Einstein's Relativity Over With in the Twinkling of an Eye?

Einstein's Relativity Over With in the Twinkling of an Eye?

After further clarification, I see that Einstein's relativity still
applies, but not forever. Right now, the reason we can't exceed the
speed of light is because all the gravity of the infinite universe is
being compressed into a finite space. That compression of gravity is
what causes the mass of an object to increases as it reaches the speed
of light, and what requires ever-increasing energy if you are to
attempt to exceed the speed of light, which yes, is currently not
possible.

But once the universe becomes infinite, the gravity will no longer be
compressed, mass will therefore not increase as we reach the speed of
light, so we can exceed that speed many times over, as fast as we want
through infinite space.

Since the expansion of the universe is accelerating, if we could pick
two dates, then extrapolate some time it might logically become
infinite, we might be prepared. I suggest that those who can do the
math, check for some logic as to why the universe might become
infinite on December 21, 2012, in the twinkling of an eye. Why in the
twinkling of an eye? Because you can't "go" to infinity. It's
impossible. You must be "taken" there immediately, in the twinkling
of an eye! :-)

Damaeus
--
Damaeus - Damon M.

Dear Damaeus:

"Damaeus" wrote in message
...
Einstein's Relativity Over With in the
Twinkling of an Eye?

After further clarification, I see that Einstein's
relativity still applies, but not forever. Right
now, the reason we can't exceed the speed
of light is because all the gravity of the
infinite universe is being compressed into a
finite space.

The aetherists have a better answer for this. Since quark is
bound to quark and electron to proton by light, trying to exceed
light speed requires that these systems become unbound.

David A. Smith

In news:alt.sci.physics, "N:dlzc D:aol T:com \(dlzc\)"
posted on Fri, 19 Sep 2008 06:13:06 -0700:

The aetherists have a better answer for this. Since quark is
bound to quark and electron to proton by light, trying to exceed
light speed requires that these systems become unbound.

Oh, blow itself apart, then? Makes sense. I need to rework that
whole article, though. Now the whole thing makes no sense in light of
new understanding.

Damaeus
--
Damaeus - Damon M.

Dear Damaeus:

"Damaeus" wrote in message
...
In news:alt.sci.physics, "N:dlzc D:aol T:com \(dlzc\)"

posted on Fri, 19 Sep 2008 06:13:06 -0700:

The aetherists have a better answer for this.
Since quark is bound to quark and electron
to proton by light, trying to exceed light
speed requires that these systems become
unbound.

Oh, blow itself apart, then?

More like the binding is a dance between "two" partners, and one
partner keep waits forever for the one "downwind" to take the
next step. And nothing it does can be seen by a third partner
"upwind". As they approach c, they get closer and closer to "get
the rhythm right". So they are eventually standing on one
another's toes... and still not close enough. Unstable, unbound.

Makes sense. I need to rework that whole
article, though. Now the whole thing makes
no sense in light of new understanding.

Just don't get too serious with either what you write, or
learning more about aether. They are only models, tools to get
our small minds to see larger pictures, and tools that already
(at least in the case of aether) have issues that they have
trouble handling.

David A. Smith

In news:alt.sci.physics, "N:dlzc D:aol T:com \(dlzc\)"
posted on Sun, 21 Sep 2008 07:39:42 -0700:

Dear Damaeus:

"Damaeus" wrote in message
...
In news:alt.sci.physics, "N:dlzc D:aol T:com \(dlzc\)"

posted on Fri, 19 Sep 2008 06:13:06 -0700:

The aetherists have a better answer for this.
Since quark is bound to quark and electron
to proton by light, trying to exceed light
speed requires that these systems become
unbound.

Oh, blow itself apart, then?

More like the binding is a dance between "two" partners, and one
partner keep waits forever for the one "downwind" to take the
next step. And nothing it does can be seen by a third partner
"upwind". As they approach c, they get closer and closer to "get
the rhythm right". So they are eventually standing on one
another's toes... and still not close enough. Unstable, unbound.

I have a theory that we on Earth are moving at the speed of light, and
when we attempt to send a ship through space at the speed of light, we
are actually attempting to expend vast amounts of energy in an attempt
to keep the craft still. That's why the baby on the ship doesn't age,
but the man back on earth does. Earth is moving at the speed of
light, but the ship is expending energy remaining still in a universe
moving or expanding at the speed of light.

Makes sense. I need to rework that whole article, though. Now
the whole thing makes no sense in light of new understanding.

