## Let c be c but get rid of the Speed Limit

Posted: September 30, 2011 in Physics

OK I am at the point where I have to let go the idea that the speed of light is variable.(Still is strange that the experts say that light can go faster than the speed of light though.”If a laser beam is swept quickly across a distant object, the spot of light can move faster than c“)  But I do believe a Relativistic Velocity(v+c) should be included in e=mc2 such as e=mrv2. By removing relativistic mass we get rid of the idea of the mass shooting up to infinity. So far my view on the Lorentz transformation is that it is the perfect math to create an optical illusion much like a child’s toy that spins a light around in a circle or the way a cars wheels look like they are moving backwards on film. I do not think that it takes into account the fact that nothing is stationary in space time. And at its heart it states “The Lorentz transformation describes only the transformations in which the spacetime event at the origin is left fixed.” Space Time is always moving forward. So if an event happened it must take some time to occur. So I do not believe we are going to ever get time travel in the reverse in any frame of reference. You can step out of a frame and experience time dilution but at no point is time moving backwards. And I now believe that the study in 1999 did not show that the speed of light was faster just that space time was compressed.

This has been very intellectually stimulating and I appreciate the input I have been given to help me navigate the complexities of these topics. Best to all.

## Relativistic Speed of Light

Posted: September 29, 2011 in Physics

I maybe way off base but I enjoy thinking about this. I have read that relativistic mass is the way physicists put a moving number into satisfying the anomaly of how e=mc2 takes into account kinetic energy. I prefer a relativistic speed of light. Seems strange that mass is measured differently depending on the frame of reference it is being observed. A missile fired from an airplane carries with it the original velocity of the airplane. Why doesn’t light? I still can imagine a space ship traveling at near the speed of light using a laser to hit objects in its path. And I would expect that an observer outside the spaceship would see the laser shoot out in front of the spaceship at a speed greater than the speed of light. From what I read not everyone has agreed with Albert.  And for me there is still room to debate. We have studies saying that right after the big bang the speed of light was faster than it is now and we have measurements from CERN clocking particles going faster than the speed of light. This should open the door for even more debate.

Why is it that we want to put a galactic speed limit up just because scientists a  hundred years ago said it was the case with no proof just because they said so to get their math to work. I HATE being told something with no other reason than ’cause I said so. It’s not like I am disagreeing with global warming or evolution just that the speed of light is a universal constant and a speed limit.

For a traveler moving at 98% the speed of light as compared to an observer frame the Relativistic Speed of Light of the traveler compared to the observer frame that is the only reference point we have to even clock the traveler should then be 98%c + c or re-written e=m(v + c)2 with rsl =(v + c) or e=mrsl2. No speed limit required.

I fully understand this goes against Special Relativity. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special_relativity Especially the Composition of velocitiesAnd as long as nothing goes faster than the speed of light everything Albert said is gospel. I can’t wait to see if CERN or any of the other accelerators are able to reproduce their findings. Since everything is known until it isn’t.

In traditional logic, an axiom or postulate is a proposition that is not proven or demonstrated but considered either to be self-evident or to define and delimit the realm of analysis. In other words, an axiom is a logical statement that is assumed to be true. Therefore, its truth is taken for granted, and serves as a starting point for deducing and inferring other (theory dependent) truths.

I still find that the postulate of an “invariant speed of light” which leads to the Composition of velocities to not be “self evident”. So maybe there is still hope for me yet:)

I really do like playing with this stuff. Here is a great link http://www.physicsmyths.org.uk/lightspeed.htm And I am apparently falling into the trap. I would love to see an experiment that would have something moving at great speed toward a sensor. Back in Albert’s days nether the actual speed of light nor sensors as sensitive as they are today where available. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speed_of_light

## More possible proof I was right

Posted: September 27, 2011 in Physics

In 1999 Scientists wrote that they believed the speed of light was not constant. http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/1999/10/991005114024.htm Where they got it wrong was that they thought there was some “strange, unknown and as-yet-undiscovered forms of matter”. The fact that the explosion forced matter out from the center at high rates of speed the light emanating from that matter would have been moving faster due to the time deferential of the moving matter in relationship to our current frame of reference. Just more observations to show that the speed of light is a frame of reference constant not a universal one.