Speed of light the fastest?

[thejoshrules]

Speed of light is the fastest speed there is. No exceptions, or at least what Einstein said. But What if you are in a car moving 100mph and you shoot a laser in the direction you are heading. And somone at the same time next to you outside the car shoots a laser out in the same direction at a target. Now since light is the same speed as speed outside the car it is not multiplyed by 100mph, but if this was a bullet instead of light and i fired a gun at a target going 100mph and the guy outside shot a gun at the same direction the ,bullet that was shot at 100mph would go (100pmh*faster).Now why is light not applied?

Now Einstien said that if someone was moving at the speed of light(which i know is impossible but still follow along), he said that that person would be at a time were time was stoped. Though he thought that speed of light is the fastest speed that can possibly be. Now if we made a source that would speed up and keep accelerating, soon it would pass the speed of light. Now if that speed of light is passable then it is not the fastest thing therefore time cannot be stoped when you move that fast but just be going really slow(i mean really really mega really slow) But still not stoping.


Now i kept thinking, If speed of light is the fastest speed we know that is atainable by light only (i can't spell sorry) Then the fastest speed that is infinit is "Everything"(i don't know if there is a term for this but i just used everything or maybe space but when i say everything i mean all mater and everything that is.) "Everything" together is all. Now if you are everything and everything is you(still sorta nonsence but just follow along) Then time would accually be stoped. Now since we exist as "Everything" then we are moving. That is how we are now. Now since infinit(everything)is a infinit speed then that is the real fastest speed there is.


When you use the problem energy=(mass)(speed of light)^2, that tells of all the energy in a certain peice of mass is determined by mulitplying it by the speed of light squared. Since the speed of light was the fastest speed Einstein thought of back then, then he used that in his equation to make an understanding. Now If you change that to energy=(mass)("Everything"=infinite) then that is the true energy ammount of energy for that mass. Now i dont know why Einstein squared his equation, and if someone can tell me please do so.

Or maybe (all energy in everything)=(the mass of everything)("Infinity"of speed) which would somewhat make sence.

[thejoshrules]

im amazed, no one wants to say anything... :confused: :eek:

[Epsilon=One]

im amazed, no one wants to say anything... :confused: :eek:I'm not. It's difficult to argue with something that is basically correct; however, presented as a "shaggy dog" story.

It's near impossible to get a "handle" on your rhetoric.

Compose and simplify your argument.

[thejoshrules]

yah.... lol sorry about that, it was just ideas forming at that time and i was just writing what i was thinking. Lol yah it is pretty pathetic writing... lol, but it is interesting and basically correct... :o

[OfficeShredder]

Your arguments are terrible. You don't even know why it's mc^2, how can you possibly attempt to try and debunk the equation?

The constancy of the speed of light (with relevance to the problems you've posed) has been tested and re-tested and shown to be true. From a theoretical standpoint, because the laws of physics must be consistent within all frames of reference, and magnetic laws depend heavily on velocity, it's required that electromagnetic waves travel at the same speed for all frames of reference. It's not an interesting fact, it's essentially a fundamental law of the universe, upon which other laws are built on.

In fact, by relativity, your bullet equation isn't correct. At our speeds, it may seem as if velocity is additive, but once you accelerate enough (particle accelerators, for example), speeds don't add linearly, and energy is not simply a polynomial function of velocity.

I have no idea what your "everything" idea is supposed to be about, but it looks like absolute rubbish from the fact that you seem to imply everything has infinite energy. How does this tell us anything about the universe?

[Epsilon=One]

The constancy of the speed of light (with relevance to the problems you've posed) has been tested and re-tested and shown to be true. From a theoretical standpoint, because the laws of physics must be consistent within all frames of reference, and magnetic laws depend heavily on velocity, it's required that electromagnetic waves travel at the same speed for all frames of reference. It's not an interesting fact, it's essentially a fundamental law of the universe, upon which other laws are built on.It is not a fundamental Natural law, as you imply. It is a hypothesis that the SOL is constant.

As with most all Standard Model (SM) hypotheses it is not quite accurate. Light, your electromagnetic waves (a horrible label), has a minuscule of deceleration that is equal to the Conceptual Unit (http://www.CQthus.com/PT/CU) (CU) per pulse.

Most of your argument is correct; however, it rests on the universal constancy of time; not light. This fact, makes it easier to justify light as a SM force.

[thejoshrules]

Man dude, you have no outside the box thinking, even though light has been tested to be the fastest speed. We havn't explored ever inch of the galaxy, maybe somewhere out there there is somthing faster, how could you know that for sure just from a multiple number of test that light is the fastest, i say it is, but only for now, soon time will show us a difference..., and thanks for tring to defend some of my points epsilon ;)

[Epsilon=One]

...thanks for tring to defend some of my points epsilon ;)Your welcome.

