No speed and the speed of light: The Same

Discussion in 'Alternative Theories' started by A Graham, Nov 2, 2014.

  1. A Graham Registered Member

    I'd like to propose that no speed and the speed of light are two sides of the same coin. That we are all contracting in a fourth dimension at the speed of light "c"; being simply the reduction in our energy/velocity as we proceed through the Universe; that an increase in velocity/energy merely slows our progress through time contraction, and thus it appears that we are increasing in mass and our clocks are slowing down. A Relativity flip...

    At zero velocity (if it were possible to reach - as the speed of light also appears to be impossible to reach) then a contracting body under immense pressure at light speed would reach singularity and thus have the potential to be forced out into the universe at the speed of light. The Big Bang being not a single event but a multiple event throughout time in four dimensions.

    I have seen some threads on this site that refer to such bizarre phenomenon, and build on these creative sidetracks. This is what I have worked on for 35 years and have put it up for my peers to consume.

    Take it away, or throw it away. I would appreciate your thoughts, all though I have not put down any hard facts upon which to base my opinion. I do have plenty. I am a philosopher not a mathematician, but our goals are similar: What the hell is this Universe made of and how the hell does it work!
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  3. origin In a democracy you deserve the leaders you elect. Valued Senior Member

    I do not see how that makes any sense, but continue.
    First of all no mass can go the speed of light.
    What do you mean by the 4th dimenstion? Time? If we were to acclerate to a high velocity then time would pass more slowly for us than the reference frame we left. Our length would also be contracted along the direction of our movement relative to the reference frame we left.

    That does not make very much sense. Try this scenario.
    A space ship leaves earth bound for Alpha Centuri and acclerates rapidly to 90% the speed of light (c). An observer on earth would see him whiz away towards Alph Centuri. Since Alph Centuri is 4 light years away, based on a clock on earth the trip would take:

    t = 4ly / .9 = 4.44 years to reach Alph Centuri.

    According to the clock on the ship the trip would take:

    \(t=\frac{t_0}{\sqrt{1-\frac{v^2}{c^2}}}\) = 1.94 years

    That does not make the slightest bit of sense.

    That does not follow from what you wrote, why did you throw that in?
    Last edited: Nov 3, 2014
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  5. latecurtis Registered Member

    Mass behaves very differently on a micro scale compared to a macro scale. On a micro scale subatomic particles such as electrons are prone to the superposition theory. Look it up if you are not familiar with it. I believe that we may never witness an object exceed the speed of light but am not convinced that it is not possible somewhere in the universe. Tachyon particles go faster than light. They are very small. Imagine another galaxy millions of light years from our own. Now imagine a colony of planets with intelligent life 1000 years ahead of us in technology. Now imagine an army of huge robots hundreds of feet tall. 1000 of them. Now imagine an almost unlimited source of resources to build an immense spacecraft 18600 miles long. It would only have to exceed its own length * 10 to exceed the speed of light. A ship 186000 long would only have to exceed its own length in one second. Get the picture. Like I said we will problem never see it but it does not mean it could not happen. Thanks Latecurtis
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  7. origin In a democracy you deserve the leaders you elect. Valued Senior Member

    Too bad there is no evidence that such a particle exists.

    A giant ship does not make it any easier to exceed the speed of light, it actually would make it much mor difficult.
  8. A Graham Registered Member

    Origin. From the last of your responses to the first:
    All of time and all of mass/energy exists all at once (block theory). Einstein, himself, viewed this as plausable. So, everything is happening all at once along the entire notion of time. There is no past, present future progress. It seems, we simply experience a phenomenon called time due to our biological programming.
    A big bang would be a single event if there were only three dimensions to contend with and we accept the standard version of a progression of time. But, add a fourth 'Contracting Dimension' (the simultaneous contraction of the other three), and refer to time as non progressive, then the Big Bang is occuring at all times. The Universe is regenerating continuously - but from where?
    The Universe is energy, it does not start and stop, it does not gain or lose energy, so where did all that energy come
    from? My proposal is that a body reducing in velocity in one direction does not lose it, it relinguishes that energy
    to dimensional contraction. Whereas, at an earlier time, when it was travelling closer to (c) with immense inertial energy, it would have hardly been contracting at all. Contraction being the momentum of a 'so called' time dimension.
    As Special Relativity demands, and you rightly point out: To observers on the reference frame from where a body has left and is approaching (c), it would appear that the body was increasing in mass and its clocks would be ticking more slowly; whereas, I propose it is merely contracting more slowly than the observers. Contraction being the
    dimensional measure of time, it follows that clocks would be ticking more slowly on a body hardly contracting.
    I do not dispute Special Relativity and its formulations, I merely ask that we look at it from the other side of the mirror. As our velocity decreases we contract more quickly. The slower we go the faster our clocks tick (as seen from other independent platforms).
    Which is why, I might add, the observable Universe appears to be expanding.
    Ultimately, I propose that on nearing zero velocity (or zero Kelvin, for that matter), three dimensional existence,
    space and distance start to become irrelevent, and all that energy is now in the form of pure contraction at (c).
    Thus, it is entirely feesable that as energy does not start and stop, this energetic momentum of immense contraction
    having lost all dimensional existence has the potenetial to re-emerge anywhere in the Universe - and energy becomes mass once again, with zero contraction, zero time and a velocity of (c). The Big Bang!
  9. latecurtis Registered Member

