How is c the speed limit???

[Brent72]

All of this supports my earlier posting that we have c & c' & c" & c'".
And the speed limit for a body is thusly c & c' & c" & c'".

Are you saying c is quantised? You might be closing in on a unifying theory of everything here..

[crawler]

All of this supports my earlier posting that we have c & c' & c" & c'".
And the speed limit for a body is thusly c & c' & c" & c'".

Are you saying c is quantised? You might be closing in on a unifying theory of everything here..

No i haven't thort about quantised SOL. What i mean is......
c becomes c' when near mass (eg Shapiro Delay).
c becomes c" when in mass (air water glass)(giving refraction).
c becomes c'" when both in mass & near mass.
In which case the speed of a body must be limited to that reduced SOL.
But i still havent seen any info on how post 1906 Einsteinist dogma might explain it,
or how neo Einsteinist dogma might,
& i havent yet started to explain how Aetherists might explain it.

[crawler]

Some Einsteinists reckon that a body cant attain the speed of light relative to another body because relative mass increases with relative speed & a speed of c would result in an infinite relativistic mass.

One can also argue that the reason is an intimate connection of c with space-time geometry in special relativity.
FTL speeds can easily lead to the breaking of causality.
Regarding mass, it is worth to note that in modern formulations of special relativity mass does not change - it is a 4-scalar. I.e. when you shift from one reference frame (in space-time) to another, mass of a body remains the same. What that effectively means is that mass is no longer a measure of inertia - the latter is now being dependent on kinetic energy.

Re causality.
Yes FTL speeds can break causality, but when i say how is c the speed limit for bodies i am not talking about FTL, i am talking about having the same speed as light. In which case causality is irrelevant.

[crawler]

All of this supports my earlier posting that we have c & c' & c" & c'".
And the speed limit for a body is thusly c & c' & c" & c'".

Are you saying c is quantised? You might be closing in on a unifying theory of everything here..

No i haven't thort about quantised SOL. What i mean is......
c becomes c' when near mass (eg Shapiro Delay).
c becomes c" when in mass (air water glass)(giving refraction).
c becomes c'" when both in mass & near mass.
In which case the speed of a body must be limited to that reduced SOL.
But i still havent seen any info on how post 1906 Einsteinist dogma might explain it,
or how neo Einsteinist dogma might,
& i havent yet started to explain how Aetherists might explain it.

I see that wikileaks contradicts what i said above, i said that c'" was a speed limit, c'" is another name for c/n, but wikileaks says that c/n is not a speed limit. They say that this is shown by Cherenkov Radiation. They are wrong. c/n is the speed limit for bodies.

In effect they are saying that Einstein's forked lightning hitting an embankment at a railway station gedanken must be done in vacuum, & does not work in air, or in water. In other words if air filled the universe, & there was no empty space, then STR could not exist. How stupid is that???

Wikileaks -- Superluminal travel of non-information
Main article: Superluminal motion
In the context of this article, FTL is the transmission of information or matter faster than c, a constant equal to the speed of light in vacuum, which is 299,792,458 m/s (by definition of the meter[5]) or about 186,282.397 miles per second. This is not quite the same as traveling faster than light, since:

Some processes propagate faster than c, but cannot carry information (see examples in the sections immediately following).
In some materials where light travels at speed c/n (where n is the refractive index) other particles can travel faster than c/n (but still slower than c), leading to Cherenkov radiation (see phase velocity below).
Neither of these phenomena violates special relativity or creates problems with causality, and thus neither qualifies as FTL as described here.

In the following examples, certain influences may appear to travel faster than light, but they do not convey energy or information faster than light, so they do not violate special relativity.

It might not violate STR, but it violates sensible physics, as i will show later.
It raises the question of escape from a blackhole. A part of my c'" is in effect a c/n due to the nearness of mass. Do they include this c/n in their stupid theory?? If so then that would mean that bodies could possibly escape from some blackholes, whilst light could not escape. Stupid!!

[paladin17]

i am talking about having the same speed as light. In which case causality is irrelevant.

In relativity theory, any massless particle has that velocity.

[Brent72]

i am talking about having the same speed as light. In which case causality is irrelevant.

In relativity theory, any massless particle has that velocity.

And a 'massless' photon somehow has momentum (or relativistic mass?) in order for E = mcc to work (where m = 0)?

