Genady

(To Say Nothing of the Dog) +1 Me too. Even in translation.

A classic example of creativity in cooking:

If this is the case, then I did not misunderstand the OP, contrary to my previous post.

I bet on lazy journalism + lazy authors + lazy journal editors.

The next paragraph in the article says, 1. What does "extraterrestrial or terrestrial" means? Isn't everything in the universe "extraterrestrial or terrestrial"? 2. It appears to come from the authors of the research rather than from the journalist.

Perhaps I misunderstood the process described in OP. I thought that it is about a function, t -> {x,y,z | z=t, x2+y2+z2=1} for a sphere of radius 1 and t in [-1,+1].

Then computer graphics and animation people could know.

Maybe because it is not a commonly referred to thing? Where would you apply this term?

In the world of defense mechanisms, rationalization is fairly common. People may not realize when they offer a small excuse or justification. Although this is natural, confronting reality, even when it’s difficult, can be an important step to changing harmful habits in realms such as relationships, finances, and more.

"Tired light" is not due to a gravitational effect. All gravitational effects on light from the dynamics of homogenous isotropic distribution of mass and energy are already accounted for in the cosmological redshift.

The blue line here is a meridian. It connects the North Pole with the South Pole. What do you mean for it to be sweeping southward?

Another question for you. In the definition, , the sqrt(n) is in the numerator. But in the "derivation" above, on the step 9, it is in the denominator. How come?

We are talking mathematics here. If you set c=v on line 5, you divide by 0 on line 6, and everything after that is meaningless. If you don't set c=v on line 5, then there is no c+c on line 6, and everything after that is wrong. You can decide, if you have it done or you haven't. The derivation is wrong anyway.

Yes, there is an error. After you set c=v on line 5, you get m0c/0 on line 6. Anything after that is meaningless, because there is no such thing as dividing by 0.

I've asked a mathematician and he wanted to clarify, if this is what you are saying: 1. M = m0 / √(1 - v^2/c^2) = 2. = m0 / √(c^2 - v^2)/c^2 = 3. = m0 / √(c + v)√(c - v)/c^2 = 4. = m0c / √(c + v)√(c - v) = 5. = √(c + c)√(c - v) = 6. = m0c / √(c + c)√(c - v) = 7. = m0c / √2c√(c - v) = 8. = m0√c / √2√(c - v) = 9. = m0√c / √2√n ?

I don't think your mathematical calculation is correct. To make it readable, break it down line by line. Then I think you will see an error.

What are the units on the left and on the right sides of the first equation, ?

However, there is no such problem in this case. YOU make the problem up.

No, I don't. E is a real number value. Infinity is not.

None. The equation does not have a solution for v=c. Just as it does not have a solution for v=2c, v=3c, etc.

Did you see my equation? There is no v=c in it. For every E, v<c. There is no infinity that needs to be made a sense of.

The equation is: v=sqrt(c2-m2c6/E2) Set E to any value in this equation and get v<c. No infinities anywhere! All values are finite! I do not "keep the value of infinity" at all, because it is not there! I don't need to "transform" anything "into a finite value", because all values are already finite!

Not true! I did not "refute that a particle can reach the speed of light by assuming that it cannot attain infinite mass/energy." This was what you keep saying, and I keep saying that this is wrong. Let me repeat again: I refute that a particle can reach the speed of light because any amount of energy can only accelerate it to a speed less than speed of light. Do you see a word "infinity" in what I say?

And I told you in my comment that there is no infinity in relativity. It has nothing to do with your theory. There is infinity in your misunderstanding though.

No, you did not answer my comment. My comment was about divergence, infinity, and 1/0. It was not about particles. Not observing particles at v=c is well explained in the theory of relativity.