🚀 go-pugleaf

Will Martin wrote:
> 
> David Devejian <d...@bank2000.com> wrote in article
> <01bbd18b$5f1399c0$100410ac@david>...
> > First off, I am not sure what relevance this thread has to the newsgroups
> > it has been posted to.
> 
> That rarely stops anyone if they are interested.
> 
> > Secondly, in an attempt to kill it, please allow me to address the
> > following ideas:
> >
> > > > Scott Hess wrote:
> > > >
> > > > ] You _cannot_ go faster than the speed of light while remaining
> > > > ] in our universe.  Almost by definition, if you are going faster
> > > > ] than the speed light travels in our universe, then you are
> > > > ] _not_ in our universe.
> >
> > Scott, please define _our universe_.  While your at it, please define
> > _universe_.  And if I am not in your universe where am I?
> 
> Ahh. One of my favorites. I have my own Grand Unification Theory which ties
> together cosmology, particle physics and brews a mean cup of coffee.
> 
> A universe is the collection of observable entities from any given point of
> perspective. That's why they call it relativity. My "now" includes things
> that happened a million years ago (a million light years from here).
> 
> A universe includes both a time AND location for every event. That's why
> Einstein insisted on the term space-time.
> 
> As for my GUT, instead of starting with a vaccuum and miraculously adding
> subatomic particles which have locations and motion whose origin we cannot
> explain, I begin with a monolythic mass (no vaccuum anywhere) with the full
> range of its three dimensional areas in the full range of potential
> velocity, including far beyond the speed of light. Infinity.
> 
> Of course, we can't perceive anything moving beyond the speed of light
> relative to our point of perspective. That's why it appears to be a
> vaccuum.
> 
> We claim that the atoms in my hand and the atoms in a wall are remarkably
> miniscule compared to the vast vaccuum surrounding them, and we try to
> figure out why I can't pass my hand through a wall. Meanwhile, if the
> "vaccuum" is actually full of mass which is moving faster than light
> (sustaining infinite mass, forming a network of irresistable pathways
> surrounding each of the points of turbulence we perceive to be atoms), then
> each of our atoms has a very limited space in which to move, and very
> powerful forces energizing its motion within that small range.
> 
> I can't sift the atoms in my hand between the atoms in the wall because the
> space between these atoms is already full. Meanwhile, if I got waaaaaaay
> back and accellerated until my hand exceeded the speed of light, then it
> would begin to participate in another "universe" and it would pass right
> through the wall, even though neither the wall, nor my hand would show any
> sign that the two had ever met. Then again, their meeting would be quite
> brief.
> 
> This network of infinite velocity explains a lot. If atoms gain too much
> mass, they begin to break down into smaller particles which tend to move
> very fast. That is because the pressure of the pathways is irresistable.
> They will shear off the excess from anything which exceeds critical mass,
> which is the size limit of a point of turbulence within the network.
> 
> Black holes exist because the network does not consist of mass moving in
> straight lines. The most commonly observed pattern of motion is an
> eliptical orbit. If entire universes revolve through each other in similar
> patterns, then at the intersection points of axes, there would be fewer
> universes moving at greater than light speed, and so the network of
> pathways would be looser. Mass could exceed what we know as critical mass
> before it goes critical.
> 
> In other words, critical mass is a function of location. Some locations are
> sheltered from the forces which make certain masses excessive and at those
> locations, extraordinary masses can accumulate. These are Black Holes.
> 
> Black Holes do not suck in everything simply because while their critical
> mass is far higher than in normal space, like normal space, they are
> surrounded by a network of pathways, and while they can gain a higher mass,
> there is still a point beyond which they cannot grow. Their surface will be
> sheared away, just like smaller atoms elsewhere.
> 
> Gravity is the resultant force from the narrowing of pathways as they
> respond to passing through what we perceive to be large mass (a lot of
> points of turbulence). In other words, the pathways going through me from
> below have been narrowed slightly for having passed through and interacted
> with the atoms of the Earth. These narrowed pathways offer slightly less
> pressure than the pathways passing through me in all other directions. I am
> not actually pulled toward the Earth. I am PUSHED toward the earth.
> 
> Weightless masses in outer space simply lack this imbalance.
> 
> Light is a wave form carried by the pathways. That is why it can pass
> through what we perceive as a vacuum and why dispursion occurs when it
> strikes what we perceive to be mass. There is an interaction between the
> point of turbulence and the carrier wave which is the pathway of a passing
> universe. The point of turbulence then interacts with pathways moving in
> other directions.
> 
> Meanwhile, the theory does not explain magnetism or electricity. I don't
> have a clue where they come from...
> 
> > However, I will agree that the mathematical models of time and space that
> > are implied by Einstein's theories of relativity imply that a body that
> > exhibits rest mass cannot either achieve or exceed the speed of light
> > without somehow introducing a discontinuity in space-time.  I have a
> > problem however, with your characterization of experiencing a
> discontinuity
> > being out of this universe.
> 
> As I see it, if you were in a spaceship and you neared the speed of light
> (from the perspective of the place you left), you would notice that
> celestial bodies you had perceived as traveling in the opposite direction
> of you will begin to disappear. New ones would appear moving in the same
> direction as you, but faster. Eventually, the only common entities between
> your new experience and your old one would be some of the Black Holes.
