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: <02hbEvjPsZbzeuyxZ3vm9FvsN80@jntp> <_ViPN.434232$ET2.30663@fx12.ams4> <17c2e181fb7980ff$1736437$160734$c2565adb@news.newsdemon.com> From: Ross Finlayson 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: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Message-ID: 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?