Nothing can travel faster than the luminal speed?

[ResistETIntervention]

Have certain scientists in the past and present been artificially and unduly elevated to a celebrity position where they were/are revered by their peers, followers, and thus, laymen with no expertise in their fields, so that the statements of such people (no matter what they claim) could not be disputed? People must learn to question what they are told:
- “Do I really know what I’m being told is true, or am I just assuming that it is true?”
- “Have I looked into the subject matter deeply enough or am I mindlessly accepting it?”
- “Who or what are the authority figures in my life that are influencing my thoughts and behaviors – governments, parents, friends, experts, religious beliefs, advertisements, scientific beliefs, trending topics on the internet,…?”
- “Is there an ulterior motive behind the propaganda that is being cast upon me and the human race, and if so, what is that motive?”

Instead of being satisfied with the immediate answers that come to their minds, they must try to be with the questions and see what experiences or insights they gain from them.

Have you ever pondered upon the Special Relativity Theory? It is the theory that "precludes" any objects from travelling at superluminal speeds. Often the opponents of the ET Intervention claim that no such visitation by extraterrestrial races is possible because of the theory. I invite you to consider the theory from a new perspective.


----------------------------------------------

A vehicle traveling at a speed of v m/s for t seconds traveled a distance of x=vt . Suppose this vehicle had a mirror in the ceiling and floor. The passenger in the vehicle sees the light traveling from the floor to the ceiling at the luminal speed of c=3×10^8 m/s in T seconds for a distance of y=cT meters. An observer outside the vehicle sees the light traveling at the luminal speed for t seconds for a distance of z=ct meters when the light beam hits the ceiling. The assumption made here is that the situation can be described by a right triangle above and thus, the two (different) times, t and T, can be related by the Pythagorean Theorem as below:

t=T/sqrt(1-(v/c)^2), where "sqrt" is a symbol we use here to indicate the square root.
As v→c, the radicand 1-(v/c)^2→0, making the left-hand-side of the equation approach infinity. If v>c, the radicand 1-(v/c)^2<0, and thus an imaginary number in the denominator of the quantity. Hence, the assertion that nothing can travel faster than the speed of light is “proved.”

The equation in Special Relativity “precludes” any object from traveling at any speed close to the luminal speed, and thus, v≪c. Then, in the time t that it takes for the light beam to hit the ceiling as observed by an outside observer, the distance traveled by the vehicle and the distance traveled by the light to the ceiling as observed by an outside observer are significantly different, and the situation cannot be described by a right triangle because the distance x is significantly less than the distance z. The Pythagorean Theorem used to “prove” the theory does not apply in the situation where the distance from the floor to the ceiling is insignificant compared to the distance z as well. On the other hand, for the Pythagorean Theorem to be applied in the situation, the speed of the vehicle v must be quite close to the luminal speed c in order to form a right triangle as above. But then the theory indicates that the value v cannot be anywhere near c. It is a contradiction either way.

Regardless of the faulty assumption made in “proving” the theory, the fact that I have sighted an object that accelerated to a superluminal speed from a stationary position within a second or two is already a counterexample to this theory, which disproves it. The fact that many other people in the world have sighted such phenomenon verifies the disproof of the theory multiple times.

 

[Parsimony]

I have sighted an object that accelerated to a superluminal speed from a stationary position within a second or two is already a counterexample to this theory, which disproves it.

How can you tell that something moved faster than light just by looking at it?

 

[Faybull]

Spooky! Quantum Action Is 10,000 Times Faster Than Light

 

[Terrywoodenpic]

As you approach the speed of light the mass tends to infinite.
you will not be dropping anything.

 

[Rick O'Shez]

the fact that I have sighted an object that accelerated to a superluminal speed from a stationary position within a second or two is already a counterexample to this theory, which disproves it

Details?

 

[Skwim]

Have certain scientists in the past and present been artificially and unduly elevated to a celebrity position where they were/are revered by their peers, followers, and thus, laymen with no expertise in their fields, so that the statements of such people (no matter what they claim) could not be disputed?

Can't think of any. Can you?

People must learn to question what they are told:

Are you implying that all people never do? Just what does your "people" encompass? Sounds like a gross generalization to me.

Have you ever pondered upon the Special Relativity Theory?

I've tried to understand it, and at one time believe I actually did.

