Just be aware, I have no answers, nor claim to. I have some beliefs, which I share now and then. I do like experimental data, always.

 

I just thought this is an interesting read: https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/02/080222095358.htm

kv

 

 

Is it possible to go faster than the speed of light? According to modern science, it would take all the energy in the universe to accelerate a small mass to the velocity of c.

All of the mass (mass is made of charge particles) everywhere in the universe is constantly being accelerated at c this very second. Always and everywhere. That's what mass is. Mass is charge, accelerated at c. The acceleration doesn't propel the charge. It spins it.

So that premise is certainly a wrong. Mass (charge) does move at c without a lot of energy.

The only opposition to the particle linear velocity of c is inertia. (so they tell us) Science defines inertia as a PROPERTY of mass that opposes a change in velocity. They say this property is inherent of mass and offer no dynamic or process for this property. It just is. Talk about blind faith.

I believe there is a physical dynamic to inertia. Just like there is a physical dynamic to everything else in the universe. Like the generation of the magnetic. Like the emission of light. Like the generation of gravity. ALL have a physical dynamic.

ANYONE who can understand electronics and resonance can study and understand with these dynamics.

TWO SEPARATE, EQUAL POWER, PERPENDICULAR, SIMULTANEOUS, FLUX ROTATIONS is the dynamic of inertia. It is a property of a charged particle, not mass or matter. It's a rotational field flux---magnetic flux resonance just like we use in tuned circuits. It's rotational frequency is high....about 10E21 Hz for an electron. (the lowest spin rate) That's in the x-ray wavelength. How could we measure the rotational frequency of a constant amplitude, constant velocity electric field? A closed helix with n number of 1 (helix pitch = 1) has an inclined path thru the rotational plain. (just like earth) Unlike Earth's inclination, this inclination rotates with the charge, because the whole ring is in rotation. This causes the electric field to wobble one time per rotation at n = 1. If we add an n, we will get a second inclination that is perpendicular to the first inclination. Two wobbles per rotation. (if we added a turn to earth's rotation, we would have 2 inclinations and 8 seasons per year) (a gravitational orbit with n greater than 1 has not been found) (gravity is field asymmetric, not field symmetric like charge)
Every n number will have a certain wobble rate or wobble frequency. The magnetic flux wobbles in unison with the electric, but the n number adds magnetic nodes, like sections of an orange to the flux. Each n number adds at least 2 orange sections. Protons can have hundreds of these "orange sections". Each orange section is needed to compress the ring diameter down against the charge. All of these inclinations and orange sections can be mapped and cataloged. They are all set and equal for all charge particle energy levels.

You can see one half of this inertia effect with a gyroscope. (only one rotation) But a charged particle rotates an equal magnetic flux perpendicular to the electric flux at the same time. Inertia. These two flux fields are constantly being refreshed and established around the charge.

If one or both fluxes is disturbed or deformed from an external source, just the physical act of rotation will attempt to restore the distorted field and express the inertia reaction. IF the field symmetry of the charge can not be restored with rotation, then the flux fields (of the particle itself) will accelerate the charge particle, to a distance and duration, to where the flux fields regain symmetry, AT this point the acceleration will stop and the particle will move at the now new un-distorted constant velocity. The inertia will only accelerate the charge until the fields can reform. Now if we want to increase speed but not direction......The same amount of force will accelerate the charge again. (if the force is referenced to the new position and new velocity)

What happens when the charge can't find a location or area where the fields can regain symmetry? If the confining area is static, as a conductor free charge, the charge will find the sweetest spot it can. If the confining area is dynamic, such as a solution or a gas, the charge will continuously search for a sweet spot, responding to the dynamic external fields.

In reality, it is the inertia of the charge itself, that causes the acceleration of the charge particle. The power and energy of the charge is in the rotating flux fields, not the rotating ring structure. This frame has very little power, if any. The symmetry of the flux fields determines the frame (charge ring) location.
Think about that. Field symmetry determines charge particle location AND acceleration. It is inertia that is the physical cause of particle acceleration. It is the distortion in the charge flux fields that causes the inertia response, which causes the charge to accelerate. And to think all this time we have been told that inertia opposes acceleration. It turns out that restoring fields to symmetry from a disturbance (which is the real dynamic of inertia) is the very cause of acceleration. This is why modern science has a hard time determining whether a charge particle is a wave (flux fields) or a real particle (a physical structure).