    I am thinking about my earlier post and can only imagine how absurd it may sound. I cant begin to understand the math behind that famous theory but I dont need to as it is still a theory. lt has in fact not held true on a micro scale. The particles I mentioned earlier.
    The only thing I need to understand is the nature of the most powerful force in the universe. gravity. The strong and weak nuclear forces can do about any thing they want, the example being the superposistion theory. On the other side of the coin is gravity. on the macroscale it is so strong it can suck in light , a black hole. It simply defies all physical laws. It does what it wants. A large enough space ship or planet that has an advanced propultion system and its own gravitional pull will do what it wants also and if that is to exceed light speed then thats what it will do.
    I would be willing to bet we can build a small space ship that can exceed its own length in 1 second by 100 times with our finest propulsion technologies. A civilization 1000 years ahead could do the same on a scale 100 or 1000 times larger.It could be the nature of the propulsion system that adds even another variable in the famous equasion. The secrets of dark energy could be discovered and fully exploited by an advanced enough intellegence. Dark energy, dark matter. antimatter. What else may smarter beings discover that could effect that grand equasion.The question I got is will time go in reverse. And where will this thing be. I happen to believe in the multiverse and infinate timelines from any single point in time theory. I am contemplating the M theory and multi dimention theories.I am sorry but I am thinking past an old theory that reminds me of a puzzle with pieces missing. I believe he called it his special theory. He could be right on some of the other stuff and did contribute to technology and discovered the most powerful wepon of mass destruction. The Atom bomb. Spare him the peace prize please. But the fact is cave men could be = to us on the intellegence scale compared to advanced intellegence some where else in the universe. I will put my money on them if they exist to be smarter than that most famous scientist. "Sorry Albert no hard feelings just tellin it the way I see it. No disrespect sir" Warp factor 11. My first name is Scotty. Latecurtis ou
  10. A Graham Registered Member

    Well, as Origin explained, no body of mass can reach light speed, so how any body of mass could surpass (c) without going at (c) makes no sense.

    Time does not go on into forever and infinity. Nothing goes on for ever, but cycles are everywhere, and time is one of them. Time is a circuit, from (c) to zero velocity (z), two sides of the same coin. They are seamless, the same. And the Universe goes round and round in time: simple, containable, fathomable!
  11. origin In a democracy you deserve the leaders you elect. Valued Senior Member

    It sure doesn't seem like it.
    So what.
    It is more than "biological programing. All experimentation disagrees with your notion.
    In physics it is generally bad form to make up implausable things like a 'contracting dimesions' with zero evidence.
    That is unevidence wild speculation with nothing what so ever to back it up.
    Sorry none of that logically follows.
    That is just word salad.
  12. Landau Roof Registered Senior Member

    Wrong. The tortoise beat the hare, remember?
  13. A Graham Registered Member

    Origin. A few one liners with no meat.

    My proposals are based on an alternative view of Relativity, not a new mathematical formula. I understand that it will take many years to influence people into considering, let alone accepting a change to the paradigm of physics today. As it was in the first few decades of the 20th century, when Relativity first entered the scene.

    You are responsive, thanks, but seem to be protective of the status quo.

    By logical deduction (which would take more pages than this forum probably allows) it can be seen that time does not wander off into infinite forever, so there is only one avenue it can take - cyclical. Or, if you are persuaded by Quantum Mechanics, the MW Theory adds up to an infinite number of alternative dimensions. Infinity is the beast that needs conquering here, not time. Infinity demands that there be no progress, that every point is identified as being reachable only by infinities.

    There are no definable points or moments, otherwise there would be no motion. Which is why we need Calculus to smooth the road.

    In order to fathom this 3d universe we think we live in, we naturally take the easy step of trying to visualise and understand with formulas and models that will respond to those three dimensions. A fourth just doesn't fit today, unless we take another step.

    Accepting possibilities is a step. Unfortunately, by holding tight to the mast of that paradigm ship, there is no future but drown. We can only know something when we know everything. For now, we are along way from the truth.
  14. origin In a democracy you deserve the leaders you elect. Valued Senior Member

    You seriously think this hair brained, unevidenced, hodpodge of pseudoscience will become mainstream science. Yikes, the delusion is strong with this one.

    Ah yes, the battle cry of the uneducated nonscientific dreamer. I am absolutely not protective of the status quo, I just need evidence and logic to change my mind. Some dude making unevidenced wild ass conjectures just ain't going to do it.

    That is just a strawman. You guys are always shouting, "this is the only answer [and me and my bong figure it out]".

    Of course there are definable points and moments. You do not know anything about calculus, do you.