You can be a bit wild; however, no one that is "outside the box" can be all wrong.

There's a need for those that tweak the status quo.

[OfficeShredder]

It is not a fundamental Natural law, as you imply. It is a hypothesis that the SOL is constant.

It's assumed as an axiom for relativity.... to attempt to modify the theory of relativity by assuming that the speed of light isn't constant is intellectual dishonesty at its worst. Plus, Maxwell's equations imply exactly the same. The mathematical support is strong, and the verified mathematical derivations based on it are stronger.

As with most all Standard Model (SM) hypotheses it is not quite accurate. Light, your electromagnetic waves (a horrible label), has a minuscule of deceleration that is equal to the Conceptual Unit (http://www.CQthus.com/PT/CU) (CU) per pulse.

And how is labelling a wave that consists of an alternating electric and magnetic part a horrible label? I'm going to guess it's because you don't think light is that, I'd like to see your thoughts

[Epsilon=One]

It's assumed as an axiom for relativity.... to attempt to modify the theory of relativity by assuming that the speed of light isn't constant is intellectual dishonesty at its worst.Any well-educated physicist or philosopher that believes that SR and GR are anything other than simplistic, limited models of Nature is far more intellectually dishonest then I am.

It is telling of weakness in an understanding of fact that you must argue ad hominem concerning a matter of such import.

Plus, Maxwell's equations imply exactly the same. The mathematical support is strong, and the verified mathematical derivations based on it are stronger.I don't believe that mathematics has been "proved" as yet by anyone in academia. No one of academic repute has disputed the Incompleteness Theorem (http://www.CQthus.com/PT/GIT) that I know of. And, certainly, Maxwell had little understanding concerning the most fundamental properties of Nature that are now beginning to surface in quantum chromodynamics (QCD).

And how is labelling a wave that consists of an alternating electric and magnetic part a horrible label?Because no renown physicist has been able to define what the labels “electric” and “magnetic” connote in fundamental, Natural terms. Even the term “light” defies any definition that is other than metaphysical.

I'm going to guess it's because you don't think light is that, I'd like to see your thoughtsYou needn’t guess; my thoughts are quite clear on this forum. You might peruse Pulsoid Theory (http://www.CQthus.com/PT/PTis) for starters.

[OfficeShredder]

Any well-educated physicist or philosopher that believes that SR and GR are anything other than simplistic, limited models of Nature is far more intellectually dishonest then I am.

[quote]It is telling of weakness in an understanding of fact that you must argue ad hominem concerning a matter of such import.

It wasn't an ad hominem attack, although I see now how it could be taken as one. What I meant was that you can't simply take c out of Einstein's equation and plug in a different number (referring to the original post), because you then ignore the other work that relied on c being the fastest speed in the first place to reach the equation E=mc^2

I don't believe that mathematics has been "proved" as yet by anyone in academia. No one of academic repute has disputed the Incompleteness Theorem (http://www.CQthus.com/PT/GIT) that I know of. And, certainly, Maxwell had little understanding concerning the most fundamental properties of Nature that are now beginning to surface in quantum chromodynamics (QCD).

Godel really isn't an appropriate counter-argument over something like this. While yes, it seems as if there must exist truths that can't be known by us, if they can't be known, then it's not likely to interfere with our experiments and physical models

Because no renown physicist has been able to define what the labels “electric” and “magnetic” connote in fundamental, Natural terms. Even the term “light” defies any definition that is other than metaphysical.

Just because we don't understand them doesn't mean we can't use the terms. We can recognize and identify electric and magnetic waves, forces, potentials, etc. They're clearly distinguishable, and there's no reason to give them names. The fact that light is made up of waves of these two types means that the name isn't a poor one, despite the fact that we may not truly know what an electromagnetic wave means.

[Epsilon=One]

It wasn't an ad hominem attack, although I see now how it could be taken as one.Apology accepted.

You stated, “…assuming that the speed of light isn't constant is intellectual dishonesty at its worst.” I jumped to the conclusion that you were aware that I have been strongly arguing, for over fifty years, that the SOL has a component of deceleration.

What I meant was that you can't simply take c out of Einstein's equation and plug in a different number (referring to the original post), because you then ignore the other work that relied on c being the fastest speed in the first place to reach the equation E=mc^2Now that I understand that you were “referring to the original post” of thejoshrules, Post #1, I understand; and, I can agree with you.

Godel really isn't an appropriate counter-argument over something like this.I was directly referring to your statement, “…Maxwell's equations imply exactly the same. The mathematical support is strong, and the verified mathematical derivations based on it are stronger.”

I cannot think of a more appropriate counter-argument; as, your argument is relying entirely upon “equations,” “mathematical support,” and “mathematical derivations”; all of which Gödel argued are fundamentally unprovable, which has not as yet, to my knowledge, been contested by academia.

