## Great Quotes and a little more thought on Invariant Speed of Light

Posted: January 31, 2012 in Physics

“ALL OF THE LAWS OF PHYSICS are the same for every inertial observer.”

In particular, ”The speed of light is the SAME for all inertial observers, regardless of the motion of the source.”

In other words, “no physical experiment (mechanical, electromagnetic, optical—or any physical law whatsoever) can distinguish between a state of absolute rest and a state of constant velocity.”

And the definition of inertia from http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/inertia

Physics .a. the property of matter by which it retains its state of rest or its velocity along a straight line so long as it is not acted upon by an external force.

So to me light is a constant in “each” Minkowski World/Universal Line. If an Observer A from an inertial World line A was observing light from another moving World line B the light observed would always be viewed depending on no change in median as a constant. But no matter what velocity World Line B is traveling, light would be observed by an Observer IN World Line B the same as it would for an Observer viewing light from World line A. So if there are objects traveling at a relative constant velocity to earth near the speed of light, As long as the object is traveling at a constant velocity Observers on that object would experience light the same way as we do. So we really need to define the fact that the speed of light in a vacuum as a constant relates directly to it’s inertial World line. No speed limit just a physical constant of how light is observed in a specific World line.

So the particles CERN accelerate are traveling at a constant velocity of 98% the speed of light and as a result they would be on their own World Line. If from our World Line we measured light generated from their collision it would and could not be faster than what we observe light to be.  But since I state that solving for c in E=mc2 is an acceleration and not a velocity. The energy created could easily accelerate byproducts of the collision to speeds faster than what their constant velocity was at the point of impact.  As stated earlier it is impossible to distinguish between a state of rest and a constant velocity. It might be very interesting to see if CERN can accelerate particles to speeds faster than the speed light without any collision. And if this is what they did do then it is even more proof I am right. I would imagine most of the energy required in a High Speed Particle Accelerator is controlling the direction of the particles as opposed to the acceleration.

## It’s Elementary My Dear Watson. Lorentz is to blame!

Posted: January 20, 2012 in Physics

After doing more research and if this site* is correct even Einstein backed off the idea of using E=mc2 for anything other than mass at rest. So in effect his E=mc2 equation should be used for Atomic energy. And it should not combine multiple masses to try to solve for kinetic energy as well. It is not a one size fits all. This goes to my point that we need a robust Object Oriented Universe that builds off of Newton, Minkowski and Einstein etc…

– “Einstein’s conventions and interpretations were sometimes ambivalent and varied a little over the years, however examination of Einstein’s papers and books on relativity show that he almost never used relativistic mass himself. Whenever the symbol m for mass appears in his equations it is always invariant mass. He did not introduce the notion that the mass of a body increases with velocity, just that it increases with energy content. The equation E = mc2 was only meant to be applied in the rest frame of the particle.”

– “To find the real origin of the concept of relativistic mass you have to look back to the earlier papers of Lorentz. In 1904 Lorentz wrote a paper “Electromagnetic Phenomena in a System Moving With Any Velocity Less Than That of Light.””

Especially knowing even Einstein was backing of E=mc2 for anything but mass at rest. And I believe that Minkowski’s Spacetime is a true 4d Universe. How can we even consider a Lorentz’s transformtaion with a frame at rest and the use of the word velocity like it refers to some absolute time and or reference point. Quoting Minkowski from http://www.spacetimesociety.org/minkowski.html  “A point of space at a point of time, that is, a system of values, x, y, x, t, I will call a world-point. The multiplicity of all thinkable x, y, x, t systems of values we will christen the world… Not to leave a yawning void anywhere, we will imagine that everywhere and everywhen there is something perceptible. To avoid saying “matter” or “electricity” I will use for this something the word “substance”. We fix our attention on the substantial point which is at the world-point x, y, x, t, and imagine that we are able to recognize this substantial point at any other time. Let the variations dx, dy, dz of the space co-ordinates of this substantial point correspond to a time element dt. Then we obtain, as an image, so to speak, of the everlasting career of the substantial point, a curve in the world, a world-line, the points of which can be referred unequivocally to the parameter t from - oo to + oo. The whole universe is seen to resolve itself into similar world-lines, and I would fain anticipate myself by saying that in my opinion physical laws might find their most perfect expression as reciprocal relations between these world-lines. [1, p. 76]“

So as we build our OO Universe each object would be aligned with it’s own World\Universe Line. Each World\Universe Line having it’s own known “Shared Static Time Progression”. And the laws of nature including Newton, and Einstein as well as the speed of light are all perceived true within each World Line.

