# Re: starship-design: relativity

```In a message dated 8/8/00 5:26:25 PM Pacific Daylight Time,
clmanges@worldnet.att.net writes:

> It seems to me that c+v makes sense of an otherwise obvious conundrum:

Curtis,
I looked up condundrum and found conjecture defined as:
First appeared 14th Century

1 obsolete a : interpretation of omens

b : SUPPOSITION

2 a : inference from defective or presumptive evidence

b : a conclusion deduced by surmise or guesswork

c : a proposition (as in mathematics) before it has been proved or
disproved

Curtis
You are correct, The c limit for all things is pure conjecture and no proof
has been offered.

> let's
>  say you have a light source which is receding from you at some considerable
>  velocity (or approaching, it doesn't matter). If, as relativity asserts,
> light
>  always travels _only_ at c, then the light reaching you has to actually _
> change
>  its speed_ to be at exactly c when it reaches you. In other words, if a
> light
>  source moves, _and_ c is always constant, then an observer _must_ see c+v.
>  There is, to me, only one condition under which c+v will _not_ apply, and
> that
>  is when the observer frame of reference is the light source itself.

Lorentz relativists assert the law of addition of velocities applied to
relativity to show that two velocities added together cannot exceed C. It is
just as easy to show that by the laws of subtracting an observer light
emitted from a c+v source obtains a negative velocity wrt earth observer so
that even when traveling towards the earth at light speed the light is
actually traveling away from the earth at some negative velocity. Lorentz
relativists consider only the observer frame of reference as valid when in
Einstein relativity the inertial frame is equally valid and from that frame
C+V is calculated and all appears normal.

As a direct consequence of negative velocity the minus sign is placed on the
time variable and not the distance traveled as it does not vary.
Vavg=Distance traveled / time dilated contains the set of real numbers to
include c + (1,2,3.....n distance/time) or to be more precise c+v velocities
with no known theoretical limit thought there may be as practical limit as
yet unknown.

>  As well, within my limited understanding, it seems to me that an annulment
> of
>  c+v will _also_ be an automatic annulment of the Doppler effect and the red
>  shift; these seem to be mutually exclusive to relativistic c.

Your understanding is indeed very good.
SInce an observer cannot observe velocities greater than c, then doppler and
redshift would also be unobservable so you would be correct even if your
reasoning is unclear.

Tom
>
>  Curtis
```