xssve
Posts: 3589
Joined: 10/10/2009
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Termyn8or
FR
Not agreed.
I have always held the notion that C, while a definite constant, is by no means a limit.
Yes, I have always disagreed with the Einstein crowd. You all thought I was nuts, but look now ! HA HA HA HA.
Enough gloating. But I also disagree that bending of light proves that time can be bent. I disagree with alot of things but it's not worth listing them here.
T^T
C is not a constant.
Second, I'm given to understand that a neutrino has no resting mass, which is why it can travel faster than C (whatever it happens to be), without violating the mass/acceleration rule.
The theory of relativity states that it takes infinite energy to accelerate to the speed of light, energy imparts mass, thus infinite energy = infinite mass - the real poser here is how a particle can exist without resting mass, although I think there is at least one theory that it does have (infinitesimal) mass.
I think it more likely that mass is a property of motion, and what we have in every case, is motion, not mass, there is no such thing as "resting mass" even a rock only appears solid due to the motion of the electrons orbiting nuclei in the silicon atoms that comprise it, and there may be particles (if you can call that a particle) faster than a neutrino even, but we can't detect them unless they slow down enough to gain mass, i.e, somewhere in the neighborhood of C.
This would seem to violate the mass acceleration rule, but then that deals with acceleration, and these particles aren't accelerating, they're just going that fast to begin with - entropy theory argues that they should be decelerating, not accelerating, unless deceleration in one thing is leading to acceleration in another (conservation of energy) i.e., it seems more reasonable to me that a neutrino would basically eventually decay into a photon or something, but then I'm no physicist.
That would make mass a property of entropy, at infinite entropy, you have infinite mass, all motion ceases, and mass itself would also cease to exist, as it requires some motion in order to have the property of mass - at that point, the law of conservation of energy would apply, something would have to happen, it can't just all dissipate, presumably, a big bang - sudden infinite acceleration, and you have mass again, like a ripple in a pond.
Of course you have to wrap your brain around the notion that you can have motion without mass, a verb without a noun, but that's only if you're hung up on time being linear and constant.
Since time is a measure of mass and motion, w/respect to C, for anything travelling at or near C, time doesn't really exist as a linear thing, so the next big bang might really be the same big bang.
Like wow, pass that bowl bro!
< Message edited by xssve -- 11/21/2011 7:17:37 AM >
|
RE: Faster Than Light - Again - 
Profile
New Messages
No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages
Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages
Locked w/o New Messages
Post New Thread