While yes, it seems as if there must exist truths that can't be known by us, if they can't be known, then it's not likely to interfere with our experiments and physical models.I take great exception to this line of thought. My contention is that such thinking is responsible for the sorry mess of the Standard Models, which are internally irreconcilable and externally irreconcilable with one another.

I can not imagine a truth that cannot be rationalized.

[OfficeShredder]

I can not imagine a truth that cannot be rationalized.

Wouldn't that be the whole point of Godel? :p

[Epsilon=One]

Wouldn't that be the whole point of Godel? :pExactly!!! Remember, in all humblness, I stated that the Incompleteness Theorem: "has not...been contested by academia"; I do not consider myself as any part of academia where I am persona non grata
. . . for many obvious reasons.

[HallsofIvy]

Speed of light is the fastest speed there is. No exceptions, or at least what Einstein said. But What if you are in a car moving 100mph and you shoot a laser in the direction you are heading. And somone at the same time next to you outside the car shoots a laser out in the same direction at a target. Now since light is the same speed as speed outside the car it is not multiplyed by 100mph, but if this was a bullet instead of light and i fired a gun at a target going 100mph and the guy outside shot a gun at the same direction the ,bullet that was shot at 100mph would go (100pmh*faster).Now why is light not applied?
No, that's not correct. First of all, using "Newtonian Physics" rather than relativity, the speed would not be "multiplied by 100 mph", it would be added to 100 mph, that error makes me wonder about your physics abilities right there. Secondly, all objects obey the same "addition of velocities" law. If you are moving at speed u, relative to the ground, and you shoot something ahead at speed v, relative to you, the the object will have speed (u+ v)/(1+ (uv/c^2)) relative to the ground. In particular, if v= c (your light beam) then its speed relative to the other person is (u+ c)/(1+ (uc/c^2))= (u+ c)/(1+ u/c)= c(u+v)/(c+ u)= c.

Now Einstien said that if someone was moving at the speed of light(which i know is impossible but still follow along
And, so, Einstein said nothing of the sort
), he said that that person would be at a time were time was stoped. Though he thought that speed of light is the fastest speed that can possibly be. Now if we made a source that would speed up and keep accelerating, soon it would pass the speed of light. Now if that speed of light is passable then it is not the fastest thing therefore time cannot be stoped when you move that fast but just be going really slow(i mean really really mega really slow) But still not stoping.
But it is impossible to make a source that would "speed up and keep accelerating" because you need for to "keep accelerating" (F= ma) and since, relativistic mass increases with speed, the force necessary would become infinite. Your example is impossible. Of course, my objection assumes relativity is true. You are welcome to deny relativity if you wish but you cannot deny relativity and then use that to show that you get contradictory results.


Now i kept thinking, If speed of light is the fastest speed we know that is atainable by light only (i can't spell sorry) Then the fastest speed that is infinit is "Everything"(i don't know if there is a term for this but i just used everything or maybe space but when i say everything i mean all mater and everything that is.) "Everything" together is all. Now if you are everything and everything is you(still sorta nonsence but just follow along) Then time would accually be stoped. Now since we exist as "Everything" then we are moving. That is how we are now. Now since infinit(everything)is a infinit speed then that is the real fastest speed there is.
I simply cannot make any sense out of that. How do you go from "fastest speed is light" to "fastest speed that is infinite"?


When you use the problem energy=(mass)(speed of light)^2, that tells of all the energy in a certain peice of mass is determined by mulitplying it by the speed of light squared. Since the speed of light was the fastest speed Einstein thought of back then, then he used that in his equation to make an understanding. Now If you change that to energy=(mass)("Everything"=infinite) then that is the true energy ammount of energy for that mass. Now i dont know why Einstein squared his equation, and if someone can tell me please do so.
If you do not know how Einstein derived that formula, how can you say he used the "fastest speed" he "thought of"?

Or maybe (all energy in everything)=(the mass of everything)("Infinity"of speed) which would somewhat make sence.
No, it makes no sense at all.

[thejoshrules]

Ok... .dang ive been tring to tell you why i say this even though it doesn't make sense in physics, but the spam filter keeps saying it wont go through, so i can't really tell you my thoughts, but in all and all, sorry, your right, im just tring to learn, im just in highschool anyway and havn't gone to college yet, and im not a scholar or anything, im just a guy that is interested about the world around me, and i say this so i can get people to argue, so i can understand more and learn, and find out why things cannot and can happen. So i appoligize that i don't know was much as you guys and can't make a real point. Im just tring to learn

[Mr. Robin Parsons]

© Mr. Robin Parsons :cool: Kingston Ontario Canada MMVI

HallsofIvy THANKS!!

Really nice to 'see' (read) a voice of reason and clear understanding of the topic at hand.

But tell me, do you believe that it would be possible that the Object inside of a Black Hole could be turning (Spinning) at a rate/speed greater then light speed as to be producing the evident effect?

