Nothing can travel faster than the luminal speed?

Discussion in 'Pseudoscience' started by ResistETIntervention, Dec 13, 2014.

  1. ResistETIntervention Registered Member

    Messages:
    11
    Have certain scientists in the past and present been artificially and unduly elevated to a celebrity position where they were/are revered by their peers, followers, and thus, laymen with no expertise in their fields, so that the statements of such people (no matter what they claim) could not be disputed? People must learn to question what they are told:
    - “Do I really know what I’m being told is true, or am I just assuming that it is true?”
    - “Have I looked into the subject matter deeply enough or am I mindlessly accepting it?”
    - “Who or what are the authority figures in my life that are influencing my thoughts and behaviors – governments, parents, friends, experts, religious beliefs, advertisements, scientific beliefs, trending topics on the internet,…?”
    - “Is there an ulterior motive behind the propaganda that is being cast upon me and the human race, and if so, what is that motive?”

    Instead of being satisfied with the immediate answers that come to their minds, they must try to be with the questions and see what experiences or insights they gain from them.

    Have you ever pondered upon the Special Relativity Theory? It is the theory that "precludes" any objects from traveling at superluminal speeds. Often the opponents of the ET Intervention claim that no such visitation by extraterrestrial races is possible because of the theory. I invite you to consider the theory from a new perspective.


    ----------------------------------------------

    A vehicle traveling at a speed of v m/s for t seconds traveled a distance of x=vt . Suppose this vehicle had a mirror in the ceiling and floor. The passenger in the vehicle sees the light traveling from the floor to the ceiling at the luminal speed of c=3×10^8 m/s in T seconds for a distance of y=cT meters. An observer outside the vehicle sees the light traveling at the luminal speed for t seconds for a distance of z=ct meters when the light beam hits the ceiling. The assumption made here is that the situation can be described by a right triangle above and thus, the two (different) times, t and T, can be related by the Pythagorean Theorem as below:

    t=T/sqrt(1-(v/c)^2), where "sqrt" is a symbol we use here to indicate the square root.
    As v→c, the radicand 1-(v/c)^2→0, making the left-hand-side of the equation approach infinity. If v>c, the radicand 1-(v/c)^2<0, and thus an imaginary number in the denominator of the quantity. Hence, the assertion that nothing can travel faster than the speed of light is “proved.”

    The equation in Special Relativity “precludes” any object from traveling at any speed close to the luminal speed, and thus, v≪c. Then, in the time t that it takes for the light beam to hit the ceiling as observed by an outside observer, the distance traveled by the vehicle and the distance traveled by the light to the ceiling as observed by an outside observer are significantly different, and the situation cannot be described by a right triangle because the distance x is significantly less than the distance z. The Pythagorean Theorem used to “prove” the theory does not apply in the situation where the distance from the floor to the ceiling is insignificant compared to the distance z as well. On the other hand, for the Pythagorean Theorem to be applied in the situation, the speed of the vehicle v must be quite close to the luminal speed c in order to form a right triangle as above. But then the theory indicates that the value v cannot be anywhere near c. It is a contradiction either way.

    Regardless of the faulty assumption made in “proving” the theory, the fact that I have sighted an object that accelerated to a superluminal speed from a stationary position within a second or two is already a counterexample to this theory, which disproves it. The fact that many other people in the world have sighted such phenomenon verifies the disproof of the theory multiple times.
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. Beer w/Straw Transcendental Ignorance! Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,405
    Take a picture next time?
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. Dywyddyr Penguinaciously duckalicious. Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    18,951
    A) Anecdotes are not evidence.
    B) Eye witness testimony is notoriously unreliable.
    C) How do you know the "object accelerated to superluminal speed"? What measuring equipment did you have?

    It's not a fact.
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. cosmictraveler Be kind to yourself always. Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    33,264
    How did you calibrate its speed, a radar gun?
     
  8. Russ_Watters Not a Trump supporter... Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,051
    Consider the other side of the coin: how stupid do scientists (all of them) have to be to have spent decades apiece studying a subject yet still misunderstand it so badly that a person with no training in the subject at all can spot a flaw in their work? Or, how smart does the layman have to think he is to think he's better than all of the physicists in the past 100 years put together even without having actually studied any physics?
    Lol, and how exactly did you measure the speed of this object?
     
    paddoboy and Aqueous Id like this.
  9. OnlyMe Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,914
    No one has ever seen anything moving at relativistic velocities.., period!

