The Special Theory of Relativity says that nothing travels faster than
light because light is the speed of existence.

This is how we can explain why light doesn't move faster when the
observers are moving faster.

But this is not the only way to answer this question. I have deduced
multiple levels of time, and the time that we comprehend is partially
created by light, as Einstien correctly suggests.

But if we were to answer the question of why light doesn't speed up in
the following way:

Because light exists and works at a level of time that is different
than the level of time that the observer exists in

then we can still get to the same conclusion that nothing travels
faster than light in our level of existence, and still allow for the
possibility of objects travelling faster than light in lower,
fundamental levels of existence/time.

Now the question is, are there really multiple levels of time? I have
laid out why I think that there are multiple levels, at least two that
we can deduce he
http://www.techmocracy.net/science/time.htm
But I don't know how to go about proving that there are or are not
multiple levels. Anyone got ideas?

On 25 Jul 2003 10:30:35 -0700, (Mike Helland)
wrote:

The Special Theory of Relativity says that nothing travels faster than
light because light is the speed of existence.

This is how we can explain why light doesn't move faster when the
observers are moving faster.

But this is not the only way to answer this question. I have deduced
multiple levels of time, and the time that we comprehend is partially
created by light, as Einstien correctly suggests.

But if we were to answer the question of why light doesn't speed up in
the following way:

Because light exists and works at a level of time that is different
than the level of time that the observer exists in

then we can still get to the same conclusion that nothing travels
faster than light in our level of existence, and still allow for the
possibility of objects travelling faster than light in lower,
fundamental levels of existence/time.

Now the question is, are there really multiple levels of time? I have
laid out why I think that there are multiple levels, at least two that
we can deduce he
http://www.techmocracy.net/science/time.htm
But I don't know how to go about proving that there are or are not
multiple levels. Anyone got ideas?

got ideas?

the word "god" appears in your www text.

Spew!

w.
--
Thanks God that I am an Atheist.
Gottseidank bin ich Atheist.

Mike Helland:
The Special Theory of Relativity says that nothing travels faster than
light because light is the speed of existence.

That isn't what relativity says.

This is how we can explain why light doesn't move faster when the
observers are moving faster.

It's not how a physicist explains it.

http://www.techmocracy.net/science/time.htm
But I don't know how to go about proving that there are or are not
multiple levels. Anyone got ideas?

Yes. First obtain a good physics book on special relativity. Then
spend some time studying it rather than writing web pages about
why it's wrong.

"Mike Helland" wrote in message om...
Bilge,

The Special Theory of Relativity says that nothing travels faster than
light because light is the speed of existence.

That isn't what relativity says.

Special Relativity doesn't that say nothing travels faster than the
speed of light? And it doesn't say that all light cones are shaped the
same and pointed in the same direction?

SR doesn't say the part "because light is the speed of existence."
I'll leave the other juicy bits for Bilge ;-)

Dirk Vdm

(Mike Helland) writes:

Bilge,

The Special Theory of Relativity says that nothing travels faster than
light because light is the speed of existence.
That isn't what relativity says.

Special Relativity doesn't that say nothing travels faster than the
speed of light? And it doesn't say that all light cones are shaped the
same and pointed in the same direction?

First of all, you should quote a respectable source which claims that
"light is the speed of existence" to prove that you did not make that
bit up out of your imagination. Relativity is consistent with
faster than light travel (hypothetical particles which travel faster
than light are called tachyons). On the basis that the velocity of
a particle cannot suffer an instantaneous discontinuity (if fact,
the velocity of a particle should be C^1 in as a function of its
proper time), and the formulae for energy and momentum, then material
bodies which travel slower than light can never travel at the speed of
light or faster, and tachyons can never travel at the speed of light
or slower. The interdiction against faster than light travel is on
the basis that faster than light travel, relativity and causality are
inconsistent. Without the requirement of causality, faster than light
travel is perfectly consistent with relativity. In fact, as I see it,
even with causality, there is still no prohibition of tachyons. What
would be forbidden is the interaction of tachyons with matter (including
light), since any such interaction would violate causality. So even if
you impose causality, tachyons would not be forbidden. They would however
be experimentally undetectable, and for all practical purposes
nonexistent.

Are you just disagreeing because I didn't put it precisly enough for
your educated tastes?

No. He disagreed because you put it wrongly.

This is how we can explain why light doesn't move faster when the
observers are moving faster.
It's not how a physicist explains it.

You mean Special Relativity wasn't used to explain why light is always
the same speed no matter how you observe it?

The constancy of the speed of light is a postulate in relativity. If you
use the velocity addition formula, then you will find that it predicts
that the speed of light is the same in all inertial frames (which indeed
it must, since if it predicted the opposite, then that would contradict
the postulate and you would have an inconsistency). Such a substitution
into the formula is a good idea since it serves as a test of consistency,
and relativity passes this test.

As has been pointed out by many under other subject lines, the principle
of relativity requires that there be an invariant speed. In Newtonian
Mechanics, this speed is infinite. The second postulate of relativity
merely determines that the invariant speed is the speed of light.

