Is it permissible to use infinity, which is not defined in physics, to assume the impossibility of traveling at the speed of light?

[Genady]

1 minute ago, Z.10.46 said:

Needing infinite amount of energy is a phrase which means that no finite amount of energy will do it. Say this:

In all other physical theories when the equation comes out an infinity of energy makes it a regulization and renormalization and this infinity of energy is equal to a finite energy.

 

 

In QFT infinite energy comes out of equations in a different way and thus needs to be dealt with.

In relativity, it does not come out of any equation.

What comes out of the equation in relativity is, that any finite amount of energy can accelerate a massive body only to a speed less than speed of light.

[Bufofrog]

16 minutes ago, Z.10.46 said:

M(c)=M(c-1) can also have a physical meaning even if 1 has no dimension.

Dividing both sides by M we get c = c-1.  Subtracting c from both sides we get 0 = -1.  I am seeing a problem here...

[Z.10.46]

9 minutes ago, Genady said:

In QFT infinite energy comes out of equations in a different way and thus needs to be dealt with.

In relativity, it does not come out of any equation.

What comes out of the equation in relativity is, that any finite amount of energy can accelerate a massive body only to a speed less than speed of light.

at v=c M(v)=infinity and E=infinity.

by mathematically treating this expression we find M(c)=-M(c-1) yes 1 has no dimension but it can explain dark matter or dark energy if a particle reaches c=v, as for the casmir force where we have 1+2+3...=infinity but physically find 1+2+3...=-1/12 explain force effet casmir.

@Bufofrog M is fonction of masse relative

Edited July 23, 2023 by Z.10.46

[Bufofrog]

9 minutes ago, Z.10.46 said:

why accept that in relativity the existence of an absurdity to make a conculsion?

Because the conclusion is that mass cannot move at the speed of light.  Trying to make a mass go the speed of light is absurd and the infinity result shows the absurdity quite clearly.  

[Genady]

2 minutes ago, Z.10.46 said:

at v=c M(v)=infinity and E=infinity.

by mathematically treating this expression we find M(c)=-M(c-1) yes 1 has no dimension but it can explain dark matter or dark energy if a particle reaches c=v, as for the casmir force where we have 1+2+3...=infinity but physically find 1+2+3...=-1/12

By making arithmetical mistakes one can arrive to any conclusion one desires.

Edited July 23, 2023 by Genady

[Z.10.46]

2 minutes ago, Genady said:

En faisant des erreurs arithmétiques, on peut arriver à n'importe quelle conclusion que l'on désire.

there is no mistake I can do 1+i well even if 1 is a real number and i a complex number here c-1 is mathematically correct.

[Bufofrog]

4 minutes ago, Z.10.46 said:

@Bufofrog M is fonction of masse relative

What is a "fonction of masse relative"?

[Genady]

Just now, Z.10.46 said:

there is no mistake I can do 1+i well even if 1 is a real number and i a complex number here c-1 is mathematically correct.

You are wrong. i is imaginary number. Both real and imaginary numbers are complex numbers. In 1+i you add two complex numbers.

[Z.10.46]

M(v)=m0/sqrt(1-v^2/c^2)

[Genady]

Just now, Z.10.46 said:

M(v)=m0/sqrt(1-v^2/c^2)

You cannot divide by 0. It is an arithmetical mistake.

[Z.10.46]

4 minutes ago, Genady said:

You cannot divide by 0. It is an arithmetical mistake.

In physics, it is already done, and its formulas are well-established. However, mathematicians do not appreciate it very much.

In physics, it is already considered that 1/0 is not equal to infinity to solve various physical problems, and it works very well. Nevertheless, if we keep this non-real abstraction of 1/0 in a physics equation, we cannot work with it without transforming it into a finite quantity, where 0 is not truly zero and can take different nonzero values depending on the physical problems to be solved...

You can see this link for more information:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regularization_(physics)

[Genady]

Just now, Z.10.46 said:

In physics, it is already done, and its formulas are well-established. However, mathematicians do not appreciate it very much.

