Ben Robberecht

Science and the Uni- multiverse (whichever you prefer)

Recommended Posts

Science:
The intellectual and practical activity encompassing the systematic study of the structure and behaviour of the physical and natural world through observation and experiment.

Philosophy:
The study of the fundamental nature of knowledge, reality, and existence, especially when considered as an academic discipline.
Or:
A theory or attitude that acts as a guiding principle for behaviour

To me:
Question science by simple to the point logic.

There are numerous "flaws" in science, that absolutely make no sense, but which hold the key to become a completely NEW theory.
Note, I am more than aware of different scientific equations that tell us this and so, however, being a philosopher, I dare thinking outside the box and ignore these THEORETICAL ideas, called laws.
We all know that THEORY and REALITY often do not see things eye to eye, in some cases even contradict one another completely.
Besides, many of these (if not all) laws are already overthrown in Quantum Mechanica, so sue me.

Now, I am not here to force ANYONE into a theory, I am here to learn, by asking the questions that fuels my philosophy.
Do not throw these theoretical equations at me, but explain it from a logical point of view, in layman's terms.
thank you.

1) Black Holes and Photons.

1 a)In layman's terminology: Black Holes attract simply though gravity.
Is this correct?

1 B)Gravity can ONLY be applied to ANYTHING containing mass, but NOT to anything that is massless.
Is this correct?

If both statements are correct, then photons, or light... has mass.

Correct?
If not, please explain.

2) CERN and the Speed of Light:

We all know that CERN operates their machine at near the speed of light.

Correct?

2 a) Speed and mass:

Basically, once the speed of light has been reached, mass would become 'indefinite'.

Correct?

Particles are being fired at 99.999% the speed of light through these tiny pipes, but despite travelling near the speed of light, they are been kept in their track.

If the above rule was fact, these would have torn a massive hole in these pipes, not to mention Earth, as the mass of these would be extremely high, TOO high to be contained as per in Cern?

By my approximate guess, the mass of these particles would be, say, about a few 100 times the mass of say VY Canis Majoris, if the ruling indeed was correct.
And my estimated guess is even LOW, seeing as per the rule, mass would be indefinitely?

2 b)Speed of light and perception:

If one sees a light from a stationary point, we perceive light as just that, as per it's definition.

If this was seen at the speed of light, it would be perceived as standing still.
Going faster as light, would be perceived as going backwards in time.

However...
It is all PERCEPTION, and just that messes with our heads, no?
What we PERCEIVE is therefore not the absolute truth.

Light travels 8 minutes from the sun to Earth.

Let me travel at 8 times the speed of light, would I end up at the Big Bang?
No, I would be travelling as per normal travel, needing 1 minute to reach Earth.
But... As we pass light by 8 times it's speed, we would see and think we'd be going back in time, while in fact, time would simply continue to tick of the sixty seconds needed to make the journey.
More, imagine, one could communicate instantly with Earth during this trip, the converstation would continu normally throughout the 60 seconds, it would not begin to speak backwards or so...

This would undo that rule as well.

2 c)Also, if my theory about photons having mass is correct... we'd be in a universe of trouble, seeing the rule about speed of light and mass.
We'd be bombed by photons having unseen, or literally INFINITE mass continuously.

3) Speed of light is an exact value.
The speed of light is 299,792,458 mps.
It is assumed by all, this is the definite speed of light.

3 a)I agree... from our point of perception.
From what I gather, time is relative, it has no specific 'time elapse' as gravity for instance has an effect on time.
This is acknowledged by all.
Then... how can the absolute speed of light be... 299,792,458 mps?
If TIME is not a solid, exact principle or amount of time, then how can SPEED be?
On Earth, where we have 1 G, a second is just that, a second or 1000 milliseconds.
But this VERY SAME SECOND on Jupiter (2.46G, or 2.46 times our gravity on Earth) would be slightly longer.
The lower the gravity, the faster time ticks away, the higher the gravity, the longer a second would last.
Correct?
Thus, the speed of light seen from Jupiter... would no longer be 299,792,458 mps...?
No?