Subsequently would you follow the idea that anything that falls beyond/intoandpast the Event Horizon of a Black Hole must thereafter exceed lightspeed?

[Epsilon=One]

do you believe that it would be possible that the Object inside of a Black Hole could be turning (Spinning) at a rate/speed greater then light speed as to be producing the evident effect?You are stretching the definition of a black hole. However, this is not too much of a stretch; as, there are many definitions. However, a classic definition, such as, first proposed by Hawking is ludicrous.

There are no such black holes. Black holes are mythical and result from overextending GR's simplistic equations; the misinterpretation of observed data; or, an employment opportunity for theoretical physicists.

Subsequently would you follow the idea that anything that falls beyond/intoandpast the Event Horizon of a Black Hole must thereafter exceed lightspeed?A hypothetical question, concerning an undefined nonexistent, is claptrap. Partcularly, when there are so many observed enigmas to ponder. How about accelerating, galactic recession; or, the force that explains the pattern and speed of stars orbiting within galaxies?

[thejoshrules]

True, that black holes have never been found to be true, astronomist have looked many years for black holes and only have found evidence of blackholes, but no real siting of a black hole. Though the understanding of black holes is experimental. And not factual

[HallsofIvy]

True, that black holes have never been found to be true, astronomist have looked many years for black holes and only have found evidence of blackholes, but no real siting of a black hole. Though the understanding of black holes is experimental. And not factual

http://www.damtp.cam.ac.uk/user/gr/public/bh_obsv.html

[Epsilon=One]

http://www.damtp.cam.ac.uk/user/gr/public/bh_obsv.htmlThis link is an excellent example of how poor theory can lead to misinterpretaion of data even by the best of observers.

The ludicrous misinterpretaion is because the theory of galaxy creation is skewed; largely because of the belief in a mythical Big Bang.

There are many world cla ss [prior word formatted to defeat SPAM filter] astrophysicists that are yet to be convinced of the existence of black holes. However, as with the neutrino the definition of a black hole is evolving; and, the definition may eventually morph into something that fits observation rather than Hawking's theory.

(The lack of comment with the quoted link leads me to wonder if the poster has doubts concerning the University of Cambridge interpretations, which university has good reason to be biased.)

[HallsofIvy]

Robin Parsons wrote:
"But tell me, do you believe that it would be possible that the Object inside of a Black Hole could be turning (Spinning) at a rate/speed greater then light speed as to be producing the evident effect?

Subsequently would you follow the idea that anything that falls beyond/intoandpast the Event Horizon of a Black Hole must thereafter exceed lightspeed?"

I have no opinion at all about what would happen inside a black hole!

It's not clear to me how this next question is "subsequent" to the first. Even though I have no opinion as to the first question, the answer to the second is clearly "no". As the object approaches the event horizon, its speed approaches the speed of light but never reaches it. Which means, by the way, that, from the point of view of the object, it never actually reaches the event horizon in finite time and so cannot "cross" it.

[Mr. Robin Parsons]

© Mr. Robin Parsons :cool: Kingston Ontario Canada MMVI

I have no opinion at all about what would happen inside a black hole!

It's not clear to me how this next question is "subsequent" to the first. Even though I have no opinion as to the first question, the answer to the second is clearly "no". As the object approaches the event horizon, its speed approaches the speed of light but never reaches it. Which means, by the way, that, from the point of view of the object, it never actually reaches the event horizon in finite time and so cannot "cross" it. 'Subsequent' as in: it follows it.....

Mathematically O.K. but in the records humanity has, we have seen an object (a Star) cross a black holes event horizon and disappear...

So "something" is occuring, Postulating simple theory Implies that as the escape velocity MUST exceed Lightspeed, objects travelling in the other direction must be subject to forces exceeding lightspeeds rate.....? Good? Bad? Yes? No?

Do you theorize? or is it Held only to practicality of Mathematical proving Only? (or should (I) shut Up and accept that you have already stated you have 'no opinion'?)

[Epsilon=One]

Mathematically O.K. but in the records humanity has, we have seen an object (a Star) cross a black holes event horizon and disappear...I seriously doubt that anyone knows if a star has ever actually "cross a black holes event horizon" (sic); as it isn't known if black holes exist; much less their "event horizon."

So "something" is occuring, Postulating simple theory Implies that as the escape velocity MUST exceed Lightspeed, objects travelling in the other direction must be subject to forces exceeding lightspeeds rate.....? Good? Bad? Yes? No?No. It depends upon what the speed is relative to.

Do you theorize? or is it Held only to practicality of Mathematical proving Only? (or should (I) shut Up and accept that you have already stated you have 'no opinion'?)The third option would appear preferable.

