C Squared

Mike,

Are you speaking about my gravelocity calculations? I was only discussing the lesser ramifications of velocity squared, not really giving any strict formula here, and Jim probably won't like us crossing over topics like this. Yet I agree that if we had a TOE to show us how the geometry of distance and electromagnetism work in order to build engines to harness gravelocity and inverse acceleration then my calculations would hold greater meaning. As for the undefined (1/0) I believe that's the most ignored and marginalized concept in the whole of science that deserves its own topic because our fractional math isn't complete without determining what 1/0 is.

Yep, I was refering to "gravelocity=(m1m2((G)/(h)))/(c)" specifically but I see that I replied to the wrong thread!

In any case, I actually believe that uncertainty principle (or perhaps an undiscovered "brother" of the uncertainty principle) disallows the possibility of accurately measuring something moving faster than the speed of light.

More literally what I'm trying to say is though the speed of gravity in the universe may be finite, in the observable universe it will be infinite.

Here, try this. Einstien looked the following picture:

object1

---

light

---

>object2

Then he said, what if object1 is moving away from object2 at the speed of light?

object1

---

light

---

> object2

He thought that light couldn't get to object2 if an object moved that quickly. As a result he postulated that the speed of light is indepedent of its source and that nothing moves faster than the speed of light.

This might sound pompous, but I think there is another rational explanation here. It is this:

object1 does not even exist as far as object2 is concerned.

See, Einstein thought that for object1 to exist to object2 moving apart at the speed of light an infinite amount of energy would be required to traverse the distance. I think he's right so far. He then thought this is impossible. Still right. Finally, he thought this was impossible so nothing can move faster than the speed of light.

And he is somewhat true.

Whatever moves faster than the speed of light from you, will not exist to you, and therefore it will be "nothing", just as Einstein says. But to an objective observer (ie, an "all knowing all seeing" observer) obviouslly both objects exist and are moving apart at the speed of light. It doesn't mean the object cannot continue accelerating.

This metaphysical interpretation of Einstein should remove all the problems Tom Van Flandern has with Relativity. It also makes more sense, in my opinion.

If you're interested in the differences between "the universe" and "the observable universe" I've put together a decent hypothesis (complete with testable predictions) in the following paper.

www.techmocracy.net/science/time.htm

mhelland@techmocracy.net

Even though you believe uncertainty disallows the possibility of accurately measuring a faster than light velo, I've in fact used it to measure the gravelocity, even though this doesn't have a grandiose meaning without a TOE to fully explain it. However I think that the speed of gravity will appear to be infinite in the observable universe though because anything moving as fast as 3.359x10^14m/s is going to 'appear to disappear' due to the fact it's moving at such an incredible rate.

So object 1 exists but in the observation of object 2, object 1's propogation rate is so great it merely appears to cease to exist when in fact object 1's moving so fast it's merely outside object 2's visual range which's where the 'all seeing observer' comes into play.

As for the infinite energy required to propel something at the speed of light, I believe this is only true if we put 100% of the energy constraints on ourselves alone. Once again I'll reiterate that building a vessel that functioned on the geometry of distance, electromagnetism, and vacuum alone (a 'vacuumotor' per se) would be our 50% of the energy and the other 50% would come from the void of the universe itself and quite possibly the undefined 1/0.

Until we actually build a ship to test the light speed limit then all we'll have is the particle accelerator and paperwork proof. Although even if we can't go linearly faster than c, I still believe we'll be able to non-linearly travel at the conversion constant of c^2 in order to explore the universe.

..............

Change is the only constant because truth is the only variable.

Jim,

If you may, I would like to give one last comment:

It has been many years since the term "gravity" was introduced in this world.
The reason for its mystery through the past centuries was one of circumstances due to inadequate instruments to observe our environment, our universe.

Two of the greatest physicists, Albert Einstein and Isaac Newton, had a different perspective of our world than the one we know today.

In Newton's time, (1627) it was a mere 150 years before this date that the predominant view of the universe was the Aristotelian earth- centered universe.
The fact that the solar system was part of a greater system, the galaxy was an unknown.
All terminology and concepts concerning energy was also unknown.

The only instrument to observe the universe was the telescope with lesser quality lenses.

In Einstein's time, (1915)the term "galaxy" was still not known, not until another decade or so.
The universe had no direction or motion, basically static as if painted on a canvas.

Particle accelerators were in its infancy, telescopes not as powerful as today's.

They did not have the SOHO and COBE satellites, the hubble telescope, etc...

If Gravity has not been defined yet today, it is not because we lack the appropriate instruments, but because we are afraid of change.

GD, I suspect you have been posting entrophy in that we began with the entrophy of the atom and are now at the history of science. This is not good because it has no focus(that is a personal opinion).

hello Jim,

I think the comprehension of c^2 will come only once gravity is understood.
The two are most certainly linked together.