And at the other end of the mass scale, the whole universe is meant to be expanding faster than the speed of light?
Can of worms.

[crawler]

i am talking about having the same speed as light. In which case causality is irrelevant.

In relativity theory, any massless particle has that velocity.

Ok. But when i get around to how is c the speed limit for a neoAetherist like myself then my answer might be based on free photons being quasi-particles, with quasi-mass, mass being the property of annihilating aether. Free & confined photons being the only "particles" in the world that we see & feel. Except that we also have photaenos (which are emitted by every photon) which form em radiation & radio waves.

Ordinary mass is due to the annihilation of aether at a stationary confined photon (a free photon or free photons that has formed a loop or loops). The aether inflow streamlines converge in 3 dimensions towards a point. With quasi mass the aether inflow streamlines converge in 2 dimensions towards a line.

The speed limit for a particle or body then depends on how fast throo the aether can a confined photon circulating at c or c"' be forced sideways.
Clearly it should be impossible to force a particle sideways at c or c"', koz then the total vector speed of the photon throo the aether must exceed c or c"'.

I suppose that all speeds are sideways, unless particles somehow automatically orientate to reduce aether drag, like an arrow. Or particles might also spin as they go, to reduce drag somehow, like an arrow with a free propeller.

There is no existing theory for this sideways speed limit. Free photons never propagate sideways, alltho they can slow & bend their traject due to photaeno drag on the near side arising from the nearness of mass. The sideways speed limit for particles is probly a vector sum involving v & c"'. The sum can obviously exceed c"', otherwise all particles would be fixed in the aether, & would only move if the aether moved. But perhaps it is possible to come up with a theory that c"' is a limit, & sideways v is only possible koz aether follows the particle. This reminds me of the oldendays arguments whether the spinning orbiting Earth drags or partly drags aether. I dont like it.

I reckon that aether is dragged by an accelerating particle, but not by velocity, indeed that is the secret to gravity & inertia. However clearly for a particle to have velocity it must have had acceleration at some stage. All of this gives me a headache. And the only way out is to swallow a pill that says that aether can be partially dragged. Indeed if the partial drag is exactly 50% then this gives a simple reason for the doubled bending of light passing the Sun.

Still thinking.

[crawler]

Some Einsteinists reckon that a body cant attain the speed of light relative to another body because relative mass increases with relative speed & a speed of c would result in an infinite relativistic mass.

One can also argue that the reason is an intimate connection of c with space-time geometry in special relativity. FTL speeds can easily lead to the breaking of causality. Regarding mass, it is worth to note that in modern formulations of special relativity mass does not change - it is a 4-scalar. I.e. when you shift from one reference frame (in space-time) to another, mass of a body remains the same. What that effectively means is that mass is no longer a measure of inertia - the latter is now being dependent on kinetic energy.

Yes, my reading is starting to tell me that the neoEinstein crowd has accepted that relativistic pre1906 mass does not exist, & as u say to justify a speed limit of c (for bodies) they now invoke the inertia of relativistic kinetic energy. Here they invoke the standard equation for gamma, ie if v equals c then gamma becomes 0 & the needed kinetic energy becomes infinite.

Not forgetting that in Einsteinian relativity model nothing is real, everything is apparent, including length time mass energy etc. And there is no physics or mechanics for these things, everything is math, & is based on Einstein's hypothetical method of synchronizing clocks. And is based on four gedankens involving forked lightning hitting an embankment near a train & equivalence in a chest/elevator & inertia on a spinning wheel & a pair of emitted photons off a body.

FitzGerald was correct that a body speeding throo the aether must change shape & dimension depending on the ratio of the speed & the speed of electric forces holding the body together. This might result in the standard accepted idea of length contraction (ie widths are not affected). The correct equation for LC might be similar to the Voigt equation which re-appears in another form in the standard accepted Lorentz gamma equation. I dont believe in length contraction (i believe in LC but in a different form), & i dont like the accepted equation for gamma, but lets ignore that for today & work with the Lorentz gamma.

Larmor was correct that a pair of orbiting electrons must slow their orbits when their common orbit is given an additional speed throo the aether, because of the limited speed (say c) of the electric forces giving the orbits, & this slowing of orbits results in a ticking dilation for the frequency of the orbits, & the resulting Larmorian equation for the gamma for that TD happens to look identical to the form of the equation used for the Lorentz gamma for LC.

