Travelling faster than light...

[CPL.Luke]

http://www.scienceforums.net/forums/showthread.php?t=14356

 

he created a new thread, like you should have done two days ago...

[Proof of One]

http://www.scienceforums.net/forums/showthread.php?t=14356

 

he created a new thread' date=' like you should have done two days ago...[/quote']I requested the change; and, I've been waiting for it to be created. I wasn't sure where it would be placed. Thanks again. I Don't know why I wasn't advise at the time of the request???

[CPL.Luke]

there's a new thread button at the upper left hand corner of the interface... you have to create your own thread...

[ydoaPs]

back to topic: instantaneous velocity of light is always c. average velocity can be less than c.

[CPL.Luke]

anybody know enough of VSL theory in order to say if it solves any problems or not?

[ydoaPs]

Vsl?

[CPL.Luke]

variable speed of light theory. It was proposed as an alternative to inflation and postulates that the speed of light was far faster than it is now several billion years ago.

 

there was an article published in sciam about it a few years back.

[Proof of One]

variable speed of light theory. It was proposed as an alternative to inflation and postulates that the speed of light was far faster than it is now several billion years ago.

 

there was an article published in sciam about it a few years back.

If you understand anything about the geometry of the internal structure of light; you would understand why the limits of light's speed run the gamut from motionlessness to infinite; and you would also understand why that speed can not be constant.

 

Light is much as Cosmic Inertia; on the anthropoidal scale' date=' the variations are too minuscule to notice. If you were a galaxy you would be aware that Cosmic Inertia is a force only different from gravity as to its source.

 

Think of light as an ellipsoidal structure (subject to Triquametric motion, of course) that is drawn out to almost a straight line (Lines and circles are special ellipses). Heuristically, the variance from a straight line is a relative indication of the speed variance. Said ellipsoid is in a state of hyper-relativistic (superluminal), complex oscillation.

 

Incidently, this relationship of the ellipse to light's three types of sinusoidal oscillations is what Einstein sought most of his adult life as the key to relating SR and GR.

[ydoaPs]

If you understand anything about the geometry of the internal structure of light; you would understand why the limits of light's speed run the gamut from motionlessness to infinite; and you would also understand why that speed can not be constant.

 

Light is much as Cosmic Inertia; on the anthropoidal scale' date=' the variations are too minuscule to notice. If you were a galaxy you would be aware that Cosmic Inertia is a force only different from gravity as to its source.

 

Think of light as an ellipsoidal structure (subject to Triquametric motion, of course) that is drawn out to almost a straight line (Lines and circles are special ellipses). Heuristically, the variance from a straight line is a relative indication of the speed variance. Said ellipsoid is in a state of hyper-relativistic (superluminal), complex oscillation.

 

Incidently, this relationship of the ellipse to light's three types of sinusoidal oscillations is what Einstein sought most of his adult life as the key to relating SR and GR.

there is a separate thread for your crap. keep it in there

[Proof of One]

there is a separate thread for your crap. keep it in there

Amazing reply, when you consider what you have squandered through total ignorance of theoretical physics. And, the effort that I expended to alleviate that sad situation.

 

I am not the one that you have denigrated.

A closed mind is a

dangerous threat

to everyone;

most of all, to

. . .

its possessor.

 

A small mind seldom enlarges

because it is not open

to new ideas.

 

Arguing in anger,

with only emotion,

is losing the high ground.

 

If mistaken, concede.

Stop the loss, before all’s

gone, because of . . . anger.

[ydoaPs]

Amazing reply' date=' when you consider what you have squandered through total ignorance of theoretical physics. And, the effort that I expended to alleviate that sad situation.

 

I am not the one that you have denigrated.

[indent']A closed mind is a

dangerous threat

to everyone;

most of all, to

. . . its possessor.

 

A small mind seldom enlarges

because it is not open

to new ideas.

 

Arguing in anger,

with only emotion,

is losing the high ground.

 

If mistaken, concede.

Stop the loss, before all’s

gone, because of . . . anger.[/indent]

it's not theoretical physics, it is baseless spam. maybe you should support your claims.

 

stop taking this thread off topic

[Proof of One]

it's not theoretical physics' date=' it is baseless spam. maybe you should support your claims.

 

stop taking this thread off topic[/quote']What?

 

I'm suppossed to let your uninformed drivel and gibberish stand that never addresses logic or math.

 

There is little reason to continue. Obviously, our minds, science, and philosophy are far apart.