[HallsofIvy]

I am willing to accept that "we have seen an object (a Star) cross a black holes event horizon and disappear..." (although, since my understanding is that no one has actually identified a black hole for certain, I would appreciate a reference so I could read it myself) but I don't see how that implies that it must have gone faster than the speed of light. You can cross the event horizon going IN at any speed. The problem is that to come OUT you would have to go faster than the speed of light. Since that's impossible, nothing comes out of a black hole- hence the name "black" hole.

[Mr. Robin Parsons]

© Mr. Robin Parsons :cool: Kingston Ontario Canada MMVI

my Immediate (MEmorial) is Television the CBC news, after that (I) have seen it referenced in Scientific Publications too, but Cannot think of one off-hand

As for the other it is simply a reference to activity that can be thought of as occuring given the nature of the need of motion in respect of objects moving, ('Something' a Star, went in) so if coming out is greater then light speed going in can be postulated as being....but No (I)'ve NO proof (either) to offer up....Here....

[Epsilon=One]

....but No (I)'ve NO proof (either) to offer up....Here....Finally. Never thought I would live long enough to read this.

I'm greatly indebted to HallsofIvy for this fine turn of events.

[Mr. Robin Parsons]

© Mr. Robin Parsons :cool: Kingston Ontario Canada MMVI

(SNIP) The problem is that to come OUT you would have to go faster than the speed of light. Since that's impossible, (SNoP)
"Impossible" (??) in the current knowledge of physics, perhaps, impossible as an accomplishement, yet still an Un-told(?) un-proven(!) possibility.....no certainty there just yet...

[OfficeShredder]

You realize they have tried to accelerate particles to the speed of light?

It just doesn't work.

[Mr. Robin Parsons]

© Mr. Robin Parsons :cool: Kingston Ontario Canada MMVI

You realize they have tried to accelerate particles to the speed of light?
It just doesn't work.

Yes......So Far.....or are you of the nature that you "close the door(s)" without complete and proper examination of everything inclusive of ALL of what we have yet to discover?

Open-minded? or simply A Closed Head space?

[OfficeShredder]

On the other hand, developing beliefs on a concept that has yet to pan out despite attempts at making it work is.... it's not even short sighted, it's just kind of silly. You don't have to believe it's not possible to break the speed of light, but it's naive to simply dismiss the idea, since it has been shown both mathematically and experimentally to be a sound concept

[Epsilon=One]

On the other hand, developing beliefs on a concept that has yet to pan out despite attempts at making it work is.... it's not even short sighted, it's just kind of silly. You don't have to believe it's not possible to break the speed of light, but it's naive to simply dismiss the idea, since it has been shown both mathematically and experimentally to be a sound conceptI couldn't agree with your thoughts more. That is, with both your opinions: "...to believe it's not possible to break the speed of light...(is) naive to simply dismiss the idea..."; and, "...it's not even short sighted, it's just kind of silly."

The entire concept of Pulsoid Theory (http://www.CQthus.com/PT/PTis), which has never been refuted by academia, is based upon hyper-relativistic phenomena (HP).

Every time non-local phenomena is observed there is an element of HP. This includes such as: the Cosmic gravitational effect as well as quantum tunneling and quantum entanglement.

See the relevant paragraphs concerning HP at: "Pulsoid Theory's relation to Reality" (http://www.physicsmathforums.com/showthread.php?t=1645).

[Mr. Robin Parsons]

© Mr. Robin Parsons Kingston Ontario Canada MMVI

On the other hand, developing beliefs on a concept that has yet to pan out despite attempts at making it work is.... it's not even short sighted, it's just kind of silly. You don't have to believe it's not possible to break the speed of light, but it's naive to simply dismiss the idea, since it has been shown both mathematically and experimentally to be a sound conceptAnd your references to that PROOF are Where???

Aside from that who said (I) was "developing beliefs" as opposed to simply remaining Scientifically Curious....You know, like the person who Doped Rubber with another chemical and showed everyone that Ooooops YUP!! RUBBER CAN CONDUCT ELECTRICITY >>COMPLETELY CONTRARY<< to what everyone HAD thought.....

BTW those accelerators Use magnets to accelerate the particles, what if that is what is causeing the observed effects?

Your closed mind is shut.

[OfficeShredder]

Aside from that who said (I) was "developing beliefs" as opposed to simply remaining Scientifically Curious....You know, like the person who Doped Rubber with another chemical and showed everyone that Ooooops YUP!! RUBBER CAN CONDUCT ELECTRICITY >>COMPLETELY CONTRARY<< to what everyone HAD thought.....

I don't see what this rubber has to do with anything here. The fact that he had to use another chemical to make it conductive kind of defeats the purpose though, no?


BTW those accelerators Use magnets to accelerate the particles, what if that is what is causeing the observed effects?

If you could give a logical explanation for this, I'd be willing to buy it. But our knowledge of basic electromagnetism is pretty firm, so I'm confident we didn't build every single particle accelerator with a major flaw in it.