In physics, it is already considered that 1/0 is not equal to infinity to solve various physical problems, and it works very well. Nevertheless, if we keep this non-real abstraction of 1/0 in a physics equation, we cannot work with it without transforming it into a finite quantity, where 0 is not truly zero and can take different nonzero values depending on the physical problems to be solved...

You can see this link for more information:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regularization_(physics)

No, nowhere in physics division by 0 is allowed.

Regularization works with infinities that appear in divergent integrals, NOT in dividing by 0. 

Division by 0 is wrong in physics and mathematics alike.

[Z.10.46]

6 minutes ago, Genady said:

No, nowhere in physics division by 0 is allowed.

Regularization works with infinities that appear in divergent integrals, NOT in dividing by 0. 

Division by 0 is wrong in physics and mathematics alike.

Zero does not exist in physics, only in mathematics. Have you ever seen a quantity that has neither a unit of measurement nor a counterpart in nature?

A divergence equals infinity, and 1/0 equals infinity

Edited July 23, 2023 by Z.10.46

[Genady]

1 minute ago, Z.10.46 said:

Zero does not exist in physics, only in mathematics.

You are wrong. For example, the interval between any two events on null geodesic is 0. In physics.

 

3 minutes ago, Z.10.46 said:

A divergence equals infinity, and 1/0 equals infinity

No, none of them equals infinity.

Divergence is a feature of some integrals.

1/0 is a mistake.

[swansont]

3 minutes ago, Z.10.46 said:

Zero does not exist in physics, only in mathematics. Have you ever seen a quantity that has neither a unit of measurement nor a counterpart in nature?

Physics uses math, so it is kind of silly to say that zero exists in math but not physics.

We set terms in equations to zero all the time.

29 minutes ago, Z.10.46 said:

at v=c M(v)=infinity and E=infinity.

by mathematically treating this expression we find M(c)=-M(c-1) yes 1 has no dimension but it can explain dark matter or dark energy if a particle reaches c=v

Repeating this doesn’t make it true.

[Z.10.46]

0 as much as a measurable quantity does not exist, the ancient mathematicians exulate 0 as a number because it cannot imagine something with a unit and a quantity of measurement.

The was added later by mathematicians just as an axiom even though it does not justify the eculide definition of a number since it has neither quantity nor unit of measure.

"I would like to know if the Journal of Modern and Applied Physics is reputable, as there are experts who have shown interest in this theory?

 

 

Edited July 23, 2023 by Z.10.46

[studiot]

34 minutes ago, Z.10.46 said:

at v=c M(v)=infinity and E=infinity.

Here is your first error.

 

It is incorrect to write an equation with infinity on one side.

That is it is incorrect both mathematically and physically.

 

In fact your whole thesis ls built on a very shaky understanding of ' infinity'.

Things are a great deal more complicated in both maths and physics and indeed other sciences.

 

Please tell me what the tangenrt of Pi/2 is ?

There are many equations in Science employing the tangent function.

A simple example would be to do with friction.

Physical Chemists use a totally different form of infinity called infinite dilution.

In fluid mechanics a property called specific energy tends to infinity in a fluid structure called a hydraulic jump.

I have already told you about what is probably the simplest one - density, which is handled by a French discovery L'Hopital's rule.

Another French  infinity is the formation of a square wave from and infinite series of sinusiodal waves.

 

Note I am not saying that Man can reach 'infinity, just that it can be valid in Physics or other sciences and must be handled accordingly.

There are as many ways of handling infinities as there are examples.

 

 

[Bufofrog]

20 minutes ago, Z.10.46 said:

Zero does not exist in physics, only in mathematics.

Hmm, if there is an particle at rest in my frame it has 0 kinetic energy.  That seems like a 0 in physics to me.

[Z.10.46]

58 minutes ago, studiot said:

Here is your first error.

It is incorrect to write an equation with infinity on one side.