Inertia reacts differently when a constant external flux distortion is applied and the fields are not allowed to regain symmetry. The particle will start to spiral (trying to restore fields) and an external rotation will be applied to the already spinning charge. The radius of the spiral path will decrease and the external rotation will increase until a complete external rotation can be added to the charge. The n number of the charge will increase. When this happens, at a minimum, the inertia of the charge will double. (the mass doubles) This means the flux fields of charge will double. Now it will take double the external force to distort the new established inertia fields. This dynamic process will continue as long as the flux fields are distorted. Acceleration to mass, acceleration to mass, acceleration to mass. This is why modern science thinks that energy is turned into mass. And why they think it it impossible to reach a faster than c velocity in a particle or in a craft. Take your foot off the gas.

The way to get around this acceleration to mass problem, is to use pulse propulsion. Let the inertia reset the flux fields. If you let the fields rest, there will be no mass gain, and you can achieve any velocity in steps. Just like mass amounts and energy amounts are in steps, is it too wild to think of velocity or acceleration in steps?

Apply a force to a craft until it starts moving and then turn off the force. As soon as the craft reaches a constant velocity (which means that the flux fields are restored) pulse the craft again. Continue this process and we get velocity without mass gain. And since there was no mass gain, we won't have to double the power to bump it again. A lot less power needed for acceleration. The same process will need to be applied in reverse to stop, without mass gain. If you try to stop a high velocity craft with constant deceleration, the inertia (mass) that will be gained, will require huge amounts of force to overcome. You might never stop. AND of course, no turning at warp speed. If a turn is necessary, it will have to be a pulsed turn (no arc allowed).....so as not to have mass gain.

There is another mis-conception that modern science professes about going faster than c. They say that this velocity would limit our field of view, our sensing orientation and detecting abilities.
We live in a relative world. We are born to understand relative distance, relative movement (velocity) and apparent time. Recently, we started moving at relative high velocities, compared with most of our history. With every step up in velocity, we have been able to easily relate to the movement. We have no problem ignoring the blur close by. This principle will not change with supernatural speed. We will still be able to see all around us. Because the light is already there. The only light that we could not see, is new light. That means no cell service. You will need to take a copy of the internet with you.

A charged particle establishes a resonant charge field around the charge. Its like a very steady high frequency, high Q musical note. A tone if you will. When an external force, deforms that note, The inertia of the charge will refresh that charge note, and will move (accelerate) the charge if necessary to do it. Inertia keeps the charge on the right note. Sine wave control. The only thing that can change the resonant frequency of the charge is the n number. Distortion just knocks it off key (no frequency change). The n number is the number of turns of the charge helix. Increasing this number is what we want to prevent during acceleration. This should allow superluminal velocities without an increase in mass.

Monitor any dipole of or in the craft. Accelerate until you see a change in the frequency of the dipole. This frequency change means that acceleration energy is being adsorbed into the craft, instead of propelling the craft. Stop the acceleration and the dipole frequency will return to the normal frequency at the new higher velocity. Repeat process. We can putt putt among the stars. Only acceleration can distort the fields, not velocity. ANY velocity should be stable.

I doubt a human could tell the difference between putt putt and constant acceleration, after the first few hundred putts.

A new engineering science. Digital propulsion and digital steering. Or should I say impulse drive and impulse navigation.

How or even could we, communicate with a xlight craft?

Will the speed of light barrier reveal or expose some unknown dimension or property or law? Could warp speed effect matter or force in some new manner?

Is warp speed a totally artificial dynamic? Or once there, will there be more "stuff"? Could galactic noise and inter galactic noise be superluminal objects going by? How would we know?

Is the speed of light the secret handshake to meeting higher and older forms of life?

And all the highways are crowded and regulated.

There's always a down side.

