3
   

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

 
 
mikehammer
 
  1  
Reply Thu 29 Jan, 2015 07:13 pm
@farmerman,
Food for Thought.
Your little altercation was somewhat interesting. However the speed of light may have been considered a constant as the fastest item at the time but it can now be contemplated that Thought waves are far faster, if you take a little time to ponder on that concept for a moment. In addition, about that little grain of sand our friend considers is the only thing we can know much about, I'd like to point out that many individuals are able to move away from their physical bodies if they so desire, and can therefore observe a lot more than this little grain we call our home at present. Just trying to excite your imagination, a little. Mike Hammer.
0 Replies
 
HesDeltanCaptain
 
  1  
Reply Wed 5 Aug, 2015 10:47 am
@DNA Thumbs drive,
A scientist demonstrated how due to Inflation, the early universe expanded faster than C. WAY faster, something like 10,000 times C.

The speed limit C assumes transit through normal time-space. But by warping space-time itself, you can effectively exceed C because you're not actually moving through space, you're moving space itself around you.

Proof of concept for warping space is underway. Works on paper, now we're confirming it works for real. But even when we do we're still no where close to making spacecraft utilizing it. Alas. Smile
0 Replies
 
Bostonian phil
 
  1  
Reply Mon 14 Sep, 2015 09:51 pm
@DNA Thumbs drive,
DNA Thumbs drive wrote:

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.

That's quite different than the problem of finding the fastest thing in the universe. Quite different in fact. What you did here was to use an empirical response to the question. What physicists use is a theoretical response.

DNA Thumbs drive wrote:

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, ..

Wrong. Quite wrong in fact. The postulate that light is the same in all frames and is the fastest speed there is not the same kind of problem. Here we can use theory whereas in your case its a practical impossibility. I suppose that if someone could construct a theory to say how fast the fastest human can move then that theory could be tested by comparing people's speed.

But you don't appear to understand how physics works. When physicists state a law, what they're doing is making a statement which is assumed to be true based on both experiment and logical reasoning. One thing that all well trained physicists know is that physics is not about proving anything. I made a video of Alan Guth explaining this fact. If you wish to see it then it's online at:
http://www.newenglandphysics.org/common_misconceptions/DSC_0002.MOV

We hold that nothing can move at the speed of light based on things that we know. In the case of the speed of light we postulate that it's invariant. This means that we've tested it and all experiments are in agreement with the notion that the speed of light is the same in all inertial frames of reference. Secondly we postulate that the laws of physics are the same in all frames of reference. With those two postulates we can demonstrate that it takes an infinite amount of energy to accelerate anything to move at the speed of light. I proved that here:
http://home.comcast.net/~peter.m.brown/sr/work_energy.htm

I don't like the way I did that so one day I'll correct it. But until then you can get the basic idea. Now all of this doesn't exclude the possibility that something was created moving at speeds faster than the speed of light. Such particles are called tachyons. This was postulated in an article by Gary Feinberg, G. (1967). "Possibility of Faster-Than-Light Particles". Physical Review 159 (5): 1089–1105.

So we (i.e. physicists) are fully aware of the possibility that something might one day be found which moves faster than light. We're not ignorant of this fact at all. But we have very good reasons for believing otherwise.
0 Replies
 
justafool44
 
  0  
Reply Sun 19 Jul, 2020 08:08 pm
Is there someone who actually buys the silliness of the idea that space is somehow a mathematical curved construct? (and not a slightly different euclidean cube like imaginary math construct?) Hint, its not either one. These are just imaginary math constructs. Space doesn't care how a mathematicians might want to take measurements in space, using cubes, curves, spheres, hexagons, triangles... they don't exist, and don't comprise "space".

So the silly idea that speed faster than light are only apparently occurring because "space is curved" is just that, a silly idea.

mark noble
 
  1  
Reply Sun 19 Jul, 2020 08:24 pm
@justafool44,
Nassim has proven 64c.
I believe it as relative to observation.

Have a Lovely day
justafool44
 
  0  
Reply Sun 19 Jul, 2020 08:26 pm
@mark noble,
Are you and Nassim having a lovers tiff or something?
Who is Nassim anyway?
mark noble
 
  1  
Reply Sun 19 Jul, 2020 08:37 pm
@justafool44,
Exactly.

He's the 'Conspiracy Nut' that dissolved Einsteens TOR - And (Unacademically) Solved the mass of the proton, equated it to the mass of the universe and set the Gold-standard for the future of physics. PLUS - Go look.