Your closed mind is shut.

Coming from the person who's absolutely unwilling to accept something just because he's "scientifically curious", this is an interesting statement. Especially since it's so redundant

[Mr. Robin Parsons]

© Mr. Robin Parsons Kingston Ontario Canada MMVI

I don't see what this rubber has to do with anything here. The fact that he had to use another chemical to make it conductive kind of defeats the purpose though, no?No, and It speaks to the opportunities that await people who keep an Open Mind, unlike yourself.

If you could give a logical explanation for this, I'd be willing to buy it. But our knowledge of basic electromagnetism is pretty firm, so I'm confident we didn't build every single particle accelerator with a major flaw in it.Never said that there were "FLAWS" so try reading, please....

Coming from the person who's absolutely unwilling to accept something just because he's "scientifically curious", this is an interesting statement. Especially since it's so redundantUnwilling to accept a 'partiality of truth' who would be so STUPID to accept something As "complete and proven" based upon a Partiallity of truth? (NOT (I)!! )

As for it being redundant, that your mind is closed shut, forgive me as apparently (I) omitted to add in the Closed & SHUT....

Mine is still open......

As for a logical explaination for why Magnetics in particle accelerators might be the 'problem' rather then the "ability to cause" well, (I) see little point in trying to explain anything to a CLOSED & SHUT mind....

Pointless.

[OfficeShredder]

No, and It speaks to the opportunities that await people who keep an Open Mind, unlike yourself.

Explain why it doesn't make a difference then. At least give me a source so I can see how this chemical wasn't the root cause of conduction, which would defeat the purpose

Never said that there were "FLAWS" so try reading, please....

If a particle accelerator was designed such that the magnetic field was screwing up the readings or preventing the particle from accelerating past a certain point, that wouldn't be a flaw? Or is there some unproven physical principle that's hindering our ability to perform these experiments? In that case, knowledge of this principle is probably more mind-blowing than the ability to accelerate things past the speed of light.

Unwilling to accept a 'partiality of truth' who would be so STUPID to accept something As "complete and proven" based upon a Partiallity of truth? (NOT (I)!! )

Don't you believe in god? :rolleyes:

I don't accept it as completely proven (good grammar is key), but it certainly has strong support, which can't be disregarded.

In fact, epsilon, how does pulsoid theory explain the inability of particle accelerators to hit the speed of light?

As for it being redundant, that your mind is closed shut, forgive me as apparently (I) omitted to add in the Closed & SHUT....

Actually, by saying "Your closed mind is shut", it's logically equivalent to "Your mind is closed and shut". You never said "Your mind is closed shut", which wouldn't be redundant

As for a logical explaination for why Magnetics in particle accelerators might be the 'problem' rather then the "ability to cause" well, (I) see little point in trying to explain anything to a CLOSED & SHUT mind....

Pointless.

Seeing how you tried to explain how my mind is closed and shut, you've already contradicted yourself (or you like doing pointless things). So you might as well give it a shot

[Mr. Robin Parsons]

© Mr. Robin Parsons :cool: Kingston Ontario Canada MMVI

For the rest of you who might just still be open-minded, particle accelerators usually use Positively charged particles as they have stripped the atoms of there electrons in order to have the effect of acceleration by the Magnets....AFAIK they have not yet been able to do it, or tried(?) it, with a Neutral Particle...something about the manner of acceleration by Magnetics....

It may very well be that in a Magnetic field there are properties arising as a direct result of the use of Magnetics to perform the accelerations that are, as of now, yet un-realized/un-recognized inasmuch as it may be the Magnetic Field itself that is causing the need of exponential Increase as to increase speeds....(I)'ve no idea if it (that Idea) has ever even so little as been explored....

As for the workings of a Black Hole, past the event horizon, as it is Conceived that it is in excess of light speed that is the Escape velocity, it is a SIMPLE ASSUMPTION to make that something going in Should exceed Light speed by that very SAME Mechanism...But that is, as of right NOW, Un-Proven.....

So making a final Choice based upon incomplete information and Knowledge is rather kinda silly, if you ask me, but anyone and everyone can do whatever they WANT TO....including making themselves look silly, Lord Knows (I) have done that myself.

[Mr. Robin Parsons]

© Mr. Robin Parsons :cool: Kingston Ontario Canada MMVI

Explain why it doesn't make a difference then. At least give me a source so I can see how this chemical wasn't the root cause of conduction, which would defeat the purpose So you don't know how to look for yourself....maybe that is why you don't come up with answers.

If a particle accelerator was designed such that the magnetic field was screwing up the readings or preventing the particle from accelerating past a certain point, that wouldn't be a flaw? Or is there some unproven physical principle that's hindering our ability to perform these experiments? In that case, knowledge of this principle is probably more mind-blowing than the ability to accelerate things past the speed of light.Read the above, no one said anything about it being screwed up, 'cept you...

