Rick Gillespie's Blog

Speed of Light May Not Be Constant, Phycisists Say — LiveScience.com

jetsrock — Mon, 29 Apr 2013 13:12:13 +0000

If both time and space are relative than it is a given that the velocity of light must be relative to the observers world line. And the consequences of traveling faster than the speed of light is all based on a lie/mistake. You can not have a Lorentz Transformation with the observer frame not moving forward in time.

This train of thought brings me back to when I first stated this. And I was told the fact they are relative makes the velocity of the speed of light a constant. To them that was the point. But after countless hours of investigating this and in the process finding a glowing error in a pivotal assumption of causality the only true point is that a single world lines observation is the truth within the confines of that world line. Each observer with respect to their own world line will observe c to be close enough to a constant given slight medium variations to give it the term ‘Constant’. But the point is you can not compare apples to oranges and one world line’s observation is not unequivocally the same as an others. So A is B and B is C so A is C is not true when crossing world lines…

Controversially, Physicist Argues Time Is Real — Livescience.com

jetsrock — Fri, 26 Apr 2013 17:10:23 +0000

Time is as real as space. But neither are can be measured universally. And both are only relevant to one’s own world line. Just as time can not move in reverse space can not be measured as a negative value. Not Really Controversial Is It?

This article makes me think of the 5th dimension –”Loophole in Spooky Quantum Entanglement Theory Closed” from Livescience

jetsrock — Mon, 22 Apr 2013 15:42:10 +0000

This is a very interesting article. Very well done. While reading this it made me think of the often quoted story about a ball traveling through a two dimensional world. If both space and time exist only within one’s own world line and are standard only to one particular frame of reference maybe it is the 5th dimension that ties the other 4 together transcending both space and time.

Very Interesting Forum on “Velocity Addition Mystery Solved” by Joseph A. Rybczyk

jetsrock — Thu, 28 Mar 2013 11:27:39 +0000

http://www.mrelativity.net/VBForum/showthread.php?247-Velocity-Addition-Mystery-Solved

This was written a few years ago but it seems to be some of the more interesting banter on why using the displacement equation for relative velocity is using acceleration versus constant velocity. It would make sense that since an accelerating bodies displacement would be a curve that you would need calculus to determine the displacement. But computing two object’s relative velocity within a time frame of both of them moving at the same “CONSTANT” velocity away from each other would not required anything more than simple math. IF they are traveling at the same velocity time is the same.

I still believe this all went south when they used a Cartesian coordinate system with the time axis not moving to lay the foundation of the Lorentz Formula dictating that if you travel faster than an object that doesn’t seem to be effected by time you will in effect go back in time.

I really enjoyed the web sites author Joseph A. Rybczyk wording on how he approaches the subject with an open mind as opposed to most of the scientists that seem to just make the math work without questioning the foundation of the question and answers they are supporting.

Causality and prohibition of motion faster than light — It is just plain wrong!

jetsrock — Thu, 28 Feb 2013 12:37:58 +0000

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special_relativity

I still can not back away from this. I find it to be wrong and misleading. As I stated earlier the use of a Lorentz Transformation with a time axis that is static as all other axes move forward is the basis for this error. And even if our best particle accelerators can not push matter faster than the speed of light it doesn’t mean anything. Since I do believe that if the power is stopped in the accelerator the particles do NOT continue forward at a constant velocity. But if matter was accelerated in space and the propulsion was turn off the matter would continue at a constant velocity. And to any observer on this matter they would appear to be motionless. So if more propulsion was then applied the speed would increase without limitations except to how fast it could accelerate Not its velocity as compared to its original starting point.

Please let it go and start trying to understand the universe is not tethered to our frame of reference.

Best,

Rick

Recent Article form Livescience.com “Physicists Disagree Over Meaning of Quantum Mechanics, Poll Shows”

jetsrock — Wed, 23 Jan 2013 12:17:17 +0000

This article really struck me. During the last year just getting a “Mainstream” physicist to provide me with more insight into their unwavering believe that the speed of light is a universal constant has been outrageously difficult. (Although I do appreciate the few who have replied to me. It is very nice to know not all of them are condescending ) And to now read they can’t even agree with themselves makes me think there is still a possibility that since both space and time are relative that maybe they have all over looked this as they stare at the data from their equipment. One day I hope we will all agree we can not impose our space and time on all of either the largest or the smallest of what makes up our universe.

Best,

Rick

Scientist have stated in a recent article on Space.com that faster than the speed of light travel is mathematically feasible.

jetsrock — Fri, 19 Oct 2012 14:21:57 +0000

And why wouldn’t it be? If distance is relative and time is relative than the idea of combining distance over time into a universal constant seems as Biden would put it as malarkey. Eventually the scientific community will realize there are other frames of reference than the one they are performing measurements from. Even if the traveler never could measure that they are traveling faster than the speed of light why couldn’t someone performing measurements for a completely different frame of reference understand that they are traveling faster than the speed of light? Eventually we will move forward and away from the flat planet ideas we seem so adamant about holding onto.

Best,

Rick

What will Physics give us this Century?

jetsrock — Thu, 30 Aug 2012 00:20:59 +0000

Einstein changed the world in the 1900′s. What will anything that is currently being studied in Physics do to truly change our lives in the 2000′s? Does the fact we have found Higgs Bosom change anything? Maybe if all these amazingly smart people spent their energy seeking clean energy we would be far better off.

Maybe someone could explain to me if space and time are both relative and only truly measurable from with one’s own frame of reference why we use a velocity which is entirely based on space and time as a universal constant. I am told and I can believe that the speed of light is a limit as it relates to our frame of reference. But how can that same observation be true for all other possible frames of references. Our measurement of both space and time is only true for us. We spend so much time and money thinking that if we understand the smallest of things we can apply that to everything. I think we observe strange things at the particle level simply because we can not grasp that both our measurements of space and time is not relative at that frame of reference.

Distance and time are relational to World-lines and just possibly define Dimensions

jetsrock — Sat, 02 Jun 2012 13:47:13 +0000

This may be out there a little but I want to put forth the idea that since I believe relativity states that space and time are relative and Einstein is correct to state nothing can travel further than light can in a second within the observer’s space-time. That it is actually this limit on the high side that defines our dimensional upper limit. So if some object at a much higher inertial constant velocity were actually able to send something no faster than the speed of light for their time line but that actually did exceed the velocity of light in our world line it would no longer exist within our observable dimension. I am not sure but I bet some of the “spookyness” that particle physicists observe are just observations of objects entering and leaving our own dimension at the lowest limit of our dimension. And since we take for granite that other dimensions exist this seems like the most clear understanding of what they are. And if this is true could the dark matter just be traveling outside our observable dimension?

Why we can travel faster than the speed of light*

jetsrock — Fri, 01 Jun 2012 19:12:51 +0000

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.