It is the theory that "precludes" any objects from travelling at superluminal speeds. Often the opponents of the ET Intervention claim that no such visitation by extraterrestrial races is possible because of the theory. I invite you to consider the theory from a new perspective.[/quote] What is the "ET Intervention"?

A vehicle traveling at a speed of v m/s for t seconds traveled a distance of x=vt . Suppose this vehicle had a mirror in the ceiling and floor. The passenger in the vehicle sees the light traveling from the floor to the ceiling at the luminal speed of c=3×10^8 m/s in T seconds for a distance of y=cT meters. An observer outside the vehicle sees the light traveling at the luminal speed for t seconds for a distance of z=ct meters when the light beam hits the ceiling. The assumption made here is that the situation can be described by a right triangle above and thus, the two (different) times, t and T, can be related by the Pythagorean Theorem as below:

t=T/sqrt(1-(v/c)^2), where "sqrt" is a symbol we use here to indicate the square root.
As v→c, the radicand 1-(v/c)^2→0, making the left-hand-side of the equation approach infinity. If v>c, the radicand 1-(v/c)^2<0, and thus an imaginary number in the denominator of the quantity. Hence, the assertion that nothing can travel faster than the speed of light is “proved.”

The equation in Special Relativity “precludes” any object from traveling at any speed close to the luminal speed, and thus, v≪c. Then, in the time t that it takes for the light beam to hit the ceiling as observed by an outside observer, the distance traveled by the vehicle and the distance traveled by the light to the ceiling as observed by an outside observer are significantly different, and the situation cannot be described by a right triangle because the distance x is significantly less than the distance z. The Pythagorean Theorem used to “prove” the theory does not apply in the situation where the distance from the floor to the ceiling is insignificant compared to the distance z as well. On the other hand, for the Pythagorean Theorem to be applied in the situation, the speed of the vehicle v must be quite close to the luminal speed c in order to form a right triangle as above. But then the theory indicates that the value v cannot be anywhere near c. It is a contradiction either way.

Regardless of the faulty assumption made in “proving” the theory, the fact that I have sighted an object that accelerated to a superluminal speed from a stationary position within a second or two is already a counterexample to this theory, which disproves it. The fact that many other people in the world have sighted such phenomenon verifies the disproof of the theory multiple times.

Can't care enough to plow through it all. Sorry.

 

[Nietzsche]

Regardless of the faulty assumption made in “proving” the theory, the fact that I have sighted an object that accelerated to a superluminal speed from a stationary position within a second or two is already a counterexample to this theory, which disproves it. The fact that many other people in the world have sighted such phenomenon verifies the disproof of the theory multiple times.

You could not see something moving faster than the speed of light. Could. Not. By definition, it would be moving faster than the light going to your eyes. And that's ignoring the problem of infinite mass.

Spooky! Quantum Action Is 10,000 Times Faster Than Light

On the quantum level it would appear that some particles do not have 'mass', therefore they aren't limited by the speed of light. No mass to multiply, no barrier problem. Of course, you run into the other problem, namely "massless mass", but that's a different thing altogether.

 

[ResistETIntervention]

I sighted a brilliant spot of light completely stationary in a clear blue sky, which suddenly accelerated leaving a white trail of light tapering off towards a point where it "poof" disappeared. It achieved a superluminal speed from a velocity of zero within a second or two.

Here are some experts in the fields that you're more likely to rely on.

The UFO Phenomena - People Speaking Out - GovernmentSecrets.com

Filer's Files #44 - 2013 Albert Einstein Secret Alien Document - National UFO Center

 

[Skwim]

I sighted a brilliant spot of light completely stationary in a clear blue sky, which suddenly accelerated leaving a white trail of light tapering off towards a point where it "poof" disappeared. It achieved a superluminal speed from a velocity of zero within a second or two.

And you know it exceeded the speed of light because ___________fill in the blank______________________ .

Here are some experts in the fields that you're more likely to rely on.
The UFO Phenomena - People Speaking Out - GovernmentSecrets.com

Filer's Files #44 - 2013 Albert Einstein Secret Alien Document - National UFO Center

Hey, there's no doubt there are UFOs. A lot of people can't identify what they see in the sky, and, as we both know, all it means is: a flying object that isn't identified---although many don't fly (move) at all but remain stationary. I've always contended that a more accurate designation would be USO: Unidentified Sky Object. In any case, extrapolating anything more than this from the phenomenon, such as attributing control by an extraterrestrial intelligence, amounts to self induced loonecy.

