## Please check out this guys blog http://profmattstrassler.com

Posted: March 23, 2012 in Physics

Professor Matt Strassler answered most of my questions on his post and the latest observations from Icarus seem to be moving this out of the debate arena into observed facts.
http://profmattstrassler.com/2012/03/16/this-time-icarus-really-does-refute-opera/#comment-8088

But I am very intrigued by this guys responses John Ryskamp.

It still wonder about this question. And if Professor Matt gives me another great response I may just put this to bed.

Q: Sorry to bother you but you have a great way of speaking down to my level. I still have one question about how Minkowski World lines fit into this. If two observers on two separate World lines were moving in opposite directions from one another at velocities greater than 51% the speed of light. Would either observer notice the other moving at a velocity greater than the speed of light away from them?

Answer from John Ryskamp: Minkowski is predicated on a “natural” coincidence of points. Just ignore Minkowski.

Now that throws me for a loop. I thought that Minkowski World lines are the basis for relativity. So to me John doesn’t want small changes but a wholesale throwing the baby out with the bath water.

John Ryskamp is definitely one learned man and he very well may be onto something. He sounds like a Philosophy Prof I had back in the stone age when I went to college. But I am really hoping Professor Matt answers my question. After a long answer by John I reiterated my question for Prof Matt a slightly different way.

Professor Matt when you get a chance could you answer my second question? I was doing a very simple thought experiment about the big bang and thought that two objects could be moving away from each other at speeds greater than 51% the speed of light after the “Bang”. Observations from the center would never have them going faster than c away for the center. But wouldn’t an Observer from the mass moving in the opposite direction observe the other mass moving at speeds greater than c? Since the mass would be traveling at a constant velocity and there are “no physical experiment (mechanical, electromagnetic, optical—or any physical law whatsoever) that can distinguish between a state of absolute rest and a state of constant velocity.” Relativity would state all laws of physics should be the same for both observers. But wouldn’t they actually be traveling away from each other at greater than c? If this is not true are we not saying that there is one Galilean Space time instead of multiple Minkowski’s 4d versions of space time. I am not arguing the speed of light just that Physical Laws are dependent on the inertial observers frame. I really appreciate your patience with me.

Best Wishes to All

Professor Matt has gone a long way to getting me to understand the errors in my understanding of relativity. I look forward to reading more of his posts.

## The Cheltenham Science Festival Team –> Rocks!!!!

Posted: March 21, 2012 in Physics
Dear Richard,
Thank you so much for your submission.
We are planning to have an event similar to this suggestion called Faster than Light Neutrinos? I will be sure to send your email along to the Chair of the event as well. He may like to see it as he prepares for the event in June.
Kind regards,
The Cheltenham Science Festival Team
www.cheltenhamfestivals.com
Address: 1st Floor ( HSBC Bank Building), 109-111 Bath Road, Cheltenham, GL53 7LS
Cheltenham Festivals is a registered charity – Charity No 251765
Subject: Science Submissions Form [#40]
Name Richard Gillespie I would think CERN might be interested in funding an Event debating why scientist believe the speed of light is a speed limit on the speed of mass in our universe. I believe they have already created events that have relative velocities well in excess of the speed of light. And even though they are questioning the validity of the satellite timing of the neutrinos, the fact that they belief that there is a limit is based on a logical fallacy. They use a Lorentz Transformation that has a static observation frame. Which common sense tells you is impossible. Even recent experiments cloaking time say it would take a device 18,600 miles long to cloak an event for a whole second. The head Administrator of NASA has responded to me and sent my hypothesis to leading NASA scientists and I hope a new common sense approach will fix the last 100 years of error. Adults “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. http://www.weburbia.com/physics/mass.html “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 at tention 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]“ CERN, NASA

## An Optical Illusion has led us astray

Posted: March 12, 2012 in Physics

After reading quite a few articles about how CERN is backing off the neutrinos moving faster than the speed of light and arguing with a Sheldon Cooper clone I am going to make one last statement before CERN powers up at higher energy levels this spring or summer and the results will force more people to take another look. My hypothesis states that AE may have made a mistake, albeit to me not that big of one. It concerns a logical fallacy they believed to be true by using a Lorentz Transformation to state nothing can go faster than the speed of light. I have been blogging about this for a few months and I have thousands of hits on my site.(Thanks for reading ) To really make it simple to understand what they based their “axiom” on is no more than an optical illusion similar to the way car’s wheel seems to move backwards when shown in movies. It is not entirely the same thing but basically the wheels are moving faster than the observations frames speed so they appear to be moving backwards. This is what they are saying when they use a Lorentz Transformation with fixed observation frame. In effect they are saying you could not have multiple revolutions per a given time span or multiple hertz. We all know this to be wrong. I blame Lorentz and it was his paper that used velocity instead of acceleration and he even uses the term “boost” in velocity which in the old days when I was taking college physics we called that acceleration.

I would like to thank Major General Bolden for actually responding to my emails and forwarding along my idea to a couple high level scientists at NASA. Whether I am proven right or not that really means a lot to me.

## Can observations limit events?

Posted: March 1, 2012 in Physics

I would say no. And if you are to read the words of special relativity and if you are to believe that there is no aether and no one common inertial frame of reference, it seems clear that observations should not limit events. Now observations can be limited, but not events. In fact the observation of light is limited to c for all inertial observers. But events occurring outside an inertial frame of the observer are in no way governed by the Laws of Physics that govern the observer’s frame. Isn’t that what relativity is all about? Physical Laws are frame specific. Objects at rest within an observer’s frame or that are being accelerating from within an observers frame all fall under these rules. Once an object reaches a constant velocity. It is now within its own World Line and no longer governed by the Physical Laws of the initial object’s frame or World Line. Observations of the object from the initial frame are limited. But  its Physical Laws are now governed by its new World Line. This is Relativity and Space Time for me.

I understand “spooky” things can happen at the quantum level. I like this guys site
http://www.highexistence.com/this-will-mindfuck-you-the-double-slit-experiment/

But I am not speaking about observations controlling events from the same World Line. But instead observations from one World Line limiting events in a different World Line.