Special Relativity at C

Recommended Posts

I would like to post an observation for discussion. I will try to walk on eggshells since extrapolation of the existing understanding tends to get censored and banished to speculations.

If one plugs V=C into the special relativity equations, we get infinite relativistic mass, infinite distance contraction and infinite time dilation. Although it is only a mathematical state, if you look at this singular state, the energy needed to make this reference can encompass the energy requirements any theory about the evolution and makeup of the universe, since it has infinite gamma in mass, distance and time.

For example, if our universe is assumed finite it is a subset of infinite mass, distance and time since it has finite mass, size and longevity. Add all that energy and it is still not enough. If the universe is finite but cycles, it will still be a subset. If the universe has finite mass but continues to expand forever, it is still a subset. Even multi-dimensinal universes each containing finite parameters within mass, size and longevity would be still be a subset.

Share on other sites

sunspot, wtf is the point in this post? you've said, due to S.R. nothing can reach C because the universe doesn't have enough energy. so... we already knew that. this is nothing new.

Share on other sites

The point at V=C, plugged into the special relativity equations is like the top point of a mathematical pyramid. It defines a mathematical point where all universe theories converge and from which they all can eminate. In other words, if the universe began at this mathematical state, there is suffiencent energy to make any finte universe one's heart desires, while still having potential energy left.

Share on other sites

and you have proof of this do you? how does what ever the hell it is get to C anyway. its an invalid frame for anything with mass.

Share on other sites

I have no more physical proof for this than others have for other dimensions or parallel universes. In both cases, one uses acceptable math to create a mathematical construct for reality. This is the beauty of math.

If you notice in this analysis, I have all the universes of our hearts desire stemming from this pinacle eternal reference. Pick one or pick them all. We do not have to create or put this infinite construct anywhere, because it is eternal or was always there. Like you said, it is impossible to make, because one can not create an eternal infinite reference from the energy within finite universes. Only the other way around is possible.

Share on other sites

No matter what universe model one uses, they all intuitively require some type of logical beginning that is hard to pin down. Even with a steady state model, one can ask, where did it come from? Once it is there, all the models work fairly well. But how does one get to something substantial to get the ball rolling?

If we begin at the reference of the infinite eternal, it is the only show in town. What one would see if they were on the infinite eternal reference? One would be a point that can define infinity. The next question is, how do you fit a finite universe inside a point that defines infinity, if a finite sized universe will appear smaller than that point? It seems impossible. Unless, one puts on some reference magnifying glasses to make the original point look bigger. This would make room for finite size. This could be done by slowing from C so the point reference stretches out from a point so infinite distance will appear further away.

If we slow from C the infinite mass will fall to a finite level, with the difference between infinite and finite mass still close to infinite. With the infinite eternal reference, eternal, the potential energy lost by forming the finite reference is recycled.

Share on other sites

I would like to post an observation for discussion. I will try to walk on eggshells since extrapolation of the existing understanding tends to get censored and banished to speculations.

Your posts are moved to speculations for a simple reason: The physics section is for mainstream physics, not for speculations about other possible forms of physics. Calling moving your threads to the speculations section "banishing" only shows that you don´t take those "I know better that all the millions of physicists out there"-threads seriously yourself. I doubt that any of your posts were censored.

If one plugs V=C into the special relativity equations, we get infinite relativistic mass, infinite distance contraction and infinite time dilation.

True. And if you use momentum instead of velocity to describe a particle, all problems you might have with v=c disappear. So it´s better so regard velocity as an effect of momentum, not the other way round.

Share on other sites

You might notice this: Questions asked about mainstream physics don't get moved. It's explanations that are contrary to standard physics to which people object. As Atheist said, they do not belong in the science fora.

———

If one plugs v=c into the equations, the results are undefined. v=c is not a valid inertial reference frame.

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