Hello there,

Gee that's a lot there, but the idea that you cannot go faster than the speed of light is not because you don't have enough energy. It is a property of space-time not a property of mass and energy, except coincidentally. In this way, it is like you are inside a two dimensional square and you cannot get out no matter what you do, and there is a single track that you can follow, and only that track. That means if you go up on the Y axis following that track you necessarily go down on the X axis because that is where the track leads you, and if you go up on the X axis, you necessarily go down on the Y axis. You must follow the track and the track is inside that square so you can never follow the track outside of that square. It's like you have to follow a single curve and the curve ends at the edges of the square. The fact that mass and energy seem to have something to do with it is just a coincidence.

I don't think we can go faster than light yet, but i also believe that science is so progressive that we cannot make any final judgements on what we can and cannot do in the future. Is there a way out of the square, can we deform the square, etc., or is there yet something we still don't know that unlocks the key to faster speed, and will there be any limits after that as well. It's also subject to interpretation; is warping space going faster than light? If you can get to point B from point A and the time it took to get there was shorter than if you had to go the long way around, then you went from point A to point B faster than the long way around, there's no doubt about that. If it takes 5 minutes to get from A to B at the speed of light and you warp space and it takes just 1 minute to get from A to B then you got there faster than it would be if you ONLY went at the speed of light. It may not matter that in your bubble of space that you didn't go faster than light in one interpretation of theory, because for any practical purpose you did. Of course if anything else changes along the way then you'd have to consider that along with it.

I was thinking about inertia a long time ago and did not like the 'definition' either. There was no real mechanics to it, just an identity of sorts. To paraphrase the definition, if you start going you keep going unless something stops you. Gee, thanks for that glimmer of pure genius! I would have never known that unless i had seen it written in a textbook, thanks so much, how on earth do i thank thee (ha ha). There is one theory though that i think may not hold anymore, as it depends on all the mass in the universe and how it affects every single object in the universe. I have trouble with this because the speed of gravitational waves has been verified to be at the speed of light. That means that things that are light years away would have a hard time influencing my straw hat. Could it be that this was established at the dawn of time so it would have been part of the entire creation. I still have trouble with that.
I had sought after a definition that was more local and involved things about matter itself came more from an internal mechanics. Not sure yet if this works out or not.

Will we have time to figure everything out. If everyone is dead on the earth and a tree falls in the forest, it is certain nobody will hear it.

 

 

To paraphrase the definition, if you start going you keep going unless something stops you. Gee, thanks for that glimmer of pure genius! I would have never known that unless i had seen it written in a textbook, thanks so much, how on earth do i thank thee (ha ha).

I think the observation that an object at rest will stay that way unless acted on by a force, and an object in motion is the same, it actually a profound and non-trivial one, particularly in a world where people didn‘t grow up with it as an assumption. Before it was stated explicitly, it wasn’t obvious, nor was it immediately accepted as self evident when it was articulated.

For me, there are several implications of it that are very interesting and foreshadow Einstein’s Relativity. It suggests that an object “at rest” and one “in motion“ are in the same state and the apparent difference is a subjective one. It also suggests something about the nature of potential and kinetic energy.

Since a body at rest will stay that way unless it is acted upon by an external force, and a body in motion shares this, it suggests that the “energy content” of the body (from zero to n) is somehow inherent to the what we measure as mass of the object and of another body in a different inertial reference frame.

While in the practical world, there are always forces and so things will always eventually, come to rest in the thought experiment where there are no forces to act on the body (approximated by deep space), the a body in motion is the same as a body at rest with more ”potential energy” which is a phantom, I think. Every term in these calculation depends on a separate inertial reference frame from which to measure it. If you try to measure velocity for example with no inertial reference frame to call “at rest”, you can only find that the body under investigation is at rest.

Potential energy can only be understood in relation to kinetic energy. If we accelerate a body in an environment free of external forces, the only indication of the potential energy is its velocity. But we know that velocity is entirely relative to some other reference frame. This means what we call the moving body, is, in its inertial reference frame actually at rest and we are the thing in motion, and with potential energy.

If it is so easy to transfer potential energy, that is, simply pick a different reference frame which appears in motion to you (while those that appear at rest are clearly “moving” at your same velocity!) then we can see that the idea of things remaining at rest or in motion is a phantom and we are really observing things remaining in a certain energetic state relative to some other inertial reference frame.

