2
   

Proof that the speed of light is a universal maximum, is impossible

 
 
Reply Sat 3 Jan, 2015 08:11 am
How, why? Very easy, in order to say who is the fastest student in a classroom, several things need be done. 1. Is to determine everyone's speed. 2. Determine what type of race will be held, determine the distance and ground to be run on. 3. Set a date for the race to be run, noting that it may be cloudy or rainy or sunny. 4. Then you test, and find the fastest student, but there will be multiple fastest students, perhaps due to the variables.

Now to prove that light is the fastest thing in the universe, you need to do this again, but test light against everything in the universe, which is impossible, since there is no understanding of where 96 percent of the universe actually is. And the other 99.999 percent, that is visible, is also 99.999 oercent not understood.

All we understand, is the bump on a grain of sand on which we live. To say that we understand all else, is silly.

Which is why theoretical physics exist, it's a shame that so many do not understand the word theory.
  • Topic Stats
  • Top Replies
  • Link to this Topic
Type: Question • Score: 2 • Views: 12,618 • Replies: 262
No top replies

 
dalehileman
 
  1  
Reply Sat 3 Jan, 2015 11:44 am
@DNA Thumbs drive,
Indeed DNA, I've been excoriated for suggesting that some other particle ever-so-slightly lighter might eventually be discovered eg to have a velocity 0.0000000000322 mph greater than c
contrex
 
  1  
Reply Sat 3 Jan, 2015 01:03 pm
@dalehileman,
dalehileman wrote:
some other particle ever-so-slightly lighter

The "weight" of a particle is not relevant to whether it can exceed the speed of light; in fact photons are massless, so the concept of a "lighter" particle is meaningless.
dalehileman
 
  1  
Reply Sat 3 Jan, 2015 01:22 pm
@contrex,
Quote:
in fact photons are massless
Yes Con I understand current theory, but suppose it's wrong; that is, it ain't massless but just too light, at present, to measure
contrex
 
  1  
Reply Sat 3 Jan, 2015 03:11 pm
@dalehileman,
dalehileman wrote:
suppose it's wrong

Why? Because Dahileman doesn't "get" relativity? Or is there a better reason? Please explain.
dalehileman
 
  1  
Reply Sat 3 Jan, 2015 03:41 pm
@contrex,
Quote:
Or is there a better reason? Please explain
Be happy to oblige, Con. In short, our assumption that its mass is zero and so it's the fastest particle is simply because we haven't discovered a faster one

Otherwise I've no quarrel with Albert
contrex
 
  2  
Reply Sat 3 Jan, 2015 04:13 pm
@dalehileman,
dalehileman wrote:
our assumption that its mass is zero and so it's the fastest particle is simply because we haven't discovered a faster one

This shows you clearly have a fundamental misunderstanding. It also shows that all of the explanations you have been given have passed right over your head, and I cannot really see any reason to continue with this.

DNA Thumbs drive
 
  0  
Reply Sat 3 Jan, 2015 06:16 pm
@contrex,
Correct, but if it's meaningless, why even mention it.
0 Replies
 
DNA Thumbs drive
 
  0  
Reply Sat 3 Jan, 2015 06:18 pm
@contrex,
You mean the equations that proved that the universe was not expanding, and that can't account for 96 percent of the universe, in the first place.......

It's meaningless jibber jabber, from a guy too cheap to buy a comb.
farmerman
 
  2  
Reply Sat 3 Jan, 2015 07:18 pm
@DNA Thumbs drive,
so let me get this right.
Period luminosity v distance of stars; red shift =K(distance) in light years); and Hubbles constant are all bullshit?
DNA Thumbs drive
 
  2  
Reply Sat 3 Jan, 2015 07:26 pm
@farmerman,
You can not tell the distance to something, by it's luminosity, because all things in the universe have different luminosities. Now if you know the luminosity beforehand, or if all things are equally luminous, this would be simpler. So using an equation to determine distance without knowing the luminosity of the object, is quite impossible. Oh one can estimate, but that's about it.