 

I suggest at this point that we simply agree to disagree; if that is all right with you?

[ydoaPs]

What?

 

I'm suppossed to let your uninformed drivel and gibberish stand that never addresses logic or math.

ha! you criticizing me for not using math! i know how to do the math for this problem. i have actually done it a few times on this forum alone.

There is little reason to continue. Obviously' date=' our minds, science, and philosophy are far apart.[/quote']yea, mine is really science and yours is baseless rubbish.

I suggest at this point that we simply agree to disagree; if that is all right with you?

just stop taking the thread off topic and keep your rubbish in its designated thread.

[Proof of One]

how can gravity equal acceleration. it is same thing as saying magnetism equals accerleration does it not?

 

And I think people should stop calling it speed of light because gravity supposedly travels at speed of light' date=' meanins light might be travelling at the speed of gravity [/quote']The last that I heard, GR predicts that the speed of gravity is the speed of light, exactlt 26 times the speed of light, or near the speed of infinity.

 

The last speed is the correct answer. Pulsoid Theory shows the speed near the speed of Infinity. If anything less, the Cosmos would act like the balls on a billiard table. When one Cosmic body falters, almost instantly all Cosmic bodies are affected.

 

GR's equations (14) are not adept at more than two-body problems . . . which is better than the equations (3) of Newtonian gravity.

 

When GR was developed no one knew much, or anything, about the Cosmic speeds, "dark" matter, "dark" energy, or the accelerating galactic recession. Mach and Sciama are provimg to be the most wise concerning Cosmic motion prior to, and during, the Pomo era (Einstein's death to the HST).

[Proof of One]

we did see it.

 

why is it "Difficult" to extend beyond what you "have"? in Here' date=' is there something perculiar to this forum that any other text based medium can accomodate? (dave went to great lengths to get the latex sorted out).[/quote']Sorry, I was informed privately that I had missed this post a day or two ago.

 

I meant no criticism of this forum. The problem is with myself.

 

However, “dave” might work on a spell, grammar, and punctuation checker for your staff.

 

This is ad hoc writing “on the fly” with little time for deep thought. All my replies are written and formatted in a matter of minutes. Often within minutes of the original post. I am writing in four forums currently, continuously under attack, while monitoring, creating, and editing many websites. Almost every forum comment is posted to several websites where many of my friends from laypersons to world-class physicists are kept up to date. I will gladly include you alone from this forum, on the group list, if you contact me personally.

 

I must write rapidly, because I am used to the Threads being locked before I can reply; or my replies that show deficiencies in the performance of mentors are quickly deleted. A tactic used at other forums quite routinely. (I have just discovered that often Google has cached these deleted posts before they are deleted. I am working on attempting to acquire several; hopefully, with some success).

 

Your forum is one of those with the greatest integrity concerning these issues and tactics.

 

I stand in admiration and thank you for your tolerance and fair rules. I have been banned without notice elsewhere and had many objective “on topic” posts edited merely because of tender egos concerned with the status quo. Alternative physics thought is resisted by the elite more than challenges to religions by iconoclastic heretics.

 

Admittedly, I have just rambled; it is with the intent of illustrating why forums are not places for studied work as journals are; where I am too controversial for them to touch. Until a few years ago I had complete access to all journals of the University of California. I believe I still read more than Linus did in his latter days. I am actually banned from talking to physics students on the campus of a prestigious public University, where I include among my friends a laureate, who died several tears ago.

 

Often I will spend days rewriting a paragraph or two until I am satisfied with it. Nothing that I have posted for the last 16 years on the internet has been other than “rapid writing.” All my work is in carefully crafted manuscripts of 15 to 80 pages (one large book) that have been privately distributed, often to world leaders, over the years; and, volumes of annotations. The names of the receipents are among the many poems found elsewhere on the internet.

 

I will gladly give you private access. To do whatever you wish. All my correspondence that I send is unrestricted except the recent “Brunardot Theorem . . . a Proof of One,” which has a distribution of about 50; some via e-bay; and a .pdf distribution under 10, since this April.

 

No correspondence I receive is ever released while the author is alive, even when I have been given a release, which is usually always. Of course the other party is free to release anything, as you would be, if you privately contacted me. I never write a word that I am not prepared to fully backup; or, ask a question that I cannot answer.

 

if as in your 1`st point outlined above YOU`DE actually READ his post' date=' you`de see that he DID ASK for, or as you say (Request) information about this.

