that one's as bright as E. communicationwise. so if you were sitting on a
train riding with the speed of a train and you would be firing a
projectile
(a bullet?) from on top of the train with the same speed that the train
has
comma the bullet would - typically - have a speed of 2 trains relative to
the ground and 1 train relative to the train. BUT set aside trains if the
train would be moving at the speed of light, the FABRIC of 3D space would
serve as a BREAK that would inhibit the bullet from reaching any higher
speeds than that it would already have from being ON the train (i.e. C)
:SKIP to YES
(and the firing energy would, according to relativity theory be converted
into adding mass to the bullet only, or according to me and stricktly
mathematically the bullet would leave 3D space and cease to be inert, i.e.
become immaterial, i.e. become EM radiation, and the firing energy would
be
adding to the energy (i.e frequency) of the radiation, which by the way by
some physical theorem would be ultimately devisable into atomic units or
quanta called foton(s).)
yes?
now according to this model two inert objects could in fact have a
relative
speed of (anything short of) 2C if they would be heading in opposite
directions. which would make for a perfectly simple and comprehensible
picture of the 3D universe. BUT if by some less perspicuous law of
mathematics 2C would be unattainable as well RELATIVELY, for instance
because the 3 dimensional system of inert space were to collaps beyond C
IN
RELATION to any other inert object, C would become somewhat of a law of
physical oppression rather than of enlightenment, and you would be
invariably heading for a universal model that would be much harder if not
impossible to describe mathamatically, that is without the use of magical
mumbo-jumbo coming from a similar scientific institution, and I would be
very definitely hesitant to apply such a model unless compelling evidence
would exist that would suggest it, for instance simply by devising a means
of measuring such evidence, a means that because of the physical topoloty
of
events in 3D space I simply cannot produce, which would inherently justify
the question what is in fact so special about the model of special
relativity?
I think it's quite simple and coherent, until you introduce relative
absolutism, for instance by misinformation.
|