Don't you believe in god? :rolleyes: Yes (I) do and God is most assuredly NOT a partiallity of truth, God is the whole and Complete Truth.

I don't accept it as completely proven (good grammar is key), but it certainly has strong support, which can't be disregarded.BACKPEDALER

Actually, by saying "Your closed mind is shut", it's logically equivalent to "Your mind is closed and shut". You never said "Your mind is closed shut", which wouldn't be redundant (I) said you mind is Closed Shut, and, as (I) also said, (I) should have said, as (I) since have, Closed and SHUT inferring not to be opened again as saying it was, simply, "closed" would have allowed for.

As for grammar well only someone like yourself would claim something new as wrong based solely upon a gramatical error, something you to make in case you hadn't looked over your own work well enough ....just yet.

Seeing how you tried to explain how my mind is closed and shut, you've already contradicted yourself (or you like doing pointless things). So you might as well give it a shotYou mind is closed and shut...a door can be opened and closed, and it can also be shut and LOCKED closed, but such thoughts/ideas are, apparently, beyond you Sooooooooo

[OfficeShredder]

BACKPEDALER


When did I ever say it was impossible? I merely pointed out that all evidence pointed to it being true.


For the rest of you who might just still be open-minded, particle accelerators usually use Positively charged particles as they have stripped the atoms of there electrons in order to have the effect of acceleration by the Magnets....AFAIK they have not yet been able to do it, or tried(?) it, with a Neutral Particle...something about the manner of acceleration by Magnetics....

"something about the manner of acceleration by magnetics...."

I'm not sure, but you definitely give the impression here that you don't realize magnets can ONLY accelerate charged particles, because the force on a particle is proportional to its electric charge

It should also be noted that the force is proportional to velocity... so as velocity increases, so does the force. Meaning that it's easier (if you reject relativity) to accelerate a fast moving particle

I'm also starting to get the impression that you're confusing me with HallsofIvy

[Mr. Robin Parsons]

© Mr. Robin Parsons :cool: Kingston Ontario Canada MMVI

When did I ever say it was impossible? I merely pointed out that all evidence pointed to it being true.

You don't have to believe it's not possible to break the speed of light, but it's naive to simply dismiss the idea, since it has been shown both mathematically and experimentally to be a sound conceptAll of the evidence is not in yet, that is what (I) pointed out, and what you have been Banging heads about ever since....plus grammar...OYE!

I'm not sure, but you definitely give the impression here that you don't realize magnets can ONLY accelerate charged particles, because the force on a particle is proportional to its electric charge

It should also be noted that the force is proportional to velocity... so as velocity increases, so does the force. Meaning that it's easier (if you reject relativity) to accelerate a fast moving particle Ha-ha-ha-ha-ha to the first part...as for the second part well, that is for a charged particle, a neutral {SPAM}ssam{X} might just accelerate very easily...do you know for certain?

I'm also starting to get the impression that you're confusing me with HallsofIvy

Not on your life HallsofIvy is REALLY GOOD at math.

[Mr. Robin Parsons]

© Mr. Robin Parsons :cool: Kingston Ontario Canada MMVI

BTW 'Close' is What you do, 'shut' is what it becomes....one is an action, the other a state...at least in the manner that (I) was using them, you? who knows??

And BTW #2 EP=1 is on my ignore list so, trying to get him/her to respond to me is reeeeeally kinda silly.

[Epsilon=One]

And BTW #2 EP=1 is on my ignore list so, trying to get him/her to respond to me is reeeeeally kinda silly.My being on your "ignore"-ance list has nothing to do with my responding to you. As usual you distort facts; and, you so do by assuming and distorting the thoughts and position of others.

I don't generally waste my time with your inane histrionics and misstatements unless they distort my arguments; or, they are more egregious than usual.

Yes (I) do and God is most assuredly NOT a partiallity of truth, God is the whole and Complete Truth.Knowing that you define your god as having anthropoidal qualities, I can think of little that is more an untruth than your belief.

Your belief in your god is an example of a mind that is closed to all intelligent reason.

[Epsilon=One]

...how does pulsoid theory explain the inability of particle accelerators to hit the speed of light?At the SOL all phenomena is non-local.

The particle accelerator's objects may well "hit the speed of light"; this is when the phenomena would no longer be observable and is referred to as annihilation.

[Mr. Robin Parsons]

© Mr. Robin Parsons :cool: Kingston Ontario Canada MMVI

Oh Yes, two other notations of this subject, one is the simplicity that all Particle accelerators are Earth (terrestrial/ground) based and therefore subjected to Earth's Gravitational Field effects which may very well (or not) have causation pertinent to the need of excessive energies as to induce further/higher accelerations, the other (two) is the Simplicity of the reality that NO known presently employed particle accelerator can accelerate an electrically Neutral Particle, ({SPAM}ssam{X} and/or Matter) hence it is Moot as to whether (or not) they can accelerate anything Beyond (or to) light speed....