The “forces” which could act on the moving body are all in a state where their apparent velocity differs from the body’s. So “a force” really means interaction a different reference frame which is neither at rest nor in motion except by arbitrary labeling. Either one could be called the body at rest or the body in motion.

For me, this has many subtle implications concerning the nature of momentum, and I believe that momentum is a false force, a phantom of something deeper—a result and not a cause, so it can’t be stated in any way except as an observation of its existence. It is akin to centrifugal force, which certainly seems very real to us, as observers. In the same way, momentum seems self-evident and ”real” but trying to reconcile momentum with the relative nature of velocity raises a lot of questions, at least for me.

So, momentum is not the final answer, but the observation of it and its behavior seems to me far from trivial except for the fact that we have grown up with it as a foundation and find any other possibility. That it might appear self-evident at this point, is, for me, an outcome of having had it pointed out long ago and incorporated into the memetic content of our cultural intelligence.

 

I think the observation that an object at rest will stay that way unless acted on by a force, and an object in motion is the same, it actually a profound and non-trivial one, particularly in a world where people didn‘t grow up with it as an assumption. Before it was stated explicitly, it wasn’t obvious, nor was it immediately accepted as self evident when it was articulated.

For me, there are several implications of it that are very interesting and foreshadow Einstein’s Relativity. It suggests that an object “at rest” and one “in motion“ are in the same state and the apparent difference is a subjective one. It also suggests something about the nature of potential and kinetic energy.

Since a body at rest will stay that way unless it is acted upon by an external force, and a body in motion shares this, it suggests that the “energy content” of the body (from zero to n) is somehow inherent to the what we measure as mass of the object and of another body in a different inertial reference frame.

While in the practical world, there are always forces and so things will always eventually, come to rest in the thought experiment where there are no forces to act on the body (approximated by deep space), the a body in motion is the same as a body at rest with more ”potential energy” which is a phantom, I think. Every term in these calculation depends on a separate inertial reference frame from which to measure it. If you try to measure velocity for example with no inertial reference frame to call “at rest”, you can only find that the body under investigation is at rest.

Potential energy can only be understood in relation to kinetic energy. If we accelerate a body in an environment free of external forces, the only indication of the potential energy is its velocity. But we know that velocity is entirely relative to some other reference frame. This means what we call the moving body, is, in its inertial reference frame actually at rest and we are the thing in motion, and with potential energy.

If it is so easy to transfer potential energy, that is, simply pick a different reference frame which appears in motion to you (while those that appear at rest are clearly “moving” at your same velocity!) then we can see that the idea of things remaining at rest or in motion is a phantom and we are really observing things remaining in a certain energetic state relative to some other inertial reference frame.

The “forces” which could act on the moving body are all in a state where their apparent velocity differs from the body’s. So “a force” really means interaction a different reference frame which is neither at rest nor in motion except by arbitrary labeling. Either one could be called the body at rest or the body in motion.

For me, this has many subtle implications concerning the nature of momentum, and I believe that momentum is a false force, a phantom of something deeper—a result and not a cause, so it can’t be stated in any way except as an observation of its existence. It is akin to centrifugal force, which certainly seems very real to us, as observers. In the same way, momentum seems self-evident and ”real” but trying to reconcile momentum with the relative nature of velocity raises a lot of questions, at least for me.

So, momentum is not the final answer, but the observation of it and its behavior seems to me far from trivial except for the fact that we have grown up with it as a foundation and find any other possibility. That it might appear self-evident at this point, is, for me, an outcome of having had it pointed out long ago and incorporated into the memetic content of our cultural intelligence.

Hello there Ya’akov,

I like your first paragraph in particular. That shows that the simple statements about movements do tell us something useful.
In my opinion and the opinion of other thinkers, it's just not always enough to know the result of something else that has happened. My sarcastic post was an attempt to draw attention to that viewpoint. I think you were investigating that briefly also.

When we talk about a thing so nondescript like that, it means that it has not yet really been defined very well. That puts it in the category of general knowledge, and that would be subject to change in the future. I'll give a quick example what this means in reality.
"A body is at rest until acted on by an outside force."
How do we know that to be true? What if every mass is actually trying to move in every direction at the same time (and so any actual movement is canceled out), but only moves in the direction we want it to when we push on it. This is just a hint that there may be something internal responsible for the 'rest', just as for the 'movement', unless it is something very far away.
Maybe we need to consider a reference at infinity in all possible 3d directions, which would probably be mostly just in the realm of theory.