You say much, Sir - But, Clearly, Listen NOT.

NASSIM HARAMEIN. GO LOOK.

Have a Lovely day
McGentrix
 
  1  
Reply Sun 19 Jul, 2020 08:49 pm
@mark noble,
I will.

Thanks!
mark noble
 
  1  
Reply Sun 19 Jul, 2020 09:26 pm
@McGentrix,
There is ONE version of 'The Connected Universe' that hasn't been 'removed' from youtube, likely because it's subtitled (In English though).

BEST place to start - If genuinely interested.

O Universo Conectado - Documentario Legendado HD

by (Uploader) O Planeta Terra

Enjoy

Have a Lovely day
justafool44
 
  0  
Reply Sun 19 Jul, 2020 11:11 pm
@mark noble,
NASSIM is another proponent of a universal "field" which means he is just talking yet more drivel.
Its not Physics, its mystical magical pseudo science, exactly like Einsteins version, but with a "twist" (get it?)
McGentrix
 
  1  
Reply Sun 19 Jul, 2020 11:12 pm
@justafool44,
How is it you never actually say anything? You use a lot of words, but don't actually say anything.
McGentrix
 
  1  
Reply Sun 19 Jul, 2020 11:20 pm
@mark noble,
I have looked further into Haramein and have discovered almost exactly what I thought I would.

I do appreciate your bringing him to my attention as I was not aware that he existed previously.
justafool44
 
  0  
Reply Sun 19 Jul, 2020 11:38 pm
@McGentrix,
Exactly what am I supposed to say?
Last statement I made I thought were quite clear.
#post-7039296

And here is one of my posts from another forum topic , that someone titled "What is the crank obsession with Einstein being wrong?"
I replied:
Well, from where you all sit on your self built thrones of imaginary knowledge, having decided that you alone understand everything and that makes you members of a exclusive club, others could point to you and ask, "What is the crank obsession with Einsteins being RIGHT?"

Because its not about Einstein, its all about rationality and sound logic.

Here's the simple facts.
1. the hypothesis is not rational, contains logical errors and makes assumptions that are self contradictory.
2. the developed equations are not based on empirical observations and measurement
3. the whole hypothesis leads to any number of paradoxes. a red flag that something is not quite right somewhere
4. every single claim of supporting experimental evidence for Einstein's theories can and has been explained with nothing more than simple classical physics. (so you have no valid experimental evidence for SR)
5. relativity destroys the Physics that we know does work, by removing the fundamental "constants" that Physics relies on that allow us to do Physics! The constants called LENGTH, TIME and Mass.
6. and finally even Einstein changed his mind about SR after about 1920. He admitted that SR is only a special case, that could only work in a situation where the gravity was totally uniform, (after explaining that all of space is curved, therefore there exists no such place!) He also admitted that an Ether exists but its not movable, (its absolute!) and this was essential to allow us to do Physics), and that Light speed in a vacuum was NOT a constant!
7. the final conclusions of Special Relativity are nonsense, there is no other suitable word for it. Nonsense is nonsense. No flowery words can disguise it. Sorry.
Really?, things shrink, but only in one direction, they gain mass from nowhere whilst losing volume, (Momentum is NOT MASS!, Einstein said MASS) , and the Time warps but only for some, and as all this happens, the moving guy has no idea that its happening, but only some remote observer can see it? And the effects are totally different for every observer that's located in a different place, or also moving at a different speed?
8. I've asked Professors, Physics Teachers and Particle Physicists, this question, but not one was able to give ANY sort of answer, despite having the whole of Academic Scientific Community, the University doctrines, and all of Einsteins knowledge at their disposal, they cant answer this question.
"Einstein absolutely claims that Length contraction is a real effect, its not a matter of just an apparent measurement problem, the object actually shrinks in one direction only. so, please explain the physical process that occurs to the object that causes it to shrink, precisely in the one direction. What forces must be present to accomplish this compression? Where do these forces come from?
And how can these forces that cause physical unidirectional shrinkage "KNOW" that some remote observer who has a particular relative velocity, requires to see a particular degree of shrinkage?
And finally, how exactly can the object shrink in 100 different ratios to accommodate 100 differently moving observers, at the same time?