(Is my grammar correct enough for you? OfficeShredder)

[Mr. Robin Parsons]

© Mr. Robin Parsons :cool: Kingston Ontario Canada MMVI

Just out of curiosity, is EP=0 posting anything relevant? or is it the same regurgitated Excrement that he had been posting ever since he discovered he was wrong...??

Anyone? (other then the excretionist of course)

P.S. he discovered he was wrong a long time past, long before me, as there were experts who have reviewed his work(ings) just that, he has never accepted it......as the self-deluded usually go....

[Epsilon=One]

Just out of curiosity, is EP=0 posting anything relevant?Exactly why would you not consider the Elliptical Constant (http://www.CQthus.com/PT/EC) as "anything relevant"??? If there were any truth to your statement I'm certain that you would not hesitate to post an example. And, "relevant" to what???

...he discovered he was wrong a long time past...As is your usual practice, you falsify situations and then dishonestly draw erroneous conclusions.

If I were to discover an error or a concept that was illogical, I would certainly be the first to correct or omit the error. What is more important, is that no one else, of consequence, has ever pointed out a precise, substantial, error of logic within my theories; or, provided a more logical alternative to any of my alternative concepts. No one, more than myself, would so welcome such a discussion. Possibly you could so arrange it?

...before me, as there were experts who have reviewed his work(ings) just that, he has never accepted it......as the self-deluded usually go....I am aware of no such experts. I assume, you will either disclose these experts you speak of or apologize for blatant distortion and ad hominemism.

For a person that professes a belief in an anthropic god, of presumed tolerance, your antics appear, to an unbeliever in such a god, as unusually ungodly. Thus, once more, your petulance has made my point.

[Mr. Robin Parsons]

© Mr. Robin Parsons :cool: Kingston Ontario Canada MMVI


(I)'ll take it that since it is the whatever that has responded that is is as (I) had thought...

......Excretia.

(And probably wrong too)

[Mr. Robin Parsons]

© Mr. Robin Parsons :cool: Kingston Ontario Canada MMVI

O.K. So another potential problem that (I) would suspect as having some operative would be the Magnets themselves inasmuch as How fast do magnetic fields form, collapse and reform as to be capable of accelerating particulate matter to speeds near light speed?

Given the Incredulous speed of light, the need of the magnets to form & reform the magnetic fields is probably near the speed of light itself, hence it could very well be that it is the Formation of Fields that is giving rise to the needs of extra energies as to facilitate the Increases at near light relativistic speeds that, and the temperature of the particulate matter, as motion is somewhat governed by temperature, temperature is a Function of Ambient energy pressure which is somewhat what the magnets themselves are trying to supply, an ambient energy pressure large enough to accelerate the particles to higher order speeds....

Chilling the particles (To near zero K) prior to acceleration might just change the parameters of needs of energies to cause higher accelerations.

So the notion of Light speed travel (Or faster then light speed) may still be somewhat mis-understood simply because of the current method of experimentation, particle accelerators that accelerate only charged (ionized) particles and only by magnetic acceleration AND in the earths' ACTIVE gravitational Field wherein the effects thereof may only become apparent when reaching near light speed such that they have never been accounted for because they were not believed to be there....and maybe they aren't too, sooooooooo....

Not as much a 'Concluded' theory as would seem that it is (has been, herein) promoted as.

[Mr. Robin Parsons]

© Mr. Robin Parsons :cool: Kingston Ontario Canada MMVI


Oh Yes, the problem might just be exactly the other way round, the magnetic acceleration might just be causing the particle(s) to heat, thereby generating a greater ambient energy pressure (and an associated/associable mediumistic effect) thusly requiring greater energies to induce further accelerations....who knows just yet, it Could be ....needs to be tested for, if it hasn't already been.

[Mr. Robin Parsons]

© Mr. Robin Parsons :cool: Kingston Ontario Canada MMVI

6:27 AM 02/11/2006

The only other thing (I) can think of off-hand is the Idea of Particulate heating, inasmuch as the particles interacting with the Magnetic fields experience Heating (as a result of the efforts at acceleration) which, as it is Proven out in chemistry, particulate matter that is heated thereafter attempts to dissipate that heat, (By radiation) thereby Slowing itself Down, as it is Known in Chemistry (Physics too) that Matter that is being heated, Accelerates, once the heating source is removed, the Matter therafter, in dissipation of that heat, slows down, therefore we can conclude that a COOLING particle is one that is Energetically working at slowing itself down...usually to ambient temperature.

If in an accelerator the Particles are experienceing heating as a result of the interactions of the magnetic fields, then the particles are in a process of heat dissipation which is a SLOWING of motion activity, hence it would make it quite the energetic affair to try to Keep accelerating such an event process.