    Even the velocities of particles in a particle accelerator or high energy cosmic rays, are not directly observed. In each case thier velocities are calculated or assumed based on other observable evidense and some underlying theoretical bassis and associated assumptions.
     
  10. paddoboy Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    23,731
    And how often do we have to take this mindless, baseless assault on science and the giants of the present and past, by "would be's, if they could be's" especially as has been shown in many cases, by their utter dishonesty, fraud and cunning, that will see then try and garnish respect by posting obvious alternative hypothesis, in maths and science, instead of the alternative section.
    That just about sums it up.
     
  11. ResistETIntervention Registered Member

    Messages:
    11
    I don't move at a superluminal speed.
     
  12. ResistETIntervention Registered Member

    Messages:
    11
    A) A thought experiment always is, of course.
    B) Hmm...See the response to (A).
    C) Do you know what you would see, if an object achieved a superluminal speed? (Hint: You don't need a measuring device.)
     
  13. ResistETIntervention Registered Member

    Messages:
    11
    No, scientists are not stupid. They are, however, limited by the control (funding, job security, ..) that are beyond their capacities or wishes.
    http://www.governmentsecrets.com/ufo-phenomena-people-speaking/#
    What decided you that I have on training on this subject matter? Do you mean like Einstein, a clerk at a patent office?
    I suggest considering what he assumed in his theory, which doesn't hold.
     
  14. krash661 [MK6] transitioning scifi to reality Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,973
    your own words, your own thoughts. you clearly do not have a grasp on the whole theory, let alone anything else. this for sure doe not belong in physics and math.
    except, you did not.
    you would not see it accelerate. you would see a light dot, then as you blinked, you will not see that light dot anymore.
    funny.
     
  15. Dywyddyr Penguinaciously duckalicious. Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    18,951
    No.
    And it's never been claimed to be.

    Whut?
    My point is that eye witness testimony is unreliable and you (sarcastically) stating it's "always evidence" (i.e. it's actually not always evidence) is supposed to support YOUR point of view?

    In other words all you know is that you lost sight of [whatever it was] and ASSUMED it was "superluminal".
    I.e. random uniformed speculation with zero basis in fact.

    Uh, regardless of what job he was doing at the time he was a trained physicist with a track record as such.

    Unsupported claim.
     
  16. OnlyMe Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,914
    This is not a discussion of science! It does not belong in Physics & Math. If you want to discuss social and economic issues that affect science there is somewhere else it should be located!
     
  17. ResistETIntervention Registered Member

    Messages:
    11
    If you do have a grasp on the whole theory, you can see clearly that Einstein's assumption in his thought experiment is erroneous. If you're truly scientifically oriented, you'd be excited and intrigued by this new observation, not feel defensive.

    Good for you. You, at least, have an idea of what you'd observe. Some of the physics majors I spoke with did not.
    What I sighted was a brilliant spot of light completely stationary in absolutely clear blue sky, which suddenly moved, leaving a white trail of light tapering off towards a point where it "poof" disappeared within a couple of seconds from its stationary position. It accelerated from zero velocity to a superluminal speed within a second or two.
     
  18. ResistETIntervention Registered Member

    Messages:
    11
    It belongs here, as I just disproved the Special Relativity Theory.
     
  19. paddoboy Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    23,731

    No you did not and if you did you would not be here and you would get it peer reviewed and be in line for the next physics Nobel.
    And no it doesn't belong here...You are being devious and dishonest to suggest that.
     
  20. krash661 [MK6] transitioning scifi to reality Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,973
    i reiterate post #11
    except it's nothing new. you're the 10^10 individual this week, across the whole planet to unjustly say einstein is wrong, or " erroneous ".
    no, the only thing you proved is how ridiculous this topic will be or is.
     
    Last edited: Dec 13, 2014
  21. ResistETIntervention Registered Member

    Messages:
    11
    I'm not interested in Nobel prize.
    Read all of these quotes from the scientists and authority figures you seem more likely to cling to.
    http://www.governmentsecrets.com/ufo-phenomena-people-speaking/#
     
  22. OnlyMe Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,914
    If you were speaking stricktly to the science you might have a case, but even from within the OP you introduce issues which have nothing to do with the science.., social and/or economic issues which are not about the science.
     
  23. krash661 [MK6] transitioning scifi to reality Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,973
    exactly, it's just the typical alien conspiracy nonsense. nothing more.
    the link should smack anyone in the face. that's how obvious it is. then uses cranks and some fictitious incident to " prove " relativity is " " erroneous ".
    it still amazes me to this day, how they can not see how hilarious it is.
     

Share This Page