Great Article on Leadership on Forbes.com — This So Applies to Physics Right Now

http://www.forbes.com/sites/mikemyatt/2011/12/19/this-one-leadership-quality-will-make-or-break-you/

My brother turned me on to this article. Thanks John. And for me this really hits home. Once CERN stated they may have discovered that matter can travel faster than the speed of light I have been in pursuit of proving that Einstein was wrong to place a speed limit of c on the Universe. And after discovering the basis for his statement I discovered his error and I have been pursing the truth ever since. I have contacted CERN, The Nobel Physics Council, numerous noted Physicists as well as the NASA. It looks like CERN may have noticed me since the European Particle Physicists are regrouping next year. I would like to see Physicists as a whole regroup. This is a real game changer.

Europe’s Particle Physicists to Plan New Future Strategy — LiveScience.com

With CERN having new evidence (even though not validated) that 1) That matter can travel faster than the speed of light and 2) The Higgs-Boson was found at a lower mass level than previously thought. The Particle Physicists of Europe have decided to regroup next year to decide what direction they are going to now pursue. This all points to my theory that relativistic mass can only be solved for acceleration and not velocity being valid. (Debated on Space.com’s FB wall. See below for link.) It seems like it would be logical for the astrophysicists to also regroup to see what this does to our understanding of the Universe and to take a good look at any theories that are based on 1 there being a speed limit and two that relativistic mass can explain things it shouldn’t be used for.

http://www.livescience.com/17514-european-particle-physics-cern-future-strategy.html

God Particle — CERN set to report probable Higgs sighting this week — Robert Evans

I do not know enough about this topic but it intrigues me that they are now looking for it at lower mass levels and expect to find it there. Does that mean they are stepping back from what they believed would be a relativistic mass calculation based of e=mc2 solving for velocity originally to now accepting it is based on acceleration? Quote from Robert Even’s article “Its discovery, if eventually confirmed and especially if it is at the low mass levels where bloggers are saying ATLAS and CMS have found it, would open the way to what CERN calls the “New Physics” of super-symmetry and dark matter.” I have emailed multiple scientists at CERN and my blog has had over a thousand views. It would be interesting if this proves my hypothesis. Time will tell.

Velocity versus Acceleration in e=mc2

Besides Mr Thorpe(Thanks David) I haven’t received any other input. For me this is quite obvious. But before you jump on me please understand that I am only stating that relativistic mass plays a role in limiting “acceleration” in dependent frames. To be dependent some amount of energy has to be exerted over a period of time between the two frames making them dependent  and causing an effect of acceleration. And to use it to place a speed limit on the velocity(defined as the delta of distance per time interval) of mass is wrong.

David Thorpe

it seems like you have more of a problem with Mr.Lorentz and his transform than Einstein.
There is nothing wrong with newton’s theory, except at high speeds and masses.
It is measurably wrong by experiments on earth.In this example you are mixing your reference frames, first you are suggesting that the difference between them from a stationary, relative to both, observer. Then you proceed to move the observe from his relatively stationary position to the reference frame of A.the measurements made will be unique to each observer (at different positions and velocities)from the centre of the two particles and stationary to both, the distance each would appear to move would be indeed nearly two times the distance light can travel in one second apart from each other. But light will always be travelling (arbitrarily) left faster than the particle moving left (arbitrarily B) and moving right faster than the particle moving right (particle A). light from particle A would be severely redshifted when it reaches particles B and vice versa. Light is always constant velocity to every observer no matter the velocity of what emits it velocity.in the second case where you shifted from the centre to particle A’s reference frame, you would do the equation i did earlier using the lorentz transform to find out their velocities relative to each other.
giving you a value of 0.9999494975c meaning again, for light to reach one particle from the other, light speed does not need to be broken. The light will merely be redshifted.

 

Rick Gillespie You nailed it about Lorentz. And I am not disputing time dilution or the speed of light in either frame or any frame for that matter. Just that you need to take into consideration that the Static frame used in Lorentz is always stationary. From my examples over the sample time period object A is actually moving at constant velocity away from object B just as object B is moving at a constant velocity away from object A. To make this math create a limit on velocity is wrong to me. And if you go back to the link http://library.thinkquest.org/27930/relativity.htm you will see that it explicitly states relativistic mass does not allow an object to be “accelerated” past the speed of light. It doesn’t state that it is impossible for two objects to have a greater relative velocity than the speed of light. Velocity is just the distance covered over time. I totally agree with red-shifting as well since the Doppler effect would be in effect.

Special and General Relativity

library.thinkquest.org

During the nineteenth century, scientists believed that light is a wave. They r…See More

Best Debate so far on my view of e=mc2

From Facebook’s Space.com Wall – http://www.facebook.com/permalink.php?story_fbid=263796893669156&id=17610706465

David Thorpe Newton’s work takes a dump on itself when you test it at the extremities. Nobody in science claims that newtonian mechanics is correct, only that it is a close approximation for everyday speeds and masses.

Rick Gillespie  We shall than agree to disagree. For me the relativity of e=mc2 only applies to acceleration as when two objects are actually related to each other. Which would make sense since the energy would be applied for some limited amount of time. Once applied the mass now has kinetic energy which is much different than the idea of atomic energy. And kinetic energy is right up Newton’s camp. I enjoy the banter and I would like to thank you for replying. For me you just make my point even clearer. But as we all know history repeats itself over and over again. So I would and should imagine the true is not an easy pill to swallow. Just getting to Einstein was arduous never mind correcting him.

http://www.nattvakt.com/onlineenglish/harriman.htm

Newton’s laws have not been contradicted by any discoveries made since the publication of the Principia. Rather, all subsequent discoveries in physics have presupposed his theory and built on it. His laws have been the rock-solid foundation for the work of every physicist of the past three centuries, and they continue to be applied today in countless ways. […] There are cases where his laws have been torn from the context in which they were discovered and applied to a realm far removed from anything he ever considered. The cases to pertain to bodies moving at near light-speed, which is about ten thousand times the speed of Earth in its orbit around the sun; or they pertain to subtle effects of very strong gravitational fields, none of which could be measured until more than a century after Newton; or they pertain to the behavior of subatomic particles, a realm that physicists did not begin to study until two centuries after Newton. (“Isaac Newton: Discoverer of Universal Laws”, The Objective Standard, Vol. 3, No 1.

Rick Gillespie Just changing velocity to acceleration allows both to work harmoniously.

…

To state this more simply, If you were to build two large Particle Accelerators(PA1 and PA2) in parallel. PA1 accelerates a particle A to a constant velocity of 99%c in one direction while PA2 accelerates a particle B to a constant velocity of 99%c in the opposite direction. If they passed each other midway after one second how far apart would A be from B? After 2 seconds how far apart would they be? My math says that for each second after they pass the distance between them is 2*99% the distance light travels in one second. So B is traveling nearly 2 times the distance light can travel in one second away from A.