Just don't get too serious with either what you write, or
learning more about aether. They are only models, tools to get
our small minds to see larger pictures, and tools that already
(at least in the case of aether) have issues that they have
trouble handling.

Who are "they" in this context? Is there some body of people in
control of the aether, in your view?

Damaeus
--
Damaeus - Damon M.

Dear Damaeus:

"Damaeus" wrote in message
news
In news:alt.sci.physics, "N:dlzc D:aol T:com \(dlzc\)"

posted on Sun, 21 Sep 2008 07:39:42 -0700:
"Damaeus" wrote in message
...
In news:alt.sci.physics, "N:dlzc D:aol T:com \(dlzc\)"

posted on Fri, 19 Sep 2008 06:13:06 -0700:

The aetherists have a better answer for this.
Since quark is bound to quark and electron
to proton by light, trying to exceed light
speed requires that these systems become
unbound.

Oh, blow itself apart, then?

More like the binding is a dance between "two"
partners, and one partner keep waits forever
for the one "downwind" to take the next step.
And nothing it does can be seen by a third
partner "upwind". As they approach c, they
get closer and closer to "get the rhythm right".
So they are eventually standing on one
another's toes... and still not close enough.
Unstable, unbound.

I have a theory that we on Earth are moving
at the speed of light, and when we attempt
to send a ship through space at the speed
of light, we are actually attempting to expend
vast amounts of energy in an attempt to keep
the craft still. That's why the baby on the
ship doesn't age, but the man back on earth
does.

Good for a first blush, but still lacking...

Earth is moving at the speed of light, but the
ship is expending energy remaining still in a
universe moving or expanding at the speed of
light.

Makes sense. I need to rework that
whole article, though. Now the whole
thing makes no sense in light of new
understanding.

Just don't get too serious with either what
you write, or learning more about aether.
They are only models, tools to get our
small minds to see larger pictures, and
tools that already (at least in the case of
aether) have issues that they have trouble
handling.

Who are "they" in this context? Is there
some body of people in control of the
aether, in your view?

The "they" in this context are theories, products of human
imagination, that tend at first to lead us forward, then hold us
back as their usefullness is expended. Think of theories as
rocket blasts... each propells us in a direction, and has done
its work largely when it has been uttered, and its meaning
dissipated through the mind. Of course some minds are denser
than others...

David A. Smith

In news:alt.sci.physics, "N:dlzc D:aol T:com \(dlzc\)"
posted on Sun, 21 Sep 2008 10:24:20 -0700:

Dear Damaeus:

I have a theory that we on Earth are moving at the speed of
light, and when we attempt to send a ship through space at the
speed of light, we are actually attempting to expend vast amounts
of energy in an attempt to keep the craft still. That's why the
baby on the ship doesn't age, but the man back on earth does.

Good for a first blush, but still lacking...

I hate answers like that. It's like saying "nope" but not offering
any alternatives or correcting anything. In my view, my idea is still
solid in my mind because you've not provided any reasons not to
believe it. You've shown me no reason why my idea cannot be true.

The "they" in this context are theories, products of human
imagination, that tend at first to lead us forward, then hold us
back as their usefullness is expended. Think of theories as
rocket blasts... each propells us in a direction, and has done
its work largely when it has been uttered, and its meaning
dissipated through the mind. Of course some minds are denser
than others...

That theories are what's holding us back would be good reason to
present new ideas, not be lackadaisical in learning and exploring!

Damaeus
--
Damaeus - Damon M.

Dear Damaeus:

"Damaeus" wrote in message
...
In news:alt.sci.physics, "N:dlzc D:aol T:com \(dlzc\)"

posted on Sun, 21 Sep 2008 10:24:20 -0700:

Dear Damaeus:

I have a theory that we on Earth are moving at the
speed of light, and when we attempt to send a
ship through space at the speed of light, we are
actually attempting to expend vast amounts of
energy in an attempt to keep the craft still. That's
why the baby on the ship doesn't age, but the man
back on earth does.

Good for a first blush, but still lacking...

I hate answers like that. It's like saying "nope" but
not offering any alternatives or correcting anything.

Like I understand the nature of time better than you do? Your
scenario does not describe *to me* how the baby does not age.

In my view, my idea is still solid in my mind
because you've not provided any reasons not
to believe it.

Sure. Cocaine can make one believe one is a God too, but it is
still a mind ****. We think the world needs to bow at our feet,
when we have one of the mental erections...

You've shown me no reason why my idea cannot
be true.

