Outrunning The Speed Of Light

[Atlan0001]

Head into an oncoming ray of light and you've outrun the speed of light by speeding up, outrunning, time. The light carried observation behind you as you move into the ray of oncoming light, has fallen back, further and further back, in time . . . is falling back in time -- is more and more a history -- behind where you are in relative time further and further out front of that time, 'it' speeding to the rear of [your] time. Light is no solid string, no light saber, but points of time. Photo histories with only the photo, the photon, being the physical point of reality presently. It would take you always standing still in the universe, relative to the universe, for light, for time, from the rear to constantly catch up to you, the now of the universe constantly staying with you, and never be a history relative to you. You would have to occupy all of the space of the universe at once in time (the only problem being all the light, all of the histories, in the universe would go out as if you turned the light switch of the universe to the off position).

 

[Atlan0001]

Can you travel backward in time?

You always do but in only in one direction, to your rear, the direction opposite your direction of forward travel . . . forward progress. From here to Centauri, after you get there, however long or short your travel time, Sol would be approximately four years behind you (four light years away), observed by you (the light-time of Sol, and the Earth, always being unable to keep with you -- your speed -- whatever your speed away from them (thus them becoming strictly histories to you)). Centauri would have been speeded up in time during your travel to it -- your travel into its light, history speeding up in time relative to you, observed, for you even to have reached it. Traveling the universe becomes a matter of time travel as well as space travel whether into light forward or stretching out of light rearward, the constancy of the speed of light becoming strictly a local matter to you as you always travel two directions -- you could say two dimensions -- of space-time at once. Constant, because forward into and backward out of, the front and rear of time travel relative to you, will always be cancelling locally to the constant.

 

[Hardcrunchyscience]

Head into an oncoming ray of light and you've outrun the speed of light by speeding up, outrunning, time. The light carried observation behind you as you move into the ray of oncoming light, has fallen back, further and further back, in time . . . is falling back in time -- is more and more a history -- behind where you are in relative time further and further out front of that time, 'it' speeding to the rear of [your] time. Light is no solid string, no light saber, but points of time. Photo histories with only the photo, the photon, being the physical point of reality presently. It would take you always standing still in the universe, relative to the universe, for light, for time, from the rear to constantly catch up to you, the now of the universe constantly staying with you, and never be a history relative to you. You would have to occupy all of the space of the universe at once in time (the only problem being all the light, all of the histories, in the universe would go out as if you turned the light switch of the universe to the off position).

Prove it. With physics and logic.

 

[Atlan0001]

Prove it. With physics and logic.

So, unlike me and everyone else, when you walk down the street you don't leave your departure point a fraction of a light-second behind you, regarding light. Nor do you pick up on a fraction of a light-second on your destination from it being a fraction of a light second behind you, regarding light. You must always be in two [currently existing] places at once (again no light-time histories for you to travel), your departure points always, and your destination points always. What a solid stretch over points of the universe you are always covering (again no light-time histories for you). No light-time histories (from 0-point to 'x'(-)) existing for you to [make], to descend into, in the distances behind you, nor distances in the light-time histories ahead of you for you to ascend into (from 'x' (-) to 0-point). What a life you must lead never having to deal in light-time histories before you and behind you, and side to side, as you move in the universe. Come to think of it, you must not move in a universe of observed light-time histories and unobservable 0-points, through a universe of histories and 0-points period, at all (makes it all too tough to prove to you "with physics and logic", then (Oh well)).

 

[Hardcrunchyscience]

So, unlike me and everyone else, when you walk down the street you don't leave your departure point a fraction of a light-second behind you, regarding light. Nor do you pick up on a fraction of a light-second on your destination from it being a fraction of a light second behind you, regarding light. You must always be in two [currently existing] places at once (again no light-time histories for you to travel), your departure points always, and your destination points always. What a solid stretch over points of the universe you are always covering (again no light-time histories for you). No light-time histories (from 0-point to 'x'(-)) existing for you to [make], to descend into, in the distances behind you, nor distances in the light-time histories ahead of you for you to ascend into (from 'x' (-) to 0-point). What a life you must lead never having to deal in light-time histories before you and behind you, and side to side, as you move in the universe. Come to think of it, you must not move in a universe of observed light-time histories and unobservable 0-points, through a universe of histories and 0-points period, at all (makes it all too tough to prove to you "with physics and logic", then (Oh well)).

You have not proved anything. Try again.

 

[Atlan0001]

You have not proved anything. Try again.

I don't have to prove it to you. It is up to you to disprove light-time "histories," and a forward ascending / backward descending travel of light-time histories for anything moving, traveling, between departure and destination points, between the stars, between the galaxies, and between universes (in general). You prove light-time histories do not exist to travel forward into ascending in space-time . . . and travel out of descending in space-time behind! Prove me wrong!

 

[Hardcrunchyscience]

I don't have to prove it to you. It is up to you to disprove light-time "histories," and a forward ascending / backward descending travel of light-time histories for anything moving, traveling, between departure and destination points, between the stars, between the galaxies, and between universes (in general). You prove light-time histories do not exist to travel forward into ascending in space-time . . . and travel out of descending in space-time behind! Prove me wrong!

No, the onus is on you. Conventional physics out in the real world (supported by virtually every physicist in the world) is contradictory to you, if you dissent, you gotta prove you are right. Give us some logic, equations, anything vaguely correct or explained.

 

[Atlan0001]

No, the onus is on you. Conventional physics out in the real world (supported by virtually every physicist in the world) is contradictory to you, if you dissent, you gotta prove you are right. Give us some logic, equations, anything vaguely correct or explained.

I've told you light is divided by time (by "by light-time histories"). I need do no more than that. You've told me it isn't divided by time, by light-time histories, and that most of the world's physicists ("conventional physics") agree with you that it isn't. That is then largely accepted idiocy by you and those you claim to represent.

 

[COLGeek]

Civility is required by all. Please uses sources to support positions when possible. Attack ideas, not each other.