## Why we can travel faster than the speed of light*

Posted: June 1, 2012 in Physics

Going back to an earlier example of a sprinter running a 100 yard sprint on a long train car. Say the fastest this sprinter could ever run is 100 yards in 10 seconds. That is a his universal limit. The train is passing an observer standing at the train station going 100 yards per second at a constant velocity. The sprinter starts the race right as he passes the observer. In 10 seconds he has traveled 100 yards on the train car. The observer notes that the Sprinter covered 1100 yards in 10 seconds. Now we know that the sprinter can only cover 100 yards in 10 seconds. So giving that time is close enough to the same for both the sprinter and the observer the only relative difference is distance. So within one observer’s frame or World Line all laws of physics must hold true. This is not the case going from one to the other. As a traveler reaches new constant velocities distance must be re-calibrated to the inertial frames. So given that CERN is only measuring an observation occurring from one frame in a very short period of time Einstein’s truth that nothing can go faster than the speed of light holds true. The distance and time never had to be re-calibrated. All Physical Laws must hold true for an inertial frame.

## If we add the speed of the earth into the equation are Neutrinos going faster than the speed of light?

Posted: May 3, 2012 in Physics

I came across a good post on a site that would never even allow me to ask questions on.
Even though it is managed by snobs I do find out some interesting info on it. From Jorrie about halfway down the page

“You obviously realize that speed and velocity are relative things. The closest we can come to determining our velocity relative to the universe at large, is to measure the temperature of the cosmic microwave background (cmb) radiation in all directions.
An observer that measures the average temperature to be the same in all directions can be considered as at rest relative to the cmb. As determined by COBE and WMAP, we are moving in the order of 0.1% of the speed of light relative to the cmb. This is due to the vector-summation of the velocities that you mentioned.”

So if from CERN’s own site
http://press.web.cern.ch/press/PressReleases/Releases2011/PR19.11E.html
They state that the ““The ICARUS experiment has provided an important cross check of the anomalous result reports from OPERA last year,” said Carlo Rubbia, Nobel Prize winner and spokesperson of the ICARUS experiment. ”ICARUS measures the neutrino’s velocity to be no faster than the speed of light… ” If this means that they are as fast and if the earth was moving away from the previous mentioned observer could it be measured as going faster than the speed of light? Or if some other observer was on a planet moving away from us would they observe the neutrinos moving even faster?

I still can’t get over the fact that even Jorrie states that speed and velocity are relative yet we have made a universal speed limit of a velocity regardless of the observer’s frame.

## UFO designs may hold the key to cheaper space exploration

Posted: April 20, 2012 in UFO

I know this is off base but I just watched another UFO show on cable and it looks more and more like they are using magnetic drives to achieve their propulsion. The latest show I watched was about the Belgium occurrences and in one picture it was determined that there was a magnetic disturbance. The triangle form is even better than the sphere to manage the speed of the internal mass. With three external electromagnetic devices it would be easy to mange the force you would need to pull/push the internal armature to achieve the desired lift and thrust. Who knows maybe some MIT bound youth could even reproduce this. Just a thought.

## Holding out a little hope. But it looks like the Universe is a whole lot more boring than I imagined.

Posted: April 3, 2012 in Physics

A new reply to an old post on space .com

• Ralph Huntington ·  Top Commenter · Principal at Huntington Research Inc
” After 2 seconds Object A would be almost 4 times the distance light travels in one second away from object B”
Even so, that doesn’t mean either object has traveled faster than light because each object would have traveled only half the total distance.
• Rick Gillespie ·

Ralph Huntington Thanks Ralph I am giving in. But my point was that velocity is relative to the observer. To say they only traveled half the distance is to say that you are observing from the center location. I have had a couple really great physicists explain to me the warping of space time very well in respect to two objects traveling at each other. Or in respect to their forward projection. I am waiting for a particular Professor Matt to explain to me about the warping of space-time as it relates to space in the opposite direction the objects are traveling. Icarus has gone a long way to taking this out of the debate zone as my friend Prof Matt has explained to me. I just really enjoyed the idea of a universe without limits. But it looks like that isn’t the case and Einstein was right to say we really have one universal limit regardless of the observers frame of reference. Kind of counter intuitive to relativity but hey it is what it is.
I really appreciate Prof Matt S taking the time to reply to my comments but I still can not get out of my mind that physical laws are restricted to an observer’s frame of reference. Even when Icarus and Opera totally agree that the neutrinos never went faster than the speed of light, that just proves that from within our frame of reference Einstein nailed it. But does that therefore mean that all events are limited by our frame of reference? Can relativity and this co-exist? Is the size of the universe calculated from E=MC2 based on our frame of reference? Or the center of the Bang or any of the billions upon billions of solar systems moving in outwardly directions at speeds up to 99.999 the speed of light from the center’s frame of reference? Particle Physicists love the spookiness of their field but do they ever look at any frame other than their own? I will continue to hold out hope that our Universe is truly more relative and as a result a place that can truly be explored. But now that this is not even really going to be allowed to be debated I will step back and look for fun exploring other paths of thought.
Best to all

## 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.

## Using a Lorentz Transformation to say the speed of light is a limit on all mass in the universe is a Logical Fallacy.

Posted: February 17, 2012 in Physics

I think it is Proof by Verbosity. If this is the wrong one please comment and let me know which one you think it is. I took a philosophy class called Logic when I was in college twenty something years ago so I am a little rusty on all of the possibilities. I just know that there is surely one here. The following is basically a recap of multiple posts put together to make my point as clear as possible.