Information that YOU have failed to supply, How therefore can this be Our fault?[/quote']I can find nothing that I have considered as your “fault.” Of course, by now, I’ve lost the train of thought of this fast flying Thread. I have perused the last few of my postings; but still can’t understand what you are referring to. I’m sure the fault is mine. If you care to be a bit more specific, I’ll do my best to reply in a transparent and forthright manner.

 

it`s all well and good talking complete and utter Fluff to less learned people and expect to get away with it, but you`re on a Science Forum here with REAL SCIENTISTS!

I know world-class theoretical physicists, mathematicians, scientific historians, and logicians. I have found none on this forum to this point . . . mostly just run-of-the-mill pedants with closed minds and large egos. Who can you suggest that I have met as yet on your staff that is otherwise?

 

kinda scary aint it when you look at it THAT way

If I found it scary, I would not have dedicated my life to theoretical physics after it almost cost me my life some 50 years ago. This is a walk in the park in comparison. If you want scary, consult Giordano Bruno, Voltaire, etc. Comparatvely, I doubt if you understand "scary."

[YT2095]

your thinly vieled nit picking and ad hom "digs" serve only to create further "Fluff" that I`ve mentioned, you`re above post (however hurried you clain) could easily have waited a little longer for you to compose something of usefulness to your case, I write all my posts "on the fly" also, so there`s No excuse to be had in that!

here`s a typical point that even ME, a non Physics guy, take issue with, so I`m certain the better educated than myself in this are Will Be!

 

The last that I heard' date=' GR predicts that the speed of gravity is the speed of light, exactlt 26 times the speed of light, or near the speed of infinity.

 

The last speed is the correct answer. Pulsoid Theory shows the speed near the speed of Infinity. [/quote']

 

26 times? why?

what if I were to say it was actualy Thirteen times, could you PROVE me wrong? could I even be just as Correct?

 

all we ask for Ad Nauseum, is Proof! clear conscise repeatable mathematical PROOF!

now I`ll ignore the rest of your post for now, and strongly urge to remain on topic! and if you do get any off topic attacks, just Ignore them and give us this Proof that you claim to have, that`s ALL we ask here, nothing fancy!

 

now I`m sure you understand 100% what I`ve said, get on with it

[swansont]

I do respect your and Tom's effort and replies more than the others (though, you drive me nuts with the irrelevant stuff; get to the geometry and logic)

 

 

Get to the physics. Where is the material that gives me an experiment to do to test your hypotheses?

[swansont]

The last that I heard' date=' GR predicts that the speed of gravity is the speed of light, exactlt 26 times the speed of light, or near the speed of infinity.

 

The last speed is the correct answer. Pulsoid Theory shows the speed near the speed of Infinity. If anything less, the Cosmos would act like the balls on a billiard table. When one Cosmic body falters, almost instantly all Cosmic bodies are affected.

[/quote']

 

 

Where did you hear that the speed of gravity is 26c?

 

And where, exactly, does your hypothesis predict this speed?

[swansont]

What outrageous flippancy.

 

You don't consider an explanation of the internal structure of a light wave to be of some substance to disagree with.

 

I don't see any predictions made' date=' so there's nothing with which I could agree or disagree. How does this "structure" manifest itself in an interaction?

 

 

Do you understand anything[/i'] about theoretical physics?

 

Yes, I do understand some things about theoretical physics. Do you understand that not all theoretical physics is particle physics, and that all theoretical physics must eventually be tested experimentally?

[swansont]

I am writing in four forums currently' date=' continuously under attack

 

...

 

I must write rapidly, because I am used to the Threads being locked before I can reply; or my replies that show deficiencies in the performance of mentors are quickly deleted. A tactic used at other forums quite routinely.

 

...

 

I have been banned without notice elsewhere and had many objective “on topic” posts edited merely because of tender egos concerned with the status quo. Alternative physics thought is resisted by the elite more than challenges to religions by iconoclastic heretics.

 

 

 

...

 

I am actually banned from talking to physics students on the campus of a prestigious public University, where I include among my friends a laureate, who died several tears ago.

 

 

...

 

I know world-class theoretical physicists, mathematicians, scientific historians, and logicians. I have found none on this forum to this point . . . mostly just run-of-the-mill pedants with closed minds and large egos. Who can you suggest that I have met as yet on your staff that is otherwise?

 

[/quote']

 

You know, the "I'm misunderstood and persecuted" stuff gets old pretty quick, especially when it's coupled with the "you aren't smart enough to understand this anyway."