 

[ResistETIntervention]

Each one of us human beings has the responsibility of becoming aware of the reality that is occurring in our world.

Regarding the Extraterrestrial Intervention, our ignorance is our worst enemy.

If you search, you can find youtube interviews of some of the people on The UFO Phenomena - People Speaking Out - GovernmentSecrets.com

Here're some of them:

(Astronaut, Colonel Gordon Cooper in 2007)

(Astronaut, Edgar Mitchell interviewed in 2008)
Quote starting from 10:12
“Non-locality is the idea that this information between the two is transported or are instantly recognized regardless of what the other part is in the universe. Well, this kind of challenges Einstein’s concept that nothing moves faster than the speed of light. Here, we have validated that this is absolutely true - that it does. How this happens, the methodology, and the mechanism for it is still very elusive, but the fact that it does happen – that’s not in question any more.”

May we have the courage to face this and see it for what it is...

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

Have certain scientists in the past and present been artificially and unduly elevated to a celebrity position where they were/are revered by their peers, followers, and thus, laymen with no expertise in their fields, so that the statements of such people (no matter what they claim) could not be disputed?

Sure. For a time. Aristotle holds the record (well, not really; he wasn’t a scientist, but as far as an intellectual being believed because of his reputation he holds the record).

Have you ever pondered upon the Special Relativity Theory?

Sure.

It is the theory that "precludes" any objects from travelling at superluminal speeds.

Where?


"The existence of a finite, invariant speed of light in vacuum suggested early on that it would be impossible to send signals faster than light, and Einstein’s attribution of this limit to the structure of space-time itself suggested that in fact all physical fields would be subject to this limitation. Yet arguments to this effect are nowhere to be found in Einstein’s original work...Nonetheless, it is commonly asserted that special relativity rules out the possibility of sending signals faster than light, of ‘superluminal signaling’. However, it is well-known that there are physical phenomena perfectly compatible with special relativity in which ‘something’ travels faster than light."
Weinstein, S. (2006). Superluminal signaling and relativity. Synthese, 148(2), 381-399.


See also:

Ghirardi, G., & Romano, R. (2012). On a proposal of superluminal communication. Journal of Physics A Mathematical General, 45(23), 2001.

& Salart, D., Baas, A., Branciard, C., Gisin, N., & Zbinden, H. (2008). Testing the speed of ‘spooky action at a distance’. Nature, 454(7206), 861-864.

Often the opponents of the ET Intervention claim that no such visitation by extraterrestrial races is possible because of the theory. I invite you to consider the theory from a new perspective.

Actually that argument, in simplified form runs as follows:

The earth, and indeed our solar system, hasn’t been around long. Assuming that there are habitable zones elsewhere in the universe the way that many do, there should be many places like “Earth” and some of these that had extraterrestrial intelligence (ETI) that developed technology. However, some of these (given how old the universe is) should have been way, way, way more advanced than we are because they’d have been around far longer and had far more time to develop things like superluminal spacecraft and to have started to explore other planets including Earth. In essence, assuming that because the number of habitable zones is so vast and has been so vast for millions upon millions of years, some ETI somewhere should have developed the technology to travel among galaxies and reach (among other many other places) Earth. None have. Ergo, either there is no ETI, or such travel isn’t possible. It’s called the Fermi Paradox, if you want to google a more technical explanation or just a longer one.

The assumption made here

…is simultaneity. Consider an observer B stationary with respect to an observer A moving parallel at a constant rate in a vehicle. As I already went through this before, let’s say it’s a train car:

Note that the image given is from Bob's stationary perspective. He and Alice are directly across from one another at the instant the light source (spark from lightening) hits the front and rear of the train car from Bob's perspective, and thus from his perspective the two light waves propagate from the front and rear simultaneously:

This isn't what Alice sees. She is moving towards the light wave coming from the front of the train car, and away from the light wave coming from the rear. So to Alice, lightening hit the front first:

In the above picture, the light wave from the lightening has that hit the front of the car has reached Alice, and so she can now say that lightening hit the front of the train car, causing the spark. For her, though, lightening hasn't hit the rear of the train car at all. Bob has a better reason, though, for thinking the two sparks from the two lightening bolts occurred simultaneously:

He sees the two light waves reach the same position at the same time. So he saw the sparks from the lightening flash at the same time and meet at the same point travelling the same distance, thus the sparks (and the lightening) occurred simultaneously.