“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.” “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 is for “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 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 its 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. From what I have read Relativistic Mass is no longer in fashion and even Einstein stopped using it. It was Lorentz that first introduced the term in his paper in 1904. And I would like to once and for all put to bed the idea of if you could travel faster than the speed of light you could travel around the world and get back to the original location before you left. For one thing this may be fine to hypothesize this with numbers but the last time I checked the world is round. And light travels in a straight line. And anything traveling this fast would surely reach its escape velocity and be shot into outer-space in a straight line if no other force were acting upon it. And to even go there you must assume that the original location was such a magical place that no time could occur while this trip was going on. (Please see earlier post on Harry Potter.) I just wish the experts would go back and re-read and open their minds. There is still time for most of them to use their brilliance to give of us all a correct view and understanding based on a real understanding not a faulted one. Force = mass times acceleration. Atomic Energy= mass times the acceleration of the speed of light squared. Both Force and Energy are relevant and relative to the inertial observers World Lines.

Here is an old school example of two Observers A,B and a train. But let’s also throw in two equally fast world class sprinters. S1 and S2. Both have a constant and maximum 100 yard sprint time of 10 seconds. Sprinter S1 is going to run on a track next to the train track. Sprinter S2 is going to run on a long rail car being pulled by a train going 10 yards per second. Observer A is on the ground and Observer B is on the rail car. When S1 is alongside S2 the race begins. In ten seconds Observer A has timed and observed S1 to have run 100 yards in 10 seconds. Observer B has also Observer S2 run 100 yards on the rail car in 10 seconds. But Observer A observed S2 to have covered actually 200 yards in A’s World Line during the same time. This is a very simple example but it gets to the heart of 4d space time. And it screams to me that x,y,z,t are relative and more specifically relevant to only inertial World lines. But time and time again we state things are forced and limited by the observers inertial World Line. But this is not the case.

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 space time makes me even more certain that you cannot 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 Space time 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 cannot 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 outside forces to make course modifications. Either friction, magnetic fields our even gravity would be required. This is a logical fallacy.

References and Notes:

## DIY Physics — Hijacked and Denied

Posted: February 4, 2012 in Physics

I read a great article on DIY Physics on the bigthink.com
http://bigthink.com/ideas/42249
Great quote “To Wertheim, this means that “humanity’s dialogue with the physical world has been hijacked by a group of experts who are trying to deny the rest of us participation in the conversation.”

The strange thing is it is from this unwillingness to allow others in that they have taken what was originally an outsider’s idea and misinterpreted it for 100 years. It’s time to let someone in that isn’t spoiled by the entanglement of the academic process of progression up to the understanding of their elders and only through a strict adherence.

Truly understanding 4d does not come from quadratic equations but the willingness to read actual words that were written and to have an imagination to see things as they were envisioned to be.  I just love this quote “ALL OF THE LAWS OF PHYSICS are the same for every inertial observer.” and the one that states it is impossible to tell if you are at rest or at a constant velocity. And yet we continue to place restrictions on other World lines based on our own observations.

Here is an old school example of two Observers A,B and a train. But let’s also throw in two equally fast world class sprinters. S1 and S2. Both have a constant and maximum 100 yard sprint time of 10 seconds. Sprinter S1 is going to run on a track next to the train track. Sprinter S2 is going to run on a long rail car being pulled by a train going 10 yards per second. Observer A is on the ground and Observer B is on the rail car. When S1 is alongside S2 the race begins. In ten seconds Observer A has timed and observed S1 to have run 100 yards in 10 seconds. Observer B has also Observer S2 run 100 yards on the rail car in 10 seconds. But Observer A observed S2 to have covered actually 200 yards in A’s World Line during the same time. This is a very simple example but it gets to the heart of 4d spacetime. And it screams to me that x,y,z,t are relative and more specifically relevant to only inertial World lines.  But time and time again we state things are forced and limited by the observers inertial World Line. But this is not the case.

And I would like to once and for all put to bed the idea of if you could travel faster than the speed of light you could travel around the world and get back to the original location before you left. For one thing this may be fine to hypothesize this with numbers but the last time I checked the world is round. And light travels in a straight line. And anything traveling this fast would surely reach its escape velocity and be shoot into outer-space in a straight line if no other force were acting upon it. And to even go there you must assume that the original location was such a magical place that no time could occur while this trip was going on. (Please see earlier post on Harry Potter.) I just wish the experts would go back and re-read and open their minds. There is still time for most of them to use their brilliance to give of us all a correct view and understanding based on a real understanding not a faulted one. Force = mass times acceleration. Atomic Energy= mass times the acceleration of the speed of light squared.  Both Force and Energy are relevant and relative to the inertial observers World Lines.