Disproving this is impossible

Next
farmerman
 
  1  
Reply Sat 3 Jan, 2015 07:40 pm
@DNA Thumbs drive,
I think you should consult Ms Leavitt who would show you that when relative luminosity (magnitude) v its periodicity, we have a graph that is a Function of distance( in light years)
DNA Thumbs drive
 
  0  
Reply Sat 3 Jan, 2015 08:11 pm
@farmerman,
If you do not know how far away a star is, nor how big it is, nor how luminous it is, in comparison to it's unknown size and distance, you can have no rational equation. Which is why Einstein's equation said that the universe, was not expanding, then he changed his mind and said that it was. This entire concept is nonsense.............
farmerman
 
  2  
Reply Sat 3 Jan, 2015 08:24 pm
@DNA Thumbs drive,
Quote:
If you do not know how far away a star is, nor how big it is, nor how luminous it is, in comparison to it's unknown size and distance, you can have no rational equation
You do know that time rate and distance can be solved by a graph don't you? The graph describes the linear equation.

Luminosity and periodicities of stars are uniquely cyclic and that the luminosity track for each unique cycle, when graphed , describes a solution .

Of course, it depens on "c" being a constant.

How about 170 km/sec/10^6 light year ( in km) ? mean anything?
DNA Thumbs drive
 
  0  
Reply Sat 3 Jan, 2015 08:56 pm
@farmerman,
Wrong.....
Quote:
How about 170 km/sec/10^6 light year ( in km) ? mean anything?


Yea it means you are a complete fool, who thinks that he knows something

Again, no graph, can tell you the distance to a star, nor it's luminosity. But you go on believing, and keep on farming
farmerman
 
  2  
Reply Sat 3 Jan, 2015 09:07 pm
@DNA Thumbs drive,
Youre the one who started this whole thing. Ive just given three valid points that say you've got your head firmly up your ass. ll you can do is misquote what Ive said.
Typical of all your contributions , totally wrong but strongly asserted.




farmerman
 
  2  
Reply Sat 3 Jan, 2015 09:15 pm
@farmerman,
Quote:
Henrietta Swan Leavitt (July 4, 1868 – December 12, 1921) was an American astronomer who discovered the relation between the luminosity and the period of Cepheid variable stars. A graduate of Radcliffe College, Leavitt started working at the Harvard College Observatory as a "computer" in 1893, examining photographic plates in order to measure and catalog the brightness of stars. Though she received little recognition in her lifetime, it was her discovery that first allowed astronomers to measure the distance between the Earth and faraway galaxies. She explained her discovery: “A straight line can readily be drawn among each of the two series of points corresponding to maxima and minima, thus showing that there is a simple relation between the brightness of the variables and their periods.” After Leavitt's death, Edwin Hubble used the luminosity-period relation for Cepheids together with spectral shifts first measured by fellow astronomer Vesto Slipher at Lowell Observatory to determine that the universe is expanding (see Hubble's law
farmerman
 
  2  
Reply Sat 3 Jan, 2015 09:18 pm
@farmerman,
And the graphic relationhip showing th periodicity v luminosity for Cepheids , which was first disovered by Ms Leavitt nd further refined by Hubble and others.

    http://t1.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcQ5Fu3ym0OiAEGrkhGi5gJHofrsd_iokcHeuPN8IqcVSB0Iatq_
0 Replies
 
DNA Thumbs drive
 
  1  
Reply Sun 4 Jan, 2015 07:24 am
@farmerman,
You can not tell the distance to a star, by using the stars luminosity. Why? because you do not know the stars luminosity, as luminosity is not a constant. This only takes basic logic.
farmerman
 
  2  
Reply Sun 4 Jan, 2015 08:05 am
@DNA Thumbs drive,
If you notice, Ms Leavitt's (and Dr Hubble's) graphs have both an ordinate and an absissa . Periodicity is graphed against luminosity for the Cepheid stars. The math analysis derives from that relationship.
I thought you would have caught that by now.
Of course, There are lots of problems using the methods based upon "standard candles' and these require calibration techniques . However, to say that it "isn't done" is an error because , as I showed, it resolves into a linar algebra problem (sorta like Time Rate amd Distance graphs) , except the rate has to be determined using OTHER FUNCTIONS





 

Related Topics

New Propulsion, the "EM Drive" - Question by TomTomBinks
The Science Thread - Discussion by Wilso
Why do people deny evolution? - Question by JimmyJ
Are we alone in the universe? - Discussion by Jpsy
Fake Science Journals - Discussion by rosborne979
Controvertial "Proof" of Multiverse! - Discussion by littlek
 
  1. Forums
  2. » Proof that the speed of light is a universal maximum, is impossible
Copyright © 2020 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.04 seconds on 08/08/2020 at 12:31:27