The more I research this the more it seems like I am right. My biggest problem is that I shouldn’t use the words “Relativistic Mass”. They knew that smelled and they have been trying to bury it for years. But it is from the original use of it that it was stated that there was no amount of energy that could be applied to get mass to exceed the speed of light. But to move from the mechanical view to Minkowski 4d spacetime makes me even more certain that you can not have a frame at rest. And the biggest problem looks like they let Lorentz join their party and he introduced the word “velocity” and it stuck. So only the people who believe that there is an absolute time/reference point or Galileo’s Spacetime can allow for a 4 dimensional frame to be at rest. Otherwise if we truly believe in Einstein and Minkowski we all should dispute Lorentz and the idea of any frame being at rest. It doesn’t hurt that they have current experiments cloaking events by altering time either.

So finally leave E=mc2 alone. Just know that solving for c is not a velocity it is an acceleration.

If you really look at it, aren’t they by using LTs to say nothing can go faster than light saying that you can not have cycles. If I was traveling at 2 miles per second around a 1 mile loop. I would travel around the loop twice in one second. In no way would I expect to bump into myself.  Ultimately it doesn’t matter how fast you travel. The faster the more cycles you make. But in no way do you ever leave before you start. And since light as well as anything  else that travels at any “constant velocity” by definition is traveling in a straight line the point is moot. To even traverse a loop like what is being proposed would require out side forces to make course modifications. Either friction, magnetic fields our even gravity would be required. This is a logical fallacy.

## More debate, semantics and two Harry Potter references in One Day

Posted: January 5, 2012 in Physics

I recently read a good article on USAToday and posted my usual comments.

http://www.usatoday.com/tech/science/columnists/vergano/story/2012-01-02/international-linear-collider/52324768/1?fb_comment_id=fbc_10150440541135684_20252738_10150440549700684&ref=notif¬if_t=open_graph_comment#f1bc5d7b18

What hit me was that semantically people may disregard what I am saying due to the fact hard core folks now assume invariant mass to be the norm. So from now on when you see or hear me state Relativistic Mass it only relates to solving for c in e=mc2. So no matter how you solve for it I am stating that you are solving for an acceleration not a velocity. And this really makes sense when two people who I debated used their math for my two Parallel Particle Accelerators example and came up with the objects acceleration not its relative velocity.

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 time unit how far apart would A be from B? After 2 time units how far apart would they be? My math says that for each time unit after they pass the distance between them is 2*99% the distance light travels in one time unit. So B is traveling nearly 2 times the distance light can travel in one time unit away from A. So we either figure out away that LTs deal just with acceleration or we throw them out completely since using them plus relativistic mass to state nothing can have a velocity greater than the speed of light is wrong. So my first goal is to get rid of the speed limit. After that I do not much care if someone thinks anything in four-dimensional space can be at rest. But using LT’s to express a relative acceleration makes sense since one object would be accelerating not just moving a constant velocity.

Rick, you stated that the particles are accelerated to a *constant velocity*, so when the particles pass each other the calculations are no more complicated than standard relativistic velocity calculations. In this case, Einstein’s velocity addition formula gives 0.99995c. Still less than the speed of light.Also, you absolutely can have an inertial reference frame in Minkowski space where a particle has no velocity. It’s called the “rest frame” and is used all the time in particle collision calculations. I’m not sure what your objection to it is. It’s simply the frame of reference “riding along with” a particle traveling at constant velocity.Lastly, relativistic mass is crap. No serious Physicist uses that concept. Mass is an invariant property of matter. Period. What is modified is the energy. The relativistic energy is gamma * m_0 * c^2, where m_0 * c^2 is the rest energy (energy in the rest frame) of the particle and m_0 is the invariant mass of the particle.

Regardless, it is a fundamental assumption of special relativity that light travels at the exact same speed in all inertial reference frames (this is what leads to Lorentz contraction and time dilation). The reason why we believe this assumption is because there has never been an experiment done that contradicts the results of special relativity. It’s as simple as that. Either come up with an experiment (not fuzzy math that ignores repeated suggestions that you’re failing to use Lorentz transformations) that contradicts special relativity or you simply will never be taken seriously.

To which I replied.
Rick Gillespie

Hi Peter, Thanks for your reply. But I am not disputing the speed of light. Nothing you have stated disproves what I have stated. I am only saying relativistic mass should only deal with acceleration. Particle A and Particle B are moving away from each other at 2*99%c. They are moving away from the middle point at 99%c. If no one uses Relativistic Mass then there is no reason to believe that there should be a speed limit of c on mass in our Universe. And unless you believe Harry Potter is a reality based series why would you accept that any frame in 4 dimensional space can be truly at rest. To me this is the point that physics wrongly turns away from Isaac Newton’s work. And so we have the numerous unanswered questions and anomalies that have been observed since. So we agree to disagree.
Best wishes
And to make yesterday even more interesting the AP posted a story on yahoo http://news.yahoo.com/now-see-now-dont-time-cloak-created-184955175.html
Stating that Physicists have stopped time. And they even referenced Harry Potter. The funny thing is I posted my comment about Harry one hour before I read the story. But it is nice to see that in order for one LT to occur over one whole second with the rest frame truly being at rest it would take a device, and I quote, “18,600″ miles long.