by body A was carried out at the same time as
> its detection by body B, and that it
> exists, de facto, between A and B, a sort of reciprocal and absolute
> simultaneity.
>      We could also imagine a round trip signal carried out over the
> distance separating A from B, and carried out at
> means of infinitely rapid information, such that the departure and
> return times of
> information is simultaneous. It would easily come to mind that if the
> two watches A and B are
> well tuned, the notion of general coexistence of the things of the
> universe in perfect simultaneity would be
> thus demonstrated.
>      However, this proof does not exist.
>      We know that a body can act on another body at a distance, for
> example in the form of a wave.
> electromagnetic, in the form of a mechanical shock transmitted along a
> rigid rod, or under the
> form of a gravitational interaction, but we have never found a signal
> that is infinitely fast,
> or remote action that is instantaneous. It rather seems, in fact, that
> there exists, in nature, a kind
> impassable speed limit, which we will find in any Galilean reference
> frame considered, and which will
> extend to all particles and all properties of physics.
>
>>
>> So, even your idiot guru had to finally abandon
>> this nonsense in his GR shit.
>
> The three distinct notions of classical observable speed (Vo), apparent
> speed (Vapp) and real speeds (Vr) should not be confused.
>
> No observable speed can exceed c, while the other two types offer no
> limits.
>
> R.H.

So if a mass converted entirely to energy it wouldn't move at all?