David McAnally

--------------

(Mike Helland) wrote in message . com...

[snip]

You mean Special Relativity wasn't used to explain why light is always
the same speed no matter how you observe it?

You obviously don't know the first thing about relativity.
The fact that you make public statements about something that you
clearly haven't studied pegs you as an arrogant fool.

Paul Cardinale

You mean Special Relativity wasn't used to explain why light is always the same speed no matter how you observe it?
You obviously don't know the first thing about relativity.

Ok then, if we don't use Special Relativity to explain that
phenomenon, how do we explain it?

We don't, its a basic postulate of science and the Special Theory of
Relativity was a result of that postulate. So we can loosely say:
science uses SR to explain that phenomenon.

I think you guys are trying really hard to dig apart the semantics I'm
using to introduce what I'd really like some feed back on.

And that is how can we test the hypothesis that there are multiple
levels of time and that our time is a result of interactions occuring
at another time that quantum mechanics runs on?

The fact that you make public statements about something that you clearly haven't studied pegs you as an arrogant fool.

A fool perhaps, but I'm not sure how you got arrogant. You guys know
more than I do, which is why I posted this hypothesis here.

Mike Helland:
You mean Special Relativity wasn't used to explain why light is
always the same speed no matter how you observe it?
You obviously don't know the first thing about relativity.

Ok then, if we don't use Special Relativity to explain that
phenomenon, how do we explain it?

We don't, its a basic postulate of science and the Special Theory of
Relativity was a result of that postulate. So we can loosely say:
science uses SR to explain that phenomenon.

What special relativity says is this: The physics in all inertial
frames is the same. That alone is sufficient to define _some_ constant,
`c', which is a velocity and that anything which propagates at that
velocity, does so at `c' in every inertial frame. Whether or not
anything does propagate at `c' is an experimental question, but the
numerical value of `c' itself is no more relevant than introducing
a constant `a' to relate the x and y axes by y = ax. Physicists
typically define c = 1 in recognition of that fact. However, since
humans already had chosen units of meters and seconds, we will end
up with a numerical value.

Einstein's second postulate comes about because there exists a
phenomena which apperently can be used to define `c' - electromag-
netism. The experiments led maxwell to a theory in which the
propagation of light occurs at a constant velocity which doesn't
depend upon the motion of the source or the observer. This was
puzzling to physicists of that era, but einstein noticed that
all laws of physics could be made independent of any inertial
frame if `c' is the velocity maxwell found.

I think you guys are trying really hard to dig apart the semantics I'm
using to introduce what I'd really like some feed back on.

And that is how can we test the hypothesis that there are multiple
levels of time and that our time is a result of interactions occuring
at another time that quantum mechanics runs on?

No one is digging apart semantics. What you have said is not semantic-
ally clear. In order to "test" your hypothesis, it is first necessary
for you to state it in the form of a mathematical relationship which can
be used to derive quantities that experiments can be designed to measure.
For example, einsteins first postulate may be stated in the form of
a coordinate transformation to another inertial frame. If you change
coordinates by an infinitessimal amount, all of the physics must
remain unchanged. If you require the length of a rod to be frame
independent, i.e., assume the length l is a function of x, l(x)
then change to coordinates x' = x + dx

l'(x) = l(x') = l(x + dx) = l(x) + (dl(x)/dx)\delta x

and take the scalar product of that length to be invariant (just
like the length of a vector in 3-d is given by sqrt(|V.V|), i.e.,
l = sqrt(x^2 + y^2 + z^2)), then you get:

|l'| = |l|^2 + l (dl/dx) \delta x + ((dl/dx)\delta x) l + higher order
terms

Now you require that |l'|^2 - |l|^2 = 0, so that the scalar product
is the same in both the primed and unprimed coordinates. That requires:

l (dl/dx) \delta x + ((dl/dx)\delta x) = 0

However, since l contains four coordinates, the above is a matrix
equation l_i M_ij \delta x_j + l_j M_ji \delta x_i = 0. If you solve
for M_ij, you get the lorentz transforms. The lorentz transdforms
can be tested.

In order to say something about your hypothesis, it's necessary to
be able to address it mathematically, otherwise no one knows what
it means, if it's self-consistent, or what insight it offers to
physical phenomena.

Mike Helland:
Bilge,

In order to say something about your hypothesis, it's necessary to
be able to address it mathematically, otherwise no one knows what
it means, if it's self-consistent, or what insight it offers to
physical phenomena.

And what do you think it is that I'm asking for help on?

You aren't asking for help, you're insisting that have an
explanation for something. You also argue with every response.

I'm unsure of how a scientist could read my posts, post something
completely unrelated, and then tell me that I'm missing what I said
I'm missing. Oh well.

Perfect example of what I said above.

Mr. Anderson said,

You can't disprove a theory by coming up with another one
that explains the same set of experiments. You need
an experiment that disagrees with one but not the other.

I understand that. As I admited, I have no testable hypothesis based
on my idea yet.

I have a question, matter causes space-time to curve, correct? What do
we call that phenomenon?