You've shown me no reason to believe you have completed your
thought. Maybe we are falling from an event horizon at a local
value of c, and obtaining c (locally) still does not keep us
still wrt the exterior surface.

The key in Science is to provide falsifiability, allowing one to
make a claim that can be potentially disproven. "Why my idea
cannot be true" is unimportant, even to you. What does Nature
think?

The "they" in this context are theories, products
of human imagination, that tend at first to lead us
forward, then hold us back as their usefullness is
expended. Think of theories as rocket blasts...
each propells us in a direction, and has done
its work largely when it has been uttered, and its
meaning dissipated through the mind. Of course
some minds are denser than others...

That theories are what's holding us back would be
good reason to present new ideas, not be
lackadaisical in learning and exploring!

So when will you start? You have concept that you have poorly
presented imo, and blame me for not understanding it. Will you
now think it through, or allow someone else in?

David A. Smith

In news:alt.sci.physics, "N:dlzc D:aol T:com \(dlzc\)"
posted on Sun, 21 Sep 2008 17:38:35 -0700:

"Damaeus" wrote in message

I hate answers like that. It's like saying "nope" but
not offering any alternatives or correcting anything.

Like I understand the nature of time better than you do? Your
scenario does not describe *to me* how the baby does not age.

I thought you might already be familiar with the Twin Paradox
experiment. In my view, as we on earth move through the fabric of
space-time, we age because our "particles" are being eroded/smeared by
our movement through space. When you put a baby in a ship and attempt
to accelerate him to the speed of light, relative to us, I think that
vast energy is being expended by the ship in an attempt to keep itself
still, relative to itself and to the space-time around it. Once the
ship becomes still, the baby stops aging, but everyone on earth ages
at an accelerated rate. What causes the acceleration, I'm not sure. I
can't even be sure that the acceleration would be so great as to allow
a baby on the ship to spend one hour in space, and return to find his
twin an old man. That's just too much acceleration of time in my
view. It seems like the baby would simply sit and not age for one
hour, and the man on Earth would age one hour simply because he's
moving through space-time, and the baby on the ship is sitting still
relative to itself and space-time, but moving at the speed of light
relative to earth.

It could be that the earth is the center of the universe, and that all
measurements of light speed are relative to us. Maybe the universe is
spreading out from here where we are on Earth. Since there's really
no "direction" in infinity, that the earth seems to revolve around the
sun might just be an illusion of vastness. We can't really know from
our perspective what our position really looks like from the vantage
point of the entire universe, since we can't even see it all from
here. We can imagine what it might be like, but who knows until we
actually get out there and see?

In my view, my idea is still solid in my mind
because you've not provided any reasons not
to believe it.

Sure. Cocaine can make one believe one is a God too, but it is
still a mind ****. We think the world needs to bow at our feet,
when we have one of the mental erections...

I don't need that. I'd just like to see that someone knows how to
agree on big ideas instead of disagreeing just because it hasn't been
tried yet.

You've shown me no reason why my idea cannot
be true.

You've shown me no reason to believe you have completed your
thought. Maybe we are falling from an event horizon at a local
value of c, and obtaining c (locally) still does not keep us
still wrt the exterior surface.

The key in Science is to provide falsifiability, allowing one to
make a claim that can be potentially disproven. "Why my idea
cannot be true" is unimportant, even to you. What does Nature
think?

So that my claim can't be disproven means it isn't science, but truth.
Nature apparently likes it, since what Nature is doing doing falls
right in line with what I write. So that you or anyone else doesn't
agree doesn't matter to me one way or the other. I just talk about it
and let people decide what they will.

So when will you start? You have concept that you have poorly
presented imo, and blame me for not understanding it. Will you
now think it through, or allow someone else in?

I have thought it through. What are you suggesting I might have left
out?

Damaeus
--
Damaeus - Damon M.

Dear Damaeus:

"Damaeus" wrote in message
...
In news:alt.sci.physics, "N:dlzc D:aol T:com \(dlzc\)"

posted on Sun, 21 Sep 2008 17:38:35 -0700:

"Damaeus" wrote in message

I hate answers like that. It's like saying "nope" but
not offering any alternatives or correcting anything.

Like I understand the nature of time better than you
do? Your scenario does not describe *to me* how
the baby does not age.

I thought you might already be familiar with the
Twin Paradox experiment.

Which has nothing at all to do with us moving at c, seeing the
Universe moving at 300 km/sec in some other direction, and jets
of matter moving up to 0.1c (or more) in other places in the
Universe.

You and I won't agree, because you want a different langauge.
Good luck.

David A. Smith