No speed and the speed of light: The Same

In actual fact it is you who is the arrogant one.
Science is open, and many young men and women are a part of it.
Yes, this is the alternative section, and as such just as the already accepted standard scientific models have done, all alternative hypothesis, will need to "run the gauntlet" so to speak.
And the more absurd an alternative hypothesis is, the more flack it will receive.

In essence what happens in these alternative forums, is that it draws and attracts many undesirables.
Let me list them for you....
[1] Trolls, out to create mayhem for there own sick amusement.
[2] Certain "would be's if they could be's" with giant egos and delusions of grandeur.
[3] God botherers who have a problem with science especially SR/GR.
[4] Anti establishment bias nuts who will oppose anything for the sake of opposing.

In my time here, and elsewhere, I have not seen one alternative hypothesis that has any evidence that supports it to any degree, or any evidence that invalidates incumbent models.
All have in one way or another, fitted in with one or more of the above four points.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

I hope so too. And I'm sure all well intentioned, logical folk, will see immediatley the stupidity of this and other alternative hypothesis, and see it as misinformation and pseudoscience.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

I am only here to learn and try to understand what keeps an object from going faster than light.
I thought it was infinite mass. I an glad it is not. I am only trying to find out why. I just need to make sense out of it of as it never made any sense to me and still don't. An infinite universe makes sense to me somehow. I thought about that most of my life since I was a kid. I would imagine traveling thru deep space and coming to a wall or a barrier. Something must exist beyond that barrier even if its only empty space for eternity. It is harder to imagine a finite universe than an infinite one for me. The circle thing don't work for me either where you come back to where you start. That gives it a shape like a sphere and then I think what's outside the sphere. This speed of light thing though just don't set right with me for some reason. I'm shure the math has been checked millions of times since Albert did it. All that proves to me is that its good on paper.
The equation has no flaws. It must be perfect as most scientists agree with it. The only way I see to make it an actual fact is to put it to the test. Unfortunately there is no propulsion system advanced enough to do so and there probably won't be for decades to come. That is why I was hoping for a computer simulation or something better than an equation as I cannot be the only person struggling with this concept. Thanks latecurtis.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

It has been put to the test.
Ever heard of particle accelerators/colliders?

http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/496904/relativity/252883/Relativistic-mass

http://galileoandeinstein.physics.virginia.edu/lectures/mass_increase.html

 

Yes but that is on a micro scale not a macro scale. A tiny particle is a lot different than a very large spacecraft. Anyway there is no sense in arguing the point any more. I would rather increase my math level to
try to better understand the concepts. I will be taking calculus when I return to college but that cant happen for about a year from now as I have to go thru student loan rehabilitation programs. Is there any free courses or any website out there which I can learn from. I want to brush up anyway as it has been about 8 years since I took Algebra 2 with trig. Also I struggled with it. I think I got a C - but it could have been a C +. I don't remember. All I know is I want to study a little every day on my own. Please let me know of any free resources online that will allow me to do so.
Thanks Latecurtis.

 

The postulates of SR/GR and their validity is on face value, counter-intuitive as to what was accepted in Newtonian times.
There were at least two answers re the "infinite mass" paradox when matter approached "c" that are far more accurate then mine.
Alex's for example:
The mass does not increase, the energy does. The old concept of relativistic mass is obsolete. What we get is an increase in relative energy. But you only see these effects from another reference frame. In it's own frame, the object detects no changes.
This is where E=Mc2 comes from.

In Newton's time, space and time were deemed to be absolute. With the acceptance of the constant nature of the speed of light, Einstein saw that in line with that thinking, paradoxes are quite evident.
Hence he proposed the non consistent, variable nature of space and time [length contraction, time dilation]
While these are validated many times on the micro scale [as you put it] they are also validated in macro scale as in GPS systems and atomic clocks.
And of course we have no reason to discard what relativistic effects we see at the micro level for the macro level.

 

Nothing made of matter can exceed c because matter requires the Higgs mechanism and the Higgs has mass. Nothing made of energy can exceed c either, because matter is simply a bound form of energy.

Newton doesn't matter any more. Einstein still does, but both SR and GR are incomplete. This idea has been beaten to death in other threads.

The only things missing in your idea about "being at rest" and "traveling or propagating at or close to c" being the same is 1) inertia and 2) direction

A single photon, or a single particle of matter, has no defined energy. Depending on the state of motion of the observer, either can be 1) at rest, or 2) traveling or propagating at or close to c. The "proper time" frame is key. No matter what the state of motion, all matter and energy in the universe has an inertial component that is the resultant of all of the forces it has ever experienced since it was created. For a photon, either it was produced in a pair propagating in opposite directions (resultant = 'at rest'), or an electron was accelerated and changed energy states to emit the photon. The electron may have been bound or unbound, but in either case either the electron or the atom binding it receive a "kick" in the direction opposite that of the emitted photon.

Whether it is moving or at rest when a photon pair is produced is, once again, a matter of the state of motion of the observer.

If this does not validate your idea, I don't know what does. I will grant your idea credit for being the only thread in a great number I have read here which seems to grasp the dichotomy of inertia. I believe this will be important as science learns more about vacuum energy and fields. The term inertia itself is ambiguous. What does the Higgs field actually do regarding inertia; speed things up, or slow things down? The conventional wisdom is that it is the latter, so the question becomes: "speeds up or slows down RELATIVE to what?

 

A house fly can travel at 2 metres per second, which is two hundred times its length.
All we have to do is breed a large enough house fly, 1,498,962 metres in length, and it will travel faster than the speed of light.

 

AAARRRRRRRR, pure genius!

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!