> 
> > For the rest of the readers, I apologize for the mathematical nature of
> the
> > above paragraph, but that is the only way to express the subject
> > accurately.  Please read below for an attempt to address this matter by
> > analogy:
> 
> It seems to me that you used analogy above and math below.
> 
> > Somebody else wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Scott, just curious if you have two bodies coming at each other
> > > > really fast, why will gravity not accelerate them to the speed of
> > > > light?  Is it because the faster they get the less mass they
> > > > have, so less gravity?  What if one or more of the bodies has
> > > > mass enough to be a black hole?
> 
> If gravity is the imbalance of resistance to the passage of the various
> elements of the network of passing super-light-speed mass, then as two
> objects approach the speed of light toward each other, they gain
> independence from any common effects. There is no gravity BETWEEN these two
> objects, since they decreasingly participate in the same system of mass and
> velocity. The atoms of one object slide toward the pathways already
> established between the atoms of the other object.
> 
> This sliding to new points of balance within the network explains momentum
> and the gravity-like effect of accelleration and centrifugal force. While
> there is a change in velocity (be it of speed or direction), there is an
> imbalance in the resting point for the atoms between the pathways. While
> the new balance is sought, there is gravity. Any change in velocity creates
> gravity-like force.
> 
> There are no "gravitons". Gravity is not a wave form. It is an imbalance of
> pressure from the network of infinite mass and velocity.
> 
> > Actually, as an object increases velocity, its Kinetic energy increases
> (I
> > hope we are all familiar with K= 1/2*mv^2), but by Einstein's equations,
> > E=mc^2, implies that the mass increases, thus it becomes harder to
> > accelerate.  So the mass is greater, not less.  This increase in
> > mass/energy is asymptotic as v approaches c, so that if one could reach
> c,
> > one's mass would be infinite.
> 
> Exactly. Beyond the speed of light, an area of mass becomes an irresistable
> line. A network of such lines form the thick felt we perceive to be vaccuum
> between what we take to be atoms and subatomic particles. An atom is less
> like a ball than like a pattern of motion. Without motion, there is nothing
> to differentiate atom from vaccuum. That's why it exists in space-time,
> because after all, space-time implies motion. Without motion, there is no
> space-time, no perspective from which to judge relativity, and no universe.
> 
> > (yes with the example of gravity as the
> > acceleration, when the mass is infinite, so is the acceleration, but you
> > will just have to trust me that the equations work out, mostly because
> > acceleration is not used as a quantity, nor is velocity, but rather
> Energy
> > and momentum, and the result is that we stay below c)
> 
> The weird part was that Einstein didn't really invent this math. He merely
> took Lorenzian Transformations intended to explain certain electrical
> effects and applied them more generally to all things great and small.
> 
> > And still a third wrote:
> > > Two bodies are both moving at 3/4 the speed of light towards each
> other.
> > > Doesn't this mean that relative to one of the bodies, the other body is
> > > travelling at 1.5 times the speed of light? If this is possible,
> doesn't
> > > this apparently violate the so-called constant of C? If not, why not?
> 
> Relativity has one aspect which people don't seem to really understand.
> Everything is measured from the observer. There is no absolute measurement.
> All measurement is relative. If A is the observer and B and C are, from A's
> perspective, moving toward each other at a speed such that each is moving
> 3/4 of the speed of light toward A from opposite sides, then in A's
> universe, B and C are each moving 3/4 the speed of light.
> 
> Meanwhile, from B's perspective, A is moving 3/4 the speed of light, and C
> does not exist. It is not that C has impossibly exceeded the speed of
> light. C does not exist.
> 
> Similarly, from C's perspective, A is moving 3/4 the speed of light and B
> does not exist.
> 
> To extend this further, A may see the two seemingly pass right through one
> another. Their "collision" would be so brief that no conclusion could be
> drawn from the absence of interaction. Neither B nor C would sense that
> there was anything to collide with.
> 
> Unfortunately, this is a very difficult experiment to arrange...
> 
> > The simplest way to explain this is that for a body moving at 3/4 the
> speed
> > of light, distances (at least those measured along its direction of
> motion)
> > will be shorter, and time will be longer, so that another body traveling
> > toward the first will appear to be less than c.  The addition of
> velocities
> > is simply not linear one approaches c.  Please note, time will actually
> be
> > longer, and distance shorter, they will not simply appear so.  I know
> this
> > is counter-intuitive, but it is in fact the case.
> 
> The point that you don't consider is that once each of the two approaching
> perspectives exceed what perspective A in my example above would call half
> the speed of light, B's perspective of the length of C becomes infinitely
> short and while its mass becomes infinitely large, it slides into
> established pathways already separating the atoms of B. The existence of B
> is dependent upon these pathways.
> 
> > I hope I have clarified things rather than simply muddled them.  If you
> > have questions, please either address them to me in e-mail, or suggest a
> > single newsgroup that we may continue this thread on, preferably one
> where
> > it would be on topic.
> 
> If there is such a beast, let me know.
> 
> > regards,
> > Dave
> > d...@bank2000.com
> 
> Will
> wh...@virginia.edu
There is evidence in astrophotoghpy that when light from a far star
passes by a nearer star it appears to bend (similar to refraction)
causing the image to appear to shift position. This suggests that light
(a photon energy-particle?) does have mass and is effected by gravity.
So if "light" does have mass then how can light travel at the speed of
light?