3 b)If the above statement is correct, we have a serious problem.
Combine this with my theory that photons DO have mass, no matter how puny it may be, we run quite a problem, as light then would be prone to alteration in speed.
If an enormous mass can bend the direction of light, it could also then slow, or speed up this photon.
Making the SPEED as well relative to itself.
Thus, we got us a handfull of issues.
Or have i missed something?

Thank you for bearing with me, and thank you for the answers, should someone be kind enough to reply to my post...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Maths is the language of physics. If you're not prepared to learn the maths you will not fully understand the science. Sorry that's just the way it is. 

1 a. True

1 b. False, gravity warps space, massless objects follow the curvature. This is observable in gravitational lensing. Therefore your conclusion is wrong. 

Given the rest of your concept is based on this mistake there is no point is further discussing it. 

I will say that as speed increases energy increases at a faster rate. It is easier to talk about rest mass and energy rather than muddy the waters with relativistic mass which is just energy. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Ben Robberecht said:

 

1) Black Holes and Photons.

1 a)In layman's terminology: Black Holes attract simply though gravity.
Is this correct?

Basically yes. Gravity being spacetime curvature.

Quote

1 B)Gravity can ONLY be applied to ANYTHING containing mass, but NOT to anything that is massless.
Is this correct?

Light/photons also curve spacetime by a infinitesssimal amount, due to its momentum, yet it has zero rest mass. 

 

Quote

If both statements are correct, then photons, or light... has mass.

Correct?
If not, please explain.

Just did.

Quote

 

2) CERN and the Speed of Light:

We all know that CERN operates their machine at near the speed of light.

Correct?

2 a) Speed and mass:

Basically, once the speed of light has been reached, mass would become 'indefinite'.

Correct?

 

The speed of light is never reached.

Quote

 

Particles are being fired at 99.999% the speed of light through these tiny pipes, but despite travelling near the speed of light, they are been kept in their track.

If the above rule was fact, these would have torn a massive hole in these pipes, not to mention Earth, as the mass of these would be extremely high, TOO high to be contained as per in Cern?

By my approximate guess, the mass of these particles would be, say, about a few 100 times the mass of say VY Canis Majoris, if the ruling indeed was correct.
And my estimated guess is even LOW, seeing as per the rule, mass would be indefinitely?

 

We are talking atomic and sub atomic particles, not stellar sized objects. Obviously your guesses and assumptions are plainly wrong.

Quote

 

2 b)Speed of light and perception:

If one sees a light from a stationary point, we perceive light as just that, as per it's definition.

If this was seen at the speed of light, it would be perceived as standing still.
Going faster as light, would be perceived as going backwards in time.

 

Going at "c" would see time stand still. A photon from its own perspective will traverse  the universe in an instant due to infinite time dilation and length contraction.

 

Quote

However...
It is all PERCEPTION, and just that messes with our heads, no?
What we PERCEIVE is therefore not the absolute truth.

No, its actual fact and has been observed. [length contraction and time dilation].

Quote

 

Light travels 8 minutes from the sun to Earth.

Let me travel at 8 times the speed of light, would I end up at the Big Bang?
No, I would be travelling as per normal travel, needing 1 minute to reach Earth.
But... As we pass light by 8 times it's speed, we would see and think we'd be going back in time, while in fact, time would simply continue to tick of the sixty seconds needed to make the journey.
More, imagine, one could communicate instantly with Earth during this trip, the converstation would continu normally throughout the 60 seconds, it would not begin to speak backwards or so...

This would undo that rule as well.

 

Time and space are relative. Time and space are not absolute. There is no universal NOW.  And of course many experiments and observations show your guesses and assumptions as wrong.

 

Quote

2 c)Also, if my theory about photons having mass is correct... we'd be in a universe of trouble, seeing the rule about speed of light and mass.
We'd be bombed by photons having unseen, or literally INFINITE mass continuously.

You do not have a theory...you have an hypothesis, and one that is incorrect.

Quote

 

3) Speed of light is an exact value.
The speed of light is 299,792,458 mps.
It is assumed by all, this is the definite speed of light.

3 a)I agree... from our point of perception.
From what I gather, time is relative, it has no specific 'time elapse' as gravity for instance has an effect on time.
This is acknowledged by all.
Then... how can the absolute speed of light be... 299,792,458 mps?