Its got nothing to do with one's IMAGINARY frame of Reference, which is only an invented mathematical construct to allow comparative measurements, but in this case we are not interested in measuring anything, we are just wondering how that passing space ship which was 500 feet long when it was parked up, but now its obviously only about 2 feet long as it whizzes past at almost light speed.

Meanwhile, my friend in a slower rocket can clearly see that the 500 foot long ship is really now only about half that size.

There is NOTHING about Special Relativity's conclusions that can be considered RATIONAL.
There is also no possible rationality behind the claim that Light speed must always be measured at c irrespective of the motion of the observer, and there is NO experimental evidence to suggest that this might be true.
Certainly, the M&M type experiments are NOT testing light speed in anything other than the ONE frame. and they are working with a two-way measure of light if indeed these machines are testing anything about lights VELOCITY at all!

Finally, if light has a fixed velocity in space, and its generated at a particular wavelength, then its identical to a sound wave in air, or a microwave in air, or a wave in water, in that given the wavelength, we can tell the speed we are moving by the change in wavelength. This is exactly how Doppler radar speed guns work.
If we are counting those waves at a faster rate than they were generated, then we can easily and accurately calculate the speed differential.
So the red and blue shift of light from distant galaxies, is evidence that we are moving relative the the speed of that wave, which is the speed of light.
The speed of sound is the speed of those sound waves, the speed of Doppler radar is the speed those waver are travelling, and so the speed of light is exactly the same. its the speed of the waves.
There is no rational reason to try to twist this obvious fact.
Red and Blue shift of starlight is because we are measuring light at plus and minus the speed difference. c + v and c - v.

Also, If spacetime is a real thing, which is the claim, I can follow directions for the spacial coordinates irrespective of whether they are expressed in Euclidean or non Euclidean constructs. But where exactly is the Time dimension? Where does the corner of my house exist in spacetime 24 hours ago? Give me the information I need to go there. Because apparently even though my house burned to the ground tomorrow, it is still fine in spacetime yesterday. This is the ultimate BS.
Another thing, Einstein claims that length contracts for a moving object, but only in the direction of travel, the other directions are not affected, so you should be explaining how Time must also be ONLY DILATING in the direction of travel, but not in the other directions.
Please explain.
Because there is no chance the time can shrink in all places, when all places are not moving at a relative velocity to light.
Relativity only affects the object in the one direction exclusively. so how can that place identified as spacetime, that's not involved in relative motion, also be dilated?
The whole theory is really just a fantasy story intended to be the plot of a new Sci-Fi movie, i'm sure that's what Einstein had in mind.



McGentrix
 
  1  
Reply Sun 19 Jul, 2020 11:51 pm
@justafool44,
Explain to me how to make something with mass, let's say a 15000 ton rocket, go at the speed of light, and then I will tell you everything you want to know.
justafool44
 
  0  
Reply Mon 20 Jul, 2020 12:31 am
@McGentrix,
Why? Its got nothing to do with any of this.
And if you think it has, then it's up to yo to prove the hypothesis that its impossible.
If you actually believe that light has mass, then it IS possible for something with mass to go light speed. What rocket engine is propelling that mass?

Actually Light is mass-less, because it not an object, it has no physicality.

So, skip the nonsense about some 15000 ton rocket, or even 15 ounce rocket going at light speed, hypothetical argument, and start explaining everything I wanted to know please.

Actually there is no rational way to explain how any rocket can possible go faster than the exhaust gasses it is ejecting, as its a reaction engine, it cant exceed its own exhaust gas velocity. Yet they CLAIM that these rockets do.