So, LC & TD are almost certainly real effects, & the equations for the gammas are probly okish. The v in the equation for gamma is the velocity of the body relative to the aether, it is not the Einsteinian relative velocity (eg the relative velocity tween a stationary observer & a body).
If the Aetheric observer happens to be stationary in the absolute aether frame (where the aether speed is zero) then the Aetheric LC & TD will have the same value as found in Einsteinian relativity (where of course one observer is always stationary).

Anyhow we can say that the Aetheric speed limit for a body relative to the aether is the speed of the electric forces in an atom & molecule.
A body cant go that fast or faster because something would have to break. This limit arises from a consideration of LC. It also arises from a consideration of TD. Its a double limit, but it only needed one limit, the 2nd limit is a bonus. There is no infinite mass or infinite energy consideration or any other kind of infinity needed.

Actually i dont agree with that speed limit. I reckon that the speed limit is c"'/2^0.5, where c'" is the speed of electric forces when in & near mass. The problem with c or c"' being the speed limit is that this gives no elbow room for an electron etc to orbit in the yy & zz directions. My 0.7071 factor allows electrons to orbit in the yy & zz directions.
This then means that lengths cant reduce to zero, & tickings cant grow to infinity.

[jacmac]

It is not.
The speed of light only limits what we can see.
When something going faster than what we can see hits us, we might say:
"Where the hell did that come from" ?
Only then will we know about faster than light things.
Jack

[crawler]

It is not.
The speed of light only limits what we can see.
When something going faster than what we can see hits us, we might say:
"Where the hell did that come from" ?
Only then will we know about faster than light things.
Jack

I think there are 2 limits that affect the speed limit for a body.

(1) Firstly we have the speed of electric forces that act on an orbiting electron. If they act at say 5c then that must allow a body to have a speed greater than c.
(2) Secondly we have the speed of light, c. If a confined photon (ie an electron here) circulates inside that electron at a speed of c then pushing/moving the electron (ie the whole atom or molecule) should be resisted somehow because that photon cant go faster than c. Yet we all know that we can push/move an atom (body), hence that simple analysis fails. So we all know that the confined photon in the electron can go faster than c. How can it?? And what then is the real speed limit for being pushed/moved?? If that limit is c & if the circulation speed is c then that photon in effect has a vector speed of 1.414c.

The speed limit for a body might be decided by (1) or it might be decided by (2), whichever is the lesser i suppose.

And the speed limit v is the speed throo the aether, the aether being taken to be at rest.

[paladin17]

And a 'massless' photon somehow has momentum (or relativistic mass?) in order for E = mcc to work (where m = 0)?

And at the other end of the mass scale, the whole universe is meant to be expanding faster than the speed of light?
Can of worms.

I don't see a problem here. That photons actually have momentum was acknowledged before special relativity was formulated.
And "big bang" hypothesis is not needed for relativity (neither special nor general) to work.

[crawler]

i am talking about having the same speed as light. In which case causality is irrelevant.

In relativity theory, any massless particle has that velocity.

And a 'massless' photon somehow has momentum (or relativistic mass?) in order for E = mcc to work (where m = 0)?
And at the other end of the mass scale, the whole universe is meant to be expanding faster than the speed of light? Can of worms.

(1) E=mcc is wrong. And Einstein never derived that equation.

(2) E=mcc suggests that mass can be converted to pure energy. There is no such thing as pure energy. In my reading over many years i have seen the existence of pure energy seriously posited just the once, & that was in relation to the first second of the bigbang.

(3) Lets assume that it is possible to fully convert mass to photons. In that case it is possible that the total energy of the photons =mcc.

(4) Possible but unlikely. E=mcc is a math fudge based on a circular argument. Think, how can u determine the energy content of matter by just using a pencil & paper & some gedankens.

(5) Photons have mass, or quasi-mass if u like. In which case (3) cant be true. When say 1 kg is converted to photons then the photons might have a total mass of say 0.000001 kg. Hence even if the relationship E=mcc were true when a small % of matter was converted to some kind of energy (eg kinetic energy plus photons), it would nonetheless be impossible to apply E=mcc to 100% of the matter.

[crawler]

Lets look into relativistic mass in our Aetheric world.

(1) Aetherists believe that a body has a fixed mass, ie that that mass has an absolute value, which is the value observed (measured) when both the body & the observer are in effect sitting at rest in the stationary aether.

