Physical Axioms and Attractive Forces

A non newtonian substance, glass is one as is mayonaise, thiokol and a pyroclastic flow. We have a light speed barrier, which can actually vary. The easiest way to think about it in terms of the lorenzian is to have the sign swop over at light speed. To avoid talking about negative mass, we can then change the v ^2 / c ^ 2 to 1 / eta ^2. We can also change that and express it in terms of permitivity and permeability, related to stress and strain.

I think we have elysium as an extremely rigid "glass," embedded matter has a zero to light speed "atmosphere" of lower energy density which falls off according to an inverse fourth power.

Now think of this and the "atmosphere and matter as glass spheres with a very light tint, and that's what gravitons "see." the shadow tube then becomes very thin. I can see no reason why rayleigh waves cannot exist in such a set up. Elysium and ether are out of phase with each other, we can have negative refractive indexes and "wires/tubes" because that's what happens when we allow complex roots with non newtonian substances.

I think we have to look at the possibility at least. I'm not that happy with the water analogies, because water is incredibly complicated stuff. We only think we know a lot about it becuase we've got bucket loads of the stuff. Who would have thought that it's a protonic semiconductor for instance [8D]

Oh, change the space round our spaceship so that it has a negative refractive index and it will go faster than light and the light will show up at teh cockpit at the speed of light.

After stating precisely what Lorentzian and Einsteinian relativity predict for the amount of energy required to accelerate a particle of rest mass m to the speed v, I asked "So could you tell us how much energy YOU think it takes to accelerate a particle of rest mass m to a speed v?" You replied "It doesn't require energy..."

You're quite wrong about that. Work must be performed on a particle in order to accelerate it. This work represents energy. This is the basis for the conservation of energy in mechanical processes. Do you seriously dispute this? Surely you agree that energy cannot come from nothing. Or do you dispute even the existence of such a thing as energy?

This is very troublesome, because the only sensible way forward is for you to state how much energy you think it takes to accelerate a particle of rest mass m to a speed v. But if you actually deny that it takes any energy at all... well, I guess that answers the question. Your answer is "zero". All I can say is, your answer drastically disagrees with experiment.

TVF wrote: "[Accelerating a particle] requires momentum transfers. Those are unavailable from things that cannot go faster than c, but are readily available from gravitons."

Ah, that old canard, the suggestion that the electromagnetic field exerts less and less force on a particle as the particle approaches c, and this is why it's not possible to accelerate past c by means of an electromagnetic field. That fallacy is easy to debunk. If it were true, the energy of a particle accelerated to 0.999c would be only incrementally greater than the kinetic energy of a particle accelerated to 0.99c, but this is not the case. The amount of force (yes, momentum transfer) applied to the particle, multiplied by the distance through which the particle moves while subjected to that force, equals the work done on the particle, and hence the amount of kinetic energy put into the particle. Now here's the key fact: The process can be REVERSED, and the particle can be slowed down by interaction with a field (or by colisions), and the energy released is found to be equal to the energy put into the acceleration. This proves that the energy was actually put into the particle to speed it up, because we get the same energy back out when we slow it down. According to the old canard about the electromagnetic field doing less and less work on the particle as it approached c (and just "spinning its wheels"), the particle would not be acquiring those huge amounts of additional energy, which it can then deliver when subsequently slowed from 0.999c down to 0.99c.

Also, from the mechanistic point of view, the electromagnetic field exists all along the path of the particle, so it isn't "chasing" the particle, it is present and exerting a force at each point, in accord with the well-established laws of Lorentzian electrodynamics. It's like a "rail-gun", i.e., the speed at which the active magnet "moves" along the rail is not limited to any finite speed, because this is just timing... it's even possible to have all the magnets energized simultaneously... but this does not signify that any energy or information is propagating faster than light.

This is all very well understood, very basic physics. There is no merit at all to the old canard that the phenomena of electrodyamics are just due to progressively less effective coupling as the speed approaches c.

TVF: "First, there is no such thing as "absolute space".

Your previous messages implied that there is... I'd like to think we are now in agreement that there isn't.... but unfortunately you go on to say

TVF: "The wave cannot influence the speed of the water, so why should the speed of the water be able to influence the wave? I now think ..."

So you are backsliding into confusion again.

TVF: "LR definitely didn't address aberration at speeds over lightspeed, and I strongly doubt that LET did either ..."

You're wrong on all counts. Both LET and LR address aberration, and according to both it would be through an imaginary angle (as in the square root of -1) for speeds greater than c.

TVF: "Because elysium cannot go faster than c, it is limited in how much force it can apply to any particle. That is why particles cannot be made to go faster than c using electromagnetic forces."

Again, this is the old canard, popular among precocious high school students, that relativistic effects are simply due to less effective electromagnetic coupling at speeds approaching c. Of course, if you accelerated a particle by a series of co-moving electromagnets, you have yet another way of falsifying the myth. And there are many more.

TVF: "The mass of elysium applied to the particle in attempts to accelerate it remains active if the particle hits something else. So all that energy is still available for other applications."

Needless to say, your statement is non-sensical. If you are claiming that the particle does not continue to gain energy but that some other co-moving substance gains energy, and this other substance is always located in the same place as the particle, and absorbes and releases energy exactly as if the particle itself was absorbing and releasing the energy... well, then you are agreeing with conventional physics, and you are agreeing that the energy put into the "particle+other stuff" goes to infinity as the speed of the "particle+other stuff" approaches c. So this dodge doesn't do anything to support your claims. It contradicts them.

So far, I'm extremely disappointed with your answers. Frankly, you seem incoherent, and all you are able to do is rehearse a collection of old myths that were dubunked ages ago. The worst thing you've said so far is, in response to my asking how much energy is required to accelerate a particle of mass m to speed v, is "It doesn't require energy...". If really think you need to retract that statement, and then answer the question honestly. There's no point in talking about "confusion between LET and LR", etc., if you refuse to even state the simplest things about whatever theory you espouse.

I've thought of another way forward. Since you say no energy is required to accelerate a particle, we're obviously not going to get far discussing energy. But you seem to embrace the concept of momentum, so let us discuss momentum. Both LR and SR agree that the momentum of a particle of rest mass m moving at speed v is equal to mv/sqrt[1 - v^2/c^2]. This formula that has been corroborated by countless empirical demonstrations, and it very accurately accounts for the interactions (collisions, etc) between particles of various rest masses moving at various speeds, from 0 to 0.9999999c. So if your theory deals with material particles moving at speeds greater than c, do those particles have imaginary momentum? If not, then you are contradicting Lorentzian Relativity, so you should immediately cease making claims that your ideas are consistent with LR. AND you need to specify what, according to your theory, is the momentum of a particle of rest mass m moving with speed v greater than (or equal to) c. Honestly, I'm asking you to tell me, in quantitative terms, the momentum of a superluminal particle. If your reply does not contain an answer to this question (as I'm certain it will not), please explain as clearly as you can why you are either unwilling or unable to answer such questions. This would seem to be one of the most basic questions any sensible person contemplating superluminal particles would ask themselves, so you MUST have the answer. So why won't you just take 5 seconds and type it? Here, I'll even get you started:

According to Van Flandern theory, p(m,v) = [type answere here]

Thank god I studied philosophy [8D]

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by nonneta</i>
<br />After stating precisely what Lorentzian and Einsteinian relativity predict for the amount of energy required to accelerate a particle of rest mass m to the speed v...<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">It is now apparent that you are unfamiliar with Lorentzian relativity. While the two are mathematically similar, LR is physically very different from SR in that LR has no speed limit, so going faster than c is not "special".

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">... I asked "So could you tell us how much energy YOU think it takes to accelerate a particle of rest mass m to a speed v?" You replied "It doesn't require energy..."<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">Correct. I went on to make the elementary point that force (as required to produce 3-space acceleration) is the time rate of change of momentum by definition. So acceleration requires the transfer of momentum, not energy. That distinction is of some importance to answering your question.

Naturally, a body with greater momentum also has greater energy. But energy is a scalar and has no directionality to it, whereas momentum is a vector with magnitude and direction as well as different physical units. So you cannot accelerate a body by transferring energy to it, but you can make it appear to have more energy by transferring more momentum to it.

I say "appear" because the body is not changed by this added energy. It still has only its original rest mass relative to other bodies sharing the same inertial frame with it. The extra energy merely means that flies will make a bigger splat when they hit the body's windshield. []

In Meta Science (which you are now immersed in), "fuzzy think" is displaced by crisp concepts with clear definitions.

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">You're quite wrong about that. Work must be performed on a particle in order to accelerate it. This work represents energy.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">Momentum, not energy, does the accelerating. Acceleration is a vector, and energy has no directionality. Apparent energy comes out of the process, but is not causative.

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">This is the basis for the conservation of energy in mechanical processes. Do you seriously dispute this? Surely you agree that energy cannot come from nothing. Or do you dispute even the existence of such a thing as energy?<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">Your kinetic energy right now is zero relative to your monitor, but big enough to smash you if the rotating Earth ran into a wall not sharing that rotation speed, and big enough to vaporize you if the orbiting Earth ran into a wall not orbiting the Sun. So "energy" is an arbitrary concept of use in some contexts, but overrated when taking about cause and effect.

In particular, "energy" is not some mystical alternative form of existence, but is embodied in particles and their relative speeds. Some of those “particles” are below our threshold for detection, but their existence is not any less certain on that account. In this discussion, much of the energy we want to focus on is in elysons, the constituent particles in elysium, the light-carrying medium.

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">the only sensible way forward is for you to state how much energy you think it takes to accelerate a particle of rest mass m to a speed v.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">The particle’s momentum is m* v. To increase that momentum to m * c, we need to add momentum in the amount m * (c - v). (That wasn’t so hard now, was it? [}])

Of course, when a particle’s speed approaches c, we need a specific model for both the particle being accelerated and the particles doing the accelerating. In Meta Science, most particles have an elysium “atmosphere” responsible for its charge and its wave-like properties. And the “field” doing the accelerating consists largely of smaller entities with lots of elysium of their own. So as the original particle (P) is accelerated by collisions from behind from smaller entities (q), each adds velocity incrementally and mass directly. So all the new momentum brought in by many q’s is still present in P, even though their ability to increase P’s speed is approaching zero. The end result will be a momentum for P that consists of mass augmented by the factor gamma, and velocity always incrementally below c: gamma * m * v.

An alternate way to accelerate P is to use a gravitational force, so that the q’s are all gravitons traveling &gt;&gt; c with no accompanying elysium. Then the speed increments are not slowed or limited in any way as speed c is approached, and the speed of P rises smoothly past c to any desired level and with no significant change in the effective mass of P.

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Ah, that old canard, the suggestion that the electromagnetic field exerts less and less force on a particle as the particle approaches c, and this is why it's not possible to accelerate past c by means of an electromagnetic field. That fallacy is easy to debunk. If it were true, the energy of a particle accelerated to 0.999c would be only incrementally greater than the kinetic energy of a particle accelerated to 0.99c, but this is not the case.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">Obviously, the result of acceleration depends totally on the model. You chose a naïve strawman model to ease the process of beating the stuffing out of it. I am not impressed. [V]

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">The process can be REVERSED, and the particle can be slowed down by interaction with a field (or by colisions), and the energy released is found to be equal to the energy put into the acceleration. This proves that the energy was actually put into the particle to speed it up, because we get the same energy back out when we slow it down. According to the old canard about the electromagnetic field doing less and less work on the particle as it approached c (and just "spinning its wheels"), the particle would not be acquiring those huge amounts of additional energy, which it can then deliver when subsequently slowed from 0.999c down to 0.99c.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">In your strawman model, what happens to the q’s after they do their incremental velocity increase? Answer: They magically disappear from the universe, which is where the missing momentum goes. That is why your strawman cannot represent real physics.

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Also, from the mechanistic point of view, the electromagnetic field exists all along the path of the particle, so it isn't "chasing" the particle<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">One “principle of physics” is that motion cannot arise from non-motion (another form of conservation of momentum). Another is that every effect has an antecedent, proximate cause. Something material and tangible (“q”) must make contact with P to cause its velocity to increase. How would you describe the state of q if not by the phrase “chasing” or some equivalent?

I am well aware (as are most others here) that quantum electrodynamics does not respect the principles of physics. In a sense, that lack of respect is mutual because QED invokes miracles and ends up with contradictions. In MM’s “deep reality physics”, our one requirement is “no miracles”. The fact that we can explain all relevant phenomena without them is the main benefit available to those who study MM, and the main reason why you might wish to spend any further time on it. Without that advantage, MM would be undistinguished from hundreds of competitor models out there.

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">There is no merit at all to the old canard that the phenomena of electrodynamics are just due to progressively less effective coupling as the speed approaches c.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">In all possible models and variants? To really believe your statement was true that generally would be arrogant. But here, without knowing anything about the specifics of the model you are dismissing, it just sounds blustery.

MM is a different way of thinking than QED, but is just as valid. Some would say it provides simpler and more credible understandings of phenomena. So don't get stuck by continually lapsing back into QED and SR ways of thinking about physics, especially about space and time. To understand MM and LR at all, you have to make a complete change of concepts, not just a partial one.

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">If you are claiming that the particle does not continue to gain energy but that some other co-moving substance gains energy, and this other substance is always located in the same place as the particle, and absorbs and releases energy exactly as if the particle itself was absorbing and releasing the energy... well, then you are agreeing with conventional physics, and you are agreeing that the energy put into the "particle+other stuff" goes to infinity as the speed of the "particle+other stuff" approaches c. So this dodge doesn't do anything to support your claims. It contradicts them.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">Then you missed my main point. MM agrees with conventional physics when electromagnetic forces are used. MM says that gravitational forces propagate &gt;&gt; c in forward time and therefore none of those limitations on electrodynamic forces apply to gravitational forces and the speeds they can induce.

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Both LET and LR address aberration, and according to both it would be through an imaginary angle (as in the square root of -1) for speeds greater than c.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">This again says you know nothing about LR. But surprisingly, it also says you are unfamiliar with aberration. The exact formula for aberration is arctan (v / c), which continues smoothly as v approaches infinity. There is no gamma factor in aberration, and therefore no opportunity for imaginary angles.

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">if your theory deals with material particles moving at speeds greater than c, do those particles have imaginary momentum? If not, then you are contradicting Lorentzian Relativity, so you should immediately cease making claims that your ideas are consistent with LR.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">No, you just need to learn LR. In it, time never changes, only clocks are affected by speed. A clock using electromagnetic “ticks” will naturally “break” at speed c or greater, just as a clock using sound-wave-based “ticks” would break in an environment exposed to air with a relative speed faster than the speed of sound. However, a clock using gravitational “ticks” (such as the force oscillations from a binary pulsar) would have no such limitations because its gravitational force signals would travel almost instantaneously and operate well as a clock for observers traveling at any speed up to the speed of gravity (at least 20 billion c).

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">According to Van Flandern theory, p(m,v) = [type answer here]<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">p(m,v) = m * v. (BTW, LR was developed by Lorentz, Tangerlini, Beckmann, and several more recent authors; and MM, which is a complete cosmology, is based on classical physics and logic, and had too many contributors to be egotistically attributed to me. But I do understand why it serves your argument to make all this appear like a one-person model.)

The preceding involves what I would call “settled science” – not in the sense of wide acceptance, but in the sense of having stood up to close scrutiny, consistent with observations and experiments, peer reviewed, and able to answer all challenges. With that material, you are at an extreme disadvantage (though you don’t know that yet) because most of us know both mainstream and MM models, whereas you know only the former.

Some of your message deals with the topic of this thread, which is very much “unsettled science”, and where we need experimental help to guide us. Your comments there cannot help this thread along unless and until you accept the premises we are working from. So I will pass over your remarks on that subject.

You seem like a bright fellow, but are stuck where I was 30 or so years ago, believing the mainstream had the best answers available. So this is a turning point in your career, as it was in mine. Either you are dissatisfied with some of those answers and are willing to look for better ones if they exist; or you elect to stay within safe boundaries that will not endanger your career or reputation. If the former, you will need to start reading because I don’t have the luxury of teaching every new arrival everything new from scratch. I’ve led you to water. Drink or don’t drink. Your choice. -|Tom|-

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by Stoat</i>
<br />Thank god I studied philosphy [8D]<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">Now you know why "PhD" stands for "piled higher and deeper". [}]