A side issue of interest is that everything is moving, which sort of begs the question what exactly is absolute stillness. Since we don't seem to need that, we go with the frame of reference idea so that any measurement is always at least somewhat local. I have to wonder though, is it possible that everything moves and nothing can be absolutely still. Maybe there is no such thing, and is it even possible. We know we could never measure that though even if we consider the movement of the universe.


The main point to think about though is how do we know that a body is at rest until acted on by an outside force, even using an agreed upon reference.

 

https://bigthink.com/starts-with-a-bang/instant-quantum-behavior-limited-speed-of-light/
Even “instant” quantum behavior is still limited by the speed of light

All it could do was demonstrate that there’s no fundamental “quantum delay” in the tunneling transition from a bound state to an unbound state. Nevertheless, experiments like these are useful for exposing how physicists have managed to exploit a many-particle system in order to create the illusion of something traveling faster than light: a result which gets misreported every few years in the popular media.
...
However, at no point is any quantum particle actually traveling faster than light. That’s a phenomenon that’s restricted, at least as far as we know, to the realm of science fiction alone.

 

You all have my sincere admiration for attempting to rationalize your thoughts on this subject. I personally find that most of the advanced theories are too difficult for me to really comprehend without much more concrete evidence. I will leave the theorizing to you. I would much rather amuse myself by focusing my creative efforts into things which appear follow the basic rules of simple physics as I understand them, but thank you all for the entertainment.

 

It's possible to walk (this part is getting harder as I get older), chew gum and muse over advanced theories.

 

To me, most really advanced theories appear to be attempts to bend the acceptable facts to fit some very wild ideas. When they don't quite fit, imaginary things are invented to fill the gaps. It's just a guessing game.

 

To me, most really advanced theories appear to be attempts to bend the acceptable facts to fit some very wild ideas. When they don't quite fit, imaginary things are invented to fill the gaps. It's just a guessing game.

That describes the evolution of string theory and dark matter.

 

It's just a guessing game.

Guessing (it's called Hypothesis) is the first step towards developing a scientific theory. It all depends on how "well educated" said guess is.

 

Guessing (it's called Hypothesis) is the first step towards developing a scientific theory. It all depends on how "well educated" said guess is.

+1
https://fs.blog/mental-model-scientific-method/

 

I was going to say that! ha ha

Imagination is the key to the future ... the only key. Without it there can be no progress.

 

Many of the new theories are 'Not Even Wrong' because the conditions needed for any practical experiment to falsify the theory is so outlandishly impractical to the point they really don't meet the definition of scientific.

https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Not_even_wrong

Not even wrong refers to any statement, argument, or explanation that can be neither correct nor incorrect, because it fails to meet the criteria by which correctness and incorrectness are determined. As a more formal fallacy, it refers to the fine art of generating an ostensibly "correct" conclusion, but from premises known to be wrong or inapplicable. In other words, an argument that is valid, but not sound.

The phrase "not even wrong" describes any argument that purports to be scientific but fails at some fundamental level, usually in that it contains a terminal logical fallacy or it cannot be falsified by experiment, or cannot be used to make predictions about the natural world.

 

Two wobbles per rotation. (if we added a turn to earth's rotation, we would have 2 inclinations and 8 seasons per year)

Impossible for the Earth to have 8 seasons, or to wobble. So I say...a non-expert reply.

 

Impossible for the Earth to have 8 seasons, or to wobble. So I say...a non-expert reply.

I miss that guy

 

I miss that guy

He frequently said nonsensical things ... but sometimes he'd throw an interesting pearl here and there... I hope he's ok

 

Impossible for the Earth to have 8 seasons, or to wobble. So I say...a non-expert reply.

If it's impossible for the Earth to wobble, someone needs to sit the Earth down and have a long talk telling it to stop wobbling.

https://www.jpl.nasa.gov/news/nasa-study-solves-two-mysteries-about-wobbling-earth