 

I'm the first to admit that there are plenty of people smarter than me (I work with several) and that there are some parts of physics I don't understand and parts where I have little training. The problem is that I haven't unearthed any physics on your website thus far. Just a few circularly-reference definitions and some geometry. No connection to how this relates to physical interaction of anything.

 

Now, I have noticed that some smart people have a problem distilling their explanations down to the point to where a non-expert can understand. Coming up with a whole new set of terminology makes this even more difficult. It's like an American tourist ranting about the locals being stupid because they don't speak English. If you want your stuff understood by the locals, you need to translate it into a language they can understand.

 

Bulletin-boards are not where high-level physics gets done; you have a few people with strong physics backgrounds who are here for various reasons, and a lot of curious folk who are here to learn. For the most part, they ask polite questions. Then you have the folks that show up and tell everyone (or imply) that they are stupid for believing in the orthodoxy and that the poster has the one true new theory, that promises to explain all, but never quite seems to follow through. They never seem to get that it isn't the "alternative" material that makes them persona non grata. It's the inevitable refusal to provide relevant information (the requests for which are not, btw, "attacks"), hijacking of threads, the tangential posts claiming persecution, and the refusal to acknowledge and address objections. You, and I, are guests here, and need to abide by the rules of the forum, and the rules of scientific discourse.

 

So, show us the physics, and the supporting evidence.

[Proof of One]

here`s a typical point that even ME, a non Physics guy, take issue with, so I`m certain the better educated than myself in this are Will Be!

Being a "non Physics guy" would seem to limit your value to this Thread.

 

26 times? why?

I have no idea why. I selected the solution for the speed of gravity as near that of Infinity. Anything else would seem to defy observation and logic.

 

If you have a concern regarding the irrational solutions of GR and calculus, take them up with Kip Thorne and Steven Weinberg. I respect their opinions concerning such matters.

 

what if I were to say it was actualy Thirteen times, could you PROVE me wrong? could I even be just as Correct?

I'm not sure if you are "just as Correct"; however, to me you are just as ludicrous.

 

all we ask for Ad Nauseum, is Proof! clear conscise repeatable mathematical PROOF!

For proof see this quote by: Lawrence M. Krauss. (More L.M.K., a person that I highlt admire.)

 

now I`ll ignore the rest of your post for now...

Thank you.

 

and strongly urge to remain on topic! and if you do get any off topic attacks, just Ignore them and give us this Proof that you claim to have, that`s ALL we ask here, nothing fancy!

I actually do try quite to the best of my ability. I often cannot let distortions lie for the public without response. I do not relish wasting my time on irrelevant drivel.

 

As far as "PROOF" almost every post of Pulsid Theory contains much that is predictable, observable, and testable. The photon effect is a perfect example; the twelve salient subatomic particles is another; in fact all physical and mathematical manifestations, ad infinitum.

 

...now I`m sure you understand 100% what I`ve said, get on with it

Not exactly; but, I am trying.

[Proof of One]

here`s a typical point that even ME, a non Physics guy, take issue with, so I`m certain the better educated than myself in this are Will Be!

Being a "non Physics guy" would seem to limit your value to this Thread.

 

26 times? why?

I have no idea why. I selected the solution for the speed of gravity as near that of Infinity. Anything else would seem to defy observation and logic.

 

If you have a concern regarding the irrational solutions of GR and calculus, take them up with Kip Thorne and Steven Weinberg. I respect their opinions concerning such matters.

 

what if I were to say it was actualy Thirteen times, could you PROVE me wrong? could I even be just as Correct?

I'm not sure if you are "just as Correct"; however, to me you are just as ludicrous.

 

all we ask for Ad Nauseum, is Proof! clear conscise repeatable mathematical PROOF!

For proof see this quote by: Lawrence M. Krauss. (More L.M.K., a person that I highly admire.)

 

now I`ll ignore the rest of your post for now...

Thank you.

 

and strongly urge to remain on topic! and if you do get any off topic attacks, just Ignore them and give us this Proof that you claim to have, that`s ALL we ask here, nothing fancy!

I actually do try with great effort to the best of my ability. I often cannot let distortions lie for the public without response. I do not relish wasting my time on irrelevant drivel.

 

As far as "PROOF" almost every post of Pulsid Theory contains much that is predictable, observable, and testable. The photon effect is a perfect example; the twelve salient subatomic particles is another; in fact all physical and mathematical manifestations, ad infinitum.

 

...now I`m sure you understand 100% what I`ve said, get on with it

Not exactly; but, I am trying.