My qestions.

[arkain101]

I have taken some bumps around here for my crazy theories, which I deserve for not taking the time to make sure the details were correct [and focusing too much on the big picture]. I do understand the manner in which current physics works, so it is not that I am clueless about physics, it was that I was speaking with confidence on a seperate process of the operation of areas of physics on a theoretical basis, if you know what I mean.

Anyhow I got some questions, and others that I will be popping up here quite frequently in time to come as I know I will find more.

 

1)Since there is no absolute rest in the universe how can it be derived that nothing is currently traveling faster than C in relavance to a surrounding object. If the universe is coming from nowhere and headed nowhere (looking at the universe as a single unit strung together by gravity how can a speed limit be derived to the unit from an object that contains no velocity. In other words, can one galaxy be travling 3/4 C towards another galaxy traveling C, mean while they are traveling in another vector at 2 times C type of situation).

So if the universe had a finite volume or quantity to it, it could be called one universe, and could this one universe be considered as a whole to be at rest, or beyond C. In this case if you were to zoom out from the universe so far that it began to look like an atom with all the light energy being shot out from the core "as it does" looping around from gravitational force and back in and around, kind of like the image we get when looking at a model of an atom with a nucleus and orbiting electron paths.

 

-Off the question, but then could this universe be the atom to the other universes which are atoms to the function of an entire larger system. jk..

 

2)Has a test ever been done to see if gravity has the ability to create energy on a object affected by no other source, in a zero g enviroment like orbiting earth, protected from any radiation, in a vacume container. Seeing if it is some kind of physical particle?

[Tormod]

I don't understand question 1.

 

Question 2: It is hypothesized that the gravitational force is transmitted by the graviton, but it has not yet been observed in experiments. There is no zero g environment around the Earth, it is in fact a microgravity environment so experiments performed in orbit are not truly out of the gravitational well of the Earth. However, since we have no known way to shield against gravity there is no way to test for gravity being a physical particle as of yet. All experiments would be prone to gravitaional pull by all objects surrounding the test area.

[arkain101]

Question 2: It is hypothesized that the gravitational force is transmitted by the graviton, but it has not yet been observed in experiments. There is no zero g environment around the Earth, it is in fact a microgravity environment so experiments performed in orbit are not truly out of the gravitational well of the Earth.

By zero G I meant weightlessness on the on object. Since being against earth at constant acceleration going nowhere, pressure is applied to the particles making them heat. I realize the orbit range of earth is a minimal gravity field but it is still possible to reach weightlessness. A comparison from the orbit zone to few million miles away from any massive body in the shadow of something could be done...?

hmmm

 

 

Question 1) How can you say there is a speed limit on the universe when the universe is in a infinate vacume. As we know it is a "ball" for example in an infinate nothingness , is the ball moving too?

I have read late astromony studies saying they caugh glimpses just before the big bang and calculated matter moving at 12x the speed of C.

[C1ay]

Since there is no absolute rest in the universe how can it be derived that nothing is currently traveling faster than C in relavance to a surrounding object.

That is not the case as far as I know. Two photons travelling in opposite directions would have a relative velocity of 2C.

[arkain101]

Sorry.

Lets say, what data says our galaxy isnt floating away from a point at 3x C

[C1ay]

Question 1) How can you say there is a speed limit on the universe when the universe is in a infinate vacume. As we know it is a "ball" for example in an infinate nothingness , is the ball moving too?

I have read late astromony studies saying they caugh glimpses just before the big bang and calculated matter moving at 12x the speed of C.

We do not know it is a ball or that it is surrounded by infinite nothingness. We also have not observed any events prior to the event horizon of the theorized big bang. Both are beyond our limit of observation.

[GAHD]

arkain, you need to brush up on the scientific method. That last question sounded like the arguments IDers make; 'Proove god didn't do it'.

 

It's rediculous.

[arkain101]

My point is.. They claim light is a constant speed. Mass can not go faster than it, where I have read data about some short time AFTER the big bang they explain matter traveling at 12x C.

I am trying to brush up on some things in here if anyone feels confindent with an answer.

 

 

 

The principle of conservation of mechanical energy states that, if a system is subject only to conservative forces (e.g. only to gravitational force), its mechanical energy remains constant

 

I was wondering if someone could fill me in on this question a bit.

 

If you were to shoot a ball up a vertical vacume tube at 10m/s, would that ball travel twice or 4 times further if you were to shoot it twice the velocity?

[cwes99_03]

I think the answer is in the understanding of SR. The problem I have is the same as you have. However, from what I've read of SR, it isn't a problem, just our failure to agree with one component of SR, namely that nothing can go faster than C, 1) because C is the speed of light in all reference frames (in some way that says that you can't measure two objects to be traveling faster than C because the speed of C is your ruler, and 2) your ruler changes in length but not value (time dilation/length contraction) to explain away any measurements that seem to show something moving at a relative speed (all speeds are relative to something, except that of the speed of light) faster than light.

 

This being stated above, I have serious problems with the basis for time dilation/length contraction. Most notable, please someone correct me if I'm not fully understanding SR, why can light traveling in a radial directoin between a star and observer not gain the momentum of the source star if that star is also traveling toward me with some speed (speed of star + c = speed of light traveling toward me), while a light clock apparently can gain the momentum of the source traveling horizontal to the directoin of emission, so that the beam when emitted vertically actually gains a horizontal component.