 

It's all relative.
 

Quote

 

If TIME is not a solid, exact principle or amount of time, then how can SPEED be?
On Earth, where we have 1 G, a second is just that, a second or 1000 milliseconds.
But this VERY SAME SECOND on Jupiter (2.46G, or 2.46 times our gravity on Earth) would be slightly longer.
The lower the gravity, the faster time ticks away, the higher the gravity, the longer a second would last.
Correct?
Thus, the speed of light seen from Jupiter... would no longer be 299,792,458 mps...?
No?

3 b)If the above statement is correct, we have a serious problem.
Combine this with my theory that photons DO have mass, no matter how puny it may be, we run quite a problem, as light then would be prone to alteration in speed.
If an enormous mass can bend the direction of light, it could also then slow, or speed up this photon.
Making the SPEED as well relative to itself.
Thus, we got us a handfull of issues.
Or have i missed something?

Thank you for bearing with me, and thank you for the answers, should someone be kind enough to reply to my post...

 

I suggest you read up on SR and GR from a reputable scientific source. There is no problem, other then your confusion over relativity, relativity being the operative word.

4 hours ago, Ben Robberecht said:

 

Basically, once the speed of light has been reached, mass would become 'indefinite'.

 

This is why nothing with mass will ever reach light speed..."c" Your mass would increase to such an extent that an infinite amount of energy would be needed to keep you at "c" obviously a paradox.

Edited by beecee

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
!

Moderator Note

It's best to break questions up, to keep discussion from getting tangled up. One topic per thread.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

If an enormous mass can bend the direction of light, it could also then slow, or speed up this photon.
Making the SPEED as well relative to itself.

Light/photons actually follow geodesics in curved spacetime...it is neither speeding up or slowing down. A geodesic are the straightest path between two points or in flat spacetime, they are straight lines. On a sphere, geodesics are great circles (as per the equator).

 

Quote

If TIME is not a solid, exact principle or amount of time, then how can SPEED be?
On Earth, where we have 1 G, a second is just that, a second or 1000 milliseconds.
But this VERY SAME SECOND on Jupiter (2.46G, or 2.46 times our gravity on Earth) would be slightly longer.
The lower the gravity, the faster time ticks away, the higher the gravity, the longer a second would last.
Correct?

Time always passes at one second per second, both mechanically and biologically  no matter where one is. It is only when viewing time in another frame of reference that one may see time slow down or dilate. eg: If you and I were twins, and I being the more adventurious type, head off in my spaceship at 99.999% "c", you would see me and my time, age much slower, if you had a magic telescope that could view me. But my own time still passes at one second per second. In fact if I travel at that speed and return 12 months later by  my own biological and mechanical timing devices, I would be returning to an Earth around 230 years in the future, with you long dead and buried.

The effects of time dilation and length contraction are though negligible at earthly based speeds and modes of operation, and was why it was never noticed and/or considered before Einstein came along. Irrespective it is still important enough for many scientific experiments and particularly with our GPS system of navigation where it is considered and allowed for.

Edited by beecee

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, Unified Field said:

I understand, that science is about connecting all the aspects of Universe - but maybe we should discuss here the multi-verse theory (which I personally consider, as sci-fi fairytale), instead of black holes, gravity, CERN, photons and speed of light. Of course black holes might be hypothetically connected with multi-verses (acting as a wormhole?). But until I won't finally see the data, recorded by Event Horizon Telescope, I won't believe in their existence - I'm a scientific atheist and I don't believe in things, which can't be proved by observation and physical measurement

!

Moderator Note

We discuss what the OP wants to discuss, replying with mainstream science.

Hijack has been split http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/112395-hijack-from-science-and-the-uni-multiverse-whichever-you-prefer/

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 A proton has a mass of 1.6726210 x 10-27 kg.  At 99.99% the speed of light that mass will be multiplied by 1/\sqrt{1- .999992}= 1/0.00019999 which is about 5000.  That is, the proton whizzing around CERN at 99.99% the speed of light will have a mass of about 5.33 x 10-24 kg.  No, that's not going to cause very much damage!

Edited by HallsofIvy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now