🚀 go-pugleaf

Stop

My brain is about to explode!  (kidding ;-)


Brian Stuart <bst...@icons.net> wrote:

>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?