## 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: