Bart

Well, yes. But whether can not appear here also some other, unknown to us reason which so much improves the health of muons during their movement? If in earth's atmosphere, muons are created at an altitude of 60km and reaches 99.98% the speed of light, according to the theory of SR, the average of its lifetime of 2.2 microseconds, should extend to 50 times. Thus, the path length of muons could reach at most 33 km (2.2 x50x300 = 33,000 m). How, therefore, they achieve the level of the oceans and in such big amounts? At CERN the particles are accelerated to a speed exceeding 99.995% of light, therefore, whether the lifetime of particles should extend at least 120 times?

Is very quick receiving information about a distant event, not an effect after the cause? If I understand correctly, with this causality is perhaps now not everything so clear. Light signals reaching us from distant galaxies, show us their state before the billions of years from now. At the moment many of these very distant galaxies may well no longer exist.

I wonder if we are not such symbolic Batmans who use light waves instead of sound waves? What will be with SR theory if, at some future, it appears that there is unknown to us (like a light for bats), ultra-fast medium UFM, in which information signals may be transmitted to a million or more times faster than light, and this medium is already commonly used by more advanced civilizations in the cosmos.?

How does the longer distance traveled by a particle with a specific kinetic energy, is to be evidence of time dilation? If one egg fall out from the table with a horizontal speed v, and the other egg with speed 2v, the time of life for both eggs before they are broken down, will be the same, despite the fact that the second egg will receive 2 times longer distance.

Very readable and easy to use a program included on the link: http://dl.dropbox.com/u/26262175/SagitariusBRprogramDescription.pdf , convincingly proves that the observed rotation speed of stars in galaxies, is the result of natural distribution of baryonic mass in the galaxy and this has nothing to do with dark matter. The program is very ingenious and inventive, and can cause a lot of satisfaction to the user. I checked it out!

Does not that contradict your earlier explanation? "The answer is that light does not really travel slower in water. What happens is that the light travels at c from water molecule to water molecule. When it interacts with a molecule, the molecule absorbs it and is excited to a higher energy level. After a short delay the molecule sheds that excess energy by emitting a photon ( no tthe same photon it absorbed, that photon was destroyed when absorbed, which heads off at c until it encounters a molecule. It is the accumulation of all these delays that makes it appear as if the speed o flight has been lowered."

How then to explain that a ray of light in water, such as red, green or otherwise, does not change either its color or direction, and does not depend on the water temperature and the speed of its movement? How does this relate to the formula on the speed of light in the medium: cm = 1 / (εμ) ^ 0.5 ε - permittivity of the medium, μ - magnetic permeability of the medium, cm - speed of light in the medium.

Has anyone wondered how it looked to the theory of relativity, in the world of bats? Assume that in this world there is no light, and the bats know nothing about it. The only medium to measure the speed and distance, are the waves of sound of their maximum speed of 340 m / s. Do according to their theory of relativity, the speed limit for the particles, therefore, was to 340 m / s? Do as it approaches of their vehicle to the speed of sound, would have also changed their time and mass in the same way as in SR? Please do not use in considerations the speed of light, because for the bats it does not exist.

Sirs, I thank all of you for the interesting discussion.

I do not understand your words, does this mean that in your opinion it is possible to convey signals (distortion) in the electromagnetic field, with any speed greater than c? Deformation of the proton trajectories with increasing of its speed, may also be associated with the helical shape of its path and a necessary compensation of the increasing centrifugal force of the proton, in the helix, which requires a significant additional energy.

For clarity, I would like to present here once more my understanding of this issue: For clarity, I would like to present here once more my understanding of this issue: The basic hard evidence for the alleged increase in relativistic mass of particles (protons) in accelerators, is the fact that, despite the biggest increase of power of the electromagnetic field, accelerating these particles, the speed of the particles can not achieve the speed of light. In my understanding, the reasons of that constraints in accelerators are other, and they do not depend on the particle mass. These constraints are the following two laws of physics: 1. As the speed of accelerated particle (v), approaches to the speed of the propulsion system ©,which accelerates this particle, the amount of energy transferred from the propulsion system to the particle is decreasing, and is getting smaller and smaller with the decreasing of the difference between these speeds. Transfer of energy decreases to zero when the difference of the speeds tends to zero. This can be easily proved by a calculation. Hence it is well known in accelerators, that if the speed of the proton is getting closer to c, then for a further increase of its speed , it must be used disproportionately more and more power of the propulsion, and that at smaller and smaller effects. 2. Any change or distorsion of the electromagnetic field can not travel faster than the speed of light. Acceleration of the proton takes place not by the interaction of electromagnetic fields on the mass of the proton, but on its electric charge. Thus, the proton motion in an electromagnetic field of the accelerator is connected with the movement of its electric charge , which is the same the movement of an electromagnetic distorsion in this field. On the above limitations of the particle speed, does not affect the size of power of the propulsion system, or the mass of this particle. So the claim that the motion of particles in accelerators is the proof of the relativistic increase in mass, is not justified. Phase velocity of an EM field is not limited to c. The phase velocity does not transfer any energy.

Janus, thank you very much for your interesting explanations. But I still have doubts: The electromagnetic field in the accelerators does not work on the mass of the accelerated proton, but only on its electric charge, which itself creates a moving change in the electromagnetic field of the accelerators. And we know that changes in the electromagnetic field have limited speed of c. Therefore, as I understand it is not possible to propelling proton faster than c, and it is not due to increase in mass of a proton.

The laws of physics prove, that if the speed (v) of the accelerated particles is closer to the speed © of the driving force, the energy transferred from the drive system to the accelerated particle is getting smaller. With the speed of the particles (v) approaching the speed of the driving force ©, the transferred energy tends to zero, and it is not depending on the size of the driving power. So I can not understand, how you can exceed this speed in any system, breaking the basic laws of physics?

How then to explain that a ray of light passes through the clear water without dispersion? Absorption and emission of photons by molecules should be visible in the form of diffuse light, or maybe as the rainbow?

How it is therefore possible that with the same laws of physics, in an X environment can be light overtake impunity, and in the Y environment, not, because our mass is growing as fast as after the big burgers and beer?

The program shows that dark matter and dark energy are not needed to explain the equal speeds of the stars in galaxies and the expansion of the universe.

Suppose that somewhere in the universe is the civilization that exist exclusively in the underwater world, in which the speed of light is 230 km/s. The question concerns whether their imaginary underwater rockets can therefore overtake the light in their world?

According to my understanding, limited speed of particles in accelerators has nothing to do with the theory of relativity. Here applies the ordinary law of physics: " cart can not move faster than a horse that pulls the cart", and the horse in the accelerator is the electromagnetic field with a speed of its own c.

Are there any hard evidence that the relativistic mass of the rocket (or particles) increases with its speed ?

Many thanks Janus for your last explanation, and sorry for my formating. I will be better from now.

Many, many thanks Janus for your reply. Sorry again, but I need your more explanation. Case 2 was designed as an exact physical equivalent of the case 1, where the car represents the rocket and the motorcycles (instead of it the sound may be considered) represent the light carrying messages. Other media do not exist, so in my understanding they should not occur in the calculations for the case 2. Therefore I do not understand how and why in your calculations for the case2, there exists a third medium in the form of c?.

Hi, I'm Bart, I'm not a physicist but I like to read news in astronomy, physics, and the CETI, which appear on the Internet and the physics forums. Some things I do not understand, or their current interpretation does not agree with my understanding of them. So I think that this forum will help me to dispel some of my doubts.

Janus, thank you very much for your explanations and sorry yet, but still I don't well understand the calculation of 1,15 days to planet C and 3,46 to planet A? That's means for the astronaut in the rocket, who knows the real distance to the planets, that his messages sent to planet C run at speed almost 1,8 times greater than light speed c, and to planet A only 0,58 of c? What is the physical difference between the case 1 and case 2, below? Case 1. A rocketis moving at speed 0.5 c, from planet A to planet C, which are distant from each other by 4 light-days. During the flight the rocket passes the planet B, located exactly halfway between planets A and C. At the time of passing the planet B, from the rocket and from the planet B are simultaneously sent SMS messages to the planets A and C. SMS sent from the planet B reaches the planets A and C at the same time, in two days. Question, when the SMS sent from the rocket, will be received on the planet A and the planet C, respectively. Case 2. A car is moving at constant speed 0.5 v, from town A to town C, which are distant from each other by 4 motorcycle-days On the way the car passes the town B, located exactly halfway between town A and C. At the time of passing the town B, from the car and from the town B are simultaneously sent messages to the towns A and C, by motorcycles with an arbitrary set constant speed v. The same question, when the message sent from the car, will be received at the town A and the town C, respectively? (in the same time)

According to the rest frame of the rocket, the signals sent from the both rocket and B arrive at planet C in 1.15 days and at planet A in 3.46 days. IOW, while the signals from both the rocket and planet B will arrive at each planet at the same time, the signals will not arrive at planet A at the same time as they do at planet C. So how an astronaut in the rocket can understand that the signal sent at halfway between the planets A and C, comes to these planets at such different times, knowing that the planet B is exactly midway between the planets A and C and, that light travels at the same rate to the both planets?