So can c be exceeded in your relativity or not.

Well - suppose there is a guy with a lamp
20 ly from me. We synchronize clocks
with The Holy Procedure, at t0 he's flashing
the lamp. Can the impulse reach me
before my proper shitty clock reach
(t0+20 years) of proper shitty time?

Yes or no?

On 28-Sept-23 4:45 pm, Maciej Wozniak wrote:
> So can c be exceeded in your relativity or not.
>
> Well - suppose there is a guy with a lamp
> 20 ly from me. We synchronize clocks
> with The Holy Procedure, at t0 he's flashing
> the lamp. Can the impulse reach me
> before my proper shitty clock reach
> (t0+20 years) of proper shitty time?
>
> Yes or no?

No.

On Thursday, September 28, 2023 at 12:46:01 AM UTC-6, Maciej Wozniak wrote:
> So can c be exceeded in your relativity or not.
>
> Well - suppose there is a guy with a lamp
> 20 ly from me. We synchronize clocks
> with The Holy Procedure, at t0 he's flashing
> the lamp. Can the impulse reach me
> before my proper shitty clock reach
> (t0+20 years) of proper shitty time?
>
> Yes or no?

Maybe. After all, the universe is just too big a place
to be limited to the worm-crawling speed of light.

Yes, if:

1. wormholes or warp metrics are possible.

or, not light, but

2. neutrinos (or some other particles) are tachyons

On Thursday, 28 September 2023 at 14:12:28 UTC+2, Sylvia Else wrote:
> On 28-Sept-23 4:45 pm, Maciej Wozniak wrote:
> > So can c be exceeded in your relativity or not.
> >
> > Well - suppose there is a guy with a lamp
> > 20 ly from me. We synchronize clocks
> > with The Holy Procedure, at t0 he's flashing
> > the lamp. Can the impulse reach me
> > before my proper shitty clock reach
> > (t0+20 years) of proper shitty time?
> >
> > Yes or no?
> No.

Are You sure, lady? And what if
I have a twin? Will it be "no" also for
him and his proper clock?

Le 28/09/2023 à 14:12, Sylvia Else a écrit :
> On 28-Sept-23 4:45 pm, Maciej Wozniak wrote:
>> So can c be exceeded in your relativity or not.
>>
>> Well - suppose there is a guy with a lamp
>> 20 ly from me. We synchronize clocks
>> with The Holy Procedure, at t0 he's flashing
>> the lamp. Can the impulse reach me
>> before my proper shitty clock reach
>> (t0+20 years) of proper shitty time?
>>
>> Yes or no?
>
> No.

The speed of light is never, in itself, more than a wave of the present.

The present obviously moves instantly for the direct observer.

This horse in this meadow, this moon in the sky, this galaxy in the
distance, I see them as they are today, and instantly.

Simply, their notion of the present does not correspond to their notion of
the present.

Concept of cone of light.

The cone of light is, in fact, a cone of simultaneity.

A present cone.

So if you turn on your lamp, I will perceive it instantly, but I will
perceive a snapshot of your present which corresponds to T=X/c

We immediately see that if the information is instantaneous, you will
never be able to go faster than instantaneous.

It is therefore absurd to think that something faster (in transversal
observability) than c could exist.

It's not that "it couldn't be physically", it's that it's absurd.

So answer: no.

R.H.

Richard Hachel wrote:
>
> Le 28/09/2023 à 14:12, Sylvia Else a écrit :
> > On 28-Sept-23 4:45 pm, Maciej Wozniak wrote:
> >> So can c be exceeded in your relativity or not.
> >>
> >> Well - suppose there is a guy with a lamp
> >> 20 ly from me. We synchronize clocks
> >> with The Holy Procedure, at t0 he's flashing
> >> the lamp. Can the impulse reach me
> >> before my proper shitty clock reach
> >> (t0+20 years) of proper shitty time?
> >>
> >> Yes or no?
> >
> > No.
>
> The speed of light is never, in itself, more than a wave of the present.
>
> The present obviously moves instantly for the direct observer.
>
> This horse in this meadow, this moon in the sky, this galaxy in the
> distance, I see them as they are today, and instantly.
>
> Simply, their notion of the present does not correspond to their notion of
> the present.
>
> Concept of cone of light.
>
> The cone of light is, in fact, a cone of simultaneity.
>
> A present cone.
>
> So if you turn on your lamp, I will perceive it instantly, but I will
> perceive a snapshot of your present which corresponds to T=X/c
>
> We immediately see that if the information is instantaneous, you will
> never be able to go faster than instantaneous.
>
> It is therefore absurd to think that something faster (in transversal
> observability) than c could exist.
>
> It's not that "it couldn't be physically", it's that it's absurd.
>
> So answer: no.
>
> R.H.

"a wave"?

The future is not made in waves...it's made with particles.

Each particle is placed in the future to form a picture.

maybe a little smaller than a pixel...

you put
all the
pixels togerther
and you got
the future..
one
particle
at
a
time.

--
The Starmaker -- To question the unquestionable, ask the unaskable,
to think the unthinkable, mention the unmentionable, say the unsayable,
and challenge the unchallengeable.

The Starmaker wrote:
>
> Richard Hachel wrote:
> >
> > Le 28/09/2023 à 14:12, Sylvia Else a écrit :
> > > On 28-Sept-23 4:45 pm, Maciej Wozniak wrote:
> > >> So can c be exceeded in your relativity or not.
> > >>
> > >> Well - suppose there is a guy with a lamp
> > >> 20 ly from me. We synchronize clocks
> > >> with The Holy Procedure, at t0 he's flashing
> > >> the lamp. Can the impulse reach me
> > >> before my proper shitty clock reach
> > >> (t0+20 years) of proper shitty time?
> > >>
> > >> Yes or no?
> > >
> > > No.
> >
> > The speed of light is never, in itself, more than a wave of the present.
> >
> > The present obviously moves instantly for the direct observer.
> >
> > This horse in this meadow, this moon in the sky, this galaxy in the
> > distance, I see them as they are today, and instantly.
> >
> > Simply, their notion of the present does not correspond to their notion of
> > the present.
> >
> > Concept of cone of light.
> >
> > The cone of light is, in fact, a cone of simultaneity.
> >
> > A present cone.
> >
> > So if you turn on your lamp, I will perceive it instantly, but I will
> > perceive a snapshot of your present which corresponds to T=X/c
> >
> > We immediately see that if the information is instantaneous, you will
> > never be able to go faster than instantaneous.
> >
> > It is therefore absurd to think that something faster (in transversal
> > observability) than c could exist.
> >
> > It's not that "it couldn't be physically", it's that it's absurd.
> >
> > So answer: no.
> >
> > R.H.
>
> "a wave"?
>
> The future is not made in waves...it's made with particles.
>
> Each particle is placed in the future to form a picture.
>
> maybe a little smaller than a pixel...
>
> you put
> all the
> pixels together
> and you got
> the future..
> one
> particle
> at
> a
> time.

You could say
a paticle is the
DNA of the universe.

You could even
give the particle
4 letters or numbers.

The particles make up
a very high resolution of
the universe.

I can come up with
4 letters!

E, M, C, K.

These 4 letters
arranged
make up the universe, the
present and the future.

E, M, C, K
are like Leggos.

What is the resolution of the universe?

--
The Starmaker -- To question the unquestionable, ask the unaskable,
to think the unthinkable, mention the unmentionable, say the unsayable,
and challenge the unchallengeable.