However, he is seeming them meet before Alice can even say there was a lightening bolt that struck the back of the train, let alone a spark that caused the light wave that she has seen.

Your situation is similar but adds the complexity of a reflector to get the triangle (and the generalization of it for time dilation). In your version we have something like this:

The light started from delta 0 and traveled straight up and down length l, giving us a time interval

But that's not what Bob observes, as he observes a different length and thus a different time interval as in the equations below:

If we solve the top equation for d and plug the result into the bottom equation we get one equation all in terms of Δt. We square it to obtain:

Δt is now related to Δt0 through an equation that tells us (thanks to the denominator) that the time interval for Bob is greater than that for Alice (Δt > Δt0)

This gives you the triangle described, but in the right context.

 

[Rick O'Shez]

I sighted a brilliant spot of light completely stationary in a clear blue sky, which suddenly accelerated leaving a white trail of light tapering off towards a point where it "poof" disappeared. It achieved a superluminal speed from a velocity of zero within a second or two.

That sounds rather like a meteor sighting. How do you know it achieved superluminal speed?

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

A vehicle traveling at a speed of v m/s for t seconds traveled a distance of x=vt.

This isn’t correct. First, velocity is a vector, and you don’t have a direction, just magnitude. Second, the value of x isn’t the distance traveled but the position of the vehicle. The distance traversed is the difference between the value of x in your equation and a starting position.

The passenger in the vehicle sees the light traveling from the floor to the ceiling at the luminal speed of c=3×10^8 m/s in T seconds for a distance of y=cT meters.

Think about this. Let’s say that the passenger saw the light travel a distance of one meter, so taking y to be the distance, then y=1. We know c= ~300,000,000 m/s. So, how long does it take the light to traverse one meter? Roughly 300 millionths of a second. Now, you state:

An observer outside the vehicle sees the light traveling at the luminal speed for t seconds

You state seconds. Let’s say 2 seconds. If the observer outside saw the light travelling for 2 seconds, the light would travel roughly 600 million meters or roughly 372,000 miles.

The assumption made here is that the situation can be described by a right triangle above

Above what? And why make this an assumption? For the outside observer, it’s easily derived, no need to assume. For the observer inside, it isn’t true.

and thus, the two (different) times, t and T, can be related by the Pythagorean Theorem as below:

t=T/sqrt(1-(v/c)^2), where "sqrt" is a symbol we use here to indicate the square root.

The only problem is aside from the fact that you’ve assumed a triangle, you haven’t given any reason for taking t as the hypotenuse or why you have a 1 in there, and that isn’t the Pythagorean theorem. If you had t= sqrt(1+ (v/c) ^2) then it could be, as if the value of v/c were 1 you’d have an equation of the form c= sqrt(a^2 + b^2). However, you have a numerator and a minus sign. You missed most of the steps involving the triangle, and wound up with something like my last equation. I also skipped over a step because I thought the algebra would be easy enough to figure out, but now that I’ve looked over your math I am not so sure, so I’ll do it all out:

If we solve the top equation for d and plug the result into the bottom equation we get:

And from this we can get the value for delta t akin to the one you have, with a minus sign.

As v→c

Your equation becomes even less relevant.

the radicand 1-(v/c)^2→0, making the left-hand-side of the equation approach infinity.

As v→c, the radicand 1-(v/c)^2→ 1-1^2 = 1-1 = 0 Thus the equation t=T/sqrt(0)= t=T/0 = undefined as you can’t divide by 0. Physicists do sometimes interpret division by 0 as infinity, but that’s because there dealing with models in which the fraction is a ratio between some values with physical significance. The problem is that you’ve given no values such that your equation should make any sense. You describe t as “luminal speed for t seconds” and T as “luminal speed…in T seconds”. Admitting that things are vague, the clearest interpretation given that description is t=T. Otherwise, I can assign them any values I wish

Luckily, we can avoid this whole mess by not haphazardly plopping values and shapes into a description that doesn’t make any sense and for which we have no foundation. If I put a 2 instead of a 1 then it wouldn’t be undefined, and if T= 0 then then the equation would equal 0 from the start.

[/QUOTE]Hence, the assertion that nothing can travel faster than the speed of light is “proved.”[/QUOTE]
That has nothing to do with superluminal velocity. It’s set up for time dilation only incorrectly.

 

[Ouroboros]

How can you tell that something moved faster than light just by looking at it?

By running towards it at the speed of light and see if it moves away from you. Duh!