Its interesting to note that there has never been any rocket within verifiable range of Earth, that can demonstrate that it is even able to MATCH the exhaust gas velocity, let alone exceed it by a factor of 4 which is the claim.
Multi stage private rockets (not Musk's govt sponsored efforts) have never come close to the exhaust gas velocity despite reaching the ionosphere, where the frictional drag at 10,000kph is negligible, so the standard explanation that the space rocket just "pretends" that its in a "new inertial frame", and it resets its speedo, and thus the rocket can keep accelerating with the very same but much slower exhaust velocity.










McGentrix
 
  1  
Reply Mon 20 Jul, 2020 09:59 am
@justafool44,
Show me how something with any mass can go the speed of light and I will answer all of your questions.

Stop rambling about other stuff. My question has everything to do with it.
justafool44
 
  0  
Reply Mon 20 Jul, 2020 05:24 pm
@McGentrix,
Look, you think that light has mass, so logically light should no be able to do the speed of light.
But as there is no possibility for either of us to PROVE that a massive object can or can not go at light speed, then this is a pointless question.

So, meantime you have just become the umpteenth person that is unable to answer my questions.
The usual excuse is that there is some deep mystery that I m just not able to grasp, or that there is some other question that must be answered first, (which is your excise) but clearly you have no idea what you are talking about.

Ill wait till someone else decides to comment, so thanks for nothing.
McGentrix
 
  1  
Reply Mon 20 Jul, 2020 06:27 pm
@justafool44,
justafool44 wrote:

Look, you think that light has mass, so logically light should no be able to do the speed of light.
But as there is no possibility for either of us to PROVE that a massive object can or can not go at light speed, then this is a pointless question.

So, meantime you have just become the umpteenth person that is unable to answer my questions.
The usual excuse is that there is some deep mystery that I m just not able to grasp, or that there is some other question that must be answered first, (which is your excise) but clearly you have no idea what you are talking about.

Ill wait till someone else decides to comment, so thanks for nothing.


I have never said "light has mass". Nor have I even suggested it.

I asked you a simple enough question that you refuse to answer because you either can't or won't because you know that anything with mass approaching the speed of light would suddenly change it's physical properties like you have been whining about saying can't happen.

You're a whiner. You think you are on to some stupendous idea that no one has ever thought of and that you are going to change the laws of physics when in actuality you are just a whiner.

I think I am tired of dancing around that with you. You have yet to actually say what it is about Einstein's SR theory that you "don't get" and instead you use vague terms and description and then whine like a child when no one supports your shitty ideas.

You refuse to actually learn anything and instead rely on the internet to tell you how to think. I hope the work you do as an engineer isn't as shitty as your ideas about physics.
justafool44
 
  0  
Reply Mon 20 Jul, 2020 07:09 pm
@McGentrix,
"I have never said "light has mass". Nor have I even suggested it."
Einstein said it, and every Relativist says it, what happened to you?

" I know that anything with mass approaching the speed of light would suddenly change it's physical properties"
You are making a big claim here, where is your evidence that supports this claim? You don't "know" you "believe" its a faith based assumption.

I actually "get" exactly what Einstein was on about, but I also see that its rubbish.

My ideas about Physics actually work correctly and are accurate. Thanks to Galileo and Newton and many others.
Einstein's "contribution"was to stuff up all that good work.

I gave you a long list of issues I have with Einstein's Special Relativity, and rather than discussing any of them, you instead start talking about a hypothetical situation of a space ship going impossibly fast, and what would happen to it.
The thing is YOU HAVE NO IDEA WHAT WOULD HAPPEN.

And what you suggest would happen, we have no hint that this is possible according to experience with our current fastest moving massive objects.

You are claiming to KNOW what would happen to an object at Light speed, based totally on an irrational hypothesis that is already full of errors.
But you don't even want to discuss what the errors are.

Plus, you have the gall to accuse me of "refusing to actually learn anything".

Also, there is nothing wrong with obtaining information for the internet.

I have in my collection, every lecture series on relativity from every major university and all the famous celebrity professors, so because its on the internet, does that mean these guys are idiots?









mark noble
 
  1  
Reply Wed 22 Jul, 2020 07:30 am
@justafool44,
Cymatics are fundaments of all energy, frequency and vibration.

You're on a pilgrimage to nowhere.

Have a Lovely day
0 Replies
 
 

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
 
Copyright © 2022 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.05 seconds on 05/28/2022 at 05:40:34