Exceeding Speed of Light

[bonzelite]

it is a theory and my expression of it comes as a result of the topic's discussion pertinent to forces in action. it directly relates to superluminal discussion, as i posit the idea that gravity acts instantly and does not propagate as a wave at c. i maintain that c can be violated, as it already has been. <br /><br />were i to simply agree with standard theories, then my posts would resemble those compliant and in perfect agreement with such ideas. and i do not agree. so how is that hijacking? we are debating. <br /><br />were i to launch into a political debate about george bush or gun laws in this thread, that would be far off-topic. my main point is that light speed and gravity are entirely misunderstood and not known. why you insist otherwise is beyond me.

 

[spacechump]

No it is NOT a theory. It is a hypothesis. A theory is a hypothesis with experimental evidence to back it up collected by those proposing the hypothesis. What experimental evidence have you collected recently?

 

[spacechump]

<i>i maintain that c can be violated, as it already has been.</i><br /><br />How did you come to that conclusion?<br /><br /><i>my main point is that light speed and gravity are entirely misunderstood and not known. why you insist otherwise is beyond me.</i><br /><br />Maybe because they're not as misunderstood as you tend to think. Think of all the particle accelerator experiments the show dialation in particle decay relative to a much slower moving particle or the energy curve seen while accelerating them.<br /><br />Sure we don't know everything. But you make an argument based on what? Evidence? No way! <i>Opinion</i>!<br /><br />And in <i>my</i> opinion that's not how science works.

 

[bonzelite]

gravity, then, is only a hypothesis. the experimental data and evidence for it's existence is being seen in reverse. we have a 9.8m/s² value for gravity on the earth, when, really, it is a result of the earth's relative expansion due to it's size, outwardly, from it's <i>center of mass.</i> and not due to the earth's mass in general. <br /><br />this is proven by dropping small objects, relative to the earth's size, to the earth. regardless of an object's mass (to a point), all things will fall equally to earth (negating wind resistance). why? because the earth is coming <i>up to meet the objects --not the objects falling to meet the ground.</i><br /><br />they are held to the earth due to the acceleration at 9.8m/s². my interpretation of 9.8m/s² is just as valid as the "traditional" view. and it is science. there is the hypothesis, then the observations of the experiment of dropping objects and measuring the rate, and then there is the theory. it differs from the standard one. but is one nonetheless.

 

[yevaud]

<i>yes, i follow that assuming gravity exists, and i posit that it does not.</i><br /><br />Which of course disregards all collected data on Frame-Dragging (proven), Time-Dilation (proven), and Gravitational Lensing (proven).<br /><br />From a release about Gravity Probe B (which has since found Frame-Dragging to be <i>exactly</i> as predicted):<br /><br /><i>Since GP-B was conceived, significant progress has been made through experimental studies of gravity, both in improved precision and in performing qualitatively new tests. <b>These tests are so constraining that there are now no examples of alternative theories that are consistent with the experimental facts and predict a frame-dragging effect different from that predicted by GR at a level GP-B could detect.</b></i><br /><br />Experiments that have shown, conclusively, that time-dilation exists, as predicted:<br /><br />The (non-relativistic) Muon experiments.<br />The Hafele-Keating experiment (<i>J.C. Hafele and R. E. Keating, Science 177, 166 (1972)</i>)<br />The Atomic Fine Structure (involving <i>Thomson Precession</i>) experiment.<br />The Kaivole time-dilation experiment (confirmed to within 4 parts in 100,000).<br /><br />Gravitational Lensing:<br /><br />A booming field in Astrophysics today. One site, called Ogle-III, has detected over 500 different transients involving lensing. Another, CASTLE (the CfA-Arizona Space Telescope LEns) Survey of gravitational lenses has found countless examples as well. All imaged and confirmed. <br /><br />So much for that posit. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><em>Differential Diagnosis:  </em>"<strong><em>I am both amused and annoyed that you think I should be less stubborn than you are</em></strong>."<br /> </p> </div>

 

[spacechump]

<i>gravity, then, is only a hypothesis. the experimental data and evidence for it's existence is being seen in reverse. we have a 9.8m/s2 value for gravity on the earth, when, really, it is a result of the earth's relative expansion due to it's size, outwardly, from it's center of mass. and not due to the earth's mass in general. </i><br /><br />See? That's your problem. We have no evidence that this is happening nor does it fit observations. This is <i>your opinion</i>, that's all. It has no basis in real scientific methodology.

 

[bonzelite]

i am yawning.

 

[yevaud]

Good for you. Get more sleep. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><em>Differential Diagnosis:  </em>"<strong><em>I am both amused and annoyed that you think I should be less stubborn than you are</em></strong>."<br /> </p> </div>

 

[spacechump]

<i>i am yawning.</i><br /><br />So science bores you? So you come up with a fantasy hypothesis? Wow, talk about credibility! <br /><br />Edit: Sorry Shadow...didn't see your post before I responded.

 

[TheShadow]

bonzelite says: <i> because the earth is coming up to meet the objects --not the objects falling to meet the ground. ……….. my interpretation of 9.8m/s2 is just as valid as the "traditional" view. </i><br /><br />No, it is not. If the Earth and the Sun were expanding as you claim, they would have expanded into intimate contact billions of years ago. They have not.<br /><br />In any case, please stop posting your hypothesis in this thread. itsyuri’s original post had nothing whatsoever to do with gravity or any of your other pseudo-ideas. This is a Science Forum. If you wish to discuss your idea of gravity, start a thread on it in the Phenomenon Forum.<br /><br />Do NOT continue it here. That goes for everyone else. See the original post for the topic to be discussed here.<br /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p> </p><p> </p><p> </p><p> </p><p><font size="1" color="#808080">Who knows what evil lurks in the hearts of men, the Shadow knows. </font></p> </div>

 

[vogon13]

Asked and answered.<br /><br />Time to lock this one down.<br /><br /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><font color="#ff0000"><strong>TPTB went to Dallas and all I got was Plucked !!</strong></font></p><p><font color="#339966"><strong>So many people, so few recipes !!</strong></font></p><p><font color="#0000ff"><strong>Let's clean up this stinkhole !!</strong></font> </p> </div>

 

[jatslo]

Not if the displacement mass is expanding too, as a result the Earth and SUN never touch. <img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" /><br /><br />VOGON: "Ask and answered" Me: yeah right. How'd you pull that one off?

 

[bonzelite]

^^^correct. the relative distances of the planets are preserved as they are in geometric orbital relationships that maintain relative positions. the solar system is expanding, generally, as one unit. <br /><br />but i cannot talk anymore about this in this thread. so i will not <img src="/images/icons/wink.gif" /> don't worry, Shadow, i am out of this thread.

 

[bonzelite]

good points. then i may modify my idea by saying that given that the fuel itself is sufficient. and given that the craft may experience continual acceleration, by what means we cannot know right now, there will be nothing to prevent it from going past c.

 

[jatslo]

No, bonze ... He made mistakes... trust me ... huge mistakes. <img src="/images/icons/wink.gif" />

 

[bonzelite]

you mean Einstein? yes, he does not own the universe. he is worshipped like a demi-god, so his words are sacred. not entirely true, but sacred. like a holy scripture.