(2) Furthermore it is possible that that absolute mass is observed when both the body & the observer are travelling at the same velocity throo the stationary aether. Or, same thing, when both are at rest (whatever that might mean) but the aether is moving past, ie when both feel the same aetherwind. If so then we can say that the apparent mass or observed mass always equals the true mass ie the absolute mass. This is a postulate. But see (5).

(3) The above (1) is true if a body's absolute mass (or rest mass if u like) doesn't change when its velocity changes. This is a postulate.

(4) I think that (3) is a good postulate, but i wouldn’t be surprized if it wasn’t exact at high speeds (see (4a)), in which case we would need to allow for relativistic mass. But i reckon that relativistic mass is not a major issue, & i don’t think that we will ever have to apply some kind of gamma to convert mass to relativistic mass, ie i don’t reckon that gamma is likely to approach zero as speed approaches c (ie the silly Einsteinian gamma). Anyhow the answer will not be made easier by appealing to some kind of stupid Einsteinian gedanken (all of his gedankens are stupid).
(4a) The mass of a body depends on the amount of aether annihilated per second in the body, & this might be affected by speed.

(5) The above (2) is true if the observer's rods & clocks happen to suffer length contraction & ticking dilation in a way that makes (2) true. This can be another postulate. (2) would be true if using the Lorentz gamma for length contraction & the Lorentz gamma for ticking dilation, because these 2 gammas happen to be identical. But as i said earlier i don’t like any of the oldendays gammas. I reckon that the equation for the true gamma for length contraction is slightly different to the old Lorentz gamma. And i reckon that there is no such thing as a universal gamma for ticking dilation, i reckon that every kind of clock needs its own equation, however the gamma for atomic clocks might be very similar to the Lorentz form. Anyhow me myself i don’t accept that (2) is a good postulate, it needs to be more complicated than that. The critical thing is the kind of clock used.

(6) Now we come to the case where the body & observer are moving at different velocities. The absolute mass is of course probably not affected, or not much. And as for (2) it is possible that the apparent/observed mass is equal to the absolute mass. But probly not (see (5)). But when does (6) raise its ugly head -- hardly ever. When do we need to know the apparent/observed mass of a moving body -- never.

(7) Anyhow there are 2 possible cases where Aetherists might have to allow for relativistic mass. Firstly if mass changes with velocity, as per (3)(4)(4a). Secondly if the apparent/observed mass changes with velocity, as per (2)(5)(6). Or of course both. Actually each of these 2 relativistic effects is a completely different kind of effect, one involves a change in the real mass, the other involves a change in the apparent mass. Which reminds us that STR & GTR do not have any real effects or real numbers, they are all apparent effects only.

[crawler]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A2JCoIGyGxc
I had a look at Dr Don Lincoln of Fermilab explaining why cant you go faster than light? -- Oct 3 2017 -- 3548254 views -- 13532 comments.
What a sickening heap of krapp.
Firstly he avoids talking about why u cant go at the same speed as light.
One good thing is that he says that mass does not increase as u go faster.

He says that you cant go faster than light because Minkowski said so. Minkowski said that we are all always going throo spacetime at a constant speed c, & if we stand still we are actually going up along the yy time axis at c, & if we go along the xx space axis it must also be at c. Hence we cant go faster than c. What a krock of krapp.

And it means that we can go as fast as light, ie c. In fact not can but do, all the time. Total krapp.
And he admits that no-one (not even Minkowski) knows the reason why we are all always going throo spacetime at speed c (or at least that Minkowski didnt say). And he says that maybe it will take another person as smart as Einstein to figure out that particular conundrum.

Is that the best that Einsteinists can come up with.
I know that STR & GTR are only models, & they dont mean to describe reality, but i was hoping for at least a little bit of logic & physics hidden inside there somewhere.

So we have a silly Minkowski spacetime diagram, & a conundrum. Surely someone has seen a better explanation somewhere????

[crawler]

Some more videos i had a look at today.
They were disgusting.
I was going to comment fully on each but they made me feel sick.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DGpwkWhnWAI
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jRLNVvsxfFo
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m3QJDcwxDrI&t=43s
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lLj6xUj62wk
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EI2OPCdGXkw
Kadi Runnels – why you can never reach the speed of light – Oct 7 2015 – 3449592 views – 5098 comments.
Mentions boosts on shrinking tiles.