    I have no idea what that is suppose to mean. Almost all of my calculations use the fourth dimension!

    Investigating plausible possibilities is important to science. Accepting stupid possibilites is a waste of time and energy.
    Aqueous Id likes this.
  15. A Graham Registered Member

    Origin. Yikes, this one really is arrogant.

    Decides what is stupid, harebrained, etc. Throws in insults because he can.

    Doesn't ask, just says.

    And what evidence does he have? Oh, yes, all that stuff that desperately needs updating before it becomes obsolete. Why don't you try your hand at providing some forward motion to physics? Because you can't. You're stuck at the keyboards, bashing out 'know it alls' all day long because its easier than actually creating something yourself.

    Take it easy, Dude! Guess your young heart is still throbbing with science passion. Don't fly to close to the sun - Boy!

    Not the best way to stimulate minds and invest in the future of science. But that's your choice. I prefer the method of nurturing and teaching to bashing people on the head.
  16. origin In a democracy you deserve the leaders you elect. Valued Senior Member

    How would you know you obviously do not have any training in science.
    Why don't you randomly try to come up with a drug that cures cancer? It would make the same sense as you trying to come up with new physics when you haven't a clue how to do any physics!

    Of course I can't! I only took 3 semesters of calculus based physics as part of my degree. I know enough to be able to understand a fair amount of what the real physicist have discovered. The fact that you think you have something to contribute when you obviously are ignorant of even basic physics is pitiful and laughable.

    Thanks, I feel younger just having you incorrectly assume I am young.

    Teaching crap pseudoscience is not really teaching, it is more the antithesis of teaching...
  17. A Graham Registered Member

    Origin. I assume you get some kind of perverted pleasure out of this.

    I was aware you had a degree. As for my credentials, you'll just have to wait and see.

    Who uses the word, "Dude" anyway? So you are a boy...

    I'm assuming you will want the last word, to impress everyone on this forum. So go ahead.
  18. AlexG Like nailing Jello to a tree Valued Senior Member

    IOW, he has none, aside from a certificate of crankdom.
  19. krash661 [MK6] transitioning scifi to reality Valued Senior Member

    exactly like what you're doing huh ?
  20. krash661 [MK6] transitioning scifi to reality Valued Senior Member

    and you think claiming basic physics is flawed, is ?
    if you were intelligent, like you think you are, you would not even touch basic physics.
    you would be focused on higher levels of science.
    that alone speaks volumes.
    so what are you " nurturing and teaching " exactly ?
    all i have seen so far is you attempting to bash einstein's relativity.
    nothing more.
  21. krash661 [MK6] transitioning scifi to reality Valued Senior Member


    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    , i love this phrase. it implies knowing it all is a bad thing, which is comical.
  22. latecurtis Registered Member

    Well, as Origin explained, no body of mass can reach light speed, so how any body of mass could surpass (c) without going at (c) makes no sense.

    You guys are correct about needing calculus to understand this stuff. Trig is as far as I have gone. My argument is more simple than advanced math.
    I am only stating that according to math these theories , not just the special theory will hold true. Superstring theories and M theories also. But what if something is missing? something that has yet to be discovered. Something we wont ever discover by smashing particles together in a supercollider. These theories hold true only according to math. What if there is a variable in the equation that is missing.
    Not much has been proven outside of math. Atomic clocks may run a little slower in jets orbiting the earth but only on a Nano-scale. Scientists cannot even agree on how many dimensions there may be.
    I hope to someday be able to understand the math behind the special theory and other more advanced theories so I can look for a hole in them or possible exception. An advanced civilization could in fact with enough resources and robots convert a small or medium size planet or moon into a space ship. (Space 1999) Was a 70s TV show where the moon was converted into a space ship because the earth was destroyed or something. Without using math it would not be hard to imagine it. Without a molten core a large tunnel could be burrowed out from the north to south pole. This would be many miles in diameter and the very center would be the propulsion system which would be surrounded by coolant. and outside of that would be where the passengers would be. This makes lots of sense when considering how devastating any type of space debris would have at high speed impact. There would be many miles of rock and an inner shield of energy or very dense material to shield the inner core chambers from penetration. Now depending on the level of advanced technology and type of exotic fuel that is used will determine the speed of this large mass traveling thru space. That will be the ultimate test to the special theory. All the math equations in the universe may not be able to help the special theory then. I would love to see a computer simulation of a mass such as this reach close to the speed of light. Whatever math says is possible. Say 98 or 99%. Then note the energy of the propulsion to maintain that speed. Then double or triple the energy to see what would happen in an advanced computer simulation and see what would happen. Computers are very advanced today. But quantum computers are not here yet. Run the simulation with an advanced quantum computer again 10 or 15 years from now when they are invented.
    I seek proof beyond equation's. I want to see for myself on a simulation why nothing can exceed light speed. Thanks Latecurtis out.
  23. origin In a democracy you deserve the leaders you elect. Valued Senior Member


Share This Page