That is it is incorrect both mathematically and physically.

In fact your whole thesis ls built on a very shaky understanding of ' infinity'.

Things are a great deal more complicated in both maths and physics and indeed other sciences.

Please tell me what the tangenrt of Pi/2 is ?

There are many equations in Science employing the tangent function.

A simple example would be to do with friction.

Physical Chemists use a totally different form of infinity called infinite dilution.

In fluid mechanics a property called specific energy tends to infinity in a fluid structure called a hydraulic jump.

I have already told you about what is probably the simplest one - density, which is handled by a French discovery L'Hopital's rule.

Another French  infinity is the formation of a square wave from and infinite series of sinusiodal waves.

Note I am not saying that Man can reach 'infinity, just that it can be valid in Physics or other sciences and must be handled accordingly.

There are as many ways of handling infinities as there are examples.

 

 

Yes, I agree with you. It's not very accurate to pose it mathematically; I did it just for simplicity.

In your example, does it retain the notion of infinity as it is, or does it manipulate it to make it finite?

My perspective on this approach is simple: just because something is not true in one context(c-1 not defin in physic) doesn't mean it can't open up new possibilities. So, why did the journal contact me to publish it.

.

57 minutes ago, Bufofrog said:

Hmm, if there is an particle at rest in my frame it has 0 kinetic energy.  That seems like a 0 in physics to me.

Are you sure there could be wind or a small particle hitting it and making it move a little 😄?

Edited July 23, 2023 by Z.10.46

[Z.10.46]

What fascinates me about this mathematical relationship M(c)=-M(c-1) is how it can be interpreted in various ways.

Firstly, the negative sign in the energy equation E=(y-1)m0*c^2=ym0-m0^c^2=-(M(c-1)+m0^c^2) could possibly hint at the existence of a particle, similar to the discovery of negative energy solutions that led to the existence of antimatter.

Secondly, the fact that the number 1 has no dimension suggests that these particles could very well be related to dark energy and dark matter, making them undetectable.

Thirdly, obtaining a result of 1 rather than something else could indicate the importance of using the international unit of velocity m/s for c-1=(3^10^8-1 )m/s when conducting experiments.

Many physical discoveries and theories have been obtained through mathematical equations derived from physics, where these equations are manipulated and explored in various ways to draw conclusions and conduct experiments.

 

Edited July 24, 2023 by Z.10.46

[John Cuthber]

11 hours ago, Z.10.46 said:

But instead of discussing the infinity that is absurd in physics, we reduce its complexity to a finite thing M(c-1) or E=-M(c-1)^c^2 where the 1 in c-1 is dimensionless

Choosing to get the wrong answer is also absurd.

[Axe Whole]

I think infinities are just as simple as 0 to 1 is infinite. The speed of light is a joke.. its much much faster. Humans have attributed numbers made up of tokens or lines.. "light" or energy is on or off. not created nor destroyed. just added energy and minus energy I guess.. We see light travelling because our "space ship" Earth is not stagnant in the Universe... Tip of what I think. 

[Bufofrog]

12 hours ago, Z.10.46 said:

Are you sure there could be wind or a small particle hitting it and making it move a little 😄?

Am I to assume that comments means you are acknowledging that zero does occur in physics?

[Z.10.46]

14 minutes ago, Bufofrog said:

Dois-je supposer que les commentaires signifient que vous reconnaissez que zéro se produit en physique ?

It is rather a powerful but non-real mathematical trick used in physics to simplify calculations, but it poses a major problem in physics when we encounter 1/0. In such cases, we strive by all means to eliminate it to obtain a physical meaning.

[Genady]

5 minutes ago, Z.10.46 said:

It is rather a powerful but non-real mathematical trick used in physics to simplify calculations, but it poses a major problem in physics when we encounter 1/0. In such cases, we strive by all means to eliminate it to obtain a physical meaning.

 

It is very easy to eliminate it. Don't divide by 0.