Light
Public Group
Active 10 months ago
A few possible examples,
of light and the aether,
of how the meter is defined,
of how to find the... View more
Public Group
Group Description
A few possible examples,
of light and the aether,
of how the meter is defined,
of how to find the velocity of light,
of the constancy of the velocity of light,
of electricity and magnetism,
if light is possibly instantaneous,
of the particle and wave effects of light,
if objects could reach or exceed c,
if light has mass, inertia, or physicality,
of light being affected by gravity
Is there actually a maximum possible velocity?

Is there actually a maximum possible velocity?
Posted by Jerry on March 21, 2022 at 6:33 pmIf so, why is it necessary? What of how charged particles have been accelerated in supercolliders, to almost reach the velocity of light, relative to the “lab frame” of the earth? And what of when even two of them travel in opposite directions, where the particles dash past each other? Why wouldn’t their combined velocities add up to almost double c?
Jan Olof replied 1 year, 7 months ago 4 Members · 9 Replies 
9 Replies

Dear colleague:
I do not have the knowledge or insights that would make me able to judge in the question. However, I encountered a paper (please see the reference list in my paper), in which the authors proposed what the Lorentz Transformation would look like, provided there were to exist velocities exceeding the velocity of light, c. I wrote a short article on that theme, indicating how it would be possible to explain a jump over c. Please see my CNPS contribution http://www.naturalphilosophy.org//pdf//abstracts/abstracts_paperlink_7399.pdf
https://www.naturalphilosophy.org/site/member/?memberid=304&subpage=abstracts
With best regards,
Jan Olof Jonson
CNPS member

Hi Jan Olof. Thanks for the response!
There was written on one of the first links, “They focus on describing how the Lorentz transformation might be applicable for particles exhibiting velocities greater than the speed of light c.”
If this is so, that the Lorentz Transformation doesn’t apply to objects below the velocity of light, wouldn’t the velocity of an object that is above c (linearly), turn out to completely “match up”, or equal in velocity, to another object that actually is lower than c? How to distinguish between one and the other? That is, if one is “linearly” a given velocity, while the other has been “tweaked” by the Lorentz Transformation?
Also, a crucial question is, “what is the velocity of either one relative to”? What does “velocity” even mean unless it travels or exists within a direct reference to another object or frame to compare it to?


I believe invoking the Lorentz transformation implies relativity is valid. I see no evidence of length contraction, time dilation, mass increase in real phyics. Dr. Henry Dowdye Jr. showed v+c for velocity of light from a moving source to validly explain multiple phenomenon. The artificial limit imposed by Lorentz mathematics is due to an error in belief of signal theory. This error originates in all relativity because in relativity the source signal does not travel with the source which creates the signal. Look at all of the numerous explanations for relativity were a moving source propagates a signal you will notice that the light or signal emanates from a stationary position in space that coincides with the time the source is supposed to be in that location. This is exactly why relativity physics is an error because it says a source produces a signal at a location in space while traveling at velocity v when in reality the light comes from a stationary imaginary point is space that is not moving relative to the fixed observer in some other location. Look again and find one relativity example that actually has the moving source propagating the signal relative to a fixed source somewhere else. There are signal delays from point of signal source and signal receipt but look closely and you will find relativity avoids the uncomfortable notion that v+c should exist and that the signals center should follow the sources position in space at all times unless some external action is imposed on the signal.
Another way of looking at the contradiction. Two points A and B are separated by a distance and fixed in space, i.e. the distance does not change between points A and B and all other point in all of space. A signal is emitted by a source at point A. The signal is received with a time delay at point B. The frequency of the signal when it leaves source A is going to be the same frequency that is received by the Observer at point B. Now if the source at A above is traveling at a velocity v and happens to cross over or coincide with point A in space and emits the signal at location A in space we will all agree that an observer at B will receive frequency shifted signal at B. The fixed source A and the moving source A examples produce two different observations a B for the signal produced by A. No contradiction if v+c is used in the measured physics. Invoking relativity mathematics (Lorentz transformation’s) is a way to hide the contradictions and reality of what is observed. What is observed is that the signal center coincides with the source position in space which moves with velocity v. Only two dimensions and time are used above, the signal could be a sphere with radius c*t with center moving with its source.
One more thought, time is now. JI believe invoking the Lorentz transformation implies relativity is valid. I see no evidence of length contraction, time dilation, mass increase in real phyics. Dr. Henry Dowdye Jr. showed v+c for velocity of light from a moving source to validly explain multiple phenomenon. The artificial limit imposed by Lorentz mathematics is due to an error in belief of signal theory. This error originates in all relativity because in relativity the source signal does not travel with the source which creates the signal. Look at all of the numerous explanations for relativity were a moving source propagates a signal you will notice that the light or signal emanates from a stationary position in space that coincides with the time the source is supposed to be in that location. This is exactly why relativity physics is an error because it says a source produces a signal at a location in space while traveling at velocity v when in reality the light comes from a stationary imaginary point is space that is not moving relative to the fixed observer in some other location. Look again and find one relativity example that actually has the moving source propagating the signal relative to a fixed source somewhere else. There are signal delays from point of signal source and signal receipt but look closely and you will find relativity avoids the uncomfortable notion that v+c should exist and that the signals center should follow the sources position in space at all times unless some external action is imposed on the signal.
Another way of looking at the contradiction. Two points A and B are separated by a distance and fixed in space, i.e. the distance does not change between points A and B and all other point in all of space. A signal is emitted by a source at point A. The signal is received with a time delay at point B. The frequency of the signal when it leaves source A is going to be the same frequency that is received by the Observer at point B. Now if the source at A above is traveling at a velocity v and happens to cross over or coincide with point A in space and emits the signal at location A in space we will all agree that an observer at B will receive frequency shifted signal at B. The fixed source A and the moving source A examples produce two different observations a B for the signal produced by A. No contradiction if v+c is used in the measured physics. Invoking relativity mathematics (Lorentz transformation’s) is a way to hide the contradictions and reality of what is observed. What is observed is that the signal center coincides with the source position in space which moves with velocity v. Only two dimensions and time are used above, the signal could be a sphere with radius c*t with center moving with its source.
One more thought, time is now.