[Boerseun]

As far as two photons flying away in opposite directions are concerned, you'd think the speed of the one photon (as observed from the other photon) would be 2c. In fact, the speed the other photon is travelling away from the point of view of the first photon, would stay c. Time starts to get weird here, and to make up for it, the observed frequencies would start moving up and down the scale - depending on whether the photons are approaching each other or flying away from each other.

[arkain101]

Interesting.

 

I understand tests have been done with accurate atomic clocks using planes to measure the time difference with clocks on the ground when in high speed travel, and also that clocks orbiting the planet have slightly different time adjustments.

 

I am on the lookout for any research on G force (acceleration forces) as a having an effect on the clocks function of operation. If these clocks happen to slow down from the pressure of acceleration, I could back up big parts of my theory that tries to explain that kinetic energy does not increase 4fold over a velocity increase of 2x. Rather, velocity follows the increase equally, with an unexpected duality concept.

So anything about atomic clocks and force information would be helpful

[arkain101]

Somthing I have pondered.

We know of this material called dark matter that exists in areas around the universe, that do not appear to reflect light and are basically invisible. Black holes are similar in a sense that nothing appears to escape them. Nothing appears to leave them. If a black hole is considered to be stars that have lost there fuel and have collapsed into a small object with extremely strong gravity, it gets me thinking. As far as I understand molecules or atoms have there own specific half life decay rate. I am not 100% sure of this, but is it possible that matter can only emmit so much light energy before becoming what is known as dark matter? For example sun spots on the sun I know there is other explanations for them being cooler voids in the dense gas, but for millions of nuclear reaction to be able to cool down to darkness seems as a strange phenomina. Massive explosions turning into flipside matter that is still hot, but is depleted of energery seems more sound to me. For example, the matter we know and see, is it possible for it to be a like a sponge soaked with energy so to speak, that eventually can deplete itself of all existing energy and invert itself, like becoing anti matter/dark matter. Able now to only absorb energy. Because, if a star does collapse, is it possible that the matter contained on that sun has now become a flip-side where it no longer has the ability to eject energy, and has become an object of extreme desitity of anti-matter or dark matter. This process could explain the process of energy and mass interchangeability? It would make sense for allowing the universe to have balance, so that everything does not eventually become a black hole. Eventually a black hole finally abosrbs enough visual matter and light energy to replenish depleted matter and explode into creating new matter once again. I am not suggesting this is so, but I wonder what anyone seems to think of this.

[arkain101]

Using these dimensions of the great pyramid is anyone here capable of finding out if you can use these dimensions to create a sphererical object by aranging duplicate pyramids with points facing inwards on the sphere? And if so how many does it take to create the sphere. And if not, can 12 pyramids be made into a sphere with correct spacing between them?

 

The 5 angles of the Great Pyramid are:

edge to edge of face at apex =76:17:13.2 (degrees - minutues - seconds),

edge to diagonal edge at apex = 96:3:0.0, dihedral or

face to face parallel to base = 112:25:39.4

edge to base = 41:59:50.5

face to base = 51:51:14.3.

[arkain101]

Has the photon between two mirrors ever been tested?

 

Can you really set up a super accurate set of mirrors that contain light bouncing back and forth for a measureable amount of time. Or does the light simply dissapear instantly. If for example you built a sphererical mirror inside the sphere with a strong lazer inside. with a sphererical camera inside, what would it look like and would the light exist in there for more than C would explain after the light source is removed?

How long would it take for the lazer to bounce off every possible angle to fill the sphere with 100% light.

So if you had dust in there and a red lazer.. How long for the lazer to find infinte angles to light the inside of the sphere 100%.

[arkain101]

Particle accelerator is only able to shoot a particle at .99c because the mass of the particle becomes to great to cause it to reach C. Lets imagine, the galaxy is traveling at .5C north in the universe from a birds eye view. And our partice accelerator happens to be shooting this particle in our solar system, on our planet likewise north. the Particle in relavence to the universe is traveling 1.49 C . This fact is completely plausible. Which explains that the particle acclerators can most likely accelerate a particle beyond C. By using a thought experiement that you can shoot a particle accelerator out of a particle accelerator and shoot a particle out of the particle accelerator that is going .9c. causing the object to travel 1.8 x C.

 

As for a person time traveling when they fly in space ship at .9C. The situation can 100% be looked at the earth leaving the ship at C and the ship at rest.. or each object leaving eachother at 0.45C, which neutralizes the time dialations.

[arkain101]

I think I got it.

 

With the equation 1/2(M*Vsquared)

 

The energy is said to be increased 4 times on an object if you double its velocity.

 

Is this energy assumed to come from an increase of mass? What is the explanation for why your energy will increase if you double your speed, because I just performed an experiment that explains that it has nothing do with mass of the moving object, it is quit interesting.

[cwes99_03]

What is slowing the object down? Is it not friction? Have you ever actually sat down and read a physics text? I love curiosity, but the questions you are asking can be solved very quickly with a simple google search and a little reading.