Jump to content
Science Forums

Universal Speed Limit


Recommended Posts

As an object gets closer to the speed of light it acquires more mass. My model supports this because it's running into more gravitational bodies that offer resistance as it achieves higher velocities. It would become a black hole before achieving 100% the speed of light.

My model also states that black holes have super gravitons in them, so the gravitational field strength within the event horizon displaces an object further than a planck length in a planck time, so an object like a super graviton will move faster than light, if it does so it's gravitational field, no matter how wide the gravitational wave gets and therefore weak (displacement of less than a planck length) it will tug on a body greater than one times per planck time because space and time are related in the same way my model attributes gravitational field exertion frame-rates and gravitational wave velocities to the velocity of the planck-scale gravitons that occupy some of the same space to make them.

The concepts are purely mathematical in nature, so you get an exact outcome of reality if as according to my hypothesis reality is made of these geometric spheres (gravitons).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If I am wrong, than why can't we see inside of an event horizon, and why can't we see over 90% of the mass and energy in the universe using light Spectra? Why are galaxies drifting away faster than light? It wouldn't register on the speed scale of light just like the Highland Illinois UFO didn't create a sonic boom when it jumped at mach 3 seven miles to Shiloh. Different frame-rates in gravitational telemetry aren't registered, just like the mass of photons aren't registered using matter instruments. That's precisely because, mathematically at least, an object made of gravitons with a velocity of less than one planck length per planck time produce gravitational fields that have a tug-rate higher than a planck time whereas photons and dark energy do not.

 

Edited by JeffreysTubes8
Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 hours ago, HallsofIvy said:

First, Einstein did not have to "figure out the speed of light"!   Ole Roemer did that way back in 1676.  He did it by calculating the changes in times of eclipses of Jupiter's moon, Io.  A variety of people have since improved the accuracy.

I did not know that. That further proves that I should not believe everything I read in books

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, darkmatter42 said:

I did not know that. That further proves that I should not believe everything I read in books

I have never read that Einstein was the first to “figure out the speed of light” so this is not a common impression. Roemer was the first to arrive at a reliable measurement and it was verified numerous times by various methods before Einstein. However, Einstein was the first to equate the speed of light with Maxwell’s constant c which was not considered to be the speed of light but a dimensional constant resulting from the combined effects of the dielectric permittivity and the magnetic permeability of a vacuum. These were also previously measured values. This means that a vacuum is not pure nothingness but it has measurable properties that give “empty” space properties similar to what we think of as density and elasticity.

Olaus Roemer discovered that the timing of the motions of Jupiter’s moon Io came early by one second every time Jupiter came 300,000 km closer to the Earth and they came late by one second every time Jupiter was 300,000 km farther from the Earth so he discovered that there was a constant relation between measures of observational distance and observational time in a constant ratio of one second for every 300,000 km of distance. He could have interpreted this as a conversion factor for converting between units of distance and units of time but he was looking for the speed of light so he called it a speed.

As described in Special Relativity, time slows and distances appear shorter when an object moves at relativistic speeds. If you could travel with a beam of light, your clock would stop and you could travel to any point in space in no time at all by your "frozen" perception of time. So, for light, there is neither time nor distance and light can go anywhere in an instant by its local "proper" time and nothing can travel faster than instant.

The very distant galaxies are a possible exception to the rule that nothing can travel faster than light. The galaxies appear to be moving away from us and, in theory, the most distant galaxies should be receding faster than c because the expansion of space acts as a tailwind blowing them away. Relativity always works both ways so an observer on one of those most distant galaxies would say they are standing still while our galaxy is receding faster than c.

If there is an error in the text books it is in calling c a speed rather than a dimensional constant. This would be an error started by Roemer and continued by Einstein.

C works as a universal conversion factor for converting between units of distance and time and it is nothing like a speed except that they are both values given in units of distance divided by time. C is the same for all observers independent of their individual velocities so this should be our first clue that c is a dimensional constant rather than a speed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 hours ago, JeffreysTubes8 said:

As an object gets closer to the speed of light it acquires more mass. 

When an object is accelerated to relativistic speeds, the rest mass remains unchanged but the relativistic mass is said to increase. The rest mass is its local mass but relativistic mass is how it appears to a remote observer. Accelerating an object to relativistic speeds requires more energy than predicted by Newtonian physics, and if the speeding object collides with another, more energy is released than predicted by Newtonian physics. To a remote observer, it would appear as if the object had gained in mass as it was accelerated but the gain in mass is only apparent relative to a stationary observer. The accelerating object does not actually gain in mass so locally its rest mass remains unchanged and it will not turn into a black hole..

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, bangstrom said:

When an object is accelerated to relativistic speeds, the rest mass remains unchanged but the relativistic mass is said to increase. The rest mass is its local mass but relativistic mass is how it appears to a remote observer. Accelerating an object to relativistic speeds requires more energy than predicted by Newtonian physics, and if the speeding object collides with another, more energy is released than predicted by Newtonian physics. To a remote observer, it would appear as if the object had gained in mass as it was accelerated but the gain in mass is only apparent relative to a stationary observer. The accelerating object does not actually gain in mass so locally its rest mass remains unchanged and it will not turn into a black hole..

You're confusing potential energy with rest mass. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 4 weeks later...

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...