Harvey
I believe invoking the Lorentz transform implies relativity is valid
The relativity axiom in physics gave us the Lorentz math model. So, using model to prove physics is circular reasoning. The error was already in the axiom. It is absurd and can not be disproved by logic and relativity is not even wrong. An important reason to relativity is the supposed effect in the reference arm in Michelson’s tests with Morley, (MMX). He said that light takes a longer way and that statement is in conflict with the wave model. Telescope and collimator in MMX detect and define flat and unchanged wave fronts. So. light takes the same way in the ether’s frame and the fact that the detector has moved 0.02 mm when light has moved 22 m (due to Earth’ rotation) in its own plane is irrelevant.
 MMX is useless in relation to second order effect
 Second order effect is observed in Pioneer anomaly and in Big Bang
 First order effect is observed in Sagnac’s tests and in pulsar aberration caused by Earth motion (closed line). This effect does not disappear when calculations are moved to the Sun’s position — but instead to the Sun’s velocity — a Sagnac effect (open line).
We have lots of evidences stating RT wrong.
With best regards from _____________________________ JohnErik

Correction
Fatio said that light takes a longer way and Michelson protested in vain
JohnErik


Dear Harvey:
 According to my university literature on basic SRT (the socalled Special Relativity Theory), a sender of light flushes, directed upwards in the y direction, is assumed to move with velocity v long the x axis, according to the Standard Configuration, sending the light flushes in the y direction, to be reflected by a mirror at the top of the carriage, subsequently sending the light flush back to the sending point.
 However, you claim: ‘the source signal does not travel with the source’. As far, as I can see, it does, according to the SRT.
 Using the Standard Configuration, the moving carriage is associated with a coordinate system K’, according to which the carriage is at rest. In K’, the speed of light is defining time, thus defining a “light clock” of that system, the speed of light defined to be c. The coordinate system K (using thereby the Standard Configuration), according to which the carriage is moving with the velocity v along the x axis, also uses a time clock, based on the assumption that the speed of light is c.
 The principle of relativity just implies that any observational system assumes the speed of light being c. On that assumption time is defined. A comparison between observations in two different coordinate systems (being simultaneously inertial systems), is, according to the SRT, based on the assumption that any coordinate system does regard the speed of light being c.
 Frankly spoken, this is the kernel of the SRT model, however, not implying that it represents the truth.
 After this exposé, I would prefer to know more about the papers that you indicate have been written by Dr. Henry Dowdye Jr. I’d like to analyse his arguments closer.
 Your comments concerning the change of frequency of light when changing the coordinate system, however, seems o me to be commonplace physics.
 Here I stop my comments, awaiting your view on my arguments.
With best regards,
Jan Olof


Harvey
Thank you for your answer!
My Email address is: joj8088@bahnhof.se
With best regards,
Jan Olof



Hi Jan Olof,
The paper “Introduction to the Extinction Shift Principle: A Pure Classical Replacement for
Relativity”, Dr. Edward Henry Dowdye, Jr. section 5.2 On the Transverse 2 Relative Time Shift can be found here, https://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.552.4186&rep=rep1&type=pdf
I do not know how to add a paper to this discussion so I will email a draft I just put together over the last week and one half that summarizes a misconception about the Special Relativity velocity of the speed of light as it relates to a corelated traveling object that is supposed to emit the light. This is the mirror light clock system. The big observation is that when you see c*t for a distance related to a traveling source there is a contradiction. The light source is stationary in the absolute frame of reverence, i.e